Most Recent Posts
Using Bank Of America As Trustee Can Be Costly For Massachusetts Residents
The abatement applications for the 34 trusts totaled $2,287,707. The Massachusetts income tax rate in 2008 was 5.3%. I’ve been trying to do a back of the envelope computation to estimate how much in assets under management must be there and then project that to nearly 3,000 trusts. I’m going to go with many billions. It would seem that the beneficiaries of these trusts would be a lot a better off, if the trusts were domiciled some place other than Massachusetts. If they suggest to BOA, that it should resign in favor of such a trustee, what is its counterargument? Then there is the question of future trust business. It seems like there are some really high stakes here. It may be that the solution will be to drop the trustee function into a subsidiary in a friendlier jurisdiction maybe Alaska or Florida, which have rewritten their perpetuity rules to allow for dynasty trusts that are really dynastic. Then again, Massachusetts might redesign its fiduciary income tax system to hang onto white collar jobs. It should be interesting.
Wayfair Shows Supreme Court Can Change Its Mind – What’s Next?
On the retailer piece, Jeff is referring to outfits like my fantasy retail operation Pete’s Pokemon And PT’s, that sells vintage Pokemon cards, models of PT 109, and Spanish American War memorabilia over the internet. The “You may fire when ready” t-shirts are flying off the shelves. The business is pretty evenly spread across the country, though, and the South Dakota statute has a $100,000 threshold. If Pete’s were doing $100k in South Dakota, it would be doing nearly $40 million nationally and could afford to deal with the sales tax. The other threshold is a little more troubling – 200 or more separate transactions. I don’t remember ever buying something that cost more than five hundred bucks over the internet, so that is what will likely pull retailers in.
Trump Foundation Campaign Coordination Worst-Case Tax Scenario
I asked Mr. Hopkins if he saw anything criminal in all this and he did not think so. I know you may have read other people saying otherwise, but Mr. Hopkins does not see anything criminal. Remember the sui generis. There is no precedent for anything like went on, probably because it would take a Donald Trump to make it happen and he is also on the sui generis side. A lot of tax crimes require an element of willfulness, which would be very difficult to prove in this case.
Mr. Hopkins also noted that a skillful advocate would be able to provide other ways of looking at what happened. Here is one I came up with. The foundation wanted to help veterans. I mean, who doesn’t? The veterans’ groups reached out to the campaign because it was more prominent and had more infrastructure. By involving the campaign in the donation you were highlighting Mr. Trump’s concern about veterans as he mourned the debilitating foot condition that cut off his own military career at the high school cadet level. But. But. You are also giving more publicity to organizations like the Puppy Jake Foundation, which really is a very worthy cause. Maybe that is what the foundation had in mind and it was the foundation exploiting the campaign for charitable purposes and not the campaign exploiting the foundation for political purposes. Anyway, that’s my story and I’m sticking with it.
Trump Foundation Imbroglio With New York AG Serves As A Lesson For Small Foundations
Reilly’s Fourth Law of Tax Planning – Execution isn’t everything but its a lot. If the two Donalds, Eric and Ivanaka had sat with CFO Allen Wessellberg once a year and had some minutes typed up about the approved donations for the coming year, that would have defused a significant part of the AG complaint. When donations not on the list came up, there could have been an email vote. There is a decent chance that would have prevented the political contribution. Somebody should have been following up on acknowledgments which would have uncovered the problems with the paintings. Why did it not run that way? Because it is not Trump’s style. Again from Art of the Deal.
NY Attorney General And Trump Foundation – Much Ado About Not Much
My conclusion is that the Donald J Trump Foundation is kind of rinky-dink, slightly sketchy and pretty sloppy. I also think that if Attorney General Barbara D. Underwood is focused on rooting out abuse in the charitable sector, she should really go fight crime somewhere else.
Hovind’s Hypothetical Pardon
Lamar Smith asks Kent Hovind what he hopes for in a pardon. ...
Kent Hovind Pardon Hopes – Not Likely But Not Impossible
Lamar Smith talks about pardons and Kent Hovind's hopes for one....
What Motivates Flat Earth Believers
Lamar Smith is back with more on flat earth. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I wanted to...
Tax Court Approves Of Consultant As Statutory Employee – Tax Act Makes Case Significant
Mr. Fiedziuszko is a semiretired aerospace engineer. He worked for Space Systems Loral through a contract with West Valley Engineering Co. West Valley processed his pay for Loral withholding federal income iax as well as social security and medicare. On his 2011 W-2, they checked the statutory employee box, but not on his 2012 W-2. Regardless, Mr. Fiedziuszko claimed statutory employee status:
Petitioners claimed deductions on Schedule C of their Form 1040 for the following expenses related to Mr. Fiedziuszko’s consulting business: $2,000 for supplies, $5,000 for travel (including meals and lodging), $9,500 for insurance (other than health), and $2,000 for advertising. In addition, they claimed a $29,540 deduction for self-employed health insurance on their 2012 Form 1040. The record contains no substantiation for these deductions other than “statements of fact” that outline Mr. Fiedziuszko’s business expenses, which he prepared for trial.
IRS Identity Theft Victim May Have Asked For Money Back Too Late
What I really like is the way that they are endeavoring to find something that will let them do the right thing by the victim – “suppose the taxpayers called the IRS and any case history documented by the IRS reflects the taxpayers wanted the offset amount back – that could be sufficient – “. I wonder if that is a subtle hint to look really, really carefully through your desk drawer for a phone message or something. Maybe not. That would be above and beyond.