IRS has updated its list of the Dirty Dozen Tax Scams.

Q:

From: “Marian Crenshaw” <mariancontrarian@gmail.com>

Subject: Child Support: 29% isn’t even enough. Try 50%

 

Dear Kerry,

 

I came across your web site while doing some academic research. I just wanted to let you know that there is a simple and obvious reason why child support is based on a percentage of the non-custodial parent’s income—-it’s because your children are entitled to the lifestyle that you can afford whether you live with them or not. Otherwise, why not just provide the bare minimum they need to survive? Or why provide anything at all? 

 

Think about it: they are, after all, YOUR children, not just your ex-wife’s. They deserve to have what you are able to provide for them and if that happens to result in a slight improvement in what your ex’s lifestyle might otherwise be, well tough toenails. Maybe you should have tried harder to work things out. Child support is about providing for YOUR kids (you know, the ones who are carrying YOUR name and YOUR DNA), not about spiting your ex.

 

Clearly, you are not thinking straight enough to consult with anyone on taxes. Perhaps you should re-consider whether a web site is appropriate. 

 

But then, who would seriously take tax advice from the Ozarks?

 

Marian Contrarian

A:

Marian:

Thanks for sharing your opinion on this matter.

I still can’t accept that as valid reasoning; especially in the context of the example I had written about.  In that case, as it is with countless other parents, the client was required to pay 29% of his tax return’s adjusted gross income, most of which consisted of purely paper income which was not in any way available for him to live on, much less for the benefit of his children. 

Your tone implied that I wrote my comments from a selfish perspective.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  I have never had any children, nor will I ever have any.  My comments were purely based on a sense of fairness.  To use the force of law to require a parent to share a fixed percentage of his/her wealth with his/her children is not right.  If a parent wants to voluntarily do this, that would be great.  It’s much like the issue of charity versus taxation that I posted on my blog yesterday.

You are obviously entitled to your own opinions on matters such as this, even if they are clouded by bigotry towards those of us who choose to live here in the beautiful Ozark Mountains.  I can assure you that my opinions wouldn’t be any different if I were still living in the more sophisticated San Francisco Bay Area, where I spent the first 38 years of my life.

Thanks for writing, whoever you are with your Nom de Plume.

Kerry Kerstetter

Q:

Subject: Quick Tax question

We formed an Corporation in 1999 (C corp) and bought a parcel of Land in October 2003. After the purchase we have had No income or activities in the prior years and no tax forms were filed.
In 2006 we got approved from IRS as an S corp for the tax year starting Jan 1, 2006. How do we handle the transfer of the parcel from the “C” to the “S” corp? What tax consequences will this have January 1, 2006.? We have income from a option on the land in 2006 and are preparing to file tax return on this, you understanding is that the “profit” of this income will be passed through to the partners?

Appreciate your comments.

A:

This is an issue that you must work on with an experienced tax pro.  If it is the same corp that is now being converted to an S, you aren’t technically transferring the land. 

However, there is a potential for what is called the Built In Gains Tax of 35% for IRS when there are appreciated assists in a corp that has converted from C to S and the assets are sold or distributed within 10 years after the conversion. 

You really should have discussed this entire mater with a tax pro before making the conversion; but hopefully a good tax pro can help you minimize or at least reduce the tax hit after the fact.

Good luck.

Kerry Kerstetter

Q:

Subject: question….

Dear kmk:

 I overheard a conversation about a corporation or a savings plan the other day regarding a SEP vs. SIMPLE. What were they talking about? Thanks

A:

SEP = Simplified Employee Pension
SIMPLE = Savings Incentive Match Plans for Employees

These are just two of the rapidly growing number of types of retirement plans that small companies and self employed individuals can set up for themselves and their workers.

The rules, limits and basic pros and cons of each type are varied.

You should work with your personal professional tax advisor, as well as an experienced employee benefits consultant, if you are considering offering retirement plans for your employees and/or setting one or more plans up for yourself. 

As I constantly have to remind everyone, there is no such thing as “one size fits all” in tax and financial planning.  Everything needs to be set up based on the unique circumstances and plans of those involved.

Good luck.

Kerry Kerstetter