And so it begins

Spending a beautiful Friday afternoon with four kids running around (only two are mine), I took a moment to check Twitter chatter, and was excited to read (via @taxtweet) "Obama tax reform panel report released." (I realize I am odd to find the news exciting, but accepted my oddity years ago.)

The report arrives 8 months past the original deadline.

Kay Bell and Professor Nellen give us their first impressions, Professor Nellen writing: "This 126 page report does not include recommendations but instead in an analysis of a variety of proposals that have been made by various groups in the past with a brief explanation of advantages and disadvantages of each. So, really nothing new."

I think Professor Nellen is correct that this report doesn't present anything new. I do hope it gets some kind of political attention, and that it gets dialogue started. The preface notes that: "The Board gathered information from business leaders, policy makers, academics, individual citizens, labor leaders, and many others."

There are a lot of smart people with a lot of good ideas, and I'm glad we're at least attempting to gather the ideas in one place.

The introduction to the summary of alternatives for simplification includes this comment: "The complexity of the tax code is partly the result of the fact that new provisions have been added one at a time to achieve a particular policy goal, but with inadequate attention to how they interact with existing provisions."

I liken the tax system to a medical patient who is prescribed a new medication for each new symptom, without being effectively treated as a whole.

Some wish the panel had been allowed to consider broader reform. "We received many suggestions for broad tax reform, and some members of the PERAB believe that such reform will be an essential component of a strategy to reduce the long-term deficit of the federal government. But consistent with our limited mandate, we did not evaluate competing proposals for overarching tax reform in this report."

As much as I believe broad reform is needed, I'm starting to accept the hard reality that people struggle with big change. (I enjoy reading some of the research on change.) If the alternatives are to start with small change or to debate broad reform that doesn't lead to any reform, I'll take the small change, with the hope of building change momentum.

One big change that is listed as an alternative (on page 50) I support wholeheartedly: Repeal the AMT!

I look forward to reading others' thoughts on the report...

Read More

Dealing with the gray

Joe Kristan writes an interesting post today, discussing a truth that sometimes gets lost in the shuffle: when it comes to the sources of wealth, "It's not just luck."

My client base is made up of of people that are "rich" by Geithner standards. They are small business operators who have achieved a little success in their S corporations and partnerships, generating enough taxable income to put themselves in the top tax bracket. They have had some luck, or at least not catastrophic bad luck, but as a rule they also work very hard. Many have taken huge chances, and some lost almost everything before they finally achieving some success.

As I mused last year, I too am not a fan of blanket statements about the "rich." There are good, hardworking people all across the socioeconomic spectrum. I believe that neither wealth nor poverty is solely a product of luck.

In this world of gray, we as a people somehow have to figure out how to deal with the outliers: the idle rich and the helpless poor. I grow frustrated with the flawed logic that often appears: that all poor people are poor through no fault of their own, that all rich people are lazy and lucky. Some poor people earned their poverty through bad choices; some rich people really did earn their wealth.

An equally flawed logic exists that a purely free market would solve everything. While I'm a firm believer in the invisible hand, I also know that we must address externalities.

Upon mentioning my belief in capitalism, I expect to hear: "of course you support capitalism, it works for you." It's unfortunate that people often attack an argument by attacking a person's motives. The reality is, I'm nowhere near the "rich" levels by Obama standards. My husband has just completed his medical residency, and I've limited my working hours for the past 7 years (since my daughter was born).

I'm the first to admit I've been fortunate. I've also worked hard to take advantage of every opportunity that has come my way. True greatness requires hard work. A lot of wealthy people have worked and sacrificed for what they have.

I hope we can spend less time casting blame, and more time collaborating toward a real solution.

Read More

What did I miss?

It's a gorgeous day here in the S.F. Bay Area, where we've successfully relocated for good. It's good to be back home.

Moving across the country with two small children was an adventure, to say the least, and quite time-consuming. The most painful part was going to the DMV. (Thankfully, I passed the written driver's license test, missing only one. I was nervous when I got to the question about the legal blood alcohol level. I have no idea! I don't drink.)

I'm quite behind on my reading, but am enjoying catching up. I was happy to read that the tax extender bill with the punitive S corporation provision didn't pass. (Covered by such esteemed bloggers as Joe Kristan, Kay Bell, Tax Girl.)

I wonder what interesting tidbit I'll read about next? Hopefully I can get caught up to real time... at least by Christmas.

Read More

Murray Blum for President

I've now been in the S.F. Bay Area for one week; and in addition to loving the lack of humidity and beautiful views, I am noticing how the fiscal troubles of the state seem to come up everywhere I turn.

A friend in law enforcement discussed rumors that Oakland would be cutting 200 officers. A family member working for the state is down to four days a week since weekly furlough days were enacted. The registrar at my daughter's school said the calendar would be changing, as they will be taking furlough days.

My impression is that California, like many people, was not closely watching expenditures when times were good. And now times are not so good. On both the micro and macro scales, we need to make careful, informed decisions about how we spend our money. That requires we take the time to look at where the money is going. This includes where the money goes both via direct spending and via tax benefits, as Professor Nellen points out in a great discussion of Increasing attention on tax expenditures.

Maybe the movie Dave was right, and we just need to get an everyday CPA into the White House to dig through the books.

Read More

Speaking out

Kudos to Joe Kristan for encouraging us to write our senators, and providing links to do so, to speak out against the S corp tax in the extender bill. This is social media at its best. Let's show people that tax folks aren't all that quiet.

Read More

Making headlines

Tax blogger Robert Flach recently mentioned the long-running television series Law & Order. The other day, I heard about a recent episode ("The Taxman Cometh") where the motive turned out to be timing a person's death to avoid the estate tax. (They may have gotten the idea from the Colbert Report.)

Maybe if the estate tax keeps making headlines, it will actually get addressed by Congress. Just maybe...

Read More

The fuzzy definitions

Reading an interesting post today by Joe Kristan got me thinking about how the tax code sometimes wades into murky waters. The world is not black and white, and so I recognize that the tax law cannot be written to clearly cover every situation. That said, I think the law should avoid the gray area when it can.

Joe writes about a new extender bill that would impose self-employment tax on certain S corporation K-1 income. He writes in his post titled Reputation and Skill:

If enacted, as seems likely, this rule would create odd problems.

It would penalize the smallest personal service providers to the benefit of their larger competitors.. A sole proprietorship would pay taxes at a rate at least 2.9% higher than a competitor whose "principal asset" is the reputation of more than three employees.

The bill also will require businesses and the IRS to determine what the "principal asset" of a personal service corporation is. The bill obviously requires the valuation of intangible assets -- reputation and skill -- but in a way not elsewhere attempted in the tax law. How do you do this?

I agree that there are a lot of potential issues involved if the tax law were to require that we determine a monetary value for "reputation and skill."

This reminded me of a discussion in my graduate course on estate and gift tax, taught by the brilliant and engaging Dr. Boyd Randall. He told us about how previous tax law required that the gross estate include the value of gifts "made in contemplation of death." Answer.com echoes what Dr. Randall said:

Because determining whether a gift was in contemplation of death turned out to be subjective, difficult to prove, and somewhat morbid, a 1976 amendment to the estate tax law automatically included any gift that a decedent made within three years of death (26 U.S.C.A. § 2035(a)).

If this professional service S corporation law is enacted, I will be interested to see how we talk about it a few years down the road. I'm guessing we'll say something like: "Because determining the value of a shareholder's reputation and skill turned out to be subjective, difficult to prove, and somewhat arbitrary, a 2016 amended to the tax code eliminated the self-employment tax on professional service S corporations."

I guess I'll just have to wait and see.

Read More

Shooting just around the corner

I just read Peter Pappas' post about a man in Dayton, Ohio opening fire on an H&R Block employee (which he read about on WebCPA). According to Yahoo! maps, the bar where the shooting took place is just over 7 miles from my house. That's a little frightening.

This seems to be a classic example of shooting the messenger (forgive the pun, as I don't know another way to say it!). And as long as the system is out of control, I wager we'll continue to see taxpayers blaming tax professionals. I figure the only way this will slow down is if we get a system in place that is transparent and understandable to taxpayers. We all know it, now we've got to figure out how to make it happen.

A place to start the dialogue is Professor Nellen's 21 Century Taxation blog, which recently celebrated its third anniversary (congrats!). If we can somehow manage to get a lot of us "messengers" in a dialogue and come to some agreement, maybe we could make progress on getting the public and Congress on board with serious reform. Of course, getting a large body of tax professionals to agree on a reform plan is going to take some work. I figure once I get these kids a little older, I'll make that one of my long, long term projects. Someday my kids will thank me for it! Maybe...

In the meantime, I'll be safe from angry Dayton taxpayers when I move to California in a few weeks. Although I'm guessing the taxpayers aren't much happier there.

Read More

Tax is cool

Now that it's gone away, the estate tax is getting a lot of attention.

Tax experts sharing their thoughts on the estate tax include Joe Kristan, Kay Bell, Linda Beale, James Maule, TaxProf Paul Caron, and I'm sure many others I've missed in my latest search.

But the talk isn't limited to us talk folk. Last week, Stephen Colbert did a bit on the estate tax.

"As of January 1, 2010, the 45% tax on massive inheritances is gone. But it will come back in 2011. So wouldn't this be a great year to visit your lonely, frail, unhealthy uncle? And just be by his side to make sure no one coats his banister with teflon, or hides a rabid badger in his applesauce, or replaces his Werther's Originals with Werther's Explodables."

That's right people, tax is cool.

Here's the clip from The Colbert Report last week. The estate tax bit starts at around 48 seconds in.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Colbert Platinum - Estate Tax & Skull Ballot Box
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Economy

Read More

Just to make a point

I wonder if there was a time when tax law wasn't used as a policy tool. If so, it was most definitely before my time.

TaxProf, Joe Kristan, and Kay Bell, provide coverage on the proposed "pay as you fight" war surtax.

I'm all for fiscal responsibility, including making sure we can actually afford our expenditures before we commit to them. (Novel concept, I know.) But this is not the way to go about achieving that. We didn't add a surtax for TARP, stimulus checks, the blasted "Making Word Pay" credit, or any number of other spending bills.

The purpose of this bill is to make a point, and I would rather not spend our limited government resources going through the motions of a bill just to make a point. I'd hope we have another means of engaging in debate about the issues, and that we would stop using taxes as a primary tool for affecting public policy.

Well, it's a nice dream anyway.

Read More

Maybe next year...

TaxVox reports that the results of the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board are likely to be less than stellar. Included in the post is the following observation:

From its earliest days, the group was forced to work under impossible constraints. Chief among them: Obama’s insistence that no one earning less than $250,000 should pay higher taxes. Exempting more than 95 percent of families and individuals from tax hikes of any kind essentially shut the door on any serious discussion of reform, which inevitably creates winners and, yes, losers.

This, sadly, is similar to my observations on the matter. It looks like we won't see any significant reform in the near future. No end in sight to massive AMT, endless credits, and a brand new Schedule L, too! Oh goody.

(Hat tip: Tax Update's Joe Kristan)

Read More

21st Century Taxation

I just discovered the 21st Century Taxation blog and related site about federal and California state tax reform. The site is the work of Annette Nellen, professor at San Jose State University.

She provides a great list of resources on tax reform, including the reports from President Bush's Advisory Panel.

Once I get to reading this, maybe there's a chance one will seem like real reform, and not just a band-aid. I will happily send that on to the White House for consideration!

What topics are you writing the White House about?

Read More

How does that work?

As many tax bloggers have noted, the White House has requested ideas for the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board to develop options for tax reform.

The blog includes this note:

The mandate to the PERAB is NOT to recommend a new tax system. They are to consider ideas on tax simplification, better enforcement of tax law, and reforming corporate taxes and to present the pros and cons of potential tax options... So be mindful of their constraints when submitting ideas.

I struggle to understand how we can get real tax simplification without recommending a new tax system. Maybe it's that my interpretation of the words "simplification" and "tax system" are not consistent with the government's. Because the way I see it, we can't get simplification without seriously revamping the system.

As often happens, I find myself comparing this situation to medicine (which just might have something to do with being married to a doctor). If we only change a code section here, or a regulation there, we're just treating symptoms and not the disease.

Just like when we keep adding new credits and deductions, we keep trying to cure our economic ailments with more and more medication. And from the stories I hear, more medication is not always the best answer! It often makes things worse.

In this stupor of mine, I cannot think of a recommendation to give the White House that would feel like anything more than treating a minor symptom of a dreadful disease. How depressing.

Read More

An Inconvenient Tax

Recently, I posted about my concerns that those seeking tax simplification were not effectively represented in Washington.

I thought about starting Tax Professionals for Simplification, which may still become a project -- but I think this upcoming movie is going to be much more effective than any such organization led by me.

I can't wait to see it!

An Inconvenient Tax - Official Trailer from Life Is My Movie Entertainment on Vimeo.

Hat tip to Taxgirl for the clip, who I hear just may be in the film!

Read More

Rally the troops

Thanks to Robert Flach, the Wandering Tax Pro, for his informative comment in answer to my question of how to get involved in pushing for tax simplification.

He writes:

There is really no effective lobby for the individual taxpayer. Until there is, all the other lobbies for special interest groups, with their huge budgets, will continue to entice Congress to complicate the Tax Code in their favor.

National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olsen is a good loud advocate for the taxpayer and for simplification, but Congress rarely acts on her recommendations.

It's unfortunate that my perception turns out to be fairly accurate -- that there is no effective lobby for the taxpayer in pushing for simplification. Instead, the problem just keeps getting worse with each new credit and deduction.

I was thrilled to read Mr. Flach's offer to join me in organizing Tax Professionals for Simplification in his weekly recap of what's going on in the tax world, What's the Buzz. I'm not sure precisely when I'll be able to delve into the idea (selling a house and all), and I won't be able to devote a lot of time to this (and am sure others can't devote a lot either), but I figure some time is better than none. And I really think it's high time for change!

We'll keep you posted.

Read More

Taxing the Rich

Taxprof directs us to a list of Seven Myths About Taxing the Rich published by Curtis S. Dubay of the Heritage Foundation.

The myth I often hear that bothers me most is listed as Myth 2: "The rich do not pay their fair share."

The rebuttal:

"The top 20 percent of income earners pay almost all federal taxes.

"The top 20 percent of all income earners pay a substantial majority of all federal taxes. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), in 2006, the latest year of available data, the top 20 percent of income earners paid almost 70 percent of all federal taxes. This share was 4 percent higher than in 2000, before the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

"When only looking at income taxes, the share of the top 20 percent increases even further. In 2006, the top 20 percent paid 86.3 percent of all income taxes. This was an increase of 6 percent from 2000."

I agree it is not accurate to say "the rich don't pay their fair share." Some wealthy people are dishonest and don't pay their fair share, just as are some poor people. The stereotyping of the wealthy as greedy, heartless beings is what I find to be unfair, and tiresome. I concede there are greedy, heartless wealthy people, just as there are greedy, selfish poor people.

As recently posted by the Taxprof, Tax Lawyer, and Tax Foundation, the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers combined.

Wealthy American citizens who obey the law pay a lot of tax.

Of course, when debating whether the wealthy pay their fair share, the true challenge is in defining what their fair share -- and anyone's - really is. I'd need to do a lot more studying of economics, tax policy, international tax rates, and a host of other topics before I could feel qualified to propose a definitive answer to the question of exactly what is a fair share.

What I would like to claim definitively is that "the rich" are not all bad people who exploit those less fortunate to make a buck. Many "rich people" are honest, hard-working, and generous.

Lest there be any confusion, I can declare without hesitation that I do not fall into the category of rich. But I do know and work with people who are "rich", and I am continually amazed at their success, which has come from hard work and strength of character.

A couple years ago, a smart man told me something very simple: "Successful people make and keep commitments."

Let's stop maligning successful people for being successful. Would we rather have a country full of people who never strive for excellence? I hope not.

Read More