Comments on: Don’t Be Fooled: Homebuyer’s Credit Fraud is Still Fraud

By: LexTweet « Novalawcity

LexTweet « Novalawcity — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 20:20:08 +0000

[...] named a Summer Corps Standout award winner by Equal Justice Works. And a link to TaxGirl's blog warned that the IRS is aggressively pursuing those (including a tax preparer in [...]

By: Gwailo

Gwailo — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 23:40:53 +0000

Sorry, but that’s a misquote. What Judge Hand actually wrote in Helvering v. Gregory, 69 F. 2d 809 (2d. Cir. 1934), aff’d 293 U.S. 465 (1935) was:

“[A] transaction, otherwise within an exception of the tax law, does not lose its immunity, because it is actuated by a desire to avoid, or, if one choose, to evade, taxation. Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes. (citations omitted) Therefore, if what was done here, was what was intended by section 112 (i) (1) (B), it is of no consequence that it was all an elaborate scheme to get rid of income taxes, as it certainly was. Nevertheless, it does not follow that Congress meant to cover such a transaction, not even though the facts answer the dictionary definitions of each term used in the statutory definition. It is quite true, as the Board has very well said, that as the articulation of a statute increases, the room for interpretation must contract; but the meaning of a sentence may be more than that of the separate words, as a melody is more than the notes, and no degree of particularity can ever obviate recourse to the setting in which all appear, and which all collectively create…. To dodge the shareholders’ taxes is not one of the transactions contemplated as corporate ‘reorganizations.’”
Judgment for taxpayer reversed and deficiency affirmed.

In context, Judge Hand was writing about the *limits* to tax planning: there must be a “business purpose”, interlinked steps are joined together, and substance controls over form. ‘G

By: Ask the taxgirl: Same Sex Couples and the Homebuyer’s Credit | taxgirl

Tue, 04 Aug 2009 18:08:40 +0000

[...] August 4, 2009 · 0 comments I’ve received a number of “ask the taxgirl” questions related to the first time homebuyer’s credit. I’m hoping to wade through a number of those questions this week in consideration of the IRS’ new emphasis on preventing related fraud. [...]

By: Don't Be Fooled: Homebuyer's Credit Fraud is Still Fraud | taxgirl | Money Blog : 10 Dollars : Money Articles.

Mon, 03 Aug 2009 16:55:05 +0000

[...] Original post: Don't Be Fooled: Homebuyer's Credit Fraud is Still Fraud | taxgirl [...]

By: Twitted by jimrobinsonlaw

Twitted by jimrobinsonlaw — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 16:29:39 +0000

[...] This post was Twitted by jimrobinsonlaw [...]

By: My Journey

My Journey — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 16:16:32 +0000

JBruce,

The quote you are looking for is found right on my home page cause its one of my favs:

“Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands.”

Judge Learned Hand

By: Angela

Angela — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 16:10:57 +0000

The IRS is a horrible agency, and the income tax is a terrible system. My apologies to those who earn a living in that field, but we really should look at streamling collections by moving toward a flat tax.

By: JBruce

JBruce — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 15:17:46 +0000

Hey, everybody cheats one way or another (except me, of course!).
Decades ago the Supreme Court said it was lawful for a taxpayer to arranhe his affairs so as to be subject to the least tax. I teach Real Estate at the college level; real estate investment is greatly tied in with the tax laws, so I have to know something about taxes. My tax returns are works of art, that I prepare myself because I’ve never met a tax preparer who knows as much about my taxes as I do. However, I have documentation for every item in those returns.
I’ve been audited four times. The first time the IRS ended up owing ME money. The second time I owed them a couple hundred dollars because one deduction was disallowed; I should have asked to see someone up the line because I know I was right, even though the auditor disagreed.
The third time was a wash. The fourth time they cancelled the audit because they were asking about the same thing they asked the year before, and for which no tax was due.
The upshot is that if you know what you’re doing, and you’ve got the evidence to back it up, there should be nothing to fear in an audit. Show up with a couple of briefcases with everything neatly sorted out. They ask a question, you reach in and get the supporting documentation in moments. After a few times they may well “give up” — “this guy has his proof, there’s not enough blood to squeeze from this turnip.”