Drywall victims could get tax relief

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Internal Revenue Service has declared that residents whose homes have been severely damaged by Chinese drywall may qualify for special tax deductions.

Homeowners may be able to claim a casualty loss on their tax returns if they have Chinese drywall that emits an unusual or severe concentration of chemical fumes that causes extreme and unusual damage.

Generally, the amount of such a deduction is the difference between the value of the house before and after the sudden, unexpected or unusual event causing the damage. In other words, qualifying taxpayers may be eligible to claim tens of thousands of dollars on their tax returns for the damage Chinese drywall has caused them.

Tainted Chinese drywall has been found in homes in abundance in Florida and also in 20 other states. It contains materials suspected of corroding electrical wiring and components of air-conditioning and other household appliances.

The drywall also is linked to health problems for homeowners and their families, including respiratory problems and insomnia. Some homeowners have been forced to relocate and pay for a new home in addition to the mortgage on their tainted house.

"This is coming as some relief to these families," according to U.S. Senator Bill Nelson, D-Florida. "Considering the terrible circumstances they have had to endure, it's only right that they are given special consideration."

While the majority of reports about Chinese drywall come from Florida, Louisiana and Virginia, problems have proved to be widespread with reports coming from 18 other states and the District of Columbia, according to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, which began investigating in February at Nelson's request.

Read more about problems with imported drywall here

Hawaii Cash Economy Enforcement Act of 2009

On June 18, 2009, Governor Linda Lingle signed Senate Bill 972 SD2, HD1, CD1 into law as Act 134, the "Cash Economy Enforcement Act of 2009."

This Act provides the department with additional resources and tools to target high-risk, cash-based transactions to shore up confidence in Hawaii's tax system. In this regard, this measure ensures that all sectors of Hawaii's economy, including those prone to substantial underreporting, are paying their fair share of taxes.

This Act focuses on the civil collection and enforcement nature of Hawaii's tax laws, by establishing the Special Enforcement Section, a group of tax officials charged with handling sensitive and high-risk civil tax cases as directed by the director. This Act also provides various enforcement tools, including the authority to issue monetary fines and cease and desist citations.

This Special Enforcement Section will investigate reported or suspected violations of tax laws for civil enforcement purposes with a stated priority of investigating cash-based businesses. The personnel assigned to the Special Enforcement Section are not allowed to participate in any criminal investigations.

A cash-based business is defined as a person who operates a business, including for-profit or not-for-profit, where transactions in goods or services are exchanged substantially for cash and where the business is found to have met one or more of a number of factors, which include, substantially underreporting or misreporting the proper amount of tax liability on any tax return, failing to have a license to do business as required by law, having no fixed and permanent principal place of business, or not accepting checks or electronic payment devices for business transactions.

The Special Enforcement Section is authorized to inspect books, records, and premises, without notice, if a warrant or writ of entry is issued by a circuit court based upon probable cause, and may seize and levy any assets in the custody or control of the person.

The Special Enforcement Section may issue cease and desist citations to any person if there is cause to believe the person has violated, is violating, or is about to violate any provision of title 14 or administrative rule adopted there under, which may be appealed to the director and then the circuit court.

The Special Enforcement Section may bring civil actions in the circuit court to enjoin any unlawful act under title 14 by a cash-based business.

This Act adds a number of new civil tax-related fines, applicable to both cash-based and noncash-based businesses:

- A fine for failing to produce upon demand by the Special Enforcement Section any license or permit required under title 14. The fine may not exceed $1,000 for cash based businesses, and may not exceed $500 for all other persons.

- A fine for failing to produce any books or records upon demand of the Special Enforcement Section, if those books or records must be kept pursuant to a provision of title 14. The fine may not exceed $2,000 for cash-based businesses, and may not exceed $1,000 for all other persons.

- A fine for conducting more than ten taxable business transactions per day in cash and failing to provide a receipt or other record of the transaction when the means for issuing a receipt or recording the transaction are available. The fine may not exceed $2,000 for cash-based businesses, and may not exceed $1,000 for all other persons.

- A fine for conducting more than ten taxable business transactions per day in cash and failing to record the transaction in a cash register when the means for recording the transaction in the cash register are available. The fine may not exceed $2,000 for cash-based businesses, and may not exceed $1,000 for all other persons.

- A fine for selling, offering to sell, or otherwise conveying more than one price for any business to be transacted when the lower price is offered if the transaction is paid for in cash, unless there is a legitimate business purpose for the separate prices. The fine may not exceed $3,000 for cash-based businesses, and may not exceed $2,000 for all other persons.

- A fine for a person engaging in business in this state for possessing currency in the form of coin or note, where the possession is for tax avoidance purposes. The burden of proof for establishing tax avoidance purposes is on the department. The fine may not exceed $3,000 for cash-based businesses, and may not exceed $2,000 for all other persons.

- A fine for any person intentionally interfering with, hindering, obstructing, preventing, or impeding any investigator, auditor, collector, or other employee of the department from obtaining license information, books, records, articles, or item of business transacted, or other information or property rightfully entitled to the department. The fine may not exceed $2,000. A showing of good cause is an absolute defense to this fine.

- A fine for any person who receives gross income from business conducted in the state without first obtaining a license under chapter 237. The fine may not exceed $2,000 for cash-based businesses, and may not exceed $500 for all other persons.

The director may waive this fine upon a showing of good cause.

This Act also makes it a crime for any person to interfere, hinder, obstruct, prevent, or impede any investigator or employee of the department with violence or threat of violence.

This Act also adds a reporting requirement to the General Excise Tax Law (Chapter 237, HRS) for contractors on a federal construction project. With respect to any construction project located in the State undertaken pursuant to a federal contract, all persons working on the contract who do not possess a valid general excise tax license at the time a federal contract is awarded must report to the department the estimated gross receipts from the construction project and other information requested by the department on Form G-15, "Information Return for Unlicensed Contractors on Federal Construction Projects." This form must be filed within thirty days of the contract being awarded. Failure to report will result in a penalty of $1,000 per month, or fraction thereof, for each month that a failure to report exists, up to a maximum penalty of $6,000.

The provisions in this Act became effective upon approval, except that the citable offenses provided for in Section 2 of the Act became effective on July 1, 2009, and all the provisions will be repealed on June 30, 2014. Additional information regarding the implementation of this Act will be made available as it is developed by the department.

Florida Department of Revenue Administrative Collection Processing Fee Beginning September 1, 2009

Effective May 30, 2009, a new law imposes a 10 percent administrative collection processing fee on any outstanding debt older than 90 days. The fee is equal to 10 percent of the total amount of tax, penalty, and interest owed, or $10 for each collection event, whichever is greater. A "collection event" is defined as any time a taxpayer fails to:

• Timely file a complete return.

• Timely pay the full amount of tax reported on a return.

• Timely pay the full amount due resulting from an audit (after all appeal rights have expired or the result has been determined to be final).

On September 1, 2009, the Florida Department of Revenue will start collecting this fee on any debt from a collection event that is more than 90 days old, as well as any future debt from a collection event that remains outstanding for more than 90 days after initial notification. The collection fee will not be collected prior to September 1, 2009.

The fee will apply to all taxes and fees listed below:

• Communications services (including gross receipts)

• Corporate income/franchise and emergency excise

• Documentary stamp (including surtaxes)

• Estate

• Gross receipts on dry cleaning facilities

• Gross receipts on utility services

• Insurance premium, fees, surcharges, and assessments

• Intangible personal property

• Lead-acid battery and waste tire

• Local option tourist development

• Miami-Dade County Lake Belt Area

• Motor fuel and diesel fuel

• Motor vehicle warranty

• Pollutants

• Registration of secondhand dealers and secondary metals recyclers

• Rental car surcharge

• Sales and use (including discretionary sales surtaxes)

• Severance

• Unemployment

The collection fee only applies when the Department of Revenue administers and collects the tax or fee.

Keywords: Florida tax help, Florida tax relief, Florida tax professional, Florida state tax relief

IRS Releases List of Transactions of Interest (Notice 2009-55)

The IRS has provided a list of transactions that have been identified by the Service as "transactions of interest." The IRS will consider transactions similar to any of the transactions on the list to be transactions of interest for purposes of Code Secs. 6111, 6112, 6662A, 6707, 6707A and 6708, and Reg. §1.6011-4(b)(6).

One transaction of interest (initially identified in Notice 2007-72, 2007-2 CB 544) involves taxpayers who purchase a remainder interest or similar successor member interest directly or indirectly in real property and then transfer such interest to a tax-exempt organization, claiming a charitable contribution deduction significantly higher than the amount paid for the interest. The Treasury and the IRS are concerned that taxpayers may be utilizing the contribution of such successor member interests to generate an excessive deduction.

Another transaction of interest (Notice 2007-73, 2007-2 CB 545) involves certain transactions in which trust grantors attempt to avoid recognizing gain or claiming a tax loss greater than the actual economic loss by purportedly terminating ("toggling off") and then reestablishing ("toggling on") the grantor status of the trust. These terminations and reestablishments usually occur within a brief period of time.

A third transaction (Notice 2008-99, I.R.B. 2008-47, 1194) involves the creation of a charitable remainder trust, contribution of appreciated assets to the trust by the taxpayer and subsequent sale of the assets by the trust and reinvestment of the proceeds of the sale in different assets such as money market funds or marketable securities. The taxpayer and the charity then sell or dispose of their respective interests in the trust to an unrelated third party for an amount equal to the value of the trust's assets. The trust then terminates, with its assets being distributed to the third party. The taxpayer typically takes the position that this set of transactions results in little or no taxable gain. The IRS believes the transaction improperly manipulates the uniform basis rules to avoid tax on gain from the sale of the appreciated assets in this transaction.

The last transaction (Notice 2009-7, I.R.B. 2009-3, 312) involves a U.S. taxpayer who owns a controlled foreign corporation (CFC) that holds stock of a lower tier CFC through a domestic partnership that takes a position that subpart F income of a lower tier CFC does not result in income inclusion. The U.S. taxpayer takes the position that the subpart F income of a lower tier CFC was already included in the domestic partnership's income, which is not subject to U.S. tax and, thus, should not be included in the income of the U.S. taxpayer. Without the interposition of the domestic partnership, the subpart F income of the lower tier CFC would be taxable to the U.S. taxpayer. The IRS is concerned that taxpayers are taking the position that the structures described result in no income inclusion under Code Sec. 951. Therefore, the IRS has identified these structures and other substantially similar transactions as transactions of interest that are contrary to the purpose and intent of the provisions of subpart F.

Generally, persons entering into these transactions on or after November 2, 2006, must disclose their participation in the transaction. Taxpayers who fail to disclose may be subject to civil penalties. Material advisors who make tax statements with respect to transactions of interest may have disclosure and list maintenance obligations.

Oregon: Tax Amnesty Program Enacted

To qualify for participation in the program, a taxpayer must have been required to:

• file an income tax return for a tax year prior to 2008;
• pay income tax for a tax year prior to 2008;
• file an inheritance tax return and pay any required tax if the return was due before 2008; or
• pay the mass transit tax on self-employment, if required to do so, before 2008.

A taxpayer may not participate in the tax amnesty program if the OR DOR issued a notice of deficiency before the start of the program or assessed a tax for a tax year for which the taxpayer could otherwise apply for amnesty. However, a taxpayer who has filed a bankruptcy petition may participate in the program if the taxpayer submits an order from the bankruptcy court allowing participation.

All penalties and 50% of the interest due will be waived for all taxpayers who participate in the program, including those who enter into installment agreements with the OR DOR. However, 25% of the total amount of unpaid tax that would otherwise be due will be added to the amount of outstanding tax liability for any tax year or reporting period for which amnesty could have been sought if the taxpayer failed to apply for amnesty.

In addition, a taxpayer who participates in the OR tax amnesty program is prohibited from requesting a refund of any tax paid under the program and waives the right to appeal any such tax.

Keywords: Oregon Tax Help, Oregon Tax Relief, Oregon Tax Amnesty, Oregon tax problem resolution

Louisiana: Tax Amnesty Program Enacted

The Louisiana Tax Delinquency Amnesty Act of 2009, which requires the Department of Revenue () to develop and implement a tax amnesty program to be effective for a period not to exceed two consecutive calendar months between July 1, 2009, and June 30, 2010, at the discretion of the secretary, is enacted.

The tax amnesty program will apply to all taxes administered by the DOR except for motor fuel taxes and penalties for failure to submit information reports that are not based on an underpayment of tax.

The tax amnesty program will apply to (1) taxes due prior to January 1, 2009, for which the DOR has issued a proposed assessment, notice of assessment, bill, notice, or demand for payment on or after July 1, 2001, and before May 31, 2009; (2) taxes that became due on or after July 1, 2001, and before January 1, 2009; (3) taxes for which the taxpayer and the DOR have entered into an agreement to interrupt the running of prescription until December 31, 2009; or (4) taxes that became due on or before July 1, 2001, if the taxpayer was ineligible for an earlier amnesty program due to having a matter in civil litigation.

Participation in the amnesty program will be conditioned upon the agreement of the taxpayer that the right to protest or initiate an administrative or judicial proceeding is barred.

The amnesty will not be granted to taxpayers who are parties to any criminal investigation or criminal litigation.

Taxpayers with existing liens on their property, both movable and immovable, as well as taxpayers the DOR has initiated proceedings against under the assessment and distrait procedure, are eligible for amnesty. Taxpayers are required, however, to pay any and all lien fees associated with the tax periods for which they apply for amnesty.

The amnesty will only be granted for eligible taxes to eligible taxpayers who apply for amnesty during the amnesty period on forms prescribed by the secretary and who pay all of the tax, all fees and costs, if applicable, and half of the interest due upon filing the amnesty application. If the amnesty application is approved, the secretary will waive the remaining half of the interest and all of the penalties associated with the tax periods for which amnesty is applied. No installment agreements will be entered into for tax periods that are approved for amnesty.

Top Seven Tips for Taxpayers Starting a New Business

IRS Summertime Tax Tip 2009-02

Anyone starting a new business this summer should be aware of their federal tax responsibilities. Here are the top seven things the IRS wants you to know if you plan on opening a new business this year.

1. First, you must decide what type of business entity you are going to establish. The type your business takes will determine which tax form you have to file. The most common types of business are the sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation and S corporation.

2. The type of business you operate determines what taxes you must pay and how you pay them. The four general types of business taxes are income tax, self-employment tax, employment tax and excise tax.

3. An Employer Identification Number is used to identify a business entity. Generally, businesses need an EIN. Visit IRS.gov for more information about whether you will need an EIN. You can also apply for an EIN online at IRS.gov.

4. Good records will help you ensure successful operation of your new business. You may choose any recordkeeping system suited to your business that clearly shows your income and expenses. Except in a few cases, the law does not require any special kind of records. However, the business you are in affects the type of records you need to keep for federal tax purposes.

5. Every business taxpayer must figure taxable income on an annual accounting period called a tax year. The calendar year and the fiscal year are the most common tax years used.

6. Each taxpayer must also use a consistent accounting method, which is a set of rules for determining when to report income and expenses. The most commonly used accounting methods are the cash method and an accrual method. Under the cash method, you generally report income in the tax year you receive it and deduct expenses in the tax year you pay them. Under an accrual method, you generally report income in the tax year you earn it and deduct expenses in the tax year you incur them.

7. Visit the Business section of IRS.gov for resources to assist entrepreneurs with starting and operating a new business.

Construction Industry Tax Issues

Accumulated Earnings Tax

Closely held C corporations are more likely to accumulate earnings and profits beyond the reasonable needs of the business in order to avoid income taxes on its shareholders than are large C corporations. Each accumulated earnings case is unique. No pro forma guide for calculating a taxpayer's reasonable needs can be prepared. Reasonable needs that would usually be considered in any accumulated earnings case are the need for sufficient net liquid assets to pay reasonably anticipated, normal operating costs through one business cycle and sufficient net liquid assets to pay reasonably anticipated, extraordinary expenses and capital improvement financing.

In addition, the following represents a non-exclusive list of specific items that should be considered for construction contractors:

1. Working Capital necessary for Bonding Purposes: The general rule of thumb is that working capital needs to be at least 10% of "backlog" for bonding purposes. A specific taxpayer's situation may result in a different percentage based on the bonding company's requirements. Thus, this percentage should be determined on a case-by-case basis. "Backlog" work program is the sum of contracts in process less the billings from those contracts plus contracts not started.

2. Equipment Needs: Contractors who have high equipment needs will generally have a need to replace the equipment on a periodic basis.

The following information is included to assist an examiner during an examination of a construction company in determining whether an accumulated earnings tax issue exists. When considering whether an IRC Section 531 issues exist, examiners are advised to apply the Bardahl, Mead, or similar method used in determining the reasonable business needs. However an examiner must consider that, unlike most entities, a construction company normally needs to retain earnings and profits to have adequate bonding capacity. Relevant court cases involving the accumulated earning tax and construction contractors are:

1. Ready Paving and Construction Co. v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. 826 (1974): A paving contractor had permitted its earnings to accumulate beyond the reasonable needs of its business. A "modified" Bardahl formula was used with the case hinging on what items were and were not to be included in determining working capital.

2. Thompson Engineering Co. v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 672 (1983) 751 F.2d 191 (6th Cir. 1985): A construction subcontractor was liable for the accumulated earnings tax. The IRS determined the taxpayer's reasonable business needs by applying the "Bardahl" formula. The court agreed with the taxpayer that the Bardahl formula has "little or no value when applied to a mechanical contracting business that lacks a routine operating cycle." The bonding capacity, and not the Bardahl formula, is the major consideration in determining the taxpayer's business needs. This case was appealed and reversed.

3. Peterson Bros. Steel Erection Co. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988-381, 55 T.C.M. (CCH) 1605 (1988): The taxpayer, involved in the steel erection of high-rise buildings, was not liable for the accumulated earnings tax. The petitioner's ability to obtain a bond on a job when required is of primary importance and is clearly a reasonable need of the business. The fact that the petitioner was rarely required to provide a performance bond on its jobs is immaterial since it had to be prepared to provide a bond if required.

Alternative Minimum Tax

Taxpayers who are not required to use PCM under IRC Section 460) may owe alternative minimum tax. IRC Section 56(a)(3) states that the PCM must be used for long-term contracts for alternative minimum tax purposes. Therefore, taxpayers on the cash, accrual or completed contract methods must compute alternative minimum taxable income on the percentage of completion method. Exceptions to the required use of PCM for AMT:

1. Homebuilders: IRC Section 56(a) applies to long-term contracts except for home construction contracts

2. Small Corporations: Exempt from AMT for tax years beginning after 1998. Small corporations are C corporations with average annual gross receipts of $5,000,000 remain exempt in subsequent years until their average annual gross receipts exceed $7,500,000.

Many construction companies are required to prepare certified financial statements for bonding and lending purposes. Financial statements must be prepared on percentage of completion method. (Statement of Position 81-1) Thus, the difference between the percentage of completion method and the tax return method can easily be determined for alternative minimum tax purposes.

Employment Tax

The use of subcontractors is common within the construction industry. Many taxpayers treat employees as subcontractors to avoid paying employment taxes. The agent may need to seek guidance from an employment tax specialist when confronted with potential employment tax issues. Back-up withholding can apply to subcontractors. The bargain sale of a house to an employee involving a discounted sales price could produce employment tax liability.

Conclusion

Many issues are common to all industries. However, some issues are specific to the construction industry, due to the nature of the business and the special accounting methods available. Additional facts and tax research will be necessary to develop the issues in this chapter.

Keywords: construction tax problem, construction tax help, construction IRS audit, construction IRS examination.

IRS El Monte, CA-IRS Los Angeles, CA-IRS El Segundo, CA-IRS Laguna Niguel, CA-IRS Camarillo, CA-IRS Glendale, CA-IRS Woodland Hills, CA

####

IRS Did Not Fail to Properly Credit Checks Against Married Couple's Tax Liability (Kovacevich, TCM)

The IRS properly credited five checks toward the outstanding tax liability of a law firm and not the individual tax liability of an attorney and his wife. For the tax year at issue, the taxpayer/husband was improperly characterized as an independent contractor rather than an employee of his law firm and the IRS determined that the couple failed to report income and improperly claimed deduction. The taxpayers requested a collection due process (CDP) hearing after the IRS sent a notice of intent to levy. Although one of the disputed checks was not presented to the Appeals Officer, the Tax Court could consider it because the Tax Court did not follow the record rule, and therefore, could consider evidence not produced at the CDP hearing as long as it was relevant. Since the IRS did not make an evidentiary objection to the check at trial, any objection for relevance was waived. Because the taxpayers received a notice of deficiency, their underlying tax liability could not be challenged in the CDP hearing. Questions about whether a particular check could be credited to a taxpayer's account for a particular tax year, however, were not challenges to the taxpayer's underlying tax liability. The Appeal's officer's determination to the contrary was a harmless error of law and not an abuse of discretion because the IRS did correctly credit the checks against liabilities other than the taxpayers' unpaid individual tax liability for the tax year at issue. The taxpayers payments were voluntary and so their designations controlled. Designations on the checks, such as the employer identification number of the law firm that was liable for the employment taxes with respect to the taxpayer, supported a conclusion that the payments were meant to pay the law firm's tax debt, not the taxpayers' individual tax debt. Although one check arguably could have been for the payment of trust fund recovery penalty against the taxpayer as a responsible person for his law firm, the liability was for a tax year outside of the CDP hearing and the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction over those taxes.

The taxpayers failed to present evidence that the employment taxes were overpaid prior to the year at issue and that the overpayment should be credited toward their individual deficiency. The taxpayers presented no evidence of their income from earlier years nor stated how the amounts should be credited or how the credits reduced the deficiency. Finally, the Appeals officer did not abuse her discretion in refusing to send the Social Security Administration information about the taxpayer's additional income. The issue was not related to an unpaid tax or levy and so was an issue that could not be raised at a CDP hearing.

Abusive Tax Evasion Schemes

Resolve your tax problem and get tax relief today!

Examples of Abusive Tax Scheme Investigations - Fiscal Year 2009

The following examples of abusive tax schemes are written from public record documents on file in the courts in the judicial district in which the cases were prosecuted.

New Jersey Computer Consultant Sentenced for Using Sham Trusts to Evade Taxes

On June 2, 2009, in Newark, New Jersey, James Najarian, a computer consultant, was sentenced to 12 months in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, and ordered to pay a $3,000 fine. On February 17, 2009, Najarian, pleaded guilty to count three of a four count Information charging him with tax evasion. According to court documents, Najarian was employed as a computer consultant by SER Associates, LLC, a limited liability company registered in the State of Nevada, which Najarian owned. Through SER Associates, Najarian performed computer consulting services for LNS Systems, Inc., a company controlled by his sister. LNS Systems made payment via check to SER Associates for consulting services performed by Najarian. In an effort to conceal his personal income and evade the assessment and payment of tax, Najarian established and controlled two trusts, Hokee Consulting and YAR Group, as the sole partners of SER Associates, which functioned as mere shell entities to conceal Najarian's receipt of income by SER Associates. Najarian filed U.S. Partnership Tax Returns, Forms 1065, on behalf of SER Associates for tax years 2002 through 2005, in which he reported the income and expenses he had earned as a computer consultant, but attributed that income not to himself personally, but to the Sham Trusts. Najarian failed to file personal income tax returns for himself during the years 2002 through 2005, even though he had received income of over $473,000 for consulting services performed through SER Associates during that time period, which resulted in over $112,000 in federal taxes due and owing.

Avoid tax fraud and get tax relief today; we have solutions to any tax problem. Delinquent and back tax relief, payroll tax relief, innocent spouse relief, federal tax relief and state tax relief.

Ohio and Michigan Tax Defiers Sentenced to Prison for Tax Offenses

On May 29, 2009, in Toledo, Ohio, Winfield Thomas, a resident of Carey, Ohio, and Jeanne Herrington, a resident of Parma, Mich., were sentenced to 30 months and 96 months in prison, respectively. In addition to jail time, both Thomas and Herrington were sentenced to three years of supervised release. In November 2008, a jury convicted Thomas and Herrington of conspiracy to impede the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Herrington was also convicted of corruptly interfering with the administration of the internal revenue laws. Also sentenced was Chad Rickle, who pleaded guilty to conspiring with Thomas and Herrington. Rickle received a sentence of four months in prison, four months of home confinement, and three years of supervised release. According to the evidence presented at trial, Thomas and Herrington promoted and sold bogus financial instruments which they fraudulently stated could be used to pay tax liabilities of their clients. These fictitious financial instruments, referred to as 'Bills of Exchange' and 'drafts,' were purported to be worth thousands of dollars. The total amount of fictitious financial instruments related to the scheme was in excess of $28 million. Trial evidence indicated that Thomas began marketing and selling abusive trusts as estate planning vehicles. He instructed trust participants to file false income tax returns that were prepared by co-defendant Chad Rickle which unlawfully assigned personal property and income to the trusts and then illegally deducted personal expenses as fiduciary and other fees. After the IRS sent the trust participants tax deficiency notices, Thomas instructed participants to ignore IRS correspondence, resulting in IRS tax assessments and the initiation of collection activities. Thomas and trust participants also sent false and threatening documents to the IRS in response to its collection efforts. Following the assessments made against their clients, Herrington and Thomas promoted the preparation and submission of fictitious financial instruments to the IRS as purported payment of outstanding tax liabilities. Herrington instructed the trust participants to open and then quickly close checking accounts and to use the account and routing numbers for those closed accounts on the bogus 'drafts.' Additionally, Herrington submitted false Forms 1099 to the IRS in October 2006, shortly after she was first indicted for tax crimes, in an effort to obstruct the prosecution. These Forms 1099 falsely reported that various individuals associated with the prosecution, including a Tax Division attorney and an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Toledo, Ohio, had received substantial amounts of income from Herrington.

Avoid tax fraud and get tax relief today; we have solutions to any tax problem. Delinquent and back tax relief, payroll tax relief, innocent spouse relief, federal tax relief and state tax relief.

Los Angeles Area Man Sentenced To Five Years in Prison for Tax Evasion

On May 28, 2009, in Los Angeles, Calif., Giancarlo Pertile, the former owner of Art Marble Design Inc., in Moorpark, Calif., was sentenced to 60 months in federal prison and ordered to pay a $75,000 fine. Pertile was convicted by a jury in January 2009 of five counts of tax evasion for the years 1998 through 2002. According to evidence presented at trial and at the sentencing hearing, Pertile did not report the profits from the operation of his business, Art Marble Design, on his personal income tax returns. As a result of his concealment of business receipts from his bookkeeper and his accountant, Pertile caused false and fraudulent corporate income tax returns to be filed with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) which falsely understated his business income. Additionally, Pertile filed individual income tax returns for the years 1998 through 2002 that falsely understated his taxable income. According to evidence presented at trial, Pertile paid only $1,200 in federal income tax from 1998 to 2002 despite earning over $850,000 from the operation of Art Marble Design during the same time period. Instead of reporting the profits from the business on his tax returns, Pertile deposited a substantial portion of the business income into additional bank accounts that he concealed from his bookkeeper, accountant and the IRS. As a result of Pertile's conduct, he evaded the payment of approximately $247,000 in federal income tax between 1998 and 2002. At trial, Pertile unsuccessfully argued that his company's business receipts were not taxable because the company was owned by a "pure trust." Pertile also placed his home in the name of a ministry to conceal his ownership in the property from the IRS.

Avoid tax fraud and get tax relief today; we have solutions to any tax problem. Delinquent and back tax relief, payroll tax relief, innocent spouse relief, federal tax relief and state tax relief.

Former Aegis Trust Counsel Sentenced

On May 14, 2009, in Chicago, Ill., John Stambulis was sentenced to 24 months in prison to be followed by three years of supervised release, and ordered to pay any outstanding taxes due. According to court documents, Stambulis, a Bridgeview attorney, was the chief trust counsel of Aegis, through which he allegedly assisted in the promotion, sale, establishment, and defense of Aegis trust systems. In June 2004, a superseding indictment charged Stambulis, along with several other defendants, for participating in a nearly decade-long scheme to market and sell sham domestic and foreign trusts through, now defunct, The Aegis Company. In February 2008, Stambulis pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the U.S. by impeding the Internal Revenue Service.

Avoid tax fraud and get tax relief today; we have solutions to any tax problem. Delinquent and back tax relief, payroll tax relief, innocent spouse relief, federal tax relief and state tax relief.

Former City Corporate Counsel Attorney Sentenced for Marketing Sham Trusts

On May 11, 2009, in Urbana, Ill., John Wolgamot was sentenced to 12 months and 1 day in prison for his role in a tax fraud conspiracy that marketed and sold sham trusts to shelter taxpayers' income from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). In May 2007, a third superseding indictment charged Wolgamot, along with Brian Wasson and Joseph Starns, who died that year, with participating in marketing sham trusts that helped conceal taxpayer assets and income from the IRS. According to the indictment, Wolgamot was a business associate of Wasson and the late Joseph Starns in Midwest Alternative Planning, a business created to promote the Aegis scheme. The case stems from a broad federal investigation of sham trusts and business packages known as The Aegis Company of Palos Hills, Illinois. The executive director and founders of the now-defunct Aegis company were convicted of tax fraud conspiracy. In August 2008, pursuant to a sealed plea agreement, Wolgamot pleaded guilty to one count of aiding in the filing of a false tax return. Following his sentence, Wolgamot will be on supervised release for 12 months.

Avoid tax fraud and get tax relief today; we have solutions to any tax problem. Delinquent and back tax relief, payroll tax relief, innocent spouse relief, federal tax relief and state tax relief.

Two Sham Trust Marketers and Former Congressional Candidate Sentenced

On April 30, 2009, in Peoria, Ill., three defendants convicted this summer of tax offenses were sentenced to prison terms. Kenton W. Tylman and Debra J. Hills, both of Charleston, Illinois, were convicted in July 2008 for participation in a tax fraud conspiracy that marketed and sold sham trusts and financial packages to shelter taxpayers' income from the Internal Revenue Service. Tylman was sentenced to five years in federal prison; Hills was ordered to serve three years in prison. A third defendant, Brent A. Winters, of California, who was acquitted of the conspiracy charge but convicted of filing a false tax return, was ordered to serve 12 months in prison. Evidence presented by the government at trial showed that beginning in 1995, Tylman sold "trusts" and related financial arrangements for the Aegis Company in Palos Hills, Illinois. In 1998, Hills joined Tylman in the sale and promotion of the "trusts." During 1999 and 2000, Tylman and Hills sold "trust" packages using the business names of Worldwide Financial Services and Worldwide Financial and Legal Association. Purchasers of the so-called "trusts" were charged as much as $40,000 for their services. Tylman and Hills received a percentage of the purchase price, as well as commissions and management fees. Winters, acquitted of the conspiracy, was convicted for filing a false U.S. Individual Income Tax Return for the 1998 tax year. The government presented evidence that Winters, an attorney who made an unsuccessful run for Congress in 1998, loaned $36,616.50 to his campaign fund when he was a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives. Following his unsuccessful campaign, Winters claimed that he sold the uncollectible loan for $2,500 to "American Land and Mines Company," a trust controlled by Winters and his wife. Winters then reported a capital loss of $34,117 as a deduction on his tax return; however, the law does not allow for deduction of a bad debt created by the sale to a related party. Further, there was no evidence that American Land and Mines Company ever purchased the loan.

Avoid tax fraud and get tax relief today; we have solutions to any tax problem. Delinquent and back tax relief, payroll tax relief, innocent spouse relief, federal tax relief and state tax relief.

Attorney Sentenced to Three Years in Prison, Fined $250,000 for Impeding the IRS

On April 17, 2009, in Salt Lake City, Utah, Thomas Wood, a practicing attorney from Cottonwood Heights, Utah, was sentenced to 36 months in prison and fined $250,000 for corruptly endeavoring to impede the Internal Revenue Service and failing to file federal income tax returns for two years. Wood was also ordered to pay $56,852 in restitution to the United States Treasury. According to the indictment and evidence presented at trial, from 1998 through 2002, Wood helped two individuals, Glenn Ambort and John Benson, hide millions of dollars in income. In those years, Ambort and Benson were awaiting trial in a federal prosecution for conspiracy to commit tax fraud. While assisting in their defense, Wood used several bank accounts that he held in trust to hide millions in income that Ambort and Benson were taking from the MyCor Investment Club. To facilitate the use of this income without drawing the attention of tax authorities, Wood used non-interest bearing domestic trust accounts to receive and disburse funds, including one in the name of The Family Foundation, an entity he formed to help support the Goodman family, a popular singing group at the time. Wood also opened up and managed the use of offshore debit card accounts in the Bahamas for himself and others. Evidence showed that Wood had not filed a tax return since the 1980s. In the two years for which he was prosecuted, 2000 and 2001, his gross income was more than $180,000 and $56,000, respectively. The income came primarily from investor funds under his control in his nominee trust accounts that he used to pay for personal expenses.

Avoid tax fraud and get tax relief today; we have solutions to any tax problem. Delinquent and back tax relief, payroll tax relief, innocent spouse relief, federal tax relief and state tax relief.

Georgia Woman and Co-Conspirator Sentenced in Tax Conspiracy

On April 15, 2009, in Atlanta, Ga., Jacqueline Ann Demer, of Gainesville, Georgia, was sentenced to 63 months in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, and ordered to pay $315,829 in restitution and to pay a $15,000 fine. Her co-conspirator, Jerry Robert Lahr, of Hurst, Texas, was sentenced to 37 months in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, and ordered to pay $1,115,444 in restitution. In addition, Lahr has also filed corrected income tax returns through the current tax year. In December 2008, Demer was convicted by a trial jury on charges related to a scheme to impede the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in its collection of income taxes. Lahr pleaded guilty in December 2008 to conspiracy to impede the IRS. According to information presented in court: Between December 2001 and 2006, Demer performed banking and clerical services for Lahr. Demer, using the alias "Jessica Dalton," mailed five false and fictitious obligations, captioned "Bond[s] to discharge attachment for debt," to the IRS in October 2003. These false bonds were submitted as purported payment of Lahr's tax liabilities, penalties, and interest for the years 1996 through 2000. Lahr had gross income totaling approximately $2,600,000 for tax years 1996 through 2003, but didn't file federal income tax returns or make any payments to the IRS for those tax years. Lahr and Demer conspired to conceal Lahr's assets, income, and expenditures through the use of bank accounts and shell "trust" entities, all in nominee names. The evidence at trial also established that Demer used at least 30 different business names and post office boxes in seven different locations, some of which were opened with a fraudulent identification card in the name of her alias, Jessica Dalton. Additionally, Demer served as the trustee for various shell entities set up to conceal Lahr's ownership of assets, such as real property and automobiles. Evidence also showed that Demer had not filed a federal tax return since at least 2002.

Avoid tax fraud and get tax relief today; we have solutions to any tax problem. Delinquent and back tax relief, payroll tax relief, innocent spouse relief, federal tax relief and state tax relief.

Little Rock Attorney Sentenced for Aiding and Abetting Tax Evasion

On April 14, 2009, in Little Rock, Ark., Barry J. Jewell, an attorney, was sentenced to 30 months in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, and ordered to pay a $25,000 fine and to pay $4,202 to cover a portion of the cost of prosecution. Jewell was found guilty by a trial jury on September 19, 2008, of causing his clients to file a tax return with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) under-reporting their actual income for the year by approximately $1.8 million. According to court documents, Jewell created a fraudulent business transaction to substantiate the false return, which resulted in a tax loss to the government of over $700,000. Jewell created a profit sharing trust in which to conceal income from the IRS.

Avoid tax fraud and get tax relief today; we have solutions to any tax problem. Delinquent and back tax relief, payroll tax relief, innocent spouse relief, federal tax relief and state tax relief.

Former Senior Manager at KPMG, Former Partner at KPMG, and Partner in Law Firm Sentenced in Tax Shelter Fraud Case

On April 1, 2009, in Manhattan, N.Y. John Larson, Robert Pfaff, and Raymond J. Ruble, aka R.J. Ruble, were sentenced on charges stemming from a scheme to design, market and implement fraudulent tax shelters that were used to evade more than a billion dollars in taxes due by their tax shelter clients. Larson, a former senior manager at KPMG, was sentenced to 121 months in prison and ordered to pay a $6 million fine; Pfaff, a former partner at KPMG, was sentenced to 97 months in prison and ordered to pay a $3 million fine; and Ruble, a partner at the law firm of Brown & Wood, was sentenced to 78 months in prison. In addition to the prison terms and fines, Larson and Pfaff are to serve three years of supervised release; Ruble is to serve two years of supervised release. The Judge scheduled a hearing in June 2009 to determine restitution. All three defendants had been found guilty on December 17, 2008, following a ten-week jury trial, of multiple counts of tax fraud. According to court documents, Larson and Pfaff were the founders and partners in Presidio Advisory Services, which purported to be an "investment advisor" for various tax shelter products. Trial evidence showed that from at least 1998 through 2000, Larson, Pfaff and Ruble were involved in the design, marketing, and implementation of a tax shelter known as BLIPS. The defendants represented that BLIPS could be used to completely eliminate either the capital gains or ordinary income tax of tax shelter clients who had at least $20 million in income in that year, purporting to eliminate millions of dollars in taxes otherwise due and owing. The Court found, as relevant to sentencing, that all of the BLIPS tax shelters combined resulted in a tax loss to the U.S. Treasury of almost one billion dollars.

Avoid tax fraud and get tax relief today; we have solutions to any tax problem. Delinquent and back tax relief, payroll tax relief, innocent spouse relief, federal tax relief and state tax relief. Get reliable tax relief representation by Mike Habib, EA

CA New Home Tax Credit Going Fast

Sacramento – The Franchise Tax Board (FTB) announced today that the $100 million allocated by the state in new home tax credits will soon be gone.

As of June 17, 2009, FTB had received more than 9,800 applications claiming nearly $95 million. Because some of these applications are duplicates, revisions, or invalid, FTB plans to accept 12,000 applications. This will ensure enough valid applications will be available to allocate the full $100 million credit. However, FTB will only issue approved credit certificates until the $100 million is exhausted.

When 11,000 applications are received, FTB will update its Tax Credit for New Home Purchases web page at www.ftb.ca.gov each business day with the new totals. Once FTB receives 12,000 applications, the fax service will be disconnected.

This tax credit is available for qualified buyers who on or after March 1, 2009, and before March 1, 2010 purchase a qualified principal residence that has never been occupied. The buyer must reside in the new home for a minimum of two years immediately following the purchase date. To apply, an Application for New Home Credit must be completed by the buyer and seller within one week after the close of escrow and faxed by the escrow person to FTB at 916.845.9754.

To expedite the processing of applications, qualified buyers are reminded to: submit only one application per new home purchase, only send in the application after escrow closes, and complete the application carefully and accurately. Applications received before escrow closes will be denied.

FTB will continue to report the certificates issued on a weekly basis until the full $100 million has been allocated. FTB expects to complete processing all certificates in August. Each applicant will receive a notification indicating the amount of credit allocated or denied.

Enrolled Agent vs. Tax Attorney / Tax Lawyer

Dealing with tax problems entails a good amount of hard work and stress, which is why it is not advisable to deal with such problems on your own. It requires that you have a fair understanding not only of the taxation process but also of how the IRS operates. Trying to gain such understanding is quite stressful in itself; much more is attempting to apply it to resolve your tax issues with the Internal Revenue Service and get tax relief. The sheer complexity involved in taxation and tax problems is what drives a lot of individual taxpayers and businessmen to approach a tax lawyer for assistance. While it is commendable that these people accept the need to seek assistance with their tax problems, they don't always ask for help from the right tax relief professional. A tax attorney is not always the best person to seek assistance from when it comes to tax problems. Since it's not a legal problem, but a tax problem, the IRS and State simply wants to know when your delinquent tax returns are going to be filed and when & how your taxes are going to be paid. What you need is a professional advocate who has the knowledge of the enforcement and collection procedures of the IRS, the State Franchise Tax Board and who has the specialized experience to effectively resolve these tax issues in your best interest.

Profile of the tax attorney

This is not to say that tax lawyers are not suitable for any kind of tax problems. If you are being accused of criminal matters, tax evasion, tax fraud, or any other serious tax related crimes, then a tax lawyer is your best bet for defense. Tax lawyers are also the best people to seek help from if you or your company wishes to sue the IRS for any wrongdoing.

What exactly is a tax lawyer? Tax attorneys are attorneys-at-law who specialize in tax and tax related laws. They, like other kinds of practicing lawyers, holds a Juris Doctor degree and have passed the bar exam provided by the state where they hold practice. Aside from standing as counsel on your defense, a tax lawyer can also perform other functions such as provide tax advice and assist in tax preparation. There are, however, certain limitations to what a tax attorney can do for you. For one, tax lawyers are only allowed to practice in the state where their licenses were issued. Also, tax lawyers are not guaranteed to have a broad understanding of how the IRS operates - what a tax attorney can promise for certain is only understanding of tax laws of his respective state and the federal government.

Then again, you can by all means still hire a tax lawyer to help you with your tax problem. This move makes perfect sense if you are a big corporation or a rich individual taxpayer who would not miss paying upwards of $500 (and possibly much more) per hour plus all other costs - because that is how much good tax attorneys charge nowadays.

The more reasonable and appropriate option

In the case of the majority of individual taxpayers and businesses who have more plans for their hard earned funds than on spending them on extremely high attorney fees, there are other tax professionals that can provide the same or even better service than tax lawyers. On top of this list are Enrolled Agents; they are your professional tax advocates. Enrolled Agents are tax professionals certified by the IRS to represent clients in tax proceedings, hearings, collections, audits, appeals and other tax related scenarios. By a far cry, Enrolled Agents are the best type of tax professionals that individual taxpayers and corporations can approach for assistance with tax relief and tax problem resolution. This is because Enrolled Agents have the most extensive experience when it comes to dealing with the IRS and like attorneys, are knowledgeable with even the most complex of tax laws. So, the next time you are faced with any tax problem, save yourself from worry, complications, and high cost by choosing a qualified and experienced Enrolled Agent that specializes in tax relief and tax problem resolution to assist you.

For tax relief services, contact Mike Habib, EA. He is licensed to represent taxpayers in ALL 50 states, and specializes in tax controversy matters. Mike Habib fees are on a flat fee basis and very reasonable to work with.

Keywords: tax attorney, tax lawyer, irs attorney problem solver, tax attorney for tax problem, enrolled agent tax negotiator

In face of tighter enforcement measures that the IRS is expected to use to strengthen its tax collection and monitoring policies, tax problems have become, if possibly, more stressful to deal with. Among truck drivers, in particular, the need to immediately address tax problems is more pressing than it has been in previous years. However, given the present economic climate, dealing with tax problems can prove hard for truckers, truck drivers. This is where tax relief for truck drivers plays an integral role. The IRS provides tax relief for truckers, provided that they certain law mandated qualifications and criteria.

Available tax relief for drivers

Truck drivers have at their disposal the same kind of tax relief available to all citizens of the United States. The first of these relief services is back tax return assistance. Back taxes are taxes accumulated from years of unfiled returns, delayed filings, or missing records. If left unattended, back taxes can cause major problems for a truck driver because he or she is likely to be considered evading his or her responsibilities. If you have a good amount of unfiled returns in your hands, you can set your record straight through services offering tax relief for truckers. Our firm, Mike Habib, EA, offer such service basically helps our clients to reconstruct tax records and prepare past due tax returns.

Another tax relief for truck drivers is installment agreement, which can be especially helpful for truckers with excessive tax debts. This type of tax relief service would allow a truck driver who is indebted with the IRS to pay his or her owed taxes through small installment payments. The amount to be paid for each installment and the repayment schedule would be based on the truck driver's current financial status. This setup, along with the amount and schedule, can be negotiated with the IRS given that the truck driver meets certain qualifications. If you are yet unfamiliar with this kind of tax relief for truck drivers, you can retain our tax professional services to help you explore it.

Truck drivers also have the option to get truck relief through offer in compromise or OIC. This is perhaps, the best kind of tax relief for truckers since it would allow them to pay less than what they actually owe the IRS in tax debt and back taxes. On the same note, OIC comes with the strictest qualifications, rules, and guidelines to ensure that only qualified truck drivers and tax payers in general are able to avail of it.

Related to offer in compromise is a tax problem resolution called penalty abatement. This is actually a step above OIC in that it opens the possibility of eliminating penalties on the tax debt if the taxpayer is able to present reasonable and justifiable cause explaining why he or she accumulated the tax debt in the first place. Some examples of reasonable and justifiable cause accepted by the IRS are family sickness, natural disasters, and other situations that are beyond a person's control.

Regardless of the type of tax relief for truckers that you can avail of, what is important is that you try and avail of one. Tax problems are hard burdens to live with. They are among the many number of things that you cannot live normally with. By seeking tax relief, you free yourself of tons of headache and worries. More importantly, you would no longer fear the IRS tax letters coming in, the phone ringing, or the doorbell ringing.

Knowing the right one

Before you seek tax relief for truck drivers, however, you must know what kind to of option is best suited for your situation. This is because every kind of financial situation requires a different approach in the same way that each kind of tax relief approach comes with requires different qualifications. It is best to present your case to a tax professional so he or she can advice you on which tax relief is most suitable to your position.

We represent truckers before the IRS in all 50 states. We can resolve your tax problem and settle your tax debt for the lowest amount allowed by law. Call Mike Habib today at 1-877-78-TAXES or CLICK HERE

Trucker tax relief and IRS tax problems resolution serving and representing truckers and trucking companies in all of the following states, counties, and metro cities, Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington D.C.. West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming. AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DE DC FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NH NJ NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY New York, Los Angeles, Orange County, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Francisco, Ventura, Lancaster, Palmdale, Santa Barbara, Chicago, Washington D. C., Silicon Valley, Philadelphia, Boston, Detroit, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Miami, Seattle, Phoenix, Minneapolis, Cleveland, San Diego, St Louis, Denver, San Juan, Tampa, Pittsburgh, Portland, Cincinnati, Sacramento, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Orlando, Indianapolis, San Antonio, Norfolk & VB, Las Vegas, Columbus, Charlotte, New Orleans, Salt Lake City, Greensboro, Austin, Nashville, Providence, Raleigh, Hartford, Buffalo, Memphis, West Palm Beach, Jacksonville, Rochester, Grand Rapids, Reno, Oklahoma City, Louisville, Richmond, Greenville, Dayton, Fresno, Birmingham, Honolulu, Albany, Tucson, Tulsa, Tempe, Syracuse, Omaha, Albuquerque, Knoxville, El Paso, Bakersfield, Allentown, Harrisburg, Scranton, Toledo, Baton Rouge, Youngstown, Springfield, Sarasota, Little Rock, Orlando, McAllen, Stockton, Charleston, Wichita, Mobile, Columbia, Colorado Springs, Fort Wayne, Daytona Beach, Lakeland, Johnson City, Lexington, Augusta, Melbourne, Lancaster, Chattanooga, Des Moines, Kalamazoo, Lansing, Modesto, Fort Myers, Jackson, Boise, Billings, Madison, Spokane, Montgomery, and Pensacola

It is very important for real estate professionals to act on tax problems like excessive tax debt, unfiled returns, back taxes, and self employment tax before these aggravate into expensive and potentially damaging problems. Tax problems the likes of those enumerated above can seriously hurt an individual or a company's reputation and record, especially with the Internal Revenue Service or IRS. So before these tax problems turn to costly taxing nightmares, it is essential that you seek tax relief allotted for realtors, real estate professionals, mortgage brokers, and loan officers.

The real estate industry and the IRS

Tax problems are an inescapable reality present in any business area or industry, especially in wide fields such as real estate and real property. As defined by the IRS itself, real estate businesses include those that are involved in property acquisition, conversion, construction, development, management, rental, brokerage, and leasing. Following this definition, the term real estate professional can be used to refer to real estate agents, mortgage brokers, landlords, property managers, developers, contractors, and even loan officers. Individuals and firms that fall under these categories are allotted a number of benefits and financial privileges by the IRS. These include certain tax exemptions, tax deductions, and tax problem resolution packages.

Some examples of tax relief for real estate related, especially landlords, are deductibles from advertising costs, property depreciation values, cost of insurance premiums, and professional fees paid to attorneys in cases of eviction. The mortgage interest paid for investment property and from credit lines related to the business also makes up a huge chunk of tax deductibles that landlords, mortgage brokers, loan officers, and other real estate professionals can avail of. These types of tax relief are especially valuable when faced with tax problems, particularly excessive tax debts. You should consult a professional tax advocate to help you sort out how these mandated deductions can be utilized to resolve you of your tax problems.

Real estate in the current economy

The real estate industry is one of the hardest hit by the current crisis plaguing the US economy. House prices fell tremendously in the past two years, which were likewise defined by various mortgage problems. As a result, a lot of real estate professionals, particularly loan officers and mortgage brokers, faced more tax problems in the last two years than they have in existence. Back taxes, late and delinquent unfiled tax returns, and tax debts are a pressing problem in almost any real estate firm and even among self-employed Realtors.

The current administration's plans to salvage the economy from its current dire state include several provisions to give tax relief for Realtors. These provisions and plans provide people in the real estate industry who are beleaguered by tax problems with more options for getting tax relief, especially for problems that were caused by factors beyond reasonable control of the people or firms involved.

Facing the problem

The IRS currently provides several options that offer tax relief for Realtors who deserve such relief. However, these options would not come knocking on your doorsteps, no matter how much you qualify for them. You need to act accordingly if you are to benefit from what the IRS currently offers the real estate industry. For one, you need to recognize what kind of tax problems you have on your hands. Straighten out your records to gauge how much tax you owe the IRS in terms of tax debt, unfiled returns, and back taxes. Knowing where you stand would give you good foundation from where to base your next move. In any case, that next move should involve a tax expert and preferably a professional tax advocate or enrolled agent. Having someone as knowledgeable in the tax arena as an enrolled agent working on your case would help you resolve your tax issues in no time.

Keywords: tax relief for real estate professionals, tax relief for Realtors, tax relief for loan officers, tax relief for mortgage brokers, tax relief for real estate brokers

Realtor tax relief and IRS tax problems resolution serving and representing real estate professionals and real estate brokers, loan officers tax relief and tax help for mortgage brokers in all of the following states, counties, and metro cities, Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington D.C.. West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming. AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DE DC FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NH NJ NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY New York, Los Angeles, Orange County, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Francisco, Ventura, Lancaster, Palmdale, Santa Barbara, Chicago, Washington D. C., Silicon Valley, Philadelphia, Boston, Detroit, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Miami, Seattle, Phoenix, Minneapolis, Cleveland, San Diego, St Louis, Denver, San Juan, Tampa, Pittsburgh, Portland, Cincinnati, Sacramento, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Orlando, Indianapolis, San Antonio, Norfolk & VB, Las Vegas, Columbus, Charlotte, New Orleans, Salt Lake City, Greensboro, Austin, Nashville, Providence, Raleigh, Hartford, Buffalo, Memphis, West Palm Beach, Jacksonville, Rochester, Grand Rapids, Reno, Oklahoma City, Louisville, Richmond, Greenville, Dayton, Fresno, Birmingham, Honolulu, Albany, Tucson, Tulsa, Tempe, Syracuse, Omaha, Albuquerque, Knoxville, El Paso, Bakersfield, Allentown, Harrisburg, Scranton, Toledo, Baton Rouge, Youngstown, Springfield, Sarasota, Little Rock, Orlando, McAllen, Stockton, Charleston, Wichita, Mobile, Columbia, Colorado Springs, Fort Wayne, Daytona Beach, Lakeland, Johnson City, Lexington, Augusta, Melbourne, Lancaster, Chattanooga, Des Moines, Kalamazoo, Lansing, Modesto, Fort Myers, Jackson, Boise, Billings, Madison, Spokane, Montgomery, and Pensacola