Two men have been charged in the first fraud case involving Paycheck Protection Program loans. Together, the men created fictitious employees for several businesses that were not in operation prior to the start of the COVID-19 pandemic and used this information to obtain loans totaling almost $550,000. One of the businesses had never existed at all and one was a separate business operation unrelated to either of the men. Both are charged with conspiracy to make false statements and conspiracy to commit bank fraud. One of the men posed as his brother in real estate transactions and is also charged with aggravated identity theft. (USA Today: https://bit.ly/2SCYQN0)

CPAs, get four hours of fraud CPE with our 2019 Fundamentals of Fraud Prevention and Detection On-Demand Webinar. Click here for more information.

Cher is a U.S. citizen living and working in Europe. She files her 2019 return and excludes her foreign-source income, and her AGI is below the threshold for a single taxpayer.

Even though she’s not living in the U.S., she still meets the criteria for eligibility and she will receive $1,200. There is no earned income threshold.

Subscribers to Spidell’s Federal Taxletter or Spidell’s Online Research Package can read the full article here >> https://bit.ly/ORP-Economic-Impact

Jett and Cole are divorced, and each year they alternate who claims their five-year-old son Ed on their returns. In 2018, Jett claimed Ed as a dependent.

Assuming both of their incomes are below the threshold amount, if Jett doesn’t file a 2019 return before the economic impact payment is issued, he’ll receive $1,700 based on his 2018 filing, which is the $1,200 plus the $500 for Ed. If Cole files her 2019 return, she’ll also receive $1,700.

Unanswered question: We don’t know if the IRS will deny the dependent credit to Cole if Jett received the refund for that dependent already.

Subscribers to Spidell’s Federal Taxletter or Spidell’s Online Research Package can read the full article here >> https://bit.ly/ORP-Economic-Impact

A North Carolina minister of a faith and finances ministry was sentenced to five years in prison for failing to pay taxes and filing false tax returns. He was also involved in a check-cashing scheme. He claimed business expenses of $227,700 for clothing purchases, and $140,000 for meals and entertainment expenses at various restaurants and movie theaters. He purchased three BMWs, two Ferraris, a Maserati, a Land Rover, and a Regal 2500 boat under the names of the companies he owned. In 2012, his ministry purchased a $1.5 million condominium to be used as a parsonage. (U.S. v. Coontz (April 17, 2020) U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, Case No. 19-4167)

CPAs, get four hours of fraud CPE with our 2019 Fundamentals of Fraud Prevention and Detection On-Demand Webinar. Click here for more information.

Alexei and Marla are married, but they file separately. Alexei’s AGI is $60,000 and Marla’s AGI is $85,000. Using the threshold for single taxpayers, Alexei will get an economic impact payment of $1,200. Marla will receive $700 ($1,200 − ($85,000 − $75,000) × 0.05).

Practice Pointer

If they could agree and file a joint return, they could get a $2,400 payment. Maybe they could split the difference.

Subscribers to Spidell’s Federal Taxletter or Spidell’s Online Research Package can read the full article here >> https://bit.ly/ORP-Economic-Impact

Tran and Nancy filed jointly in 2018 when they had AGI of $150,000. In 2019, their AGI increases to $175,000, and they also had a baby.

Their economic impact payment will be based on the 2018 return, and they would qualify for $2,400 if they do not file their 2019 return before the economic impact payment is disbursed.

If they do file the 2019 return, they should get an economic impact payment of $1,150 ($2,400 − ($175,000 − $150,000) × 0.05). If the IRS doesn’t process the 2019 return prior to sending the payment, they’ll be eligible for the $500 dependent payment when they file their 2020 return if their AGI is below the threshold.

However, in 2020, due to a large capital gain in January, their AGI is $250,000. They are not entitled to any economic impact payment, so there would be no adjustment, and as the law is currently written they will not be required to pay back the excess payment.

Unanswered question: We don’t know the cut-off date when the IRS might process the 2019 return, causing it to supersede the 2018 return.

Subscribers to Spidell’s Federal Taxletter or Spidell’s Online Research Package can read the full article here >> https://bit.ly/ORP-Economic-Impact

Luka is 72 years old and single. She receives Social Security and income of over $100,000. She has not filed her 2018 or 2019 tax returns. However, because she receives Social Security, she will receive a $1,200 payment.

Unanswered question: At this point, the IRS may not require a refund of overpaid economic impact payments, but will this law be changed?

Subscribers to Spidell’s Federal Taxletter or Spidell’s Online Research Package can read the full article here >> https://bit.ly/ORP-Economic-Impact

Laura and Cindy got married in 2018, and they filed their 2018 return jointly. But then they divorced in 2019, and neither one has filed their 2019 return. On their 2018 return, their refund was deposited into Cindy’s bank account (only her name is on the account).

Unless Laura files a 2019 return with her own bank account information, she won’t receive a separate economic impact payment, and the joint economic impact payment is going to go into Cindy’s account. Or, Laura could use the IRS portal to provide her bank information.

Unanswered question: Will the IRS send a check to Laura if she doesn’t file a return? If the IRS sends the whole amount to Cindy, can Laura reconcile the credit on her 2020 return and claim her half of the credit on the 2020 return, or will her only recourse be to get her half of the payment from Cindy?

Subscribers to Spidell’s Federal Taxletter or Spidell’s Online Research Package can read the full article here >> https://bit.ly/ORP-Economic-Impact

Omar is single and claims his 80-year-old mother as a dependent on his 2019 return. His AGI is $87,000. His mother lives in a nursing home, and in 2019 she had $11,000 of Social Security benefit income.

Omar will receive an economic impact payment of $600. His payment was reduced due to his income in excess of the threshold amount of $75,000 for single (the payment is decreased $5 for every $100 over the threshold).

Further, he doesn’t get a payment for claiming his mother as a dependent because she’s older than age 17. Taxpayers without a filing requirement receive their economic impact payment based on their current Form 1099-SSA or Form 1099-RRB. But Omar’s mother is not eligible to receive an economic impact payment because she is Omar’s dependent.

Unanswered question: However, we don’t know if the IRS will cross check the  Social Security Administration’s Social Security numbers with returns on file to see if individuals were claimed as a dependent before sending the checks to SSA and Railroad Retirement Act (RRA) recipients. If the IRS sends a check to Omar’s mother, we don’t know whether they will ask for it to be returned.

Subscribers to Spidell’s Federal Taxletter or Spidell’s Online Research Package can read the full article here >> https://bit.ly/ORP-Economic-Impact

Javier and Helen file a joint return in 2019 with AGI of less than $150,000. They claim their son Parker as a dependent; he is 20 years old and a full-time college student.

Javier and Helen are eligible for an economic impact payment of $2,400. They will not receive the $500 payment for Parker because he is not a qualifying child under age 17. Also, Parker is not eligible to receive an economic impact payment because he was claimed as a dependent on his parents’ return. This is the case even if he files a return showing wages from a part-time job.

Subscribers to Spidell’s Federal Taxletter or Spidell’s Online Research Package can read the full article here >> https://bit.ly/ORP-Economic-Impact

In contrast to last week’s Fraud Friday post, another prisoner requested to serve out the remainder of his sentence at home due to a serious heart condition and increased susceptibility to COVID-19 in prison. However, this taxpayer was denied. His health was already considered when he was sentenced to a federal medical facility rather than a general population facility. The taxpayer is serving 18 months for bank theft from a $3 million loan he obtained by lying on the application and then spending the funds on hockey tickets, jewelry, and college tuition. (U.S. v. Korn (April 9, 2020) U.S. Dist. Ct., WD NY, Case No. 15-CR-81S; 11-CR-384S)

CPAs, get four hours of fraud CPE with our 2019 Fundamentals of Fraud Prevention and Detection On-Demand Webinar. Click here for more information.

A man serving a 70-month sentence for tax fraud has been released into home confinement for the duration of his sentence after testing positive for COVID-19 in prison. Mr. Zukerman pulled out all the stops to avoid paying tax on a $110 million asset sale: lying to his accountant, providing false documents which caused his household employees and family members to file incorrect returns, and making false statements to the IRS. Mr. Zukerman still has a year left of his sentence, but considering his age and health issues, the court agreed to home confinement for the duration. (U.S. v. Zukerman (April 3, 2020) U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D. New York, Case No. 16 Cr. 194 (AT))

CPAs, get four hours of fraud CPE with our 2019 Fundamentals of Fraud Prevention and Detection On-Demand Webinar. Click here for more information.

Even before the CARES Act was signed, taxpayers were excited about applying for a loan that could be partially forgiven with no COD and no “personal guarantee”. At the same time, banks were rounding up their best customers and preparing to pop them into the pipeline as soon as the program opened up.

Now, everyone is complaining that their big name bank won’t process a loan for them, even though they’ve been a customer for 5/10/25 years. Or that their bank isn’t doing these loans, and they can find a bank to take them if they weren’t already customers.

The SBA has a site that your clients can use to find a lender to help them with these loans. We recommend that you have the client go to https://www.sba.gov/paycheckprotection/find. This page will give them a list of lenders in their area. We recommend that they contact the smaller banks on that list to request assistance with these loans.

Small, local banks are eager for the business. Of course, their first priority in putting in the effort is to get new customers that will increase their asset base. As a result, they may require borrowers to open accounts with them, or move their banking to that institution and they may require a minimum number of employees (one bank we talked to won’t accept a business with fewer than 20 employees.

A taxpayer who was a Florida psychiatrist was sentenced to 51 months in prison with a special enhancement for using a minor in his scheme. The taxpayer used multiple family members as nominees to hide his income, and he used his 16-year-old son on at least one occasion to move $20,000 via a cashier’s check. The taxpayer also had his son meet with an accountant to prepare tax returns showing income going to the son from one of the taxpayer’s companies. The court noted that it doesn’t matter whether his son understood the true purpose of his actions. (U.S. v. Kranz (March 12, 2020) U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, Case No. 19-11891)

CPAs, get four hours of fraud CPE with our 2019 Fundamentals of Fraud Prevention and Detection On-Demand Webinar. Click here for more information.

A Los Angeles tax preparer and former FTB employee is serving a little over five years for preparing tax returns that fraudulently claimed OID withholdings. Over six years, these returns claimed $5.5 million in refunds; the IRS paid out about $3 million before catching on to the scheme. Considering that the statutory maximum for the conviction was 78 years in prison, five years doesn’t seem all that bad.

CPAs, get four hours of fraud CPE with our 2019 Fundamentals of Fraud Prevention and Detection On-Demand Webinar. Click here for more information.

The Tax Court warned a taxpayer that his frivolous argument would not be tolerated, he naturally continued to argue that same point throughout his trial. The stance in question was the taxpayer’s insistence that his independent contractor commissions were loans and so they were not taxable income. But there was no evidence of a repayment plan, nor did he make any “repayments” and he also conveniently forgot to file a return for the year at issue. He persisted in arguing the income was not taxable, and lost, plus the Tax Court handed down a $1,000 frivolous argument penalty.

CPAs, get four hours of fraud CPE with our 2019 Fundamentals of Fraud Prevention and Detection On-Demand Webinar. Click here for more information.

A mother–daughter duo are facing 15 years in prison each for using stolen Social Security numbers to file 84 returns that netted them just under $450,000 in fraudulent refunds. The daughter tried to argue that she couldn’t have been involved because she was only 20 years old at the time of the fraud, but there was ample evidence that she had not only recruited others into the scheme, she had also acted as the leader and organizer of the operation. (U.S. v. Nunez (December 4, 2019) U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, Case Nos. 2-16-cr-00148-002 and 001)

CPAs, get four hours of fraud CPE with our 2019 Fundamentals of Fraud Prevention and Detection On-Demand Webinar. Click here for more information.

In Appeal of Powe, a taxpayer was liable for the 2.5% early distribution additional tax for a retirement account withdrawal she took before she was age 59½. The taxpayer used the FTB’s CalFile software to prepare her California return, and she argued that by assessing the additional tax, she was being penalized for using CalFile. The FTB countered that taxpayers who owe tax on an early distribution or other retirement plan cannot use CalFile, and the taxpayer didn’t enter her 1099-R information correctly. Because the taxpayer technically shouldn’t have used CalFile and didn’t follow the instructions, she was liable for the additional tax. (2019-OTA-363)

A taxpayer who already had a criminal prosecution for tax evasion was slapped with additional tax of $116,828 and penalties of $87,620 for unreported income from two nail salon businesses. The taxpayer initially argued the sums deposited in various bank accounts were not taxable transactions because the funds represented gifts or loans from family members and friends. He also structured his deposits so he did not have to sign the declaration required when a deposit exceeds the daily limit of $10,000. After the taxpayer made deposits of $5,000 each at six different Union Bank branches over three days, the bank filed a Suspicious Activity Report. (Le v. Comm., TCM 2020-27)

CPAs, get four hours of fraud CPE with our 2019 Fundamentals of Fraud Prevention and Detection On-Demand Webinar. Click here for more information.

For those partnerships that have not elected out of the CPAR regime, amended returns can no longer be filed to report a change to a partnership item starting with the 2018 tax year.

However, the amended return prohibition does not prevent a partnership from filing a superseded original return, which is essentially an amended return filed prior to the return due date (including extensions, but only if an extension was requested).

So you should consider filing an extension for all partnership (and LLC filing as partnership) returns so that you can file a superseded return if a late K-1 arrives or there is another change for 2019 that must be made.

You may file the extension even if you have already filed the return. You would want to alert K-1 recipients that there may be a corrected K-1 so they can extend their own returns.

Be sure to file the superseded return on or before the extended due date of the return.

The IRS is continuing to update forms and procedures for amendments or administrative adjustments for partnership returns. We will have complete details on how to amend or change a partnership return at our 2020 Post-Tax Season Update and Review Seminar/Webinar in May. Sign up for just $279 $249.* Click here for dates and a full list of topics.

The woman behind the downfall of Al Capone: Mabel Walker Willebrandt. As Assistant Attorney General, she noticed that mobsters lived large but never filed tax returns and therefore could be convicted of tax evasion. After she went after a South Carolina bootlegger and the Supreme Court upheld the conviction, the IRS focused on Capone and ultimately convicted him of three counts of tax evasion. Willebrandt studied law in Los Angeles, where she argued two thousand cases as the city’s first female public defender. In 1921, she was the second woman to be appointed to Assistant Attorney General and the first to head the Tax Division.

CPAs, get four hours of fraud CPE with our 2019 Fundamentals of Fraud Prevention and Detection On-Demand Webinar. Click here for more information.

Beginning July 1, 2020, tax preparers applying for a new CTEC registration must submit fingerprint images and submit to a background check. Note: This requirement does not apply to CTEC-registered tax preparers (CRTPs) who have already registered with CTEC prior to July 1, 2020, unless a CRTP allows their CTEC registration to expire or has their registration revoked. To re-register with CTEC, they not only will be required to retake the 60-hour qualifying education course, but they will also be required to go through a background check and submit fingerprint images to CTEC, even if they had done so in the past.

A disbarred attorney who was a former tax fraud litigation specialist was liable for a §6663 fraud penalty of almost $2 million for failing to report income. The income stemmed from representing clients who were victims of clergy abuse, and when the case settled, the taxpayer placed all of the settlement funds into his personal UBS account, comingling client funds with his own. He also used interest earned on the funds for personal purposes, and did not report the 60% fee for his services representing these clients. (Isaacson v. Comm., TCM 2020-17)

CPAs, get four hours of fraud CPE with our 2019 Fundamentals of Fraud Prevention and Detection On-Demand Webinar. Click here for more information.

Leonid Teyf, Russian citizen living in Raleigh, NC, was charged with money laundering, bribing a public official, planning a murder-for-hire and possessing a firearm with an obliterated serial number, and immigration fraud. Teyf received kickbacks of Russian government funds that were paid in cash and amounted to more than $150 million over an approximate two-year span, with some of the funds being held in U.S. accounts. The murder-for-hire plot was directed at Teyf’s wife’s ex-lover; he paid a U.S. government employee to have the man deported and then paid an undercover FBI agent $25,000 to kill the man before the end of 2018. Needless to say, Teyf also filed false income tax returns and failed to file an FBAR. (U.S. v. Teyf (February 6, 2020) U.S. District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina, Case No. 5:18-CR-00452-FL-1)

CPAs, get four hours of fraud CPE with our 2019 Fundamentals of Fraud Prevention and Detection On-Demand Webinar. Click here for more information.

Taxpayers are disproportionately afraid of the IRS, and this is because very few taxpayers actually end up in jail for tax evasion. IRS resources are dwindling, which means fewer prosecutions. For example, in 2015, the IRS indicted 1,330 taxpayers for legal-source tax evasion, and by 2018 that number dropped to 636. That’s out of around 150 million taxpayers. With funding dropping and the number of revenue agents decreasing, we can expect this trend to continue. However, the IRS does know what to look for to make the most out of the resources they do have: concealed income (like from a side hustle), misreported credits and deductions, and unfiled returns will get their attention every time. www.accountingtoday.com/list/ten-major-trends-in-irs-tax-audits

CPAs, get four hours of fraud CPE with our 2019 Fundamentals of Fraud Prevention and Detection On-Demand Webinar. Click here for more information.

A former U.S. Congresswoman lost a recent appeal of her 2017 conviction for funneling money through a fraudulent education charity for her own use. Between 2012 and 2016, Corrine Brown and two co-conspirators used more than $800,000 in donations to fund lavish lifestyles, rather than for the donations’ purpose of funding One Door for Education, which actually was not a registered charity. Brown also failed to report the income on her tax return and on congressional disclosure forms. (U.S. v. Brown (January 9, 2020) U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, Case No. 17-15470)

CPAs, get four hours of fraud CPE with our 2019 Fundamentals of Fraud Prevention and Detection On-Demand Webinar. Click here for more information.

A California solar company got burned for engaging in a $1 billion Ponzi scheme that fooled investors like Berkshire Hathaway and Sherwin-Williams. The company built mobile solar generators, which investors purchased at a reduced cost. The company would then lease the generators to end-users to pay down the remainder and any profit would go to the investors. Instead, the generators weren’t leased, investors were paid from money coming in from new investors, and the company owners were living large off the profits. A former employee tipped off federal authorities, and the owners have pleaded guilty to money laundering and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. (https://www.justice.gov/usao-edca/pr/top-executives-plead-guilty-participating-billion-dollar-ponzi-scheme-biggest-criminal)

CPAs, get four hours of fraud CPE with our 2019 Fundamentals of Fraud Prevention and Detection On-Demand Webinar. Click here for more information.

The FTB and CTEC have begun a Ghost Preparer pilot program. “Ghost Preparers” are tax preparers who fail to provide their PTIN or otherwise failed to identify themselves on tax returns they prepared for compensation.

The Ghost Preparer pilot program includes two new letters, FTB 906A — Tax Preparer Verification, and FTB 906B — Request for Tax Preparer Information. Both letters were created to help identify ghost preparers by requesting the tax preparer’s identifying information. The FTB mailed the FTB 906A letters to tax preparers during the week of November 18, 2019. The response or lack of response received from the tax preparer after 30 days will allow staff to determine who will receive the FTB 906B letter. FTB 906B letters will be mailed to taxpayers in December 2019 and January 2020.

Click here to report unregistered tax preparers and ghost preparers. All complaints go directly to our CTEC staff. CTEC and the FTB will not share your identity and also cannot provide updates about the case due to privacy and disclosure laws.

This month the FTB is sending demand letters to taxpayers who either failed to file or filed an incomplete Form 3840, California Like-Kind Exchanges, in 2016.

If taxpayers do not respond to the demand letter within 30 days, the FTB may open an audit for the tax year. If the audit results in a Notice of Proposed Assessment for the California like-kind exchange, a 25% penalty of the computed tax for the failure to provide information upon legal demand may be imposed (R&TC §19133). Don’t procrastinate.

Beginning on January 1, 2020, the FTB will initiate the Administrative Dissolution/Cancelation of qualified entities that have been suspended by the FTB for 60 or more consecutive months. If a qualified entity is still engaging in a business activity or has assets in the business name and receives the Intent Notice, the qualified entity has 60 days to provide the FTB with a written objection to the pending Administrative Dissolution/Cancelation. If your client wants to be done with the entity, this will be a great way for people who formed but never did business — or went out of business years ago — to get the corporation or LLC wiped off the books.

Sunday, December 01, 2019

By: California Taxletter Staff

Editorial: They realize the positive approach is the wrong approach.

Sunday, December 01, 2019

By: Lynn Freer, EA