(775) 786-6141
Reno, Nevada CPAs in the office of Barnard Vogler & Co. can assist individuals in many ways. We offer the traditional CPA services of 1040 preparation and tax planning. 
More specifically, our Reno CPAs have tax experience with California residency issues, cancellation of debts of recourse and nonrecourse, Chapter 11 bankruptcy tax matters and various trusts issues beyond just the preparation of the tax return.
Our CPAs in Reno, Nevada are also versed in a wide array of business matters. Some areas of expertise are the customary services that Certified Public Accountants typically provide such as financial statement preparations, compilations, reviews and audits. Additionally, we have assisted businesses with a congressional tax audit returning to the taxpayer a multimillion dollar tax refund, entity selections to provide the most beneficial business types, or controller/CFO services of remote bookkeeping, budget assistance and development of accounting policies and procedures. 
At our downtown Reno, Nevada location CPAs have also helped unravel and report on multimillion dollar frauds, been Chapter 7 bankruptcy examiners, and performed business valuation and expert witness testimony.
Give our office a call if you need a Reno CPA for yourself or your business.
Modern day business is built on constant competition and an ever changing landscape, where CEO’s must take risks to survive. Risk-taking is something that happens in everyday business and those that have good results from the risks are given bonuses. 
What if the CEO received a bonus from good results in the current year and then 3 years down the road that risk had then flipped and the company tanks? Should the CEO be liable?
Well, according to a recent Wall Street Journal article, that very thing is being proposed on Large Firm Wall Street Bankers. The thought is that their bonuses be deferred over four years and any actions that hurt the firms or a financial statement restatement would have a “claw back” affect over a period of seven years. The CEO’s would have to pay back a portion of their bonuses. There is already a form of “claw back” that is in place, but it is less stringent and only goes back about three years. 
Regulators are presuming that issues arising from the CEO’s decisions usually take more than three years to show up; thus the reason why they are proposing pushing the time limit to seven years. The purpose of the proposition is to combat and prevent another recession by holding CEO’s more accountable.
The issue that has been raised is if this passes, would the CEO’s adjust their pay structure? Would they opt for more stock and salary instead of bonus structure?
The Harvard Business Review recently published an article outlining an interesting strategy which should make negotiations more civil, speedy and fair.
The authors have proposed an approach they call the “final-offer arbitration challenge” for reaching fair agreements efficiently.
It works like this. If the other side’s position is unreasonable, one’s initial reaction is often to be just as unreasonable, believing that the issue will be resolved somewhere in the middle, and thus be reasonable. This may ultimately be the result but often only after investing a lot of time and money to get there. It stands to reason that if the parties come to a negotiation with realistic starting positions, the negotiations that follow should be relatively civil, speedy and fair.
But how can a negotiator who wants to be fair at the outset be sure that his or her counterpart will do the same? This is where the “final-offer arbitration challenge” can help to reach fair agreements efficiently. It works like this: To encourage reasonableness, one side should make their offer demonstrably fair from the outset. Then, if the other side is unreasonable, they should be challenged to take the offers to an arbitrator who must not compromise, but must choose one or the other offer. This approach should result in offers that are more aligned from the beginning. 
Thus it is to everyone’s benefit if the parties come to the negotiations with reasonable offers in hand.
This is not unlike the way thoughtful parents have resolved disputes between two siblings. Have one cut the last piece of cake in half, and have the other choose first.
An issue that can still have tax ramifications today, years after the great recession hit Reno, is that of debt forgiveness. If you think that since you never received any cash, debt forgiveness is not taxable, think again!
Whenever there is a loan balance that gets reduced in any way, either with debt forgiveness, a foreclosure, a short sale, or a cancellation of debt, there is a taxable event. Depending on whether the debt held was recourse or nonrecourse makes a difference as to whether the forgiveness will be classified as cancellation of debt income or a capital gain.
A taxpayer wants cancellation of debt income when they are either insolvent, the home is their principal residence or they are in bankruptcy. In these situations the income is excluded from taxable income. If these situations don’t apply then the debtor wants a capital gain. In this instance the gain will be taxed at lower rates and if they have any capital losses then the gain can be reduced by these losses.
Generally, if a loan is nonrecourse and the property backing the loan is foreclosed upon to satisfy the nonrecourse debt, then the excess of the debt over the tax basis of the property is a gain. However, if the lender merely reduces the principal of the nonrecourse debt, then cancellation of debt income occurs.
The rules are different for recourse debt. If there is a foreclosure of property to satisfy recourse debt than the taxpayer recognizes cancellation of debt income by the difference between the fair market value of the debt versus the debt discharged. The difference in the fair market value versus the tax basis is then recorded as a gain or loss.
This brief summary just hits the surface of the complex rules regarding debt forgiveness. When this situation occurs, consult a Reno CPA to figure out the tax consequences.
Fundraising has gone digital. Millions of individuals are now utilizing social media sites such as kickstarter.com and gofundme.com to attract contributors or donations to support their cause. Few, though, are thinking about the income tax ramifications that are created by the crowdfunding environment.
Congress and the IRS have not yet addressed the crowdfunding income specifically, which leaves little guidance for CPAs and tax advisors preparing returns in the coming season. Applying common tax principles, along with some common sense, will help taxpayers and preparers alike to decide the appropriate reporting of funds received.
There are three types of crowd-funding:
Reward and donation-based funding use third party payment processing, such as PayPal. Any campaign creator who collects over $20,000.00 will receive a 1099-K reporting the funds received during the campaign. Pledges for donation-based funding are likely going to qualify as a non-taxable gift, unless an individual gifts more than the annual gift exclusion ($14,000 in 2015 and 2016). Funds received for reward-based funding for creative new ventures are likely to be treated as income to the recipients.
Kickstarter states that it cannot give tax advice, but does indicate that in the US, funds raised through campaigns on kickstarter.com will generally be considered income (see “Kickstarter and Taxes: A Guide for Your Accountant”). They suggest that expenses can offset the income, or that some may be considered gifts, but does not distinguish between the two.
Amounts received for reward-based funding are likely to be treated as income under Section 61 and should be reported by the creator of the campaign in the year of receipt. If it is an active trade or business, business expenses would likely be deductible against the income under Section 62. If this is a hobby, hobby loss rules would apply and limit expenses to the extent of income. Start-up business will also have additional requirements for expensing or capitalizing the organizational costs related to the start-up of the business.
As you can see, there are many different scenarios that will need to be considered when reporting crowd-funding during this period of limbo until the IRS addresses the topic. That makes it even more important as tax preparers and taxpayers alike to ask the right questions, document your position, and substantiate your reporting to the best of your ability.
Like almost all presidential candidates trying to be transparent to their voters, Jeb Bush recently released tax returns dating back to 1981 and going through 2013.
I could write the standard blog on how Mr. Bush’s income went from nothing in the 1980’s to topping $1,000,000 for many years in the 90’s, becoming in the low six figures in the 2000’s while he was governor to ballooning to over $2,000,000 for almost every year after 2007. How his income went above $6,000,000 for 2011 & 2013 while he was getting rich from speaking fees and consulting for banks. Or I could write about how his net worth has gone up 14 times since he left the governor’s mansion in Florida in 2007 or question how he got in excess of $1,000,000 consulting for Lehman Bros and over $10,000,000 in speaking fees since 2007.
But as a Reno CPA that wasn’t practicing during the 1980s & 1990s, I found it interesting how much the tax code has changed just from reviewing Mr. Bush’s return. For instance, when Mr. Bush sold his first home in 1981 he wasn’t allowed to exclude from income up to $500,000 from the sale of his primary residence as taxpayers can now. His gain of $34,980 decreased the basis in his new residence he purchased to give him a higher gain and tax in the future when that home was sold.
I also found it interesting how in the 1980s political contributions were allowed to be deducted and up until 1986 charitable contributions were deducted without having to itemize on Schedule A. This was the same in 1983 when employee business expenses were an above the line deduction; today they must be on Schedule A and less than 2% of adjusted gross income. There was also the deduction for married couples that both worked that was present in the tax code in 1982, which Mr. Bush and his wife did not utilize. In the 1980s it was also possible to deduct interest expense on credit cards and car loans as a personal interest expense. With the somewhat new tax regulations associated with the Affordable Care Act and constant bickering and promises by Congress about changing the tax code I’m sure in 20 years the tax code will again be drastically different.
In a recent case, an appeals court upheld the Tax Court’s decision that a bookie’s plea agreement on criminal charges does not bar a civil action for unpaid taxes.
Gary Kaplan operated an illegal sports booking business called BetOnSports. The majority of Kaplan’s booking business was located in the Caribbean islands and Costa Rica for most of the 1990s.
Right before the company went public in July 2004, Kaplan engaged in several transactions and stock transfers that allowed him to set up two trust funds worth $98 million dollars. These trusts were referred to as the “Bird Trusts,” and the money was located somewhere off the coast of France.
Kaplan was the sole grantor of the Bird Trusts. As the grantor of the trusts, Kaplan was responsible for paying income taxes on the earnings of the trusts. Kaplan neglected to pay federal income tax or capital gains tax for the trusts for either 2004 or 2005.
In 2006, Kaplan was indicted by a federal grand jury for operating an illegal bookmaking operation within the United States. Kaplan ended up making a plea deal with the government. In exchange for accepting reduced charges, Kaplan agreed to allow the federal government to take civil action against him regarding the two years at issue.
During a change-of-plea hearing in 2009, Kaplan was questioned about the provision in his original plea agreement that dealt with the right of the government to pursue a civil tax matter against him for the 2004 and 2005 tax years. Kaplan assured the judge that he understood the difference between a civil court matter and a criminal court matter. He insisted that he was aware of the ramifications of the plea deal.
After the change of plea hearing, the court accepted the plea offer and sentenced him to 51 months in jail and ordered him to forfeit $43.65 million to the United States.
Sometime in 2012, the IRS commissioner issued a notice of deficiency for failure to file and pay taxes for 2004 and 2005. Kaplan was also liable for interest and various penalties. The taxes, penalties and interest totaled almost $25.5 million for 2004 and a little over $11 million for 2005.
Kaplan challenged the IRS at the district court level and lost. He brought his appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit.
Kaplan raised three issues in his appeal:
1. The statute of limitations had run on the commissioner’s ability to assess the unpaid taxes.
2. His 2009 plea agreement barred the claim.
3. Judicial estoppel barred the commissioner’s determination.
The appeals court rejected all three of these issues.
The statute of limitations does not start to run until an income tax return is actually filed by the taxpayer. Because the taxpayer did not file a tax return for 2004 and 2005, the statute of limitations has not run on those tax years. So Gary Kaplan lost on this issue.
The 2009 plea agreement was unambiguous as to the government’s ability to bring a civil action against Gary Kaplan. In addition, during the 2009 change-of-plea hearing, the court referenced answers given by Gary Kaplan that clearly demonstrated that he understood the government had the ability to bring a civil tax proceeding against him.
On the issue of judicial estoppel, Kaplan felt that, because the government did not object to his Presentence Report, it was prevented from bringing a civil tax proceeding against him. In his report, Gary Kaplan did not list any tax liabilities for 2004 and 2005. There were a number of reasons that Kaplan lost this issue, including that the numbers contained in the report were compiled and put together by Kaplan himself, not the IRS. (Gary Kaplan v. Commissioner, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, 14-2342, July 29, 2015) ■
©2015 CPAmerica International
Under the Affordable Care Act, large employers are required to file information returns with the IRS and provide statements to full-time employees.
You are a large employer if you employed, on average, 50 full-time equivalent employees or more during 2014. You must include employees of other members of any companies under common control.
A full-time employee is someone who works an average of 120 hours per month for purposes of determining large employer status.
If you are a large employer, you need to track the following information in 2015 so you can meet the reporting requirements of early 2016:
1. Whether you offered full-time employees and their dependents minimum essential coverage that meets the minimum value requirements and is affordable.
2. Whether your employees enrolled in the self-insured minimum essential coverage you offered.
It’s necessary to track the above information so you can meet the following reporting requirements mandated by the Affordable Care Act:
To be able to fill out the Forms 1095-C and 1094-C in a timely and efficient manner, large employers need to start tracking their full-time employee and insurance information for 2015 now. ■
©2015 CPAmerica International
When preparing to start a family, it is important to look at your finances, and assess your current financial situation. You are not always in a situation where you can do this, but if you can plan this ahead of time it could help ease some worry to know you are financially prepared. There is no exact amount you need to have saved when preparing to add a new family member, but it is important to make sure you have the bare essentials covered.
There are many added expenses that come with having a baby. A good way to plan for all of these new expenses will be to assess what is essential and put them at the top of your list to save for. A good way to limit your spending on some of the items needed would be to try to borrow them or buy them used.
Start looking at your financial situation by tracking all of your expenses to see if your income is covering your current expenses and determine if you have additional money left over. It is recommended to do this for at least a month, but this should only be used as a guideline since your monthly spending will vary, and this wouldn’t account for seasonal changes. Once you have listed your expenses, go through them and separate the items you need verse the ones you can go without. This will be helpful to determine the areas that you could limit your spending to help save.
When looking at your monthly income, it is important to factor in the difference in earnings that will occur when you are on maternity leave. Check to see what your company’s policy is for maternity leave. 
This can make a large difference to your monthly income if your plan is to take time off work and it is either unpaid or a percentage of your income.
Ideally, you should have enough savings to account for the change in your earnings over maternity leave, or if you are planning on changing your work schedules after you have the baby. It is also recommended to have an eight month emergency fund to keep you out of debt if anything unexpected occurs. It is never too early to start saving – the earlier you save the less of a burden it will be to set the money aside and get your finances in order.
Most people are probably familiar with the general tax rule about hobbies: You can deduct expenses only to the extent that you have income from the hobby.
This rule applies to individuals, S corporations, partnerships, estates and trusts.
There is a certain pecking order in deducting these expenses:
The income from the hobby activity is picked up on line 21 on page 1 of the Form 1040 return. This income is not subject to self-employment tax but is subject to federal income tax.
No. 1 deductions are Schedule A-type itemized deductions not subject to the 2-percent-of-adjusted-gross-income limitation. To take advantage of these deductions, you must itemize your deductions.
Nos. 2 and 3 deductions are Schedule A-type itemized deductions, but they are subject to the 2-percent-of-AGI limitation. To take advantage of these deductions, you must itemize your deductions. But even if you itemize your deductions, a portion of the expense deduction is lost because of the 2 percent rule.
Hobbies are considered to be activities engaged in without a profit motive. Whether an activity is engaged in for profit is determined by a facts-and-circumstances test.
Here are a couple of general rules:
© 2015 CPAmerica International
