It’s no secret that Washington uses the tax code to do more than just raise revenue. Lawmakers also use it to influence some of our biggest financial decisions, with tax deductions for mortgage interest to encourage home ownership, tax credits for fuel-efficient cars to encourage conservation, and “bonus depreciation” to stimulate business spending. Washington seems to believe those incentives really work. And cynics argue that the real reason we’ll never see a true flat tax is because lawmakers are loath to give up the power to regulate that comes with their power to tax.

Government also uses the tax code to sway some of our smaller decisions, too. This is especially true with so-called “sin taxes” — essentially, fees we pay to consume unhealthy products or engage in unhealthy behaviors. As Adam Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations, “sugar, rum and tobacco are commodities which are nowhere necessaries of life, which are become objects of universal consumption, and which are therefore extremely proper subjects of taxation.”

230 years later, sugar, rum, and tobacco are still taxed. (In New York City, a pack of smokes comes with a hefty $6.86 in federal, state, and local taxes — the tobacco is extra!) The 2010 health care reform slapped a 10% tax on tanning beds. Public health advocates have proposed taxes on fatty foods and sugary sodas to fight obesity. And many Americans, discouraged by what they see as a decades-long failure in the War on Drugs, call for legalizing drugs, taxing them to shift profits from private cartels, and using the revenue to fund anti-addiction efforts.

So, how effective are sin taxes at balancing their dual goals of raising revenue and discouraging unhealthy behavior? Well, federal and state tobacco taxes alone raise nearly $30 billion per year. They seem to do that job just fine. But some economists find that sin taxes send the wrong message by legitimizing the behavior they try to discourage. Here’s what Harvard Professor Michael J. Sandel says in his new book, What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets:

“A study of some child-care centers in Israel shows how this can happen. The centers faced a familiar problem: parents came late to pick up their children. A teacher had to stay with the children until the tardy parents arrived. To solve this problem, the centers imposed a fine for late pickups. What do you suppose happened? Late pickups actually increased.”

Clearly, telling parents “don’t be late or we’ll fine you” sends a very different message than telling them simply “don’t be late.” And so it goes with sin taxes, too. Telling smokers and drinkers “don’t indulge or we’ll tax you” offers them implicit forgiveness — that it’s actually OK to light up and enjoy two-for-one Happy Hour so long as they pay the fee. (If you’re reading these words with a cigarette in one hand and a Red Bull in the other, you can breathe a sigh of relief!) It may sound hypocritical for Uncle Sam to wag his finger at you with one hand while he reaches into your pocket with the other. But sin taxes have been around a lot longer than income taxes, and they aren’t going away.

There’s really no “planning” we can help you do to avoid sin taxes. (We would just give you the same advice as your mother.) But it may be worth it, next time you pay any tax, to ask yourself “what’s the government trying to accomplish with this tax? What’s the government trying to get me to do?” Understanding why you pay a tax can make you a better-informed consumer. And that, in turn, helps all your dollars go farther.

For 20 years now, Apple has blazed a reputation for stylish design and innovative products, creating a near-cult following among fans. Apple’s computers appeal to the artists and designers who set so many of today’s trends. Their iPod has helped change how the world listens to music. Their iPad has made online content available nearly anywhere. And their iPhone is helping change the way we communicate with friends, family, and colleagues. (Just a few years ago, your mother-in-law didn’t have a cell phone. Now she sends text messages and “checks in” on Facebook.)

Apple may be the most successful company on earth. At one point last year, they had more cash on hand ($76.2 billion) than the United States government ($73.8 billion). And Apple is currently the most valuable company on the planet, with a “market cap” (total value of tradeable shares) that topped $590 billion dollars on April 10. (That’s right . . . those iTunes you casually download for a buck each have created a company worth over half a trillion dollars.) In fact, Apple’s current market cap is more than the gross domestic products of Iraq, North Korea, Vietnam, Puerto Rico, and New Zealand — combined.

But Apple’s most recent annual report reveals the company’s genius for creating successful marketing strategies also extends to successful tax strategies. How else would you describe a strategy that lets Apple earn billions and pays less than 10% of their taxable income in tax?

How do they do it? Largely by keeping the money they earn outside the United States, outside the United States. Apple owns subsidiaries in tax havens like Ireland, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and the British Virgin islands. They helped pioneer the “Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwich” strategy that hundreds of other multinational companies have imitated. Apple even maintains a subsidiary in tax-free Nevada — the blandly-named “Braeburn Capital” — to manage that enormous cash haul without paying tax in its home state of California. For 2011, the company paid a worldwide tax of $3.3 billion on $34.2 billion of profit. But one study concludes that Apple would have paid $2.4 billion more without these rules.

Now Apple has become part of the political debate. At the risk of grossly oversimplifying a pretty complicated discussion, Democrats in Washington scoff that taking an extra $2.4 billion in tax last year would have squelched Apple’s creativity. Republicans reply that using the cash to grow the business or distribute more dividends to shareholders will grow the economy faster than if it goes to the IRS. Both President Obama and presumed Republican nominee Mitt Romney have called for eliminating corporate tax loopholes in order to pay for lower rates (28% in President Obama’s plan, 25% in Governor Romney’s). Either way, Apple is likely to become one of the stories — like Warren Buffett paying a higher tax rate than his secretary — that come to define this year’s campaign.

Taxes always play a part in Presidential races. But this time, with the economy still struggling and the Bush tax cuts scheduled to expire in a few short months, taxes will be even more important than usual. Our job, as November approaches, includes helping you understand just what the candidates’ proposals mean for your bottom line. So keep up with this blog — and if you’re curious how any of the proposals you hear about would affect your plan, call us!

Disneynature’s newest movie, Chimpanzee, is a documentary masterpiece for all ages. It’s a truly original film that stands out in a multiplex of lookalikes, copies, remakes, and sequels. And Chimpanzee’s cinematography is amazing — the simple beauty of the jungles and the animals stands in contrast to so many of today’s movies all tricked out with 3D gimmicks and computer-generated special effects.

Filmmakers spent four years “embedded” in the lush rainforest of Ivory Coast’s Tai National Park to make the movie, which follows the life of “Oscar,” a predictably adorable young chimp. Oscar learns how to use rocks to open nuts (apparently harder than it looks) and use sticks to go “fishing” for army ants (apparently a real delicacy to chimpanzee foodies). There’s a turf war with a rival community for control over a valuable nut grove. And, this being a Disney movie, Oscar loses his mother to a leopard around the beginning of the third reel. (It’s handled sensitively — there’s nothing to terrify children or grandchildren in the audience.) Losing his mother poses a real threat to Oscar’s life, until, remarkably, he’s “adopted” by Freddy, the community’s alpha male. The film is narrated by Tim Allen, whom even the youngest viewers will recognize as the voice of “Buzz Lightyear” from Disney/Pixar’s mega-successful Toy Story series.

Primatologists have suspected that chimpanzees like Freddy might altruistically adopt orphaned young in their group. But this is the first example of such behavior actually caught on film. (There’s no word on whether Freddy “taxed” the rest of the community for the expenses of caring for Oscar, or whether “tax avoidance” is part of their natural behavior!)

Disney has announced that they are donating a portion of Chimpanzee’s opening-weekend ticket sales to the Jane Goodall Institute for the “See Chimpanzee, Save Chimpanzee” program to protect habitats. Disney will donate 20 cents for every ticket sold, with a minimum donation of $100,000. (The movie grossed $10.2 million over its opening weekend, the highest opening gross in history for any nature documentary.) So — and here at last we come to the tax question of the day — does that mean that if you were one of the first to see it, you can deduct part of your ticket?

Unfortunately, no, that’s not how it works. You got your “money’s worth” from the movie itself, although Disneynature can certainly deduct the contribution on its return. It’s like buying a ticket to a college football game. The college itself may be a not-for-profit organization — but buying a ticket isn’t a “donation” because you get something of value in exchange. (Some colleges let you make donations in exchange for the right to buy season tickets — in those cases, the IRS treats that “right” as being worth 20% of the donation amount and lets you deduct the remaining 80%.)

Deductions for charitable contributions are a mainstay of the tax code. Charitable contributions let you do well for society while you do well for yourself — which of course is something we want to help with, too! We can help you maximize deductions for gifts of used clothing and household accessories. We can help you plan for bigger gifts of cash, cars or boats, art or antiques, appreciated securities, real estate, and even life insurance. And don’t forget, we’re here for the rest of your “community,” too!

From time to time issues related to taxes arise that are interesting, informative or humorous that is not directly related to the preparation of a tax return but are related issues associated with federal taxation.

Passports Could Be Revoked for Delinquent Taxpayers – The U.S. Senate has unanimously approved a provision added to a highway transportation bill that would revoke the passports of people with seriously delinquent tax debts. The provision gives the State Department the right to deny, revoke, or limit a passport for individuals whom the Internal Revenue Service certifies as having a “seriously delinquent tax debt.” A seriously delinquent tax debt is defined as a debt in excess $50,000 (adjusted for inflation in subsequent years) for which a notice of federal lien or levy has been filed. The House of Representatives will take up the bill in the next few weeks. Only time will tell if this potential provision will become law.

Unexpected Result for Charity Volunteering – If an employer fails to pay over its payroll taxes, the IRS can seek to collect a trust fund recovery penalty equal to 100% of the unpaid taxes from a “responsible person.” A responsible person is a person who is responsible for collecting, accounting for, and paying over payroll taxes and willfully fails to perform this responsibility.

Payroll taxes withheld from an employee’s salary are monies the employee paid toward his or her tax liability and are not funds that belong to the employer. An employer that uses those funds to pay other expenses is using someone else’s money, and the IRS takes a very dim view of that act, since the government’s only recourse is with the employer and has to credit the employee with the withholding.

Case in point: an individual volunteered (unpaid position) to aid a financially struggling non-profit organization and became actively involved in the financial affairs of the non-profit, including writing the checks for the organization. The organization was behind on its trust fund payments, and the volunteer paid other liabilities ahead of the trust fund deficiency. As a result, the IRS assessed him the penalty of almost $200,000, which he paid and then went to tax court to get back. The tax court ruled in the IRS’ favor.

The case once again demonstrates the perils faced by a taxpayer who becomes involved in running a financially distressed company (for profit or non-profit) and chooses to pay other liabilities ahead of trust fund payments.

Tax Fraud on the Upswing – When a tax return is e-filed, the IRS’s computer will verify that the Social Security number(s) (SSN) on the return have not been previously used on another return for the same year, and will reject the e-file if it has. This most commonly occurs when both of the divorced or separated parents claim their child or children as dependents.

However, recently tax preparers are seeing more and more clients’ returns rejected because the taxpayer or spouse’s SSN has already been used. What is happening is thieves are stealing the taxpayer’s identity and filing phony returns to claim fraudulent refunds, leaving the taxpayer with the task of explaining to the IRS and all the other problems associated with identity theft.

If you believe you have been a victim of identity theft, you should immediately review the guidance provided by the IRS and follow the recommended procedures. If you need assistance, please give this office a call.