Last fall, billionaire Warren Buffett ignited a firestorm in the tax world when he revealed that he paid just 17.4% in tax — a lower rate than his own secretary — on his $39.8 million taxable income. The revelation sparked conversation across the country, and even inspired President Obama to propose a “Warren Buffett” rule imposing a special tax on income above $1 million per year.

Last week, Presidential candidate Mitt Romney made similar headlines when he released his taxes. The returns weighed in at 547 pages, and included some items, like “Form 8261: Return By a Shareholder of a Passive Foreign Investment Company or Qualified Electing Fund,” that most tax professionals never encounter in a lifetime. (Trust us when we tell you this stuff is every bit as exciting as it sounds.) Romney’s not quite in Buffett’s financial league — his 2010 taxable income was a “mere” $17.1 million. But Romney’s actual tax rate was a similarly low 17.6%.

We’re not here to take sides on Romney himself, his campaign, or the tax system that makes his 17% rate possible. But Romney’s return illustrates a crucial lesson about your taxes, too — namely, that when it comes to paying less, how you make your money is even more important than how much money you make.

Romney’s income is more than high enough to put him in the top 35% bracket. That 35% applies to “ordinary” income like wages and salaries, business income, and “passive” income from certain investments. But Mitt made “only” $6.3 million in ordinary income. Most of his income derives from other sources, taxed at lower rates:

• Long-Term Capital Gains: Tax on long-term capital gains is capped at 15%, no matter how much gain you report. For 2010, Romney drew over half his income from such gains. This included $7.4 million in “carried interest,” related to his work at Bain Capital, and taxed as long-term capital gain. If that income had been taxed at ordinary rates, he would have paid an extra $1.5 million. If it had been subject to employment tax, like salary, the government would have collected another $214,600.
• Qualified Dividends: Tax on qualified dividends is also capped at 15%, regardless of how much income you report. Romney reported $3.3 million in qualified dividends for 2010. It’s worth pointing out that the only dividends “qualifying” for this rate are those that have already been taxed at corporate rates ranging from 15-35%.
• Tax-Free Municipal Bonds: Muni bonds are a traditional tax shelter for taxpayers in Romney’s “1%” category. But Romney’s home state of Massachusetts imposes a flat 5.3% tax, which makes munis less attractive compared to taxable bonds, for those with stratospheric income. So Romney reported just $557 in muni bond income for 2010.

If Romney winds up carrying the GOP flag in 2012, his taxes will be a campaign issue. But it’s important to remember that, while some are criticizing him as the face of a system gone wrong, no one is actually accusing him of doing anything wrong under the law. In fact, Romney appears to have foregone some legitimate opportunities (like potential home office deductions for his speaking and director’s fee income) to pay even less.

Judge Learned Hand famously wrote that “Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury.” (And with a name like Learned Hand, well, you just have to believe him.) We’re here to help you arrange your affairs so that your taxes are as low as possible — and do so in a way to survive scrutiny even if you decide to run for office. And remember, we’re here for your friends, family, and running mates, too!

Heiress Huguette Clark, who was born in 1906 and died last May at 104, was America’s last living link to the 1890s “Gilded Age.” Her father, William A. Clark, was Montana’s “Copper King” and, according to her New York Times obituary, “once bought himself a United States Senate seat as casually as another man might buy a pair of shoes.” Huguette grew up in a 121-room mansion, at the corner of New York’s Fifth Avenue and 77th Street, that cost three times as much as Yankee Stadium. But her life soon took an odd turn. She married, for just a year at age 22, then got a quickie Reno divorce. (Her husand claimed they never even consummated the marriage.) Then she and her mother withdrew almost completely from view. The last known photograph of her was taken in 1930, and she rarely appeared in public after her mother’s death in 1963.

Clark may have been shy, but she was no miser. She spent most of her life in a 42-room coop at Fifth Avenue and 72nd Street, said to be the largest parkview apartment in the city, and worth an estimated $100 million. (She left in an ambulance in 1988 and never came back.) She owned a 21,666-square-foot mansion called “Bellosguardo,” or “lovely view,” on 23 acres overlooking the Pacific in Santa Barbara, CA. (She stopped visiting sometime in the 1950s, and reportedly turned down a $100 million offer to sell it to Beanie Baby founder Ty Warner.) And in 1952, she bought a 22-room mansion on 52 acres in New Canaan, CT. (She added a new wing to the house and hired caretakers to live on the grounds — but never spent a single night there herself.)

Huguette had so little contact with the world that some people wondered if she was actually still alive. It turns out she spent her last 22 years in a series of ordinary rooms at New York hospitals. She had few visitors during this time, and little contact with anyone outside these facilities. But her few contacts included her attorney, Wally Bock, and her accountant, Irving Kamsler. And that’s where Clark’s Gilded Age story begins to tarnish.

Clark was worth half a billion dollars at her death. She left the bulk of her fortune to charity, with smaller bequests to her longtime nurse ($30 million), her goddaughter ($12 million), and her attorney and accountant ($500,000 each). You would think she’d be able to pay her taxes, right? But property records show the IRS filed four liens for unpaid taxes — $1 million in 2006, $1.1 million and $41,000 in 2007, and $7,400 in 2008. Even worse, according to a Probate Court filing, the pair had let unpaid federal gift taxes and penalties accrue — to the tune of $90 million!

It turns out both the attorney Bock and accountant Kamsler have a history of questionable conduct. When Bock’s former law parter Donald Wallace died, after revising his will six times in the last few years of his life, Bock and Kamsler wound up inheriting $100,000 in cash each — plus Wallace’s Mercedes and his Upper East Side apartment. They even collected $368,000 in fees on the $4 million estate! And, just by the way, Kamsler is also a convicted felon and registered sex offender, who pled guilty in 2007 to attempting to disseminate indecent material to minors in an online “chat room.”

As Huguette Clark’s bizarre story reminds us, money really can’t buy happiness. Our job, of course, is to help you pay the minimum tax allowed by law. But before you ask us what we can do to help you pay less, ask yourself how those savings will improve your life. Are you working to put your children through college? Build security for your retirement? Or are you looking for life’s little “extras,” like traveling in style? Those are the real benefits we work to give you — not just numbers on your annual IRS “scorecard”!

The outlaw Willie Sutton stole an estimated $2 million over a 40-year career robbing banks — and scored the ultimate “success” in his business, living long enough to die of natural causes. Sutton always carried a pistol or Tommy gun with him on jobs, declaring “you can’t rob a bank on charm and personality.” But the gun was never loaded, because, as he said, someone might have gotten hurt! And he became legendary, ironically, for something he never actually said. According to the story, Sutton was asked why he robbed banks — and replied “because that’s where the money is.” But in his 1976 autobiography, Where the Money Was: The Memoirs of a Bank Robber, he confessed that credit for the line belongs to “some enterprising reporter who apparently felt a need to fill out his copy.”

What does a depression-era bank robber have to do with taxes? Well, the IRS estimates that outlaw taxpayers cost the Treasury $385 billion per year in uncollected taxes — roughly 15% of the amount they believe is due under current law. So they work hard to close that gap. In FY 2011, the IRS employed over 22,000 revenue officers, revenue agents, and special agents. They conducted 391,621 “field” audits and 1,173,069 less-intensive “correspondence” audits. They filed levies on 3.7 million taxpayers and filed over a million liens. But they can’t turn over every rock. So how do they case their targets?
Earlier this month, the IRS released their FY 2011 Enforcement and Service Results revealing how likely you are to be audited. And even Willie Sutton would have appreciated the IRS’s “M.O.”:

• If you make less than $200,000, your overall audit risk is only about one in a hundred. (Of course, that average encompasses a range of possibilities. If you run a sole proprietorship in a cash-heavy business like takeout pizza, your risk may be far higher.)
• If you make over $200,000, your overall audit risk rises to about one in twenty-five. Obviously, the IRS sees more opportunity in chasing higher income earners.
• If you pull down over $1 million, your audit risk rises again to one in eight. Welcome to the 1%!

The IRS likes targeting entertainers, athletes, and other celebrities, too. Sure, it sets a high-profile example for the rest of us. But it’s also (spoiler alert) where the money is. Take Hollywood trainwreck Lindsay Lohan, for example. Google her name, and you’ll usually find it followed by “failed another breathalyzer test” or “missed her court-appointed community service.” But last week, Lohan made a different kind of headline. That’s right, the IRS filed a lien against her home seeking $93,701.57 in unpaid taxes from 2009.

Where does that all leave us as we move into this year’s tax season? Our job is to help you pay the minimum tax allowed by law. But we know the IRS is out to challenge us. So we don’t cut corners. We give you good, solid planning. That way, even if you do lose the “audit lottery,” you’ll feel safe knowing your savings are court-tested and IRS-approved.

The IRS is busy playing detective! But are they building cases, clue by meticulous clue, like the supersleuths of television’s CSI? Or are they falling on their faces like the bumbling Inspector Clouseau?

Last month, a federal judge gave the IRS permission to serve a “John Doe” summons on the California Board of Equalization, demanding names of residents who transferred real estate to children or grandchildren for little or no consideration. The IRS sought the names as part of a nationwide effort to find taxpayers who transfer property to relatives without filing gift tax returns. (The IRS had already rounded up information from Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington state and Wisconsin — but California officials objected that state law prohibited them from ratting out residents without court approval.)

Most people don’t know much about gift tax, for the simple reason that most people won’t ever pay gift tax. Gift tax law lets you give up to $13,000 per year to as many people as you like. Once your gifts to any single person (other than your spouse) top $13,000 in a year, you’re required to file gift tax returns. Your cumulative lifetime gifts count against your estate tax “unified credit,” which is the amount you’re allowed to leave free of estate tax. And once your cumulative lifetime gifts top $5,012,000, you owe a 35% tax on the excess. If you’re gifting to a grandchild or some other person more than one generation removed, you might even owe an extra 35% “generation-skipping” tax.

How does that lead the IRS to combing state property records like a sleazy private investigator tracking down a cheating husband? Well, transferring property into an heir’s name is a common estate-planning move. Let’s say you own a beloved vacation home, or a stock portfolio, and you don’t want to see it burdened by probate. You can just add your child’s name to the deed or account as “joint tenant with right of survivorship,” and at your death, voila, the property automatically passes to your child. But there’s a catch — transferring property like that counts as a “complete gift.” If that property is worth $1,000,000, you’ve just made a $500,000 gift!

This particular IRS “project” is already yielding results. The IRS filed an affidavit in the California case stating that they had examined 658 taxpayers who transferred property to relatives — and concluded that 238 of them should have filed Form 709 to report the gift. Twenty of those 238 were assessed actual tax because the transfers pushed them over their lifetime exemption.

This isn’t the first time the IRS has used the “John Doe” summons to flush out members of suspect groups. Back in 2002, the IRS subpoenaed MasterCard and Visa to find taxpayers using debit cards tied to accounts in offshore tax havens. And in 2008, they used it to find taxpayers hiding Swiss bank accounts. The Internal Revenue Manual puts strict limits on this tool. But if today’s efforts succeed in finding lost revenue, we can probably expect to see more in the future.

There are a couple of lessons here. First, many financial moves — like transferring property into your kids’ names — have hidden tax consequences that are easy to miss. And second, the IRS has more ways than you realize to find those consequences. So don’t take chances, especially when they might land you on the wrong end of an IRS subpoena! You know how the utility company tells you to “call before you dig”? Well, call us before you dig, and we’ll help you avoid all sorts of nasty surprises!