The Adventures of Two Men Who . . .

Ralph resolved to write a story about the adventures of two men who travel across the country to patronize Nevada brothels, where such establishments are—ahem—legal. In early 1993, Ralph drafted an 18,000-word basic storyline. He submitted his draft along with Lightning at Dawn and Boys and Girls Together in June for copyright protection. Ostensibly to make the story realistic and to develop characters with fidelity, Ralph visited numerous legal brothels in Nevada as a “customer.”

I can hear cogs in your mind working. If you’re like most, you’re saying, “Never mind telling me about deducting traveling expenses for going to Vietnam to obtain motorcycle pictures for a picture book.” A more vital question is: could Ralph deduct those costs? Well, we’ll see.

Ralph wrote in his journal. Note that, to Ralph’s credit, he kept a non-financial contemporaneous record. He wrote about his personal experiences at these—excuse me—whorehouses. He chronicled which bordellos he visited, the dates and even, sometimes, the hours.

Ralph’s notes described prostitutes he met and the amounts of lucre he paid. For each journal entry, Ralph wrote about these visits, about what happens at cathouses (Like people don’t know?). For instance, Ralph described selecting his strumpets, the “house rules,” negotiating prices for a gal’s time, their discourse—yes, discourse, not some other course—and the ladies’ clothing. He included personal information on his courtesans, including age, physical characteristics, place of residence, religion, ethnicity, education, and names and ages of offspring.

Ralph’s journal indicates that, at some point during said encounters, he told the demimonde he was writing a book about Nevada’s bordellos. He wanted to use them as characters.

The journal shows that during 1993 Ralph spent about three days a month—except in February, May, and December—meeting prostitutes at brothels. Using materials so gathered, he produced Searchlight, Nevada.

Anxious to sell his work, Ralph consulted the 1993 Writer’s Market. There he read about Northwest Publishing, Inc. Northwest’s entry stated that it published hardcover, trade paperback, and mass market originals and reprints, between forty and fifty titles a year on seven to eight hundred queries and five hundred manuscripts a year. Some eighty-five percent of said manuscripts came from first-time authors and ninety-five percent came from unagented writers. Northwest said that it paid a ten to fifteen percent royalty on retail price, publishing books four months after acceptance of submitted manuscripts.

Venting Frustration by Turning the Tables

You know, there’s a plethora of wisecracks about tax auditors. For instance, one says that the Postal Service just recalled its newest stamps because they picture famous IRS agents on them. People couldn't figure out on which side to spit. Another witticism asks, “What do you call twenty-five IRS agents buried up to their chins in cement?”

“Inadequate cement.”

Venting frustration through humor makes sense. An additional way to vent is to turn the tables on a tax auditor with solid documentation of your hard work and preparation, enabling you to claim a few of the tax perks for self-employed persons. Of course, the ruling administration always claims that the IRS is simply liberating people—primarily, the working middle and lower classes—from fiscal burden.

A tax case involving a writing activity played out in Tax Court in Arlington, Virginia, the case of Ralph Louis Vitale, Jr.1 Let’s look at it relative to preparation and expertise. I don’t know if Mr. Vitale goes by Ralph or Louis or some other appellation among friends and acquaintances, but I’d like to call him Ralph. It seems such an improbable name for what his writing focused on after retirement. To me his last name, Vitale—reminding me of “vital” or “vitality”—seems more apropos. Anyway, the guy had verve, although some might say he was just libidinous. You be the judge.

Let me give you the facts in the next posting.

1 Ralph Louis Vitale, Jr. v. Commissioner, TC Memo. 1999-131 affirmed by unpublished opinion of the Fourth Circuit at 217 F.3d 843.

Preparation and expertise.

An old story has a businessman boasting to his competitor, “Tax day is coming next week. Yep, good old April 15th—that particular day used to scare the pants off me. But you know what? I don't pay the tax man anymore. KPMG did my return this year. I'm getting a refund of $4 billion.”


Preparation and expertise. Let’s get a little more know-how under our belts, and not the type that the businessman boasts about in the gag. Too many taxpayers rely on complicated schemes without real substance and pay large fees to promoters to get tax relief when their own honest effort could give them the breaks they seek. Relevant income tax regulations say in their technical, cumbersome, and boring way that:

Preparation for the activity [in our case, an expression activity,] by extensive study of its accepted business, economic, and scientific practices, or consultation with those who are expert therein, may indicate that the taxpayer has a profit motive where the taxpayer carries on the activity in accordance with such practices.

In other words, hit the books and ask the experts. Study a range of experts, covering all aspects of your niche in expression. Implement what the sages say it takes to succeed in your expressive nook. If an expert advised you to try something and it didn’t work, do more study and consulting and try another sage’s idea or one of your own. Make things happen.

Is My Expression Activity a Trade or Business?

Guess what? Federal income tax law and related regulations don’t define what “trade or business” means. Surprised? You shouldn’t be. I told you there was plenty of mystery in taxation. Ambiguity, it seems, is intentional. Some wit compared an income tax return to a girdle. You put the wrong figure in it and you can get pinched.


Tests to check if a trade or business exists stem mostly from court opinions (primarily from the United States Tax Court or from appeals made from those decisions ). Courts have developed two key definitional elements, one for “profit motive” and the other relating to the “scope” of the activities.

Finding out the motive is a key element in figuring out a mystery, right? A trade or business doesn’t exist unless a taxpayer “enters into and carries on” an activity with a good faith intention to make a profit or in the belief that a profit can be made from the activity. Money is the motive—bottom-line profit. That means you have cash left after all expenses are paid. Faith that an activity will generate a profit doesn’t need to be reasonable. However, simply hoping and wishing it will be profitable absent specific plans suggests that you lack good faith.

Remember the cold-fusion fiasco? The notion that oodles of cheap atomic energy could be produced cheaply and “coldly”? Too good to be true, right? Well, one Burnet Outten, Jr.—I’ll call him Bernie—representing himself without an attorney, took his tax controversy concerning cold fusion and graces relative to it to the U.S. Tax Court in 1984.

Bernie seemed a bit “unusual.”

He didn’t file federal tax returns from 1972 to 1979, for one thing. He had an interest in Western Metal Products Company (Western), a manufacturing concern. Besides manufacturing, according to Bernie, Western conducted atomic energy research. Yet Bernie was the only company participant in such research. Ostensibly, an experiment in 1951 resulted in nuclear fusion. Bernie, however, didn’t “realize” that nuclear fusion had occurred in 1951 until 1961, while doing further research. Bernie purported that Western repeated the 1951 experiment in 1971. Neither Bernie nor Western ever patented any such process.

Bernie believed that the world was created by cold fusion. He seized upon the alleged religious significance of the creation of the world by such process. His legal briefs contained extensive arguments about scientific experimentation and religious freedom. They explored history from Thomas Jefferson to Ronald Reagan and from the Bible to reports of the Atomic Energy Commission.

Over the years Bernie often attempted to inform scientists and government officials of his miraculous “discovery,” asserting that it was never duplicated. Some commentators expressed polite interest; others found it . . . well, a joke.

Neither Bernie nor Western received any filthy lucre, let alone profit, from said nuclear fusion “process.” No income relative to it was reported. Western’s income, if any, came only from manufacturing. Nonetheless, by 1978 Western established a $50,000,000 book value for this fusion “process.” On 1977 through 1979 tax returns, Western listed net operating losses of $100,000, $10,000,000, and $5,000,000, respectively. The preparer of the return described these losses as a “write-off of capitalized research work.” Bernie concluded that a grace was justified because government officials ignored him and his “discovery.” It was strange. Sort of like the President of the United States releasing his tax returns which listed the economy as a liability and write-off.

During the audit Bernie listed various actual expenditures—small amounts—that he made during the years involved. He gave the list to IRS. These included mostly expenses for his home office and for his move. IRS attorneys acknowledged that the expenditures were made by Bernie, but scoffed at them falling within any acceptable grace. The Tax Court concurred, saying that Western faced “a multitude of obstacles.” The court focused on just one: profit motive. It said that no income was generated nor was any likely to ever be generated from the fusion activity.

Well, let’s face it. Bernie’s circumstances were “singular.” His mistakes cost him more taxes. He was like a conservative president deducting right-to-lifers as dependency exemptions, accepting his election as a gift, and trying to write off the losses in Iraq. Nonetheless, something can be learned from Bernie’s case. As a man of religion once said, “If you make a mistake, all is not lost. You can always be used as a bad example.” So let’s use Bernie’s case as a bad example. It can teach us what not to do. I’ll summarize some points below and expand upon them in chapters to follow.

First and foremost, figure out how to make money from your expression activity. Have a profit. Bernie didn’t make any money from cold fusion. Make a written plan setting forth how you plan to make a profit from your expression activity. Follow it. If it doesn’t make money, change your plan so you think it will after the change. Keep following the plan and revamping until you make money or decide you can’t make money. If it comes to that, your expression activity becomes increasingly difficult to sell as a trade or business. Eventually, it becomes almost impossible to convince the cynics at IRS.

Second, keep complete and accurate records, both of a financial nature (you know, dollars and cents, checkbooks, receipts, debits and credits, etc.) and non-financial records (like submission databases, contracts, business plans, correspondence with agents, diaries or journals, etc.). From the opinion of the Tax Court in Outten v. Commissioner, it doesn’t appear that Bernie kept very good records of his activities, does it?

Make certain that your expression activity has substance. Don’t be naïve like Bernie was by boasting it hadn’t been duplicated when duplication was the very thing that may have given it some scientific credence. Know the ins and outs of your activity and know how to communicate them.

Another thing; don’t try to hide your expression activity results for tax purposes within some other, perhaps more viable enterprise on your tax return. For instance, it looks as if Bernie tried to make his cold fusion activity transparent by burying it in the Western partnership operations. If you write fiction part time and work as a lawyer most of the time, don’t bury the profit-and-loss statement of your fiction-writing activity within the profit-and-loss of your law practice. Doing so makes you look like a cheat and a ditz. Don’t do it. It’s not savvy. They are separate activities, for pity’s sake.

To be or not to be; that’s the question. To be a trade or business there has to be enough business activity and profit objective. Get them and you’re home free. Such are measured objectively . . . well, that’s what the laws and courts say, anyway. Tax shelters, for example, often have neither sufficient business activity nor profit objective. Many therefore receive no graces. To be certain, a trade or business can exist with no profits in the early years (and sometimes none are earned for many years and yet a court approves), provided there’s a prospective profit sufficient to cover the losses. You don’t have to expect that profits from your expression activity will come immediately or within a short time, but your aim to profit must be genuine. If challenged, you have to be able to persuade the IRS or a court. If you’ve stacked up $100,000 or more of losses over multiple years, you have to be able to convince the IRS (and if not the IRS, then a judge) that your expression activity will earn enough not only to make an annual profit but to recoup your prior losses.

Blood From A Turnip

Our prospective Vietnam traveler, Doug, who was mentioned in prior postings, works as an administrator for wages (“W-2” income ). His employer pays him what’s left over after withholding federal employment and withholding taxes, among other amounts. Law requires his employer to withhold and pay over taxes on behalf of Doug. Almost everyone is acquainted with working for wages and has complained about withholdings. It’s not that the government doesn’t trust us, but it’s a pay-as-you-go system. And of course, they don’t trust you.


So Doug has income. The critical question now, though, is whether Doug’s prospective costs in traveling to Vietnam to get pictures to use in a potential picture book relate to activities that generate his wages. The answer is no, the two activities don’t relate. At most his wage income facilitates Doug’s going, but that’s all. There’s no link between his administrative job and his potential trip to gather photographs. Any income related to a picture book is only speculative.

On the other hand, suppose Doug has previously written other things and sold them or won prize money for his writing. Maybe he uses those revenues to fund his trip. Now we begin to see a closer connection. Maybe Doug pitches his picture book idea to an agent or editor and he gets positive feedback, and he has a contract, implied or otherwise. His writing is an activity, separate and apart from administrating for an employer, and has a closer connection to his prospective picture book-making activity. So now, assuming Doug finances his trip to Vietnam from revenues from his writing activities, is he home free in deducting those expenses?

One of the IRS auditors who sent many taxpayers my way to appeal his extreme exactions (and extractions) of more tax had a morbid sense of humor. He’d say, “Invariably my taxpayer will pick the thing up and turn it over. You know, trying to figure it out. It looks sort of like a misshapen hourglass, don’t you think? And instead of sand it has that dark-red, almost purple, viscous fluid in it. The thing just sits there on my desk, across from me and close to them, while I go through their bank statements, receipts, and canceled checks. Taxpayers become bored. ‘What’s this?’ they eventually say, picking it up.”

“And what do you tell them?”

“Blood from a turnip.”

As you can imagine, timid taxpayers don’t laugh at such morbidity. Nevertheless, those engaged in expressive activities like you need to know that hidden traps can humor sinister auditors when all you want to do is to deduct the costs of creating a book design or a picture book trip.

Grace? No, not that girl!

Faced with the immensity of the IRC --- the Internal Revenue Code---, it’s no wonder that tax consulting and preparation businesses thrive. Most productive people, especially those in business for themselves, rely on CPAs, enrolled agents, public accountants, attorneys, and other professional tax preparation businesses and firms (and some not-so-professional). Everybody knows what H&R Block and J.K. Harris firms do. Many have relied on firms like KPMG, perhaps to their everlasting chagrin.


The U.S. Legislature and the Administration, no matter what party runs the government, promise tax simplification. Without equivocating, they have “simplified” income taxes and related forms beyond understanding . . . especially for those unwilling or unable to spend time and attention—significant time and considerable attention. Where do you fit in relative to this scheme? Let me give some scope to Doug’s quandary—or yours. Our tax system is premised upon a simple notion: income. All income, from whatever source derived, is taxable (IRC §61 ). If you find money hidden in the workings of the old piano you plunked on as a girl when you visited Aunt Betty and that she bequeathed to you, such money is income to you. Not only is the money in the piano income, but so is the value of the piano. And if you trade your knowledge of graphic design to a friend, promising to help with a brochure in exchange for him moving your inherited piano, guess what? You’ve got it. The value of the exchange is income . . . to you and him. It’s the old cliché; they’ve got you coming and going.

“Whoa,” I hear you saying, “that doesn’t sound right. I don’t think my folks paid any tax when they inherited that money from Gramps.”

Well, that’s where “grace” comes into it—not your old girlfriend, Grace, but grace, the disposition to be generous or helpful; goodwill. No matter who’s running the government, they want to be seen as generous and helpful. To be seen that way, but not necessarily to be so, that is. So when there’s a hurricane and consequent flooding, elected officials wander out hoping to be seen as bighearted and taking control. (The judiciary is a little different; they want to be perceived as erudite, fair and just.) In any event, the legislature grants some generosities to be helpful with the tax system and the administration also puts its stamp on them, grudgingly or not. It’s often nothing more than a sophisticated exercise in social engineering. Grace is often granted to the rich and powerful, a special interest group, or to some “special” situation. It all must have some semblance of equity and fairness.

All income is taxable, but by grace allowances are made. One grace eliminates the value of that inherited piano from taxation. Freelancers like Doug or you or me have lots to consider. First, do we have any income? If not, it’s moot; it is, after all, an income tax. We don’t need graces with no income. But if we have income, it’s important to consider its source. Why? Well, the graces generally relate back to the source of the income. That piano’s value is not taxable because lawmakers decided inheritances wouldn’t be taxed.

How about the money hidden in that piano? What does its taxation depend upon? I hope you’re saying, “Whether or not the legislature granted a grace.” Well, in this case there is no grace. The windfall is taxable.

Dizziness, Nausea, Regurgitation, and Loss of Consciousness

The novice, new to a sustained expression activity, is reminiscent of the neophyte writer who enters an IRS taxpayer service site to get help with a federal tax question. In the foyer she sees a small sign: “Tax Help.” Above it is a much larger poster with myriads of arrows pointing in every conceivable direction. However, there’s no clue where any of the arrows go. Two other separate arrows on separate signs are clearly marked: “Audits” and “Collections.” Clearly they don’t involve “Tax Help” and also don’t point where anyone wants to go.


In this blog, I’ll make it clear where the crucial arrows go and how best to avoid or prepare for ones clearly labeled pointing toward audits and collections.

Now, a crucial question for you: do you have a business plan for your expression activity? If you want results, you must plan. A plan allows you to look ahead, allocate your wherewithal, concentrate on key points, and prepare for problems and opportunities. Planning is vital for operating a business, whether you’re just starting up, getting a new loan, or making or soliciting a new investment. Plans facilitate optimal growth and development.

If, at this stage, you’re still trying to figure out if you’re a writer, if you’re still just focused on that first novella, a third sculpture, or perhaps only your second book design, then by all means now is possibly not the time to read this book. On the other hand, if you begin to see the glimmer of possibilities of succeeding as an artisan of expression and getting significant tax benefits as you start up, then stay tuned.

Some wit coined a term, intaxication, used to describe the stupefaction caused by the Internal Revenue Code (or IRC, as it’s known in the profession—otherwise referred to by some snooty attorneys who look down on it as Title 26 of the United States Code ).

In the Fall of 2005, I worked every day with the IRC at my side—my version published in 2004 contained 9,390 pages—and five volumes of similarly sized Treasury Regulations, necessary to explain the IRC. That’s over 54,000 pages alone, none of it what could be described with a straight face as a “good read.” Not only that, but the text in the IRC volume was fifty-fifty size-eight and size-six fonts.


Immediately across the hall from my office resided a vast library of books containing further explications, opinions, and tangential laws related to the IRC, bless its little (and I mean tiny) heart.

A friend told me when she was small and her mom took her to the town library, she dreamed of reading every single book in it. Only the most sick-of-soul person dreams of reading all the volumes in that tax library situated across from my former office. Such would result in inebriant effects: dizziness, nausea, regurgitation, and loss of consciousness. I confess I’ve suffered the effects myself.

Sticking With It

Most people read a mystery for the intrigue, to find out who did it and to figure things out as they go. It certainly doesn’t hurt if the mystery is masterfully written, with an elegance of expression, and is entertaining. In any case, readers don’t want the answers to a mystery all up front or there’s little reason to keep reading.


People enjoy art for similar reasons. The art they afford for themselves is acquired to enjoy its subtleties over the long haul. If finding out whether your expression activity can be less taxing isn’t mystery enough for you, doesn’t have adequate subtlety, and the knack of the telling isn’t captivating enough for you, please don’t stick with me. You’ll possibly be disappointed if you read on under those circumstances. Also, if you’re experienced in the business of expression, already making scads of money and are well established and skilled, maybe this advice isn’t for you either. (However, maybe you’ll enjoy comparing what you’ve done with what I suggest and pick up some pointers, too.) In any event, if you decide not to read it, maybe you know somebody on the cusp of great things that could benefit from it. Please pass it along.

On the other hand, after you’ve read all the postings, considered all the facts and circumstances and the applicable law in your situation, you’ll be able to figure things out. You’ll know that a lot of hard work is involved in any business of expression and it’ll make you a better manager and, perhaps, a better artisan. I’m telling you honestly, it’ll require patience and work, maybe both in the extreme. And if you don’t have the patience for it and aren’t committed to it, you possibly don’t have what it takes to succeed as a craftsman of expression anyway. Maybe this would be a waste of your time.

Don’t be naïve like the anxious taxpayer who was visited by a revenue agent. The agent completed her audit and presented a proposal for a lot more taxes. It seems the taxpayer had claimed costs of a vacation trip for his entire family to Hawaii, arguing that he needed to personally experience snorkeling in order to achieve realism in his television drama Nowhere to Be Found. The agent evangelized as she watched the taxpayer’s eyes and mouth widen as he reviewed her proposal for more taxes and penalties. “You know, Mr. Taxpayer, it’s a great privilege to live and work in the USA,” she said. “Citizens have an obligation to pay their fair share. And we really expect you to pay with a smile.”


“Thank God,” said the taxpayer with a guffaw. “I thought you’d want cash.”

This blog will try to give you answers, the statistics, the possibilities, the strategies. Not only that, but I hope it will entertain you too, relieve your worry, and banish your anxiety by teaching you the best strategies for managing your freelancing business as you express yourself—making the process literally less taxing. Sit back and relax when the IRS calls. Change the IRS acronym from Internal Revenue Service (or as many taxpayers call it, the Infernal Revenue Service) to: I’m Really Sorry, IRS . . . but I don’t owe those taxes.

What Does It All Mean?

Such questions as were posed in yesterday's posting characterized the cases of myriad taxpayers who appeared before me during my career as what was once stiltedly called an “appellate conferee.” That title gave way to the simpler “appeals officer.” But what didn’t grow simpler during my career was the Internal Revenue Code. It has grown thicker in every conceivable dimension.


Well, while you’re thinking about Doug’s chances, think about this. On March 3, 2005, Peter Jennings wrapped up the night’s newscast by saying, “Finally here this evening, one very large tax bill. The government says it has never seen anything like it before. Walter Anderson, a multimillionaire businessman, appeared in a Washington, D.C. court today, accused of failing to pay more than $200 million in taxes. The government alleges that Mr. Anderson used several elaborate schemes to hide his considerable income. It's a lot of money.” Anyway, that’s $200,000,000 smackers of taxes, indeed a lot of money. Any normal person would ask himself: with government going after the likes of Walter Anderson and getting that large a return on their investment in resources, why would IRS operatives even care if Doug deducts the measly costs of his trip to Vietnam to get pictures depicting oversized loads on motorcycles?

On August 29, 2005, the IRS reported that the accounting firm KPMG LLP (KPMG) had admitted to criminal wrongdoing and agreed to pay $456 million in fines, restitution, and penalties as part of an agreement to defer prosecution of the firm. In addition to the agreement, nine individuals—including six former KPMG partners and the former deputy chairman of the firm—were headed for criminal prosecution in relation to the multibillion-dollar criminal tax fraud conspiracy. The fraud per the IRS and Justice Department related to the design, marketing, and implementation of fraudulent tax shelters.

Again, does it make any sense to worry about the IRS devoting resources to Doug’s crummy little Vietnam trip? Even if—shame on him—he takes his family with him and deducts their costs, too? Why should the IRS care about Doug when it can get the kind of return they have on KPMG? Or the return they possibly got on KPMG’s clients, who claimed billions of dollars in tax benefits from the fraudulent tax schemes and all owed the tax back plus interest and penalties? We’re talking about billions of dollars. What’s the risk to little old Doug of the IRS throwing its resources after him for deducting one lousy trip to Vietnam? Not much? A lot? Somewhere in the middle? And if the IRS does go after Doug, what’s the risk to him that the IRS will prevail? How much will it cost Doug? Does he risk serving jail time? And what about monetary fines or penalties? Is he at risk? What about his reputation? He is, after all, an aspiring author on the possible precipice of great things. Could the publicity help him?

All good questions. Many things for Doug to think about, to learn, to consider and ponder before he puts the costs of that trip on his profit-and-loss statement on a Schedule C and attaches it to his Form 1040, exposing it to the potential ravages of a dreaded IRS agent or auditor. And maybe, just maybe, those answers and many, many more important ones like them, both for Doug and for you, are just as important as finding a perfect simile or eliminating an unnecessary gerund, finishing the last chapter of your novel, entering that disquieting contrapposto or portrait in an art contest, or acquiring an agent to sell your work or a gallery to display your sculptures.

What does it mean to carry on the freelancing of expression in a businesslike manner? How does a person maintain a complete and accurate set of books? How important is it to consult advisors and have expertise? How much time and effort does a person need to expend in the actual conduct of freelancing? Does anybody care? Questions. Many pertinent and probing questions for every freelancer of expression.

Why Are People So Greedy?

While working for her husband’s dentistry practice, Karen Cavaretta billed insurance companies for work he hadn’t done. Why? Didn't she have enough, living as the wife of a dentist who made good money? I guess not.

She pled guilty to fraud charges, he then repaid the money, and they deducted the repayments as his business expenses. IRS didn't think the repayment should be a business expense.

You Can't Squeese Blood Out of a Turnip

In Kathleen A. Vinatieri the IRS tried to collect money from a person who didn't have enough to live on if she paid her taxes. IRS wanted her to file deliquent returns before it relieved her of having to pay before it waived collection in her situation.

Palm Canyon X Investments, LLC

This case involves some celebrity.

Palm Canyon X Investments, LLC through AH Investment Holdings, Inc., its tax matters partner, challenged the IRS in the United States Tax Court. The Tax Court filed its opinion on December 15, 2009. The IRS won the case. The case involves tax shelter-type issues. Palm Canyon, a single-member limited liability company owned by AH Investment Holdings, entered into some contracts known as "offsetting market-linked deposit contracts." So what? you say. Well, it was all important enough for a judge to write a 104 page opinion, including his conclusion that Palm Canyon was a farce --- a sham --- and that the market-linked deposit contracts lacked economic substance and could be disregarded. Of course, I won't be giving all the details here, but it is interesting to note that the case involves the actress, Suzanne Somer, and her husband, Alan Hamel, and the well-known "Thighmaster" exercise equipment.

Furthermore, in this case, the government was represented --- at least in part --- by two of my former colleagues at the IRS, Stephen M. Barns and David Sorenson, who were attorneys with District Counsel. David's office was two or three offices down from mine. Stephen's --- who incidentally went by Mark, his middle name --- worked in an office down the hall and then to the left a couple of offices, almost on the other side of the building. Anyway, I thought that was interesting.

Tax Protestor Antics

ROBERT CHARLES & LISA JEAN ABELL weren't able to ring a bell in defense of their frivolous arguments against IRS when they appealed their lower-court loss to the Tenth Circuit. They appear to have acted more like Cain than Abell.

Start-up Expenses, Office-in-the-Home, and More

JOHN Y. DING faced the IRS in Tax Court relative to what they claimed were his "business expenses." He claimed a bunch of expenses relative to his employment and a prospective business he was trying to get off the ground. It results in an interesting discussion and analysis of various matters including start-up expenses versus business expenses, rules governing an office in the home, and documentation, including the application of the Cohen rule.

Education Expenses --- Are They Deductible?

This case gives a good review of applicable law:
LORI A. SINGLETON-CLARKE vs COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

It involves a RN who went back to school to become more effective in her then-present duties. She realized that nursing had evolved greatly in the 24 years since she earned her bachelor’s degree, and she felt disadvantaged working with highly educated doctors.

Fraud and Other Stupidity

Ron and Tricia Bell got greedy. They faced additional taxes and penalties, including ones for fraud. The Tax Court reached a decision on Wednesday.

Big bucks. Interesting story . . . well, maybe not so much. Use your imagination. Check it out if you are interested in cheats.

Another Doctor Claims His Wife's Horse Losses

Wednesday, the Tax Court issued an opinion in a case involving another doctor whose income supported his wife's horsey losses that the IRS said were hobby losses. See the Phemister case to read about it. The case also covers innocent spouse, failure-to-file, and negligence penalty issues.

Bank Deposits Analysis

If a taxpayer fails to file a return, there are several things IRS can do to get around that. If the taxpayer is employed, it gathers the employers W-2s and 1099s and utilizes them to construct what a return would look like. Say, however, the taxpayer is self-employed --- maybe he operates a bookstore or some other retail outlet. What does the IRS do then? Well, if the taxpayer kept checking and savings accounts, IRS might utilize those accounts to reconstruct his income from the deposits in them.

A good example of IRS doing that is a case issued by the United States Tax Court today, the case of BLAKE HYUN SEO. You can view the case at http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpTodays/Seo.TCM.WPD.pdf . I'm not certain how long that link will work, though, because the opinion will only be a "today's opinion" today. However, you can do a search any time using his name on the United States Tax Court webpage and find the case.

Office in the Home

Most writers I know plan to do their writing, at least most of it, at home. So I guess if you consider your writing activity a business, the temptation is to deduct every household expense you can conceive of as a business expense. After all, you work at home.

But you need to be careful and be aware of the rules. Remember, tax law distinguishes between what is personal and what is business. Generally, rent, mortgage payments, repairs on a residence and the like are not deductible. They are considered personal living expenses. You have to have some place to live. In tax administration such expenses are usually personal.

In order to get a business deduction for the use of your home you must use part of it (1) exclusively and regularly as your principal place of business, as a place to meet or deal with patients, clients or customers in the normal course of your business, or in connection with your trade or business where there is a separate structure not attached to the home; or (2) on a regular basis for certain storage use such as inventory or product samples, as rental property, or as a home daycare facility.

Now, the assumption is that you're working as a proprietor, not as an employee of someone else. If you are an employee who receives a W-2, in order for you to claim a deduction relative to the use of your home you must be able to prove, in addition to the other things mentioned above and talked about below, that the use of your home is for the convenience of your employer and that the portion of the home so used is not rented by the employer.

Now let's talk about all of that. First, exclusivity. Note that. It means entirely. It means you don't use it for anything else. Supposedly, you don't eat there, cook there, or do your wash there. You write there. Now, I know there's going to be someone out there who is a freelance writer who specializes in writing articles about cooking and producing cookbooks or some such thing. And they are saying, what about me? My writing about cooking and producing cookbooks entails more than just putting words down on a piece of paper or in a computer. Okay. I can buy that. But it's more likely that you use whatever area you use for cooking as an adjunct to your writing also for personal purposes. Where do you cook your meals that you consume? Or that your family consumes? The more you look for exceptions to what "exclusive" means in this way, the more lack of clarity it has as to "exclusivity" and the more chance you have of having it questioned.

Regular use means that you use the area for your writing on a regular basis, not incidentally or occasionally. Regular versus incidental and occasional. That's the test; only regular use qualifies.