This week I look at a case involving a Northwest Airlines mechanic who was laid off and ended up using his "bumping" rights in other cities while hoping to return to his original home base.  The question of whether the taxpayer could deduct the expenses of working in the various locations is considered by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals after the Tax Court decided no deduction was allowed in the case of Wilbert v. Commissioner, 2009 TNT 12-12, CA7, affirming TC Memo 2007-152.

The materials can be downloaded at http://www.edzollars.com/2009-01-25_TaxHome.pdf .

The podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, located on the web at http://www.leimbergservices.com .


Home is Where the Job Is

An update from time to time on various tax issues presented by Ed Zollars, CPA and designed for tax professionals.  Users are cautioned to do their own independent research to verify any conclusions stated on this podcast--I do not claim to be infallible, but just to bring up issues to consider.

This week's presentation is based on a presentation I made for the Virginia Society of CPAs' 8th Annual Industry Conference in Williamsburg on May 28, 2009 on gadgets and gizmos.  The presentation includes a look at:
Novatel's MifiApple's Airport ExpressApple iPhone 3GBlackberry Bold, Pearl and StormApple iPod TouchNetbooks
The slides can be important to follow along, so you may wish to download them at http://www.edzollars.com/2009-05-29_Gadgets.pdf .

The podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Services, located at http://www.leimbergservices.com .

Gadgets and Gizmos

Education incentives have been a favorite of Congress in recent years, but this week we look at the old favorite of education as a business deduction, a provision covered by regulations last updated back in 1967.  The Tax Court had cause to look into this in the case of Ray v. Commissioner, TC Summary Opinion 2009-71.

Materials for this week's podcast can be downloaded at http://www.edzollars.com/2009-05-20_Education.pdf . 

The podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, located at http://www.leimbergservices.com .

The Education of the Taxpayer from a Business Perspective

Last year there was lots of discussion regarding the changes to §6694 and how tax professionals were to apply the standards there against return positions.  However, while the standard to be applied may have changed, there were standards in place before and this week we look at the case of a CPA that ran afoul of the lower standards.  In the case if USA v. Kapp, (2009 TNT 84-30), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sustained the issuance of an injunction against a CPA prohibiting him from taking a position on returns that failed the older §6694(a) standard for nondisclosed positions.

The case is of interest because the panel gives a practical walkthrough of analyzing the level of support that existed for a position, as well as noting those items of support that Mr. Kapp wished to rely upon but which did not serve to help his cause.

The materials for the podcast are at http://www.edzollars.com/2009-05-11_Preparer.pdf .

The podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, located on the web at http://www.leimbergservices.com .


The Limits on Taking a Return Position

The IRS has issued a revised ruling on the use of a net operating loss under the new rules Congress added in February.  The new ruling, Revenue Ruling 2009-26, updates and liberalizes the guidance previously given in Revenue Ruling 2009-19 issued on March 16.  The new guidance allows taxpayers to simply file a carryback for the appropriate number of years to make the election, but there are special due date rules you have to worry about.

The materials are at http://www.edzollars.com/2009-05-04_NetOperatingLoss.pdf.

The podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services on the web at http://www.leimbergservices.com.




Net Operating Loss Guidance: Let's Try This One Again

The definition of an employee is this week's key issue--and we look at the matter in the case of Maimon v. Commissioner, TC Summary Opinion 2009-53.  Dr. Maimon attempted to argue that he was not an employee of the professional corporation he worked in (and owned some shares in), but rather was an independent contractor.  He was interested in holding this position because he had ended up personally paying over legal fees and, ultimately, a $1 million settlement, in a case involving his medical services.

The case is interesting because the Court held Dr. Maimon was not an officer and thus actually stepped through the common law tests for employment status.  In the end the court found Dr. Maimon was an employee, but the case gives a good outline of the analysis to go through even in cases that aren't quite as "bad facts" as this one.

Materials for the podcast are available at http://www.edzollars.com/2009-04-25_Employee.pdf .

The podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Services, located on the web at http://www.leimbergservices.com .


Home is Where the Job Is

Download our free app to listen on your phone