And the Oscar Goes to . . .

Sunday night, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences put "Oscar" on a diet, cutting out live performances for "Best Original Song" nominees and trimming the traditionally bloated and self-indulgent awards program to just over three hours. Movies about movies were the big winners. "Hugo," Martin Scorsese's homage to French director Georges Melies, took five awards early in the evening. And "The Actor," a black-and-white silent film celebrating Hollywood history, took home five more, including the coveted "Best Picture."

Host Billy Crystal managed to sneak in a joke about about taxes during the broadcast — he remarked that the "Harry Potter" movies had grossed over seven billion dollars in worldwide receipts but paid just 14% in taxes! (Apparently that "taxium minimoso" spell is a real winner! It also helps if you can keep your bank records in disappearing ink.) But while the tax man rarely gets a star turn on stage, he still manages to clean up at awards time.

For starters, you know how nominees walk away with fat "swag bags" filled with goodies and bling? Those bags are taxable, of course. This year's bag is valued at $62,023.26 (down a bit from last year's $75,000). It includes little "party favors" like a $135 bottle of Purell hand sanitizer (bagged in a gold and crystal studded carrying case), $120 worth of "earthpawz" environmentally-friendly pet accessories (Dirty Dog Floor Cleaner & Mud Remover, Doggie Slobber Window & Glass Cleaner, Doggie Grime All Purpose Cleaner, Smelly Dog Odor Eliminator and Eco-Tabs Stain & Odor Remover), and a $178.99 "thermarobe" wireless heated robe.

The swag bag also includes bigger-ticket gifts like a $15,580 four-night safari — on elephant back, no less — in Botswana, a $15,000 cocktail party for up to 100 guests sponsored by liqueur maker DiSaronno, and a $3,350 stay in an oceanview suite in Punta de Mita on the Mexican Riviera. Some nominees actually refuse the bags to avoid the tax hit, while others — including A-lister George Clooney — have donated the contents to be auctioned for charity.

Oscar nominations and Oscar victories give films a famed "Oscar bounce" — and that means taxable income for everyone involved. "Best Picture" nominees earn an average of $17.7 million after their nomination and another $4 million after the show. Best Picture winners earn $27.5 million after their nomination and $15.4 million after the show. (In fact, some Hollywood insiders watch box-office receipts between the nomination and the show, to divine who will take home the statuette.) Those millions ripple throughout the film economy: theatres pay tax on ticket sales and concessions; studios pay tax on their own receipts; writers, directors, actors and others with "points" pay tax on back-end profits; and even the kids who serve popcorn and soda pay tax on their meager paychecks.

Oscar nods also boost performers' future paychecks. That means serious tax planning if the lucky winners don't want 35% of the difference winding up in Uncle Sam's pocket. Of course, youdon't have to be a movie star to cut your taxes. It just means you need a plan of your own — one that takes advantage of every legal deduction, credit, loophole, and strategy. We're here to help you star in that plan!

Owen S. Arnoff, Enrolled Agent
Admitted to Practice Before the Internal Revenue Service
http://www.April15th.com
Sacramento Tax Consulting
Sacramento Tax Preparation
Sacramento Tax Representation
IRS Tax Help, Bookkeeping Services, Payroll Services

"Like" This

America's economy continues to sputter. But stocks are picking up steam and flirting with four-year highs. We're even seeing new "dot-coms" hitting the market. Last May, the social networking site LinkedIn went public at $45 per share, then leaped to $94.25 in its first day of trading. Internet coupon vendor Groupon opened in November at $20 per share, then jumped 31% on its first day of trading. And earlier this month, Facebook filed registration papers with the Securities and Exchange Commission for what may be the hottest IPO since Google.

Companies typically go public to raise money to expand. But Facebook doesn't really need cash from an IPO. The company made nearly $4 billion in advertising revenue in 2011. So why go public?

Well, companies also go public to let founders and early investors cash out. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook's 27-year-old founder, is already a "paper" billionaire, ranked #14 on the Forbes 400 list of richest Americans. (Not many entreprenuers find themselves richer than Scrooge McDuck while still at an age that they watch Scrooge McDuck.) But Facebook's IPO will give Zuckerberg and fellow early investors liquidity, converting paper wealth into cash for the houses, charitable gifts, and other spending that new dot-com millionaires historically indulge in.

The IPO will also stick Zuckerberg with a historically large tax bill. (You knew that was coming, right?) In fact, one of the big reasons the company is going public in the first place is give Zuckerberg a way to pay taxes when he exercises options to buy even more stock.

Here's how it works. For tax purposes, the value of most stock options is treated as compensation and fixed the day you exercise them — whether you actually sell them or not. Let's say you pay $5 to exercise a share of your employer's stock, on a day when that stock is worth $25. Your company gets a deduction for that $20 per share, even though there's no cash outlay. That's great for the company. But at the same time, you'll owe immediate tax on $20 of income, even if you hold the stock in hope of future appreciation. (If the stock tanks before you actually sell, you still owe tax on that gain.) That may not be so great for you!

Zuckerberg currently owns 414 million shares of Facebook. He also has options to buy another 120 million shares for — get this — just six cents each. Zuckerberg has announced plans to exercise those options and sell enough shares to cover his taxes. We don't know yet what Facebook shares will trade for. However, private-market trades have valued shares at $40 each. If Zuckerberg exercises all 120 million options when shares are valued at that price, his taxable gain will be nearly $5 billion. He'll owe 35% to the IRS, plus 10.3% to the state of California, for a total tax bill of over $2 billion. That's right, billion with a "b." Can you imagine signing a return with a billion-dollar tax bill? How about signing a check for that much — payable to the IRS!

The important thing to realize here is that Zuckerberg's tax bill came as no surprise. It's actually the result of careful planning. Remember, Zuckerberg's pain is Facebook's gain. The strategy will probably give Facebook enough deductions to wipe out the entire tax on its 2011 profit, plus refunds from 2009 and 2010, plus even more to carry forward.

Think about that the next time you click the "Like" button on your computer. And remember, we're here to bring the same sort of smart tax planning to your business.

Owen S. Arnoff, Enrolled Agent
Admitted to Practice Before the Internal Revenue Service
http://www.April15th.com
Sacramento Tax Consulting
Sacramento Tax Preparation
Sacramento Tax Representation
IRS Tax Help, Bookkeeping Services, Payroll Services

Gimme Shelter

Sunday night's Grammy Awards ceremony illuminated two sides of today's music industry. On stage, British soul singer Adele cleaned up big time, winning Album of the Year, Record of the Year, and Song of the Year. On the darker side, the night was filled with tributes to fallen angel Whitney Houston, who died Saturday after years of backstage struggles with drugs and alcohol.

When you think of your favorite musician, you probably don't think about a third side — taxes. But you might be surprised to learn just how much influence tax laws have over the music we listen to every day.

Rock-and-roll fans know "Gimme Shelter" as one of the Rolling Stones' all-time classics — the opening cut on their 1969 album Let it Bleed, and a dark, brooding meditation on the war and violence that seemed to characterize that era. Surprisingly, it turns out that "Gimme Shelter" describes the band's philosophy on taxes, too.

The Stones' troubles with the tax man go back nearly as far as their troubles with the police. Back in 1968, with bandmates Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, and Brian Jones facing drug charges, reports surfaced that they had also failed to observe taxlaws. As Jagger reported at the time, "So after working for eight years I discovered at the end that nobody had ever paid my taxes and I owed a fortune. So then you have to leave the country. So I said &@#& it, and left the country." The "World's Greatest Rock and Roll Band" literally skipped town, with guitarist Richards renting the Villa Nellcote in Villefranche-sur-Mer on the French Cote D'Azur, where they wound up recording their critically-acclaimed double album, Exile on Main Street.

That lesson scarred them, and the Stones vowed not to repeat that mistake. Jagger put his London School of Economics studies to work, and hooked up with some top-notch financial advisors. They eventually set up a series of Dutch corporations and trusts which helped the band pay just 1.6% in tax over the last 20 years. More recently, they established a pair of private Dutch foundations to avoid estate taxes at their deaths.

"The whole business thing is predicated a lot on the tax laws," guitarist Keith Richards told Fortune Magazine (with a Marlboro in one hand and a vodka and juice in the other). "It's why we rehearse in Canada and not in the U.S. A lot of our astute moves have been basically keeping up with tax laws, where to go, where not to put it. Whether to sit on it or not. We left England because we'd be paying 98 cents on the dollar. We left, and they lost out. No taxes at all." It's worth mentioning at this point that Richards makes his primary residence in unglamorous but relatively low-taxed Weston, Connecticut.

The Rolling Stones were just the first of many artists to flee the United Kingdom to avoid taxes. Folk singer Cat Stevens left around the same time, moving first to Brazil, where his album Foreigner refers to his move. In 1978, rockers Pink Floyd spent three years outside the country to avoid tax. Glam-rocker David Bowie moved to Switzerland in 1976 (before becoming the first musician to securitize future royalties in the form of a bond offering). British singers Rod Stewart and Tom Jones both moved to Los Angeles to avoid British Prime Minister Harold Wilson's 83% top tax rate. Even fictional musicians have taken extraordinary steps to avoid tax — in The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, British author Douglas Adams created the galactically-famous rocker Hotblack Desiato, who was "spending a year dead for tax purposes."

Our job, of course, is to help you pay the minimum legal tax. And we think proactive planning beats fleeing the country. So call us when you're ready to pay less. We're here for you, and your bandmates too!

Owen S. Arnoff, Enrolled Agent
Admitted to Practice Before the Internal Revenue Service
http://www.April15th.com
Sacramento Tax Consulting
Sacramento Tax Preparation
Sacramento Tax Representation
IRS Tax Help, Bookkeeping Services, Payroll Services

The Super Bowl and Tax Planning

A decade or more ago, the Super Bowl had become a bit of a joke. Fans looked forward to watching the commercials, sure. But the actual game itself had become a dreary series of lopsided blowouts. Super Bowl XXIV was perhaps the worst offender, with the San Francisco 49ers pounding the Denver Broncos, 55-10, in a game that wasn't nearly as close as that score suggested!

More recently, the game has been more competitive and more entertaining. The NFC champion New York Giants reached this year's "big dance" by defeating the 49ers, 20-17, in a game that came down to the final play — in a Cinderella playoff run that followed a middling regular season. The AFC champion New England Patriots made it by beating the Baltimore Ravens, 23-20, in a game that came down to the final play. That set up Sunday's contest, when the Giants defeated the Patriots, 21-17, in yet another game that came down to the final play.

Sunday's game proved the truth of the old cliche that "offense sells tickets, but defense wins games." Patriots coach Bill Belichick gambled by actually letting Giants running back Ahmad Bradshaw score in the final minute in hopes of keeping precious time on the clock. That gamble succeeded in giving quarterback Tom Brady 57 seconds to engineer a last-minute drive — but ultimately failed when Brady's desperate final heave to tight end Rob Gronkowski fell harmlessly to the ground.

That same cliche about defense winning games applies to your finances as well — especially when it comes to tax planning. If you want to put real money in your pocket, you've got two choices:

• Financial offense means making more money. (As Charlie Sheen would say, "duh.") But that's not always easy, especially in a tough economy like today's. You can invest all sorts of time efforts into growing your business or your income, only to see them sail wide right like a missed field goal.

Financial defense means spending less money. That's often easier than making more. And when it comes to spending less, it makes sense to focus on the big expenses. For most affluent Americans, that means taxes, rushing you like the Giants' backfield. Maybe you can save 15% or more on car insurance by switching to GEICO. But in the long run, how much can that really do for you?

Financial defense is important enough that some financial moves which look like offense are actually defense in disguise. Wall Street is buzzing about Facebook's upcoming initial public offering, wondering if the company can really be worth $100 billion. But the company is raising "only" $10 billion in cash. And Facebook doesn't need the money. They're "engineering a liquidity event," in large part so founder Mark Zuckerberg can pay his own taxes! (We'll talk more about this as we get closer to the actual offering.)

It's easy to think of us as just "tax people" and focus on the forms we file for that April 15 deadline (April 17 this year, for you procrastinators). But focusing on just compliance misses thevalue you get from proactive tax planning, and misses the total value we offer as your financial "defensive coordinator." So call us when you're ready to "call an audible" and play real financial defense. We promise not to let the IRS just walk the ball across the goal line!

Owen S. Arnoff, Enrolled Agent
Admitted to Practice Before the Internal Revenue Service
http://www.April15th.com
Sacramento Tax Consulting
Sacramento Tax Preparation
Sacramento Tax Representation
IRS Tax Help, Bookkeeping Services, Payroll Services

Looks like the tax code is getting a lot simpler ... NOT!

Courtesy of the S-Corporation Association of America (their opinions expressed):

“Buffett Rule” Bill Introduced

Legislation to enact the so-called “Buffett Rule” has been introduced in the United States Senate. The bill, entitled the “The Paying a Fair Share Act” was introduced by Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and others. According to the authors:

Whitehouse’s legislation would apply only to taxpayers with income over $1 million – including capital gains and dividends. Taxpayers earning over $2 million would be subject to a 30% minimum federal tax rate. The tax would be phased in for incomes between $1 million and $2 million, with those taxpayers paying a portion of the extra tax required to get them to a 30% effective tax rate. The bill also includes language to preserve the incentive for charitable giving.

The Wall Street Journal has a few more details:

The legislation introduced Wednesday by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.) would ensure that anyone earning more than $2 million in income each year, including from capital gains, would pay a minimum 30% federal tax rate, Mr. Whitehouse said on the Senate floor Wednesday morning. Wealthy taxpayers who face a tax rate above 30% would still pay the higher rate.

The “fair share tax” would be gradually phased in for those earning between $1 million and $2 million in annual income. They would pay a portion of the extra tax needed to get them to the 30% rate, the lawmaker said.

“This way, we make sure that no taxpayer is ever in a situation where earning an additional dollar of income will increase his or her taxes by more than that dollar,” Mr. Whitehouse said in his remarks prepared for the Senate floor. The new tax would not affect anyone making less than $1 million.

We have several complaints with this effort. First, as we’ve pointed out before, the Warren Buffett’s of the world don’t pay a lower effective tax than their secretaries. Congressional Budget Office estimates make clear that the existing tax code is strongly progressive, with wealthy taxpayers paying significantly higher levels of tax – both in absolute terms and as a percentage of their overall income – than middle-class and low-income Americans.

Second, if enacted, this new legislation would impose a third tax code (and calculation) on individual taxpayers. We already have two codes, the regular income tax and the Alternative Minimum Tax. Now we would have three:

• Regular Income Tax
• Alternative Minimum Tax
• Fair Share Tax

Third, the author takes pains to point out that no taxpayer will face marginal rates of more than 100 percent on additional earnings, but exactly how high would the effective marginal rates reach as a taxpayer’s income rises above $1 million? The dead weight economic loss imposed by a tax increases by the square of the rate hike, so the potential cost to the economy is significant.

Nor is it clear the Fair Share tax would successfully target the rich. The AMT was created four decades ago to ensure that the same taxpayers targeted by the Fair Share tax pay at least a “minimum” amount of tax. Over the years, however, the tax has morphed into a burden on middle- and upper-middle income taxpayers. Actual millionaires are less likely to pay the AMT than a middle-class family with three children living in a high tax state. What’s the guarantee that the Fair Share bill will not make the same progression into the middle class?

Finally, you’ll notice the bill contains an exemption for charitable donations. Think of it as the “Buffett Loophole” to the “Buffett Rule” since one of the more glaring ironies of the whole debate is that Warren Buffett has aggressively planned his estate to avoid paying any tax on most of his accumulated wealth. According to press accounts, he’s given most of his money away to foundations run by his children and Bill Gates. This new “Buffett Tax” won’t touch those transfers.

So we now have legislation to fix a problem that doesn’t exist in order to impose a new tax on a billionaire who’s already figured out how to avoid paying it. In the meantime, real taxpayers with real companies and real employees who aren’t in a position to hide all their wealth inside a foundation will be stuck paying the bill. Not helpful.

Owen S. Arnoff, Enrolled Agent
Admitted to Practice Before the Internal Revenue Service
http://www.April15th.com
Sacramento Tax Consulting
Sacramento Tax Preparation
Sacramento Tax Representation
IRS Tax Help, Bookkeeping Services, Payroll Services

Romney Hot Seat

Last fall, billionaire Warren Buffett ignited a firestorm in the tax world when he revealed that he paid just 17.4% in tax — a lower rate than his own secretary — on his $39.8 million taxable income. The revelation sparked conversation across the country, and even inspired President Obama to propose a "Warren Buffett" rule imposing a special tax on income above $1 million per year.

Last week, Presidential candidate Mitt Romney made similar headlines when he released his taxes. The returns weighed in at 547 pages, and included some items, like "Form 8261: Return By a Shareholder of a Passive Foreign Investment Company or Qualified Electing Fund," that most tax professionals never encounter in a lifetime. (Trust us when we tell you this stuff is every bit as exciting as it sounds.) Romney's not quite in Buffett's financial league — his 2010 taxable income was a "mere" $17.1 million. But Romney's actual tax rate was a similarly low 17.6%.

We're not here to take sides on Romney himself, his campaign, or the tax system that makes his 17% rate possible. But Romney's return illustrates a crucial lesson about your taxes, too — namely, that when it comes to paying less, how you make your money is even more important than how much money you make.

Romney's income is more than high enough to put him in the top 35% bracket. That 35% applies to "ordinary" income like wages and salaries, business income, and "passive" income from certain investments. But Mitt made "only" $6.3 million in ordinary income. Most of his income derives from other sources, taxed at lower rates:

• Long-Term Capital Gains: Tax on long-term capital gains is capped at 15%, no matter how much gain you report. For 2010, Romney drew over half his income from such gains. This included $7.4 million in "carried interest," related to his work at Bain Capital, and taxed as long-term capital gain. If that income had been taxed at ordinary rates, he would have paid an extra $1.5 million. If it had been subject to employment tax, like salary, the government would have collected another $214,600.

Qualified Dividends: Tax on qualified dividends is also capped at 15%, regardless of how much income you report. Romney reported $3.3 million in qualified dividends for 2010. It's worth pointing out that the only dividends "qualifying" for this rate are those that have already been taxed at corporate rates ranging from 15-35%.

Tax-Free Municipal Bonds: Muni bonds are a traditional tax shelter for taxpayers in Romney's "1%" category. But Romney's home state of Massachusetts imposes a flat 5.3% tax, which makes munis less attractive compared to taxable bonds, for those with stratospheric income. So Romney reported just $557 in muni bond income for 2010.

If Romney winds up carrying the GOP flag in 2012, his taxes will be a campaign issue. But it's important to remember that, while some are criticizing him as the face of a system gone wrong, no one is actually accusing him of doing anything wrong under the law. In fact, Romney appears to have foregone some legitimate opportunities (like potential home office deductions for his speaking and director's fee income) to pay even less.

Judge Learned Hand famously wrote that "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." (And with a name like Learned Hand, well, you just have to believe him.) We're here to help you arrange your affairs so that your taxes are as low as possible — and do so in a way to survive scrutiny even if you decide to run for office. And remember, we're here for your friends, family, and running mates, too!

Owen S. Arnoff, Enrolled Agent
Admitted to Practice Before the Internal Revenue Service
http://www.April15th.com
Sacramento Tax Consulting
Sacramento Tax Preparation
Sacramento Tax Representation
IRS Tax Help, Bookkeeping Services, Payroll Services