Hi!-

The NCAA’s college basketball tournament — “March Madness” — has become an unofficial national holiday. Fan-in-Chief Barack Obama kicked off this year’s action by flying to Dayton (with British Prime Minister David Cameron!) for this year’s “First Four” tipoff games. And even people who don’t like basketball enjoy watching the tournament. This year’s top seeds — Kentucky, Syracuse, UNC, and Michigan State — will probably dominate coverage. But every year features at least one Cinderella team, waltzing up through the brackets with little more than heart. Who will it be this year? Creighton? Virginia Commonwealth? Or maybe #6 seed Cincinnati?

We all know college hoopsters don’t actually get “paid” (wink, wink). So the players don’t run up the score for the IRS — at least, not until they hit the NBA, where the average salary tops $5.15 million. (That suggests an average tax bill of a million and a half!)

But there’s one area where the IRS cashes in, and that’s the gambling. Vegas sports books report taking in $100 million during the tournament. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Recent figures show that more Americans participate in March Madness office pools than actually work in offices. Americans bet about $3 billion on pools sponsored by offices, bars, and clubs. And at least part of those winnings wind up in the IRS net.

Gambling winnings are taxable just like any other income. (The IRS doesn’t care how you make your money — they just want their “vig.”) Gambling losses are deductible as an itemized deduction not subject to the usual 2% floor. But — and this is a pretty important but — gambling losses are deductible only to the extent of gambling winnings. Win $1,000, lose $500, and you owe tax on the remaining $500. Win $500, lose $1,000, and your excess loss is worth about as much as a last-second brick when you’re down three points.

So, winners pay tax on their gains (wink, wink), losers cry in their beer over their losses, and March Madness is a bucket hit for the IRS, right? Well, maybe not so fast . . . .

Economists estimate that employees will spend 8.4 million workday hours watching the games. And those office pools, water-cooler conversations, and occasional hangovers will gobble countless million more hours. One research firm estimates the tournament costs the overall economy a whopping $1.8 billion in lost productivity (based on an $18 average hourly wage and 20 minutes lost per employee, per day). And much of that loss drops directly to the IRS’s bottom line. How many killer marketing campaigns are delayed because managers are busy checking each other’s brackets? How many millions of taxable commissions are lost as glad-handing salesmen sit around televisions instead of selling their stuff?

There’s not a lot of planning we can do for March Madness windfalls, simply because we can’t actually plan on winning. But what we can plan on is playing hard to help you keep what you win. So call us with your tax-planning questions. And good luck with your picks!

We are money managers.  We work with and continue to look for professionals who are the best in their field; CPAs, mortgage brokers, insurance agents and attorneys.  Please contact us if you would like to join our referral program as a trusted professional or if you’re are looking for specific services.

Hi!-

Our estate tax system is quite different from our income tax system. The income tax, as its name implies, focuses on how much money individuals, trusts, and business entities make. The estate tax system, in contrast, focuses on how much assets are worth. Most assets aren’t hard to value. Stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and similar assets are valued at their publicly-traded fair market value (FMV) as of the date of death (or the executor can choose an “alternate valuation date” six months later). But some assets are a little harder. Real estate, for example, is also valued at its FMV — but who’s to say what a unique or expensive property is really “worth,” especially in today’s volatile market? Closely-held businesses can be even harder to appraise. And high-end collectibles, like the kind of art and antiques that usually sell at auction, can be hardest of all.

These issues make estate-tax enforcement a different challenge from income-tax enforcement. For fiscal year 2010, the IRS received 42,366 estate tax returns, and audited 4,288, or 10.1%. But just as income tax audits go up as your income rises, estate-tax audits go up as your assets go up. For that same year, the IRS received 3,013 estate tax returns reporting assets of $10 million or more — and audited 928 of them, or 30.8%!

Occasionally, the IRS finds assets that are especially tricky to value. For instance, how do you value an asset that would be illegal to sell? That was the challenge the IRS faced with the estate of art dealer Ileana Sonnabend. Sonnenbend died at age 92 after amassing one of the country’s most important collections of contemporary art, including works by Jeff Koons, Roy Lichtenstein, Andy Warhol, and Cy Twombly. Her heirs valued her estate at $875 million, and sold several works to pay taxes of $331 million to Uncle Sam and $140 million to New York state.

But Sonnabend’s collection also included a 1959 work called “Canyon” by Robert Rauschenberg, best-known for his “combine-paintings” incorporating nontraditional materials and objects. And there’s a problem with that piece — it includes a stuffed bald eagle. Bald eagles aren’t just a symbol of America, they’re an endangered species. Selling any part of an eagle, even a single feather, is, well, il-eagle — punishable by a fine of up to $100,000 and a year in prison. (Yes, they will make a federal case out of it.) In fact, back in 1981, the Department of Fish and Wildlife notified Sonnabend that ownership of the piece was restricted by federal law. Sonnabend got permission to retain the piece and lend it to museums, but understood that she could never sell it or export it for sale.

Sonnabend’s executors obviously took that constraint into consideration, and valued the piece for estate tax purposes at zero. The IRS, not surprisingly, cried fowl. They valued “Canyon” at $65 million — assessed $29 million in tax — and threw in an $11.7 “gross valuation misstatement” penalty for good measure! (The technical term for that is “holy smokes”!) The executors have filed suit, of course, but the IRS has a history of valuing illicit assets, like native American artifacts and stolen art and antiquities, at their “black market” value.

Smart planning could have avoided this whole mess. Sonnabend could have donated “Canyon” to a U.S. museum before her death. That would have avoided the absurd result of owing tax on an asset, but facing jail time for selling it to pay the tax! The good news in all this is that, at least from now through the end of the year, there’s no tax due unless your taxable estate tops $10 million. The bad news is that if you do leave enough to owe tax, you can almost count on being audited. So if your house is stuffed with contraband, the time to get rid of it is now! Other tax planning questions? Call us!

We are money managers.  We work with and continue to look for professionals who are the best in their field; CPAs, mortgage brokers, insurance agents and attorneys.  Please contact us if you would like to join our referral program as a trusted professional or if you’re are looking for specific services.

Hi!-

America’s economy continues to sputter. But stocks are picking up steam and flirting with four-year highs. We’re even seeing new “dot-coms” hitting the market. Last May, the social networking site LinkedIn went public at $45 per share, then leaped to $94.25 in its first day of trading. Internet coupon vendor Groupon opened in November at $20 per share, then jumped 31% on its first day of trading. And earlier this month, Facebook filed registration papers with the Securities and Exchange Commission for what may be the hottest IPO since Google.

Companies typically go public to raise money to expand. But Facebook doesn’t really need cash from an IPO. The company made nearly $4 billion in advertising revenue in 2011. So why go public?

Well, companies also go public to let founders and early investors cash out. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s 27-year-old founder, is already a “paper” billionaire, ranked #14 on the Forbes 400 list of richest Americans. (Not many entrepreneurs find themselves richer than Scrooge McDuck while still at an age that they watch Scrooge McDuck.) But Facebook’s IPO will give Zuckerberg and fellow early investors liquidity, converting paper wealth into cash for the houses, charitable gifts, and other spending that new dot-com millionaires historically indulge in.

The IPO will also stick Zuckerberg with a historically large tax bill. (You knew that was coming, right?) In fact, one of the big reasons the company is going public in the first place is to give Zuckerberg a way to pay taxes when he exercises options to buy even more stock.

Here’s how it works. For tax purposes, the value of most stock options is treated as compensation and fixed the day you exercise them — whether you actually sell them or not. Let’s say you pay $5 to exercise a share of your employer’s stock, on a day when that stock is worth $25. Your company gets a deduction for that $20 per share, even though there’s no cash outlay. That’s great for the company. But at the same time, you’ll owe immediate tax on $20 of income, even if you hold the stock in hope of future appreciation. (If the stock tanks before you actually sell, you still owe tax on that gain.) That may not be so great for you!

Zuckerberg currently owns 414 million shares of Facebook. He also has options to buy another 120 million shares for — get this — just six cents each. Zuckerberg has announced plans to exercise those options and sell enough shares to cover his taxes. We don’t know yet what Facebook shares will trade for. However, private-market trades have valued shares at $40 each. If Zuckerberg exercises all 120 million options when shares are valued at that price, his taxable gain will be nearly $5 billion. He’ll owe 35% to the IRS, plus 10.3% to the state of California, for a total tax bill of over $2 billion. That’s right, billion with a “b.” Can you imagine signing a return with a billion-dollar tax bill? How about signing a check for that much — payable to the IRS!

The important thing to realize here is that Zuckerberg’s tax bill came as no surprise. It’s actually the result of careful planning. Remember, Zuckerberg’s pain is Facebook’s gain. The strategy will probably give Facebook enough deductions to wipe out the entire tax on its 2011 profit, plus refunds from 2009 and 2010, plus even more to carry forward.

Think about that the next time you click the “Like” button on your computer. And remember, we’re here to bring the same sort of smart tax planning to your business.

We are money managers.  We work with and continue to look for professionals who are the best in their field; CPAs, mortgage brokers, insurance agents and attorneys. Please contact us if you would like to join our referral program as a trusted professional or if you’re are looking for specific services.

Hi!-

Last fall, billionaire Warren Buffett ignited a firestorm in the tax world when he revealed that he paid just 17.4% in tax — a lower rate than his own secretary — on his $39.8 million taxable income. The revelation sparked conversation across the country, and even inspired President Obama to propose a “Warren Buffett” rule imposing a special tax on income above $1 million per year.

Last week, Presidential candidate Mitt Romney made similar headlines when he released his taxes. The returns weighed in at 547 pages, and included some items, like “Form 8261: Return By a Shareholder of a Passive Foreign Investment Company or Qualified Electing Fund,” that most tax professionals never encounter in a lifetime. (Trust us when we tell you this stuff is every bit as exciting as it sounds.) Romney’s not quite in Buffett’s financial league — his 2010 taxable income was a “mere” $17.1 million. But Romney’s actual tax rate was a similarly low 17.6%.

We’re not here to take sides on Romney himself, his campaign, or the tax system that makes his 17% rate possible. But Romney’s return illustrates a crucial lesson about your taxes, too — namely, that when it comes to paying less, how you make your money is even more important than how much money you make.

Romney’s income is more than high enough to put him in the top 35% bracket. That 35% applies only to “ordinary” income like wages and salaries, business income, and “passive” income from certain investments. But Mitt made “only” $6.3 million in ordinary income. Most of his income derives from other sources, taxed at lower rates:

• Long-Term Capital Gains: Tax on long-term capital gains is capped at 15%, no matter how much gain you report. For 2010, Romney drew over half his income from such gains. This included $7.4 million in “carried interest,” related to his work at Bain Capital, and taxed as long-term capital gain. If that income had been taxed at ordinary rates, he would have paid an extra $1.5 million. If it had been subject to employment tax, like salary, the government would have collected another $214,600.
• Qualified Dividends: Tax on qualified dividends is also capped at 15%, regardless of how much income you report. Romney reported $3.3 million in qualified dividends for 2010. It’s worth pointing out that the only dividends “qualifying” for this rate are those that have already been taxed at corporate rates ranging from 15-35%.
• Tax-Free Municipal Bonds: Muni bonds are a traditional tax shelter for taxpayers in Romney’s “1%” category. But Romney’s home state of Massachusetts imposes a flat 5.3% tax, which makes munis less attractive compared to taxable bonds, for those with stratospheric income. So Romney reported just $557 in muni bond income for 2010.

If Romney winds up carrying the GOP flag in 2012, his taxes will be a campaign issue. But it’s important to remember that, while some are criticizing him as the face of a system gone wrong, no one is actually accusing him of doing anything wrong under the law. In fact, Romney appears to have foregone some legitimate opportunities (like potential home office deductions for his speaking and director’s fee income) to pay even less.

Judge Learned Hand famously wrote that “Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury.” (And with a name like Learned Hand, well, you just have to believe him.) We’re here to help you arrange your affairs so that your taxes are as low as possible — rebalancing your portfolios to reduce risk and increase returns – and do so in a way to survive scrutiny even if you decide to run for office. And remember, we’re here for your friends, family, and running mates, too!

Hi!-

Heiress Huguette Clark, who was born in 1906 and died last May at 104, was America’s last living link to the 1890s “Gilded Age.” Her father, William A. Clark, was Montana’s “Copper King” and, according to her New York Times obituary, “once bought himself a United States Senate seat as casually as another man might buy a pair of shoes.” Huguette grew up in a 121-room mansion, at the corner of New York’s Fifth Avenue and 77th Street, that cost three times as much as Yankee Stadium. But her life soon took an odd turn. She married, for just a year at age 22, then got a quickie Reno divorce. (Her husand claimed they never even consummated the marriage.) Then she and her mother withdrew almost completely from view. The last known photograph of her was taken in 1930, and she rarely appeared in public after her mother’s death in 1963.

Clark may have been shy, but she was no miser. She spent most of her life in a 42-room coop at Fifth Avenue and 72nd Street, said to be the largest parkview apartment in the city, and worth an estimated $100 million. (She left in an ambulance in 1988 and never came back.) She owned a 21,666-square-foot mansion called “Bellosguardo,” or “lovely view,” on 23 acres overlooking the Pacific in Santa Barbara, CA. (She stopped visiting sometime in the 1950s, and reportedly turned down a $100 million offer to sell it to Beanie Baby founder Ty Warner.) And in 1952, she bought a 22-room mansion on 52 acres in New Canaan, CT. (She added a new wing to the house and hired caretakers to live on the grounds — but never spent a single night there herself.)

Huguette had so little contact with the world that some people wondered if she was actually still alive. It turns out she spent her last 22 years in a series of ordinary rooms at New York hospitals. She had few visitors during this time, and little contact with anyone outside these facilities. But her few contacts included her attorney, Wally Bock, and her accountant, Irving Kamsler. And that’s where Clark’s Gilded Age story begins to tarnish.

Clark was worth half a billion dollars at her death. She left the bulk of her fortune to charity, with smaller bequests to her longtime nurse ($30 million), her goddaughter ($12 million), and her attorney and accountant ($500,000 each). You would think she’d be able to pay her taxes, right? But property records show the IRS filed four liens for unpaid taxes — $1 million in 2006, $1.1 million and $41,000 in 2007, and $7,400 in 2008. Even worse, according to a Probate Court filing, the pair had let unpaid federal gift taxes and penalties accrue — to the tune of $90 million!

It turns out both the attorney Bock and accountant Kamsler have a history of questionable conduct. When Bock’s former law parter Donald Wallace died, after revising his will six times in the last few years of his life, Bock and Kamsler wound up inheriting $100,000 in cash each — plus Wallace’s Mercedes and his Upper East Side apartment. They even collected $368,000 in fees on the $4 million estate! And, just by the way, Kamsler is also a convicted felon and registered sex offender, who pled guilty in 2007 to attempting to disseminate indecent material to minors in an online “chat room.”

As Huguette Clark’s bizarre story reminds us, money really can’t buy happiness. Our job, of course, is to help you pay the minimum taxes allowed by law and to help you invest prudently and wisely for the long term. But before you ask us what we can do to help you pay less, ask yourself how those savings will improve your life. Are you working to put your children through college? Build security for your retirement? Or are you looking for life’s little “extras,” like traveling in style? Those are the real benefits we work to give you — not just numbers on your annual IRS “scorecard”!

The outlaw Willie Sutton stole an estimated $2 million over a 40-year career robbing banks — and scored the ultimate “success” in his business, living long enough to die of natural causes. Sutton always carried a pistol or Tommy gun with him on jobs, declaring “you can’t rob a bank on charm and personality.” But the gun was never loaded, because, as he said, someone might have gotten hurt! And he became legendary, ironically, for something he never actually said. According to the story, Sutton was asked why he robbed banks — and replied “because that’s where the money is.” But in his 1976 autobiography, Where the Money Was: The Memoirs of a Bank Robber, he confessed that credit for the line belongs to “some enterprising reporter who apparently felt a need to fill out his copy.”

What does a depression-era bank robber have to do with taxes? Well, the IRS estimates that outlaw taxpayers cost the Treasury $385 billion per year in uncollected taxes — roughly 15% of the amount they believe is due under current law. So they work hard to close that gap. In FY 2011, the IRS employed over 22,000 revenue officers, revenue agents, and special agents. They conducted 391,621 “field” audits and 1,173,069 less-intensive “correspondence” audits. They filed levies on 3.7 million taxpayers and filed over a million liens. But they can’t turn over every rock. So how do they case their targets?

Earlier this month, the IRS released their FY 2011 Enforcement and Service Results revealing how likely you are to be audited. And even Willie Sutton would have appreciated the IRS’s “M.O.”:

• If you make less than $200,000, your overall audit risk is only about one in a hundred. (Of course, that average encompasses a range of possibilities. If you run a sole proprietorship in a cash-heavy business like takeout pizza, your risk may be far higher.)
• If you make over $200,000, your overall audit risk rises to about one in twenty-five. Obviously, the IRS sees more opportunity in chasing higher income earners.
• If you pull down over $1 million, your audit risk rises again to one in eight. Welcome to the 1%!

The IRS likes targeting entertainers, athletes, and other celebrities, too. Sure, it sets a high-profile example for the rest of us. But it’s also (spoiler alert) where the money is. Take Hollywood trainwreck Lindsay Lohan, for example. Google her name, and you’ll usually find it followed by “failed another breathalyzer test” or “missed her court-appointed community service.” But last week, Lohan made a different kind of headline. That’s right, the IRS filed a lien against her home seeking $93,701.57 in upaid taxes from 2009.

Where does that all leave us as we move into this year’s tax season? Our job is to help you pay the minimum tax allowed by law. But we know the IRS is out to challenge us. So we don’t cut corners. We give you good, solid planning. That way, even if you do lose the “audit lottery,” you’ll feel safe knowing your savings are court-tested and IRS-approved

Hi!-

The IRS is busy playing detective! But are they building cases, clue by meticulous clue, like the supersleuths of television’s CSI? Or are they falling on their faces like the bumbling Inspector Clouseau?

Last month, a federal judge gave the IRS permission to serve a “John Doe” summons on the California Board of Equalization, demanding names of residents who transferred real estate to children or grandchildren for little or no consideration. The IRS sought the names as part of a nationwide effort to find taxpayers who transfer property to relatives without filing gift tax returns. (The IRS had already rounded up information from Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington state and Wisconsin — but California officials objected that state law prohibited them from ratting out residents without court approval.)

Most people don’t know much about gift tax, for the simple reason that most people won’t ever pay gift tax. Gift tax law lets you give up to $13,000 per year to as many people as you like. Once your gifts to any single person (other than your spouse) top $13,000 in a year, you’re required to file gift tax returns. Your cumulative lifetime gifts count against your estate tax “unified credit,” which is the amount you’re allowed to leave free of estate tax. And once your cumulative lifetime gifts top $5,012,000, you owe a 35% tax on the excess. If you’re gifting to a grandchild or some other person more than one generation removed, you might even owe an extra 35% “generation-skipping” tax.

How does that lead the IRS to combing state property records like a sleazy private investigator tracking down a cheating husband? Well, transferring property into an heir’s name is a common estate-planning move. Let’s say you own a beloved vacation home, or a stock portfolio, and you don’t want to see it burdened by probate. You can just add your child’s name to the deed or account as “joint tenant with right of survivorship,” and at your death, voila, the property automatically passes to your child. But there’s a catch — transferring property like that counts as a “complete gift.” If that property is worth $1,000,000, you’ve just made a $500,000 gift!

This particular IRS “project” is already yielding results. The IRS filed an affidavit in the California case stating that they had examined 658 taxpayers who transferred property to relatives — and concluded that 238 of them should have filed Form 709 to report the gift. Twenty of those 238 were assessed actual tax because the transfers pushed them over their lifetime exemption.

This isn’t the first time the IRS has used the “John Doe” summons to flush out members of suspect groups. Back in 2002, the IRS subpoenaed MasterCard and Visa to find taxpayers using debit cards tied to accounts in offshore tax havens. And in 2008, they used it to find taxpayers hiding Swiss bank accounts. The Internal Revenue Manual puts strict limits on this tool. But if today’s efforts succeed in finding lost revenue, we can probably expect to see more in the future.

There are a couple of lessons here. First, many financial moves — like transferring property into your kids’ names — have hidden tax consequences that are easy to miss. And second, the IRS has more ways than you realize to find those consequences. So don’t take chances, especially when they might land you on the wrong end of an IRS subpoena! You know how the utility company tells you to “call before you dig”? Well, call us before you dig, and we’ll help you avoid all sorts of nasty surprises!

Hi!-

Last Thursday, cellphone carrier Verizon Wireless announced a new $2 fee for one-time payments made online or over the phone. On Friday, the Federal Communications Commission immediately announced they were “concerned about Verizon’s actions” and planned to look into the matter. At the same time, over 158,000 visitors signed an online petition demanding that Verizon drop the fee. In fact, the website hosting the petition expressed shock that “while you are instituting this new fee, Verizon paid zero federal income tax from 2008-2010, and actually got almost a billion dollars in rebates from taxpayers.” Verizon immediately beat a hasty retreat and dropped the proposed fee.

Verizon is hardly the only corporate giant to float new fees, only to see them immediately fall back to earth. Back in September, Bank of America announced plans to charge a $5 monthly fee for customers making debit card purchases — then, after howls of customer protest, backed off just five weeks later. Other banks, which had tested similar debit card fees, killed their fees too in the wake of the protests.

There’s a pattern developing here. In today’s struggling economy, companies can’t impose the broad-based price hikes they really want. So they settle for nickel-and-diming us with junk fees. Unfortunately for them, consumers are pushing back — and at least with Verizon and the banks, the customers are winning.

There’s a similar pattern at work in today’s Washington. Candidates can talk ’till they’re blue in the face about bold sweeping change, like Rick Perry’s 20% flat tax and Herman Cain’s attention-grabbing “9-9-9″ plan. (If you close your eyes right now, I bet you can still hear Cain saying “9-9-9″ in your head.) But in today’s hyper-partisan Congress, the actual legislators in charge of implementing all those bright ideas can’t find the consensus to name a Post Office, let alone remake the tax code in any meaningful way. So they settle for nickel-and-diming the system — extending the payroll tax holiday for a miserly 60 days instead of a full year, and paying for it by levying fees on mortgages sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac rather than by raising taxes on million-dollar earners. Even when legislators extend new breaks, they tend to be for small amounts, like the $800 “Making Work Pay” credit or $1,500 for home energy improvements. New tax breaks also tend to be short-lived: the 2009 deduction for sales tax on new cars lasted 10½ months, and the much-ballyhooed “Cash for Clunkers” program lasted just 56 days.

The problem, of course, is that Washington’s version of nickel-and-diming us adds up fast. A couple of bucks for online bill payments here and $5 for monthly debit-card usage there? Maybe it cuts into your Starbucks budget. But closing tax breaks hurts. As former Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen famously said, “A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you’re talking real money.” And IRS “customers” can’t threaten to take their “business” somewhere else like customers at the bank.

2012 is an election year, of course, which means we can expect even less in the way of substantive action — at least for the next 10 months. But that may all change after November 6, as the Bush tax cuts expire after December 31. If the upcoming election leaves Washington as divided as it is now, we can expect a repeat of last summer’s debt-ceiling battle. Our job is to keep on top of all the news to safeguard your nickels and dimes, regardless of what happens in November. And that means planning. Remember, being proactive, now, is the key to keeping your tax bill as low as possible in 2012 and beyond. So, if one of your New Year’s resolutions is to get out in front of the tax nickel-and-dimers, give us a call!

Hi!-

New Year’s day is almost here, and for millions of Americans, that means college football bowl games. Fans and alumni across the country are gearing up to root for their favorite school. LSU fans cry “Geaux Tigers!” ‘Bama fans chant “Roll, Tide, Roll!” But only one team will be champion come January 9.

Regardless of which gridiron gladiators we support for the BCS championship, Americans are #1 in another competition. That’s right, Americans cheat their government out of more tax dollars than the citizens of any other country in the world!

A recent study by the Tax Justice Network, a British think-tank dedicated to transparency in international finance, shows the U.S. government lost $337 billion annually to tax evasion. We’re followed by Brazil ($280 billion), Italy ($238 billion), Russia, Germany, France, Japan, China, U.K., and Spain. Overall, the study finds that worldwide tax evasion tops $3 trillion, or 5% of the world’s economy.

However, while Americans are #1 in absolute dollars lost to cheating, we’re not actually the biggest fibbers. The report attempts to quantify the size of each country’s “shadow economy” that hides from official view to avoid tax. Russia is the biggest loser here, with 44% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) lurking underground and evading tax. Brazil is next, with 39% of its economy hiding in the shadows. Our own shadow economy, at 8.6% of GDP, is actually the smallest of those top ten tax evaders listed above.

Looking at it from a different perspective, next to the cost of financing government, the cost of financing health care is perhaps our country’s biggest fiscal challenge. The Tax Justice Network’s report draws an interesting contrast between each country’s cost of tax cheating and cost of health care. Worldwide tax evasion costs an average of 55% of worldwide health care costs. But that average encompasses an enormous range. Here in the U.S., for example, tax evasion drains the equivalent of just 15% of our national health care budget. By contrast, in Bolivia, where the “shadow economy” accounts for 66% of GDP, tax evasion costs that nation more than four times the amount of their annual health care spending.

American tax cheats may even show a conscientious side. The Charities Aid Foundation, a British organization dedicated to encouraging efficient charitable giving, just released their World Giving Index 2011 report. They found that the U.S. is #1 in charitable giving, out of 153 countries surveyed. “Using data from Gallup’s Worldview World Poll,” the report says, “the results show that the USA is officially the most charitable nation in the world.” Now there’s something we can all take pride in this holiday season!

The irony here is that there are so many legal ways to pay less tax that nobody needs to cheat. Proactive planning is the key to paying less tax without having to hide in the shadows. As 2012 dawns, remember that we’re here to deliver that planning — for you, and for your family, friends, and colleagues as well.

Hi!-

Last year’s federal budget deficit topped $1.48 trillion. With money so tight, you’d expect government to focus its efforts on those who really need the help. But that’s far from the case, according to Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn. Last month, he released a 37-page report entitled Subsidies of the Rich and Famous, outlining “sheer Washington stupidity” that he claims costs taxpayers billions of dollars every year.

The first part of Coburn’s report focuses on direct payments like Social Security and Medicare benefits, unemployment benefits, and farm subsidies. (NBA star Scottie Pippen, rocker Bruce Springsteen, and billionaire broadcaster Ted Turner have all gotten federal farm subsidies.) But Coburn also heaps his scorn on specific tax breaks that he calls a “reverse Robin Hood style of wealth distribution.” He claims he’s not interested in raising rates on anyone. And he cautions against demonizing “those who are successful.” But he does want to means-test benefits, close loopholes, and limit deductions that pamper millionaires with “unnecessary welfare to create an appearance everyone is benefiting from federal programs.”

What sort of tax breaks have Senator Coburn so upset? Here are three:

• “Subsidizing Millionaires’ Mansions”: For 2009, 143,441 out of the 235,413 taxpayers reporting incomes over $1 million claimed mortgage interest deductions, averaging $30,995 each.
• Rental Expense Deduction: 69,074 of those million-dollar earners claimed a total of $12.5 billion in rental property expenses, including mortgage interest, cleaning and maintenance, and depreciation.
• Gambling Losses Deduction: Finally, 8,225 of the top earners reported a total of $4.2 billion in gambling losses.

Coburn’s points seem reasonable at first glance. Does Oprah Winfrey really “need” a tax break for her $50 million California mansion? Should Vegas high-rollers count on us to bail them out when the dice come up snake eyes? On closer look, however, his objections may not hold up. The mortgage interest deduction, for example, is already limited to interest on $1 million of “acquisition indebtedness” on a primary residence and one additional residence, plus $100,000 of home equity indebtedness. Coburn would ditch the deductions for second homes and home equity interest, and drop the overall cap to $500,000 of indebtedness. But critics respond that over 11% of American homes are valued over $500,000, and limiting the deduction would cut home prices off at the knees at a time when they need all the support they can get.

Coburn’s objections to deducting rental real estate expenses and even gambling losses seem to make less sense. Paying tax on gross rents and gambling winnings? Rental real estate losses are already limited by “passive activity” rules. If millionaires can’t deduct their rental real estate expenses, they won’t invest in real estate at all. That would drag prices down in the same way as limiting mortgage interest deductions. And gambling losses are deductible only to the extent of gambling winnings. Is it fair to tax anyone, millionaire or not, on gross winnings without letting them net out losses?

As the economy continues to struggle, Washington gridlock intensifies — just look at the bickering over the payroll tax cut extension, which both parties say they want. And the 2012 presidential election draws near, we can expect to hear more rhetoric like Coburn’s. What do you think? Do tax breaks for millionaires offend your sense of fairness? Or should millionaires get to take advantage of the same rules as the rest of us?