tax question for accountants

Re: tax question for accountants


"Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds . com > wrote in message
news:t5vr149lgv40nipg90hl5j35j3hbhn3r14@4ax . com ...
> Marc Schneiderman <garbaron@telerama . com > wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 3 May 2008 13:50:15 -0700, "Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Marc Schneiderman" <garbaron@telerama . com > wrote in message
>>>news:vsko14t3bkjci87eu8he6asvle90nmuthd@4ax . com ...
>>>> On Fri, 2 May 2008 21:11:37 -0700 (PDT), mary <maryapp2@aol . com >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Good Luck Marc! Mary
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Mary, I think I need it.
>>>> CigarBaron
>>>> (looks bad in orange jump suits)
>>>
>>>Well, out here in Maricopa County, you might look better in Sheriff Joe
>>>Arapio's pink underwear.
>>>
>>>Just trying to help!
>>>
>>
>>I might be wearing a negligee...
>>CigarBaron
>>(oh, oh)
>
> You could wind up sued for negligeence. ;-)

GROAN!!!!!!!!

Re: tax question for accountants

On Fri, 2 May 2008 14:38:52 -0500, "btorvik2" <btorvik2@aol . com >
wrote:

>
>Usually best to let them win some minor ones than turn it into a war.
>
>bernie

Although it's a $40,000 battle.
CigarBaron

Re: tax question for accountants

Marc Schneiderman wrote:
> On Fri, 2 May 2008 14:38:52 -0500, "btorvik2" <btorvik2@aol . com >
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Usually best to let them win some minor ones than turn it into a war.
>>
>> bernie
>
> Although it's a $40,000 battle.
> CigarBaron

I'd say that one's worth going to war over.

bernie



--
"Official ASC Shaman"

Re: tax question for accountants

On Mon, 5 May 2008 10:59:46 -0500, "btorvik2" <btorvik2@aol . com >
wrote:


>> Although it's a $40,000 battle.
>> CigarBaron
>
>I'd say that one's worth going to war over.
>
>bernie

I'm digging in!
CigarBaron

Re: tax question for accountants

On May 2, 6:13 am, Marc Schneiderman <garba...@telerama . com > wrote:
> On Thu, 01 May 2008 14:14:44 GMT, "Paul M. Cook" <pmc...@gte . net >
> wrote:
>
> >If you reasonably thik you can claim the deduction then do so.  But be
> >prepared to defend your logic and also to have the deduction denied if yo=
u
> >get audited.  I'm sure you're incorporated so if those expenses are cla=
imed
> >on your corporate taxes, why would they not be deductible?  They can't =
make
> >you take the bus.
>
> >Paul
>
> I'm already in the midst of the audit and the auditor isn't allowing
> it.
> CigarBaron


Those Cuban Cigars are getting real expensive aren't they? There are
more ways than one to fine a criminal! Once the IRS gets theirs who
knows who's next.

Re: tax question for accountants

Marc Schneiderman <garbaron@telerama . com > wrote:

>Question for the group:
>
>Do I get a tax deduction for my flying (to medical meetings) and/or as
>I'm a senior aviation medical examiner for the FAA? The IRS says
>"no."
>
>Anyone have any other information?
>
>CigarBaron

Well, I'm no accountant (and a noaccount), but I would say "yes, it's
a business related expense that would not exist if not for the
business".

It may depend on how much of a fight you're willing to put up.

Re: tax question for accountants


"Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds . com > wrote in message
news:jujj14dq90k73la7u98r9g25c2qoe69qug@4ax . com ...
> Marc Schneiderman <garbaron@telerama . com > wrote:
>
>>Question for the group:
>>
>>Do I get a tax deduction for my flying (to medical meetings) and/or as
>>I'm a senior aviation medical examiner for the FAA? The IRS says
>>"no."
>>
>>Anyone have any other information?
>>
>>CigarBaron
>
> Well, I'm no accountant (and a noaccount), but I would say "yes, it's
> a business related expense that would not exist if not for the
> business".
>
> It may depend on how much of a fight you're willing to put up.

There's no fight involved. It's been pretty established for YEARS, that if
you operate an aircraft in the course of your business, the operating
expenses attributed to the portion you operate if for business is
deductible. You must, though, operate it at least 50% of the time for
business to take full deductions. You'll need to have good records to
apportion your costs with as little hassle as possible.

Re: tax question for accountants

On Thu, 1 May 2008 07:26:06 -0700, "Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net >
wrote:

>
>"Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds . com > wrote in message
>news:jujj14dq90k73la7u98r9g25c2qoe69qug@4ax . com ...
>> Marc Schneiderman <garbaron@telerama . com > wrote:
>>
>>>Question for the group:
>>>
>>>Do I get a tax deduction for my flying (to medical meetings) and/or as
>>>I'm a senior aviation medical examiner for the FAA? The IRS says
>>>"no."
>>>
>>>Anyone have any other information?
>>>
>>>CigarBaron
>>
>> Well, I'm no accountant (and a noaccount), but I would say "yes, it's
>> a business related expense that would not exist if not for the
>> business".
>>
>> It may depend on how much of a fight you're willing to put up.
>
>There's no fight involved. It's been pretty established for YEARS, that if
>you operate an aircraft in the course of your business, the operating
>expenses attributed to the portion you operate if for business is
>deductible. You must, though, operate it at least 50% of the time for
>business to take full deductions. You'll need to have good records to
>apportion your costs with as little hassle as possible.
>


sounds reasonable to me.

Thanks,

CigarBaron

Re: tax question for accountants


"Marc Schneiderman" <garbaron@telerama . com > wrote in message
news:rqfj14thojs7tkgekpr28qfg7od21i69io@4ax . com ...
> Question for the group:
>
> Do I get a tax deduction for my flying (to medical meetings) and/or as
> I'm a senior aviation medical examiner for the FAA? The IRS says
> "no."

The IRS always says "No", that way they cover themselves.

>
> Anyone have any other information?
>

I've had this in my files for about four years, but it's still accurate, I
believe.

Business Flying and Taxes:
Make Your Aircraft Business Plan a Key to Deductibility

How to stand up to IRS scrutiny

By Louis M. Meiners, Jr., President of Advocate Aircraft Taxation Company

Due to substantial deductions that may be available to a taxpayer who owns
and operates an aircraft as a business, it is highly advisable to operate
that business in such a manner as to survive special scrutiny that may be
imposed by an Internal Revenue Service examination.

The basic rule to keep in mind is that for deductions to be allowable they
must be incurred for the benefit of a trade or business and they must be
ordinary, necessary, and reasonable in amount.

The taxpayer's initial challenge is to demonstrate that the aircraft is used
in a trade or business and is not merely a hobby. In Parker v. Commissioner,
83 TCM-1400, the Tax Court found that an American Airlines pilot of 33 years
was not engaged in the business of building and selling experimental
aircraft for profit, but instead devoted much of his time and money to his
airplane activity because he loves airplanes.

The court stated that an activity is not one engaged in for profit unless
conducted by the taxpayer with an actual and honest expectation of profit.
In evaluating someone's "expectation," greater weight is given to objective
factors, taking into account all facts and circumstances, rather than a mere
self-supporting statement of intent.

Facts and circumstances that the court determined to be relevant in the case
of the airline pilot/aircraft builder included the following:

a.. The evidence did not establish that the taxpayer carried on his
activity in a business-like manner.


b.. The taxpayer consistently reported substantial net losses from his
airplane activity and used the losses to offset significant wages.


c.. The taxpayer's business records consisted merely of income tax returns
and flight logs. He did not offer into evidence any written documentation of
business plans or projections, contracts, or other business records
regarding his airplane activity during more than three decades of
operations.
Regulatory Guidance
In Regulation Section 1.183-2(b), a nonexclusive list of factors is provided
for use in analyzing whether someone engages in an activity for profit or
hobby. Such factors include:

a.. The manner in which the taxpayer carried on the activity;

b.. The expertise of the taxpayer or his advisors;

c.. The time and effort expended by the taxpayer in carrying on the
activity;

d.. The expectation by the taxpayer that the assets used in the activity
may appreciate in value;

e.. The success of the taxpayer in carrying on other similar or dissimilar
activities;

f.. The taxpayer's history of income or losses with respect to the
activity;

g.. The amount of occasional profits earned by the taxpayer, if any;

h.. The financial status of the taxpayer; and

i.. The elements of recreational or personal pleasure in the taxpayer's
carrying on of the activity.
Most taxpayers looking to make a significant investment in an aircraft would
begin with a thorough analysis of both the aircraft and its underlying
activity. They would generally search out those with the expertise to help
them find an aircraft with the right capabilities, including the ability to
serve the buyer's business needs. In this market of significant recent price
cuts, it is likely that a prudent aircraft purchaser would have a reasonable
expectation of appreciation in the value of the asset. Nonetheless, the
issue is not whether the taxpayer meets the underlying test outlined in IRS
Regulations, but can provide written documentation and retain necessary
records so that they may operate the business in a "business-like manner"
and provide such evidence through the examination authority.

Evidentiary Checklist
A taxpayer should consider the following evidentiary items typical to the
successful outcome of an IRS examination:

a.. Retains information used to make initial buying decisions, as well as
capital improvement decisions, that reflect taxpayer's industry knowledge,
participation in the process, underlying analysis, and operation in a
professional and business-like manner;

b.. Documents the receipt of assistance from business and industry
experts;

c.. Retains relevant information that may constitute the outline of a
business plan. The greater the formality of the business plan, the more
likely it is to serve as evidence of the taxpayer's for-profit purpose;

d.. Safeguards organizational documents and operational minutes, as well
as contracts and other business agreements, and maintains them in a
professional manner;

e.. Documents any expectation of appreciation in value and refers to that
in both business plans and meeting minutes. These expectations should be
buttressed by projected values derived from the historical appreciation of
the aircraft relative to its current position in the market;

f.. Documents that market position with reference to professional
valuation publications such as V Ref, Amstad, and the like;

g.. Compiles contemporaneous time records that will serve to reflect not
only the taxpayer's involvement and industry knowledge, but also be
indicative of a commitment to profit.
Although continued losses can be harmful to a taxpayer's position, the
losses are economic and not tax losses. The most significant add-back to
taxable income in determining economic loss or gain is tax depreciation.
Economic depreciation of an aircraft is often nominal or nonexistent. It is
therefore critical to realize that a taxpayer may receive significant income
tax benefits while still operating the business at an economic profit.

The love of airplanes runs deep among many aircraft owners and operators.
Being an enthusiast may be a harmful factor in a hobby-loss analysis, but
with proper planning it can be overcome by a well-written and documented
business plan, and business records that clearly illustrate the taxpayer's
expectation of a profit-making activity.

Louis M. Meiners, Jr. is an attorney and CPA who serves as president of
Advocate Aircraft Taxation Company. Advocate's practice is limited to
serving the needs of owners and operators of aircraft. Services include
sales and use tax management on aircraft acquisitions, income tax planning,
federal excise tax planning, and representation before taxing authorities.
Meiners can be reached at (800) 787-8112, or loum@advocatetax . com .

Re: tax question for accountants

On Thu, 1 May 2008 07:19:22 -0700, "Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net >
wrote:

>
>
>Louis M. Meiners, Jr. is an attorney and CPA who serves as president of
>Advocate Aircraft Taxation Company. Advocate's practice is limited to
>serving the needs of owners and operators of aircraft. Services include
>sales and use tax management on aircraft acquisitions, income tax planning,
>federal excise tax planning, and representation before taxing authorities.
>Meiners can be reached at (800) 787-8112, or loum@advocatetax . com .
>
>
>


thanks Tom. I guess that's what I was looking for.

CigarBaron

Re: tax question for accountants

Marc Schneiderman <garbaron@telerama . com > wrote in
news:rqfj14thojs7tkgekpr28qfg7od21i69io@4ax . com :

> Question for the group:
>
> Do I get a tax deduction for my flying (to medical meetings) and/or as
> I'm a senior aviation medical examiner for the FAA? The IRS says
> "no."
>
> Anyone have any other information?

Next time any of you are at a social function and happen
to be chatting with a physician, the conversation may,
naturally, turn to that growth you have on your butt.
You might ask him his advice and he might get all indignant
about how many people try to get free medical advice, and oh
how hard it is for him to just relax and have a good time
because folks won't let him not be a doctor for just one
evening.

When that happens, just cite this post.... <sfsf>

B.(Whose doctor has milked him for hours of free advice
on the math education of his recalcitrant daughter, _during_
office visits for which _he_ is paying.)

--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.

Re: tax question for accountants

On May 1, 12:16 pm, Bart Goddard <goddar...@netscape . net > wrote:
> Marc Schneiderman <garba...@telerama . com > wrote innews:rqfj14thojs7tkgekpr=
28qfg7od21i69io@4ax . com :
>
> > Question for the group:
>
> > Do I get a tax deduction for my flying (to medical meetings) and/or as
> > I'm a senior aviation medical examiner for the FAA?  The IRS says
> > "no."
>
> > Anyone have any other information?
>
> Next time any of you are at a social function and happen
> to be chatting with a physician, the conversation may,
> naturally, turn to that growth you have on your butt.
> You might ask him his advice and he might get all indignant
> about how many people try to get free medical advice, and oh
> how hard it is for him to just relax and have a good time
> because folks won't let him not be a doctor for just one
> evening.
>
> When that happens, just cite this post.... <sfsf>
>
> B.(Whose doctor has milked him for hours of free advice
> on the math education of his recalcitrant daughter, during
> office visits for which he is paying.)
>
> --
> Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.


You just added deadbeat to the list!

Re: tax question for accountants

"Bart Goddard" <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote in message
news:Xns9A917CE64DA99goddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.92...
> B.(Whose doctor has milked him for hours of free advice
> on the math education of his recalcitrant daughter, _during_
> office visits for which _he_ is paying.)
>

The question here should be why do you allow yourself to be "milked for
hours" if you resent it? Just say no, or explain to him that you too are a
professional and enjoy getting compensated for your knowledge.

Re: tax question for accountants

"Skyhawk XP" <wpdesign@GOBOSOX.yahoo . com > wrote in
news:BpoSj.8030$iK6.7155@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc . com :


> The question here should be why do you allow yourself to be "milked
> for hours" if you resent it? Just say no, or explain to him that you
> too are a professional and enjoy getting compensated for your
> knowledge.

Who says I resent it? I enjoy talking about math (just ask me
a math question sometime.)

B.

--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.

Re: tax question for accountants

Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote:

>"Skyhawk XP" <wpdesign@GOBOSOX.yahoo . com > wrote in
>news:BpoSj.8030$iK6.7155@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc . com :
>
>
>> The question here should be why do you allow yourself to be "milked
>> for hours" if you resent it? Just say no, or explain to him that you
>> too are a professional and enjoy getting compensated for your
>> knowledge.
>
>Who says I resent it? I enjoy talking about math (just ask me
>a math question sometime.)
>
>B.

Does it bother you that the accepted answer for 0^^0 (zero raised to
the zeroth power) " ... is based on convenience, not on correctness."?