|
#8
| |||
| |||
| "Vince DiChiacchio" <vdichiac[at]adelphia.net> wrote - quote - > Thanks for the references. I looked at Notice 1999-59.
You're not missing anything. You clearly see that the> An example is the easiest way to explain my interpretation. > A taxpayer pays $100 into a corporation. The corporation > distributes it back to him, but the taxpayer does not reduce > basis because he has an obligation to pay back the $100. > The corporation is liquidated and the taxpayer takes a $100 > loss for his unrecovered basis. > What happened to the $100 obligation? It was paid off by > other corporate assets. The taxpayer is instructed to take > the position that the relief of his $100 obligation is not > income. > So this intricate tax shelter is another way of saying, > "Here is some income. Don't report it. And pay me fees for > this incredible loophole." > Am I missing something here? promoters and accounting firms were instructing their clients to take mutually exclusive tax positions. That is, reduce the distribution by the amount of the debt obligation in year one, but when the debt is repaid in year two, do not then take that amount into income (thereby resulting in a "one-sided timing difference"). I don't feel one bit sorry for people who entered into these transactions. Large corporations had their own tax advisors who could review the transactions (even if they could not "take home" the paper explaining the transaction. Their advisors were sophisticated enough to understand the underpinnings of the TATs. They played audit roulette and lost (unless they invested the temporary tax savings and made so much money as to more than offset the now due taxes and interest). For individuals who sold a business for a large gain and then had their advisors bring the TAT to them, I can feel a little empathy, but not much. Even with no tax knowledge, common sense would tell me that I should not be able to take a $10MM tax loss if I did not have now, or would not have in the future, a $10MM economic loss. The bad thing for the individuals is that they would not be keeping up with these developments and would not have known about the April 2002 opportunity to fess up and get out of penalties if their position was ultimately not sustained. I'll get off my soap box now. Peter C. Gatto, CPA << -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << -------------------------------------------------> |
|
#7
| |||
| |||
| Thanks for the references. I looked at Notice 1999-59. An example is the easiest way to explain my interpretation. A taxpayer pays $100 into a corporation. The corporation distributes it back to him, but the taxpayer does not reduce basis because he has an obligation to pay back the $100. The corporation is liquidated and the taxpayer takes a $100 loss for his unrecovered basis. What happened to the $100 obligation? It was paid off by other corporate assets. The taxpayer is instructed to take the position that the relief of his $100 obligation is not income. So this intricate tax shelter is another way of saying, "Here is some income. Don't report it. And pay me fees for this incredible loophole." Am I missing something here? Vince, CPA << -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << -------------------------------------------------> |
|
#6
| |||
| |||
| Dan Evans <dan[at]evans-legal.com> wrote: .... - quote - > and that later tax shelters with similar structures were
See http://www.unclefed.com/ForTaxProfs/...0/n-00-44.html.> labeled "Son of BOSS" transactions. > But don't ask me how they were supposed to work. -- Andrew G. Thomas Hobbs & Associates Chartered Accountants (SA) (o) +27-(0)21-683 0500 (f) +27-(0)21-683 0577 << -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << -------------------------------------------------> |
|
#5
| |||
| |||
| "Rich Carreiro" <rlcarr[at]animato.arlington.ma.us> wrote - quote - > Having seen IRS Announcement 2004-46 posted here, I can't
"Son of BOSS" aka "Baby BOSS" was the progeny of BOSS, "Bond> help but be intrigued. > Can anyone inform mere mortals like myself what the heck the > "Son of Boss" abusive tax shelter was and how it got its > name? and Option Sales Strategy" after the forbearer went the way of the dodo bird after IRS Announcements 1999-59 and 2000-44. There were variations, but it always came back to "basis stuffing" in a partnership; i.e., the basis was artificial and had no economic substance. ACM Partnership v. Commissioner is the case that broke this tax shelter dyke. One variation had the taxpayer (TP) simultaneously purchase call options and write offsetting call options with the same expiration date that "created" positive basis in a partnership interest once the options were transferred to the partnership. Additional amounts would normally be transferred into the partnership and the partnership would engage in investment activities. (Business purposes and all that blah, blah, blah.) TP's position was that TP's basis in the partnership was increased by the cost of the purchased call options but not reduced under §752 by the partnership's assumption of TP's obligation regarding the written offsetting call options. TP would then dispose of the partnership interest and claim a loss in the amount of the purchased call options. If you assume $10MM for both the purchase of and writing of options, TP would claim a $10MM loss. Considering the IRS's statement that the foregone tax revenue is in the billions of dollars, you can easily see that $10MM or much more was not an uncommon amount. Again, there were many "basis stuffing" variations, but the above was the one that gave rise to the original acronym. The Son of BOSS transactions merely modified the BOSS transactions to purportedly fit within the above-mentioned notices. Once the Service got into promoter files via the summons process, the various tax shelter strategies came to light and the Service began issuing tax shelter notices by the truck load. This gave rise to the April 2002 deadline for anyone involved in a "listed transaction" to fess up. The TP also did not give up their right to fight the Service on the merits of their particular transaction. If a TP did fess up they were guaranteed no penalty if they were ultimately found to not have a sustainable position. Interest, of course, would still apply. The rest, as they say, is history. Peter C. Gatto, CPA << -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << -------------------------------------------------> \\ From: taxservice[at]aol.compliance (John H. Fisher) Subject: STRONG FILING SEASON PRODUCES E-FILE RECORDS Newsgroups: misc.taxes.moderated Approved: rdadams[at]smart.net Distribution: world Precedence: first-class Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com IR-2004-65, May 10, 2004 STRONG FILING SEASON PRODUCES E-FILE RECORDS WASHINGTON - The Internal Revenue Service released statistics today from the recently completed filing season that show electronic filing reaching 60 million returns and home computer usage jumping more than 21 percent. "We saw continued strong growth in the e-filing program this year," said IRS Commissioner Mark W. Everson. "It seems safe to say that next year we will reach a milestone with half of all individual returns being processed electronically." IRS statistics released today are through April 30, which includes the flood of April 15 deadline returns. The numbers show a strong filing season in several categories: - E-file sets record. E-file reached just under 60 million, a 15.4 percent increase. That shattered the total number of electronic returns for all of last year by 7 million. - Home computer use soars. Self-prepared tax returns that were e-filed by computer jumped 21.7 percent, topping 14 million. - Tax professionals go electronic. Tax professional use of e-file jumped 15.8 percent, with 41.7 million filing electronic this year. - Free File reaches new mark. In its second year, the public-private partnership between the IRS and a consortium of tax software companies saw 3.4 million taxpayers use the free on-line filing service. That's a 22 percent increase from last year. - IRS.gov and "Where's My Refund?" usage increases. The IRS web site continued to see more use from taxpayers this year, including the "Where's My Refund?" feature. There were more than 19.2 million inquiries to the on-line service to check on refunds, another record. - Direct Deposit grows. Nearly 47 million taxpayers chose direct deposit of refunds this year, an 11 percent increase from the 2003 record. These numbers will continue to grow through the Aug. 15 extension deadline and the Oct. 15 deadline for those seeking a second extension. "This year shows a clear trend line developing with e-filing," Everson said. "The number of e-filers jumped 15 percent this year. E-file has more than doubled in size during the past five years." Everson also noted the Free File program enjoyed a successful second year. Free File, which remains available through IRS.gov, gives taxpayers free access to the benefits of online tax preparation and e-filing. "I'm gratified that Free File showed strong growth," Everson said. "This is an important program. Free File helps taxpayers in underserved and disadvantaged communities, and it's working," Everson said. Each private company sets its own eligibility requirements for the Free File program. The IRS hosts the Free File Web page, but the online tax preparation occurs on the companies' Web sites. The companies file the returns using IRS's secure e-file transmission system. Everson also praised IRS workers, tax professionals and tax volunteers for putting in long hours to help produce a strong filing season. "Their hard work and dedication gave the IRS a smooth, successful filing season," Everson said. "Jack" - John H. Fisher - TaxService[at]aol.com Philadelphia, Pa - Atlantic City, NJ - West Wildwood, NJ My Newsgroups & Boards at: http://members.aol.com/TaxService/index.html Where Ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise!= ![]() << -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << -------------------------------------------------> |
|
#4
| |||
| |||
| Rich Carreiro <rlcarr[at]animato.arlington.ma.us> wrote: - quote - > Having seen IRS Announcement 2004-46 posted here, I can't
My understanding is that the IRS attacked certain tax> help but be intrigued. > Can anyone inform mere mortals like myself what the heck the > "Son of Boss" abusive tax shelter was and how it got its > name? shelter transactions described as "bond and options sales strategy" (i.e., "BOSS") in Notice 99-59, 1999-2 C.B. 761, and that later tax shelters with similar structures were labeled "Son of BOSS" transactions. But don't ask me how they were supposed to work. *Dan Evans *Author of the Tax Protester FAQ *http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html << -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << -------------------------------------------------> |
|
#3
| |||
| |||
| Rich Carreiro wrote: - quote - > Can anyone inform mere mortals like myself what the heck the
Someone else will have to describe the mechanics of "Son of> "Son of Boss" abusive tax shelter was and how it got its > name? BOSS" though as I recall it involved some rather contrived liabilities and tax indifferent offshore entities (or maybe that was another one <grin> ). However, it was the successor to the BOSS shelter that the IRS had previously issued a notice on to say they would challenge the positions taken. Both were marketed by an international accounting firm. -- Ed Zollars, CPA Phoenix, Arizona << -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << -------------------------------------------------> |
|
#2
| |||
| |||
| Rich Carreiro wrote: - quote - > Can anyone inform mere mortals like myself what the heck the http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-ccdm/cc-2003-020.pdf> "Son of Boss" abusive tax shelter was and how it got its > name? There was an earlier tax shelter known as BOSS (Bond and Option Sales Strategy); "Son of BOSS" is a refinement thereof. Phoebe ![]() << -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << -------------------------------------------------> |
|
#1
| |||
| |||
| - quote - > From "Tax Prof Blog":
"The IRS announced today that taxpayers who invested in theinfamous "Son of Boss" tax shelter can avoid certain penalties if they come forward by June 21. The IRS estimates that over 5,000 taxpayers used the shelter to create a large, artificial loss to offset an unusual, one-time gain like the sale of a business or stock options. The typical investor evaded $10-$50 million in taxes, for total tax avoidance of more than $6 billion, not including interest and penalties." Another search revealed that the name "Son of Boss" evolved from an earlier similar shelter appropriately named "Boss". Makes sense. A detailed description of the shelter structure was not to be found. Perhaps for good reason. << -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << -------------------------------------------------> |
| | |||
| |||
| Rich Carreiro <rlcarr[at]animato.arlington.ma.us> wrote: - quote - > Having seen IRS Announcement 2004-46 posted here, I can't
Google is your friend:> help but be intrigued. > Can anyone inform mere mortals like myself what the heck the > "Son of Boss" abusive tax shelter was and how it got its > name? - quote - > In 2000, the IRS and Treasury Department shut down the
<http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4873985/> tax shelter, similar to the banned Bond and Option Sales > Strategy (BOSS). Son of Boss uses a partnership stake and > short sales of options to generate artificial tax losses > that offset an individual's legitimate income, according > to an IRS description. Because some tax consultants > continued to push the strategy, the IRS followed up in > 2003 with specific regulations against Son of Boss. -- D.F. Manno dommanno[at]netscape.net "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Benjamin Franklin) << -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << -------------------------------------------------> |
|
#-1
| |||
| |||
| Having seen IRS Announcement 2004-46 posted here, I can't help but be intrigued. Can anyone inform mere mortals like myself what the heck the "Son of Boss" abusive tax shelter was and how it got its name? -- Rich Carreiro rlcarr[at]animato.arlington.ma.us << -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << -------------------------------------------------> |