Posts tagged as:

TV

Sunday Mail Bag

October 11, 2009 · 5 comments

It’s a chilly Sunday morning here in Philadelphia. I thought a bit of housekeeping might be in order, so I’m opening up the ol’ taxgirl (e)mailbag. I have a bunch of non-technical tax questions which were submitted as “ask the taxgirl” questions but I thought it made more sense to answer them in one big post. So grab a cup of coffee and pull up a chair!

–

Taxpayer asks:

Dear taxgirl, why did you decide to become a lawyer? I’m thinking about going to law school this fall and I’d love your thoughts.

taxgirl says:

I watched a lot of TV. Seriously. I didn’t really know any lawyers growing up so I based most of my impressions of lawyers on what I saw on TV or read in books. I was a big fan of Perry Mason and, of course, Nancy Drew’s dad, Carson (what girl didn’t have a crush on him?). But mostly, I loved the idea of doing something that made a difference. Remember that great scene in To Kill a Mockingbird?

I wanted to be able to stand tall like Gregory Peck (the tall never happened) and say things that mattered, take a stand for justice. Of course, that’s not exactly what happens in the legal profession – it took me awhile to figure that out. But at the end of the day, despite the lawyer jokes and bad press, I love what I do. I help people. And that matters to me.

That said, the legal market is really tough now. Law school can be expensive (I’m still paying off my loans) and jobs can be hard to come by. Make sure that you really want to go – and you’re not just going because your parents want you to (we had a lot of that in law school) or because you’re a smart kid and don’t know what else to do (we also had a lot of that in law school).

If you’re not completely sure, my advice is to talk to a bunch of lawyers: small firm lawyers, big firm lawyers, government lawyers. Intern in a law office. Sit in on a law school class or two. Then make your decision. Good luck!

–

Taxpayer asks:

Have you ever filed your taxes late or owed taxes? I’m just wondering.

taxgirl says:

Yes and yes. Our tax system, as it exists, is self-governing. That means there’s no one standing over you screaming at you to file and pay every year – or every quarter in the case of small businesses and those who owe estimated taxes – and I’ve been both. Sometimes the mistake is on the employer side (as when I was first in Philly, my NJ boss didn’t withhold wage tax) and sometimes the mistake is on the employee side (as when you just get overwhelmed and forget a deadline). Mistakes happen. I always tell clients that there’s no shame in it: just fix them.

–

Taxpayer asks:

I’m a 2L and am thinking about classes for next semester. Which tax classes do you recommend? Any to avoid?

taxgirl says:

I loved Federal Estate and Gift Tax and Tax Policy, hated Partnership Tax (though it is handy). I’d recommend starting off with baby tax (federal income tax) and seeing which aspects of tax law appeal to you. I also recommend taking some non-tax courses, too. I never intended to be a tax lawyer but I really enjoyed a class that I signed up for just because it fit my schedule and it wasn’t litigation-related. So don’t stack up on tax in the beginning, you never know. Try a bit of everything.

–

Taxpayer asks:

You talk a lot about living in Philadelphia but you call yourself a Southern girl. What am I missing?

taxgirl says:

Easy. I grew up in North Carolina. I’ve lived in Hampstead (early years), Durham (high school) and Raleigh (college). I moved to Philadelphia to go to law school and loved it so much that I stayed.

–

Taxpayer asks:

What’s the strangest deduction that you’ve ever seen on a tax return?

taxgirl says:

Hmm. I’ve seen some odd things. But one that jumps out at me is pet therapy – as in therapy for a pet. While I understand that pets are like children (we joke that our dog is our first born), you can’t claim pets or related expenses on your tax return.

And then there’s flat out lies like the guy who claimed his Disney cruise was a business expense (he ran a car dealership).

One thing you can say about tax law: it’s never boring.

–

Taxpayer asks:

I see you practice with your husband. Do you talk tax at home? Just curious.

taxgirl says:

Yes, but he doesn’t listen. My husband isn’t a tax lawyer, he practices international and corporate law. But that doesn’t stop me.

–

Taxpayer asks:

I saw this and thought of you: http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/the_25_greatest_legal_tv_shows What’s your favorite TV law show? Are there any tax lawyers on TV?

taxgirl says:

I did see it, thanks. Um, my favorite? I used to love LA Law – what a great cast! I also used to watch Perry Mason reruns with my grandfather and Matlock since it was filmed in my hometown. In law school, I watched Ally McBeal and The Practice even though they were completely unrealistic. I actually don’t watch any legal shows now that I practice, they drive me nuts.

I can’t think of any tax lawyers on TV off the top of my head. My guess is that the work doesn’t seem glamourous enough. “Watch me research this deduction!” It just doesn’t have the same on air appeal as, say, defense work. But hey, Hollywood, I am available. ;)

—

That was fun and the mailbag is a little bit lighter now… Thanks for writing in!

{ 5 comments }

Tax trivia: TV Audit

March 15, 2009 · 2 comments

We have a winner! See comments!

Our last tax trivia question is (though we’re still waiting for a winner on the other one!):

In what popular TV show does the star of the show get turned into the IRS for audit by a neighbor, who justified it by saying:

But you know he deserved it. Never before have I seen such abuse of the take-a-penny-leave-a-penny tray.

Don’t forget: the first correct answer wins free CCH tax prep software.

What’s your guess?

{ 2 comments }

French TV Says “Non” to Subsidy Plan

June 29, 2008 · 0 comments

Royal - Final Round Of French Presidential Elections
Image details: Royal – Final Round Of French Presidential Elections served by picapp.com

President Nicolas Sarkozy of France has introduced a proposal to ban advertising from state-owned television channels.

In the US, there are usually limitations on advertising on public television. Most public television in the US is financed through a mix of corporate and government contributions and donations of private individuals.

However, in a number of countries in Europe, state broadcasters are funded through a mix of advertising and public money. Sarkozy now wants to phase out ads from France’s public TV stations. To make up the difference in funding, he wants to institute new taxes on private broadcasters, such as TF1 SA, and telecom operators, such as France Télécom SA. TF1 is France’s most-watched television, with its popular mix of gameshows, reality TV programs and American prime-time series such as House and Grey’s Anatomy dubbed in French.

As you can imagine, France’s private TV companies are not happy with this new tax. They claim that the new tax forces them to subsidize state-backed competitors.

Likewise, the European Commission is “not enthusiastic” about the French plans. “For the European Commission, it is important to increase citizens’ purchasing power and growth in Europe. It is not in favour of a new tax on sectors that are drivers of growth,” said commission spokesman Martin Selmayr.

Nonetheless, Sarkowsky plans to move ahead with the move as of January 2009.

Stay tuned to see what happens!

{ 0 comments }

Fat? TV Addict? Should You Be Taxed on Your Lifestyle?

June 7, 2008 · 12 comments

This week, I happened to notice a series of ads running in my local paper (The Philadelphia Inquirer) for Derrie-Air airlines. There were two features that distinguished Derrie-Air from, say, USAirways and United. One was the method of determining fare:

The magic comes from our one of a kind “Sliding Scale”—the more you weigh, the more you’ll pay. After all, it takes more fuel—more energy—to get more weight from point A to point B. So we will charge passengers based on how much mass they add to the plane. The heavier you and your luggage are, the more trees we’ll plant to make up for the trouble of flying you from place to place.

The other is that the airline is fake:

The Derrie-Air campaign is a fictitious advertising campaign created by Philadelphia Media Holdings to test the results of advertising in our print and online products and to stimulate discussion on a timely environmental topic of interest to all citizens. All names, identities, characters, persons, whether living or dead, companies, situations, offers, products, services, and other information appearing in this campaign and the associated website are fictitious. Any resemblance to real or fictitious names, identities, characters, persons, whether living or dead, companies, situations, offers, products, services, or other information, is purely coincidental and unintentional. In other words, smile, we’re pulling your leg.

Funny? I don’t know.

Ethical? Meh. I think it’s in poor taste to track advertising with fake ads but I’m not sure it’s unethical.

But what really struck me was this notion of linking costs (both environmental and actual) to behavior. Merchants rarely do this. With few exceptions, you don’t pay more for a size 2 dress as you do a size 14. You don’t pay more for a car (gas and maintenance excepted) that you’re going to drive 20 miles as 200,000 miles. It’s an interesting concept.

I was wondering how this might translate to tariffs and taxes in the real world. It seems that every society that has a tax system has some kind of sin tax – Australia taxes alcopops, the UK taxes snack foods and here in the US we keep trying (and trying) to tax porn.

But what about instead of a sin tax, we called it a “consumption tax” and taxed and tariffed folks on their lifestyles?

It’s an interesting idea from a tax policy perspective and we do it in other capacities (sales tax, for example).

Why not tie more behaviors to tax based on usage? Why not base your cable tax on how much cable TV you actually watch (I think Time Warner wants to meter this anyway) or the tax on internet by how much you actually use the web (as opposed to the “package” you select from your provider)?

Why not base tariffs and taxes associated with cab fare, airline fare, train fare and public transit on weight – as suggested in the fake ads?

Why not take it a step further and pay on a “per use” basis for public services like fire and police – in Philadelphia, I pay a tax for the privilege of having an alarm system in my building and if I have a certain number of false triggers on the alarm, I’m fined – why not do that for individuals?

It may seem far-fetched but perhaps it’s not. In theory, while taxing behavior (which we already do in limited amounts in the form of sin taxes) feels wrong, most opponents of various taxes (as documented on this site) tend to have a beef with the idea that they don’t use services that require tax dollars. While I don’t think this is true across the board (infrastructure, military, individual usage of those things can’t be easily measured), there are certain behaviors that we can pinpoint and tax based on usage. Weight was an easy one for Philadelphia Media Holdings, LLC to target because it’s not subjective and it’s easily linked to costs – it is true that increased weight adds to the cost of air travel.

I’m not a skinny girl despite all of my activity (thanks, genetics and cheese, I really appreciate it) and I will say that I loathe the idea of stepping on a scale to determine how much I need to pay the bus driver. But I do *get* the idea behind it – it’s part of the equation that determines that kids ride for free. That doesn’t mean that I like it.

What about you? Would you be interested in being taxed on your lifestyle? Should things like weight, TV watching patterns and internet usage be determinative of how much tax you pay? What about the usage of public services? I’d love to hear your input!

{ 12 comments }