Tylertaxlaw.com – Tax Law Attorney Peter G. Milne – Serving Tyler, East Texas

Texas HB 11 Sales Tax Audits Successful for Auditor, Disaster for Retailer

Begin­ning on Jan­u­ary 1, 2008, the Texas Comp­trol­ler of Pub­lic Accounts was given a very pow­er­ful and effec­tive sales tax audit­ing tool by the Texas Leg­is­la­ture.  The Crim­i­nal Inves­ti­ga­tion Divi­sion of the Comptroller’s Office recently pub­lished the fol­low­ing post on its website.

“Passed dur­ing the 80th Leg­isla­tive Ses­sion in 2007, HB 11 dra­mat­i­cally increased the Comptroller’s abil­ity to iden­tify, audit and, when appro­pri­ate, pros­e­cute retail­ers who are col­lect­ing sales tax but not remit­ting the proper amount to the state.

HB 11 amended the Alco­holic Bev­er­age Code and the Tax Code to require dis­trib­u­tors and whole­salers who make sales of ale, beer, wine, cig­a­rettes, cig­ars and tobacco prod­ucts to Texas retail­ers to report those sales monthly to the Comptroller’s office. Those dis­trib­u­tors and whole­salers are also required now to report that data elec­tron­i­cally, unless inabil­ity to do so is shown.

HB 11 data, which has now been col­lected since Jan­u­ary 2008, allows the Comp­trol­ler to com­pare the pur­chases that retail­ers have made of these prod­ucts with the sales that retail­ers are required to report. Because both sets of data are largely received elec­tron­i­cally, dis­crep­an­cies can be more eas­ily and rapidly iden­ti­fied. Rapid iden­ti­fi­ca­tion is essen­tial so that the Comp­trol­ler audi­tors can begin their work to mit­i­gate and recoup the rev­enue loss to the state. The Comptroller’s office iden­ti­fied almost $90 mil­lion due to the state in fis­cal year 2009 and more than $102 mil­lion due to the state in fis­cal year 2010. To date in fis­cal year 2011, more than $59 mil­lion has been identified.

In some cases, audit doc­u­men­ta­tion may sug­gest that the tax­payer had crim­i­nal intent to evade taxes. If so, the case will be reviewed and eval­u­ated by the Crim­i­nal Inves­ti­ga­tions Divi­sion for the pos­si­ble fil­ing of crim­i­nal charges.”

Small con­ve­nience store retail­ers of alco­hol and tobacco prod­ucts have been flood­ing my office in recent months with sales tax audit deter­mi­na­tions which clearly show the effec­tive­ness of an audit based upon HB 11 report­ing.   The Comp­trol­ler has been con­sis­tent in propos­ing a 50% penalty in addi­tion to the 10% penalty per­mit­ted by law.  In some cases, the Comp­trol­ler will agree to drop the 50% penalty in exchange for a set­tle­ment, but only if the tax­payer has timely peti­tioned for an audit redetermination.

If a store has closed and the audi­tor can­not con­duct an in-store “shelf test” or if the tax­payer can­not or will not pro­duce actual daily sales doc­u­men­ta­tion suf­fi­cient for the audi­tor to deter­mine a markup on alco­hol or tobacco prod­ucts, the audi­tor is instructed to use cer­tain per­cent­ages for alco­hol and tobacco markups.  In addi­tion, the audi­tor is instructed to use a cer­tain per­cent­age to obtain a “prod­uct mix” of alco­hol and tobacco prod­ucts as com­pared to tax­able non-alcohol and tobacco prod­ucts.  A very small per­cent­age is allowed for spoilage and theft.  Once these fac­tors are applied, a sales tax esti­mate is cal­cu­lated and com­pared against the sales tax reported by the taxpayer.

In the case of all audits pre­sented by poten­tial clients, the tax­able sales esti­mate, which has been derived by for­mula and  upon which the sales tax defi­ciency is cal­cu­lated, is sig­nif­i­cantly higher than the tax­able sales amounts reported by the taxpayer.

The best way to defeat an sales tax audit based upon Texas  HB 11 data is to keep good records and accu­rately report tax­able sales.  How­ever, if record keep­ing or report­ing proves to be a prob­lem, the audit may be attacked admin­is­tra­tively or at hear­ing in sev­eral dif­fer­ent ways.

If you are a retailer fac­ing a sig­nif­i­cant sales tax increase as pro­posed by a sales tax audit, call my office before the audit begins, or as soon as you receive the audit deter­mi­na­tion let­ter.  Do not make any admis­sions to the audi­tor  or agree to any­thing after the audit deter­mi­na­tion let­ter has been issued.  If a request for an admin­is­tra­tive rede­ter­mi­na­tion or a hear­ing is not timely made, the results to the tax­payer are usu­ally disastrous!

One needs an attor­ney expe­ri­enced in sales tax audits and hear­ings to level the play­ing field.  Call for a con­sul­ta­tion now!

Posted in Recent Trends, Tax Law, Texas Sales Tax, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

The IRS Gives Employees a Whistle to Blow and Employers a Safe Harbor

The IRS has given an employee worker wrongly clas­si­fied as an inde­pen­dent con­trac­tor a very loud whis­tle to blow and employ­ers the means to obtain an advance deter­mi­na­tion of worker clas­si­fi­ca­tion to avoid future dis­putes and tax liabilities.

When is a worker an employee or an inde­pen­dent con­trac­tor for fed­eral income tax pur­poses?   Dis­putes over employee or inde­pen­dent con­trac­tor clas­si­fi­ca­tion fre­quently arise and the out­come is usu­ally very impor­tant to one and very expen­sive for the other.   Mis­takes are some­times made, but more often, employ­ers will incor­rectly clas­sify an employee as an inde­pen­dent con­trac­tor for sev­eral rea­sons.  The most com­mon rea­son  is to avoid the pay­ment of the employer’s por­tion of employ­ment  taxes (usu­ally about 7.5% of gross).   The sec­ond rea­son is to avoid the prepa­ra­tion and fil­ing of quar­terly 941 employ­ment tax returns. Another rea­son is to avoid mak­ing employ­ment tax deposits.  Some­times, employ­ers may not under­stand the legal and tax dif­fer­ence between an employee or inde­pen­dent con­trac­tor and clas­sify the worker in what­ever way the worker suggests.

A worker who should be clas­si­fied as an employee may want to be treated as an inde­pen­dent con­trac­tor so that  pay­roll taxes and fed­eral income taxes are not with­held from his or her earn­ings.  More com­mon is the sit­u­a­tion where a worker who is clas­si­fied as an inde­pen­dent con­trac­tor wants to be treated as an employee so that more of his or her earn­ings are reported to the Social Secu­rity Admin­is­tra­tion.  The more income reported as earned, the higher the monthly retire­ment ben­e­fit.   In cer­tain trades and busi­nesses, such as con­struc­tion, land­scap­ing, house­keep­ing, jan­i­to­r­ial, farm­ing, ranch­ing, fish­ing, repair and maintenance-where work­ers tra­di­tion­ally earn piece­meal or by the job and are often unskilled and less edu­cated –the worker sim­ply has no choice as to whether they are clas­si­fied as an employee or as an inde­pen­dent contractor.

The IRS pro­vides Form SS-8 -Deter­mi­na­tion of Worker Sta­tus for Pur­poses of Fed­eral Employ­ment Taxes and Income Tax With­hold­ing– for use by an employer when the employer is not sure how to clas­sify a worker.    Upon sub­mis­sion of the SS-8, the IRS will make an advance deter­mi­na­tion of how the worker should be clas­si­fied, which gives the employer a safe har­bor if the worker ever com­plains or if the wrong clas­si­fi­ca­tion is made.

In addi­tion, the IRS pro­vides Form 8819– Uncol­lected Social Secu­rity and Medicare Tax on Wages- to a worker who believes that his or her employ­ment clas­si­fi­ca­tion is incor­rect.   Form 8819 is the big, loud and often very expen­sive whis­tle, that when sub­mit­ted with Form SS-8, alerts the IRS to a pos­si­ble improper clas­si­fi­ca­tion and per­mits the employer’s por­tion of social secu­rity and medicare taxes to be cred­ited in advance to the worker’s social secu­rity record.

If the IRS ulti­mately agrees that the whis­tle blow­ing worker has been mis­clas­si­fied, the actions of the employer will be care­fully scru­ti­nized.  An employer who improp­erly clas­si­fies an employee as an inde­pen­dent con­trac­tor may be sub­jected to an audit.  The books and records of the employer will be exam­ined and work­ers may be ques­tioned.  In addi­tion to an after the fact assess­ment of the employer’s por­tion of employ­ment taxes, the employer who mis­clas­si­fies a worker or work­ers may be sub­jected to ordi­nary civil fail­ure to deposit, fail­ure to file and fail­ure to pay when due (delin­quency) penal­ties, the more seri­ous civil fraud penalty and the most seri­ous of all, a fed­eral crime.   None of these out­comes are good for busi­ness, even in the best of times.

If you are an employer that is unsure of how to clas­sify a worker, that has dis­cov­ered cer­tain work­ers have been mis­clas­si­fied, or that has inten­tion­ally mis­clas­si­fied work­ers, seek legal assis­tance imme­di­ately.  If you are a worker who believes that he or she has been mis­clas­si­fied and wants some recourse, don’t wait to blow the whistle.

The area of worker clas­si­fi­ca­tion can be very con­fus­ing.  Mis­takes are com­mon.  Mis­clas­si­fi­ca­tion of worker sta­tus to keep costs low or for exploita­tive pur­poses fre­quently hap­pen.   The law firm of Peter G. Milne, P.C. is here to help.  Don’t wait until its too late.  Con­tact us right now.

Posted in Employment Taxes, Independent Contractor, Tax Law, Uncategorized, Worker Classification | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 0 Comments

Message to Congress: Stop Using the Tax Code for Purposes Other Than Raising Revenue

The Con­sti­tu­tion pro­vides that Con­gress has the power to impose taxes and bor­row money to “pay the Debts and pro­vide for the com­mon Defense and gen­eral Wel­fare of the United States.” This author­ity is gen­er­ally referred to as the “Power of the Purse,” mean­ing the power to con­trol what money is raised by the national gov­ern­ment and how it is spent.  The power to tax and spend granted to and wielded by Con­gress is no dif­fer­ent than the power wielded by all rulers, whether called King, Cae­sar, Pharaoh, Sheikh, or Emperor.    The framers of our Con­sti­tu­tion intended that the power of the Con­gress be lim­ited, but in these mod­ern times, Con­gress uses the tax code not only for the pur­pose of rais­ing rev­enue, but also for rea­sons hav­ing to do with pub­lic policy.

A com­mon exam­ple of using the tax code for pub­lic pol­icy rea­sons is the pro­vi­sion of the tax code that per­mits a tax­payer to reduce his or her taxes by allow­ing the inter­est paid on a mort­gage note to be deducted from the  taxpayer’s tax­able income.  The the­ory is that by allow­ing the mort­gage inter­est deduc­tion, Con­gress’ will, through the tax code, influ­ence peo­ple to buy homes, rather than rent, which is a pub­lic pol­icy goal.   This par­tic­u­lar tax break is only one of many that are found through­out the tax code: a tax break to encour­age green energy pro­duc­tion; a excise tax on a pack of cig­a­rettes to encour­age a smoker to quit; an excise tax on a gal­lon of gas to encour­age the motor­ing pub­lic to drive less.  Con­gress does not have the power to pass laws which man­date the behav­ior of cit­i­zens and directly address these issues.   Rather, Con­gress uses the tax code as a blunt tool of per­sua­sion to achieve social, eco­nomic and yes, polit­i­cal goals.

Most fed­eral laws, whether major or rou­tine,  con­tain some pro­vi­sion that affects the tax code.  It is no won­der that the tax code is volu­mi­nous, com­plex and often con­tra­dic­tory.  It has been writ­ten piece­meal, over a long period of time, with­out a uni­fy­ing vision and often times for rea­sons hav­ing more to do with pubic pol­icy, rather than the rais­ing of revenue.

It’s time for Con­gress to be hon­est with itself and accept the fact that its power is lim­ited.  It’s time for Con­gress to sim­plify the tax code and get back to the busi­ness of pro­vid­ing for the com­mon Defense and gen­eral Wel­fare of the United States.

Posted in Legal Opinion | 0 Comments

IRS Policing Healtcare — KETK with Peter Milne

KETK inter­views man­ag­ing part­ner Peter G. Milne on March 23rd, 2010 regard­ing the new health­care policy.

Read the full arti­cle Here.

Video cour­tesy of KETK NBC Tyler.

Posted in Federal Tax Law, Tax Law | 0 Comments

The IRS is Hiring–A Bad Dog Looks for New Bones

At a con­tin­u­ing edu­ca­tion sem­i­nar tai­lored for tax attor­neys and cer­ti­fied pub­lic accoun­tants held in Austin, Texas in Decem­ber of 2009, offi­cials from the IRS flew out from Wash­ing­ton and announced that up to 2,500 new Rev­enue Offi­cers would be hired by the agency in 2009 and 2010.  The IRS announced to those of us who rep­re­sent indi­vid­ual and busi­ness tax­pay­ers of its intent to aggres­sively col­lect past due fed­eral taxes.  The hir­ing of such an unprece­dented num­ber of Rev­enue Offi­cers in such a short period of time does not bode well for the taxpayer. 

A Rev­enue Offi­cer is empow­ered by the United States to take what­ever legal means is nec­es­sary to col­lect taxes.  These indi­vid­u­als are based in the com­mu­nity and may come to the home or busi­ness of a tax­payer to exam­ine books and records or to col­lect.  A Rev­enue Offi­cer may issue sum­mons for records,  may record fed­eral tax liens upon real prop­erty, or may issue bank or wage levies to seize assets or income.  The Rev­enue Offi­cer is the IRS’s “bad dog”, and the unarmed and unpre­pared tax­payer is often just another bone on which the Rev­enue Offi­cer chews,  until the poor tax­payer, rightly or wrongly, simply gives up and gives in. 

Given the cur­rent level of fed­eral debt and poor eco­nomic out­look, it is highly unlikely that the United States Trea­sury is going to have much com­pas­sion for those who have not or can­not pay thier taxes.  Rather than hir­ing more per­sons who could  assist the embat­tled  tax­payer, such as those employed by the Tax­payer Advo­cate, Uncle Sam is clearly look­ing out for it’s own bot­tom line.

Posted in Recent Trends | Tagged , , , | 1 Comments

Healy Milne & Associates Website Update

The Healy Milne & Asso­ciates team is happy to release our new web­site. Make sure to read about our attor­neys Peter G. Milne and Sean P. Healy and our staff. Sub­scribe to our RSS Feed through your favorite RSS Reader (such as Google Reader) and make sure to stay up to date by fol­low­ing us on Twit­ter, Face­book and LinkedIn.

The Healy Milne & Asso­ciates Team

Posted in Technology | Tagged , , | 0 Comments

Estate-Tax Repeal Means Some Spouses Are Left Out and 2010 is a Great Year to Die

Because of con­gres­sional “mal­prac­tice”, the fed­eral estate tax is repealed for all of 2010. As reported by Mar­tin Vaughn in the Jan­u­ary 2–3, 2009 issue of the Wall Street Jour­nal, cer­tain pro­vi­sions included in most wills and trust doc­u­ments that were writ­ten on the expec­ta­tion that estate taxes were a fact of life for years to come is wreak­ing havoc in the world of tax attor­neys and estate plan­ners. One unin­tended con­se­quence of Con­gress’ fail­ure to do its job is caused by a com­mon pro­vi­sion in a will or trust that direct assets not sub­ject to the estate tax (the amounts excluded from the estate tax by law), bypass the sur­viv­ing spouse and be directed down­stream to ben­e­fit the decedant’s chil­dren. Since there is no estate tax in 2010, (100% exclu­sion) all the decedant’s assets will sim­ply bypass the spouse and go straight to the chil­dren. Do not pass go, do not col­lect $200!

An even more creepy unin­tended con­se­quence is the pos­si­bil­ity that some wealthy, ter­mi­nally ill per­son or those ungrate­ful kids who hate step-Mommy and who will stand ben­e­fit from Daddy’s early demise may choose to “pull the plug” in 2010 or pray that Daddy “goes to Heaven” sooner rather than later. We all know that a fam­ily who prays together stays together. “Take That!” Who says a Demo­c­ra­tic con­trolled Con­gress doesn’t stand for “fam­ily values”?

Posted in Legal Opinion | Tagged , , | 0 Comments

Welcome to Tylertaxlaw.com

Wel­come to the Tylertaxlaw.com Blog — Peter G. Milne, P.C. We will use this space to relay thoughts, pub­lish­ing, news and other things of inter­est that relate to the won­der­ful world of the law. In the mean­time, make sure to visit our website.

Regards,

The PGM Team

Posted in Uncategorized | 0 Comments