Monthly Archive: October 2014

Cost Segregation of Structural Components

Welcome to TaxView with Chris Moss CPA

Cost Segregation of Structural Components is a tax savings strategy that in my view defies logic, yet nevertheless is a brilliant absolutely legal way to save taxes. What is Cost Segregation of Structural Components you ask? In essence, Cost Segregation separates out costs in a building into structural components which can be depreciated at tax advantageous rates. “Structural components” date back to the investment tax credit (ITC) real estate tax shelters in the late 1970s. Accelerated depreciation rules were enacted by Congress back then allowing “structural components” of a building to qualify for the ITC. The goal was to stimulate the real estate industry. Years later in the 90s, the US Tax Court validated “Cost Segregation” of structural components in Hospital Corporation of America vs IRS (1997). This US Tax Court landmark ruling changed the game for investments in real estate and will be a game changer for you too. How? It could mean big tax savings for you if you own commercial real estate. So stay with us here on TaxView with Chris Moss CPA to learn how you can use cost segregation of structural components in your commercial or rental real estate for immediate annual income tax savings.

Do any of you remember the late 1970s ITC shelter partnerships? You would identify the structural components of a building you had just purchased, wrap the deal with a mortgage, add a little of your own money, use the ITC, and presto, you ended up with a large tax loss dramatically reducing your W2 income. By 1981 wealthy taxpayers were starting to discover real estate tax shelters. Just a few years later the hottest topic at any cocktail party throughout the country was who had the best tax shelter with the greatest tax loss.

Now fast forward to 1986. The Tax Reform Act was designed to rid the nation of tax shelters and it did just that. The 1986 Reform Act repealed the ITC, prohibited passive losses from offsetting W2 income and dramatically lengthened depreciation of real estate. All of a sudden commercial property you acquired was now depreciated over 31 year life rather than 19. (Just so you know, it’s 39 years now).

As the 1980s came to a close investors began to panic. No ITC and no rapid depreciation and no passive loss offset. Investors looked to their tax professionals for relief. CPAs and tax lawyers in the early 90s partnering with structural engineers were surprised to find the IRS Code still contained the 1970s “structural component” classifications. Was this a simple Congressional oversight back in 1986 or did Congress intend to leave these provisions in the code for some reason? At any rate by the mid-90s tax shelter promoters were claiming that the 1970s classifications supported rapid depreciation of “structural components” as long as they were properly classified by competent structural engineers. It didn’t take long for the IRS to start fighting back.

The battle soon moved to US Tax Court in Hospital Corporation of America vs IRS (1997). The facts are simple: Hospital Corporation (HC) was in the business of building and managing hospitals. HC segregated out various components of their many buildings as Section 1245 personal property allowing them to rapidly depreciate these components over a 5 year period. The IRS disallowed all this Section 1245 depreciation sending a $700 Million tax bill to HC for years 1978 to 1988. The Government argued that all the buildings owned by HC must be depreciated over a much longer period of time as required for Section 1250 property in accordance with provisions of the 1986 Tax Reform Act. The critical key issue for the US Tax Court to decide? Whether the structural components laws that remained in the Code from the 1970s were nevertheless still valid in 1997,

Judge Wells in his 116 page Opinion points out that Congress in the 1986 Act did not specifically address the 1970s provisions of the Code that were created to facilitate the ITC back then. The Court noted that the statutory language manifested a Congressional intent to retain the prior law distinction between components that constitute Section 1250 real estate and items that constitute Section 1245 personal property.

With the US Tax Court giving its blessing in Hospital Corporation of America vs IRS (1997), and the IRS acquiescing, a billion dollar “cost segregation” industry was born to “segregate out” the cost of the tangible Section 1245 portion of a building. With a good engineering analysis the CPAs were able to confidently and legally rapidly depreciate substantial parts of commercial buildings on annual tax returns knowing they could win an IRS audit challenging their depreciation computations.

What does all this mean to you all? First and most important: Cost Segregation is legal folks but only if your experts are better than the Governments.. So if you are purchasing a building, hire the best structural engineering firm you can afford and segregate out those costs into structural components that will qualify for rapid deprecation and immediate tax savings,. Second, make sure your tax attorney and structural engineers guarantee their work so when the IRS comes knocking on your door, the same people who did your analysis will be there at no extra charge to act as your expert witnesses at a possible US Tax Court trial. Likewise ask that the same tax attorney who prepared your tax return to guarantee that she will be there for the IRS audit and a trip to US Tax Court if needed.. Finally, don’t forget to include your structural engineering cost segregation report summary in the actual tax return you file with the IRS. When you are audited years later you will be glad you did..

We hope you enjoyed this weeks TaxView with Chris Moss CPA.

See you all next time on TaxView
Kindest regards
Chris Moss CPA

Bad Debts vs Theft Loss

Welcome to TaxView with Chris Moss CPA

Have you ever loaned money to someone who didn’t pay you back? Did you know that if you can’t get your money back you could at least write the debt off for taxes? It’s called a “Nonbusiness Bad Debt” (NBD) and it is deductible as a short term capital loss in the year the debt becomes worthless. Or perhaps you loaned money to someone only to discover later you were swindled out of your money by a clever scam artist. That loss is called a theft loss (TL) and is deductible as an ordinary loss in the year you were certain you could not recover your money. Seems easy to take these deductions? Right? Wrong! There are IRS traps waiting for you in Section 166 and Section 165 of the IRS Code. So if you have a TLs or NBDs and are not sure which year to claim or how much to claim, stay with us here on TaxView with Chris Moss CPA where you will learn how to save taxes by safely deducting a theft or bad debt loss.

So what qualifies as a NBD? IRS Code Section 166(d)(1) and Regulation 1.166-1(c) says that you have to have a debtor-creditor relationship with the person you gave the money to, that a genuine debt in fact existed and the debt was worthless in the year of deduction. Make sure your tax attorney includes sufficient evidence to prove that there was a genuine debt and include those facts in your tax return before you deduct the bad debt. Herrera vs IRS 2012, and affirmed on appeal to US Court of Appeals (5th Cir. 2013).

Theft loss or TL is covered under IRS Section 165(a)(3) and Regulations 1.165-1(d)(2)(i), (3), 1.165-8(a)(2). So if there is TL you can deduct the loss as an ordinary loss. Sometimes a TL could be also an NBD. This is “kind of” what happened in the US Tax Court case of Bunch vs IRS (August 2014). Mr. and Mrs. Bunch filed a 2006 income tax return claiming a bad debt of over $4 Million from Mortgage Co. Bunch then amended their tax return a few years later and changed the bad debt to a theft loss for the same amount claiming that the money had been stolen by an employee who worked at Mortgage Co. The IRS audited Bunch in 2009 disallowing both the bad debt deduction from the original return and the theft loss from the amended return. Bunch appealed to US Tax Court in Bunch vs IRS August 2014.

Judge Wherry says timing is everything when it comes to TL and NBD tax deductions. Indeed you can only deduct a TL or NBD if you can prove that no reimbursement is possible. The Court further noted that in fact Bunch did receive some recovery of the loss and therefore he could not deduct the loss for the amount and in the year the loss was deducted. Perhaps Bunch could have deducted a smaller loss that he did not recover in some future year, but unfortunately for Bunch that is not the tax strategy his tax preparer used. IRS Wins Bunch Loses.

Jeppsen v. IRS, 128 F.3d 1410 (10th Cir. 1997), affirming Tax Court Jeppsen v IRS (1995) further brings home how important it is to prove that no reimbursement is possible in the year you deduct the loss. Jeppsen deducted a theft loss of $194,000 on his 1987 tax return claiming a stockbroker misappropriated his money. However, Jeppsen also sued the broker over the next few years to try to recover the money and eventually won a damage award of $1.5 Million in 1995. The IRS audited Jeppsen about that time and disallowed Jeppsen’s 1987 loss because it was not certain back in 1987 whether or not Jeppsen would recover his stolen money. Jeppsen appealed to US Tax Court and lost. Jeppsen appealed again to the US Court of Appeals and also lost. IRS Wins Jeppsen Loses.

Halata vs IRS (2012) could happen to anyone who is greedy enough to believe what is too good to be true is true. Halata a Texas resident befriended Ojeda. Halata was told by Ojeda friend Montgomery that he could repay Halata over $2.5 million in return profits if she loaned him $180,000. Halata did in fact loan $180,000 to Montgomery. The money was never recovered. Halata never deducted the loss as she most likely did not know she could. Unfortunately for some other reason her 2007 tax return was audited by the IRS who sent Halata a large tax bill. Halata retained a tax attorney Polk to represent her. Polk claimed his client should be able to deduct the theft loss in 2009 and carry back the resulting net operating loss to 2007 this wiping out any taxes she might owe as a result of the audit. The IRS disagreed and Halata appealed to US Tax Court. Halata vs IRS (2012).

Judge Morrison concluded that under Texas law there was in fact a theft but not until 2009. Unfortunately for Halata, the Court denied Halata the right to carry back this large loss to 2007 on procedural grounds in that her tax attorney did not raise this issue until after the trial. The Court did however grant Halata the right to take the loss in 2009 and then carry it forward to 2010 and beyond if necessary. This was a partial victory for Halata and partial victory for IRS. This case once again underscored the importance of timing when it comes to deducting TL or NBD.

In conclusion, if you all have a material TL or NBD, it is perhaps critical that you retain a tax attorney to prepare your tax return so that your strategy as to the timing of the loss can be properly documented and articulated to the Government in the tax return itself before filing. Do not file that tax return with a loss unless you can show that there is reasonable certainty that you could not obtain reimbursement for your loss in that specific year. Finally remember when it comes to TL and NBD, timing is everything, making the year of deduction more important than the deduction itself. Bullet proof your tax return TL and NBD strategy before you file. Your tax position will be safe and secure from IRS challenge for many years to come. Thank you for joining Chris Moss CPA on TaxView.

See you next time on Tax View,

Kindest regards

Chris Moss CPA

Say No To Offshore Tax Shelters

Submitted by Chris Moss CPA

Welcome to TaxView with Chris Moss CPA
You all remember when Credit Suisse plead guilty to helping “clients deceive U.S. tax authorities by concealing assets in illegal, undeclared bank accounts, in a conspiracy that spanned decades..” —and nobody going to jail? According to news reports back then the only penalty to Credit Suisse was a $2.5 billion fine. In fact, former US Attorney General Eric Holder, made certain that Credit Suisse and their CEO Brandy Dougan would still be allowed to do business as usual in the aftermath of the criminal plea. Are you surprised? The outdated and ultra-complex US Tax Code, 100 years in the making, is a dinosaur in the 21st century. Is there a better way to tax Americans? Stay with us here on TaxView with Chris Moss CPA to find out what can done to improve our current tax infrastructure and put an end to those offshore tax shelters.

It is well known that large corporations are legally moving their corporate headquarters offshore to save taxes; Wealthy individuals also move money offshore illegally. As a result, a few hundred or perhaps thousands of Americans put themselves and their family at risk of criminal prosecution just to save some tax dollars each year by illegally keeping assets and earnings off shore. Come on America’s top wealthy taxpayers there is always legal workaround to illegal activity. Keep your money and workers here in America, the country that made it possible for you to make all that money in the first place.

But what about corporations? They can and do legally reduce their taxes by setting up business operations offshore. But corporate tax strategy of shifting income oversees is hardly ethical. In my view moving offshore hurts America. Why? Because Americans lose tax revenue and workers lose jobs. Indeed the whole offshore process of allocating income and costs between Europe and the US makes absolutely no economic or even rational sense. It’s time for Congress to create incentives for American family business and large multinational corporations to keep their business assets in the United States where they belong.

But you can hardly blame corporations for wanting to save taxes. As this article is being written, Amazon is battling with the IRS in US Tax Court (Amazon vs IRS 2014) on how costs are allocated from European and US operations for years 2005 and 2006. The stakes are very high for both Amazon and the US Treasury. If Amazon loses they will owe over $1 Billion in tax and penalties. If they win, the American Government loses billions of dollars in lost tax revenue.

How do we stop the massive movement of non-taxed income to offshore tax shelters by corporate America? The simple answer is to first do away with the corporate income tax and replace with a value added tax (VAT). A VAT is nothing more than a business retail sales tax collected through all the various stages of production. With no income tax to pay on profits, corporations paying the VAT will have the incentive to produce and sell from a location in the world that maximizes profits. This would most likely translate to American businesses maintaining their world wide headquarters in the United States.

Moreover, if we want American corporations to continue to hire American and not Chinese workers, a VAT is not enough. We must replace the personal income tax with a National Sales Tax (NST). American workers with no income tax to pay could work for less, take home more pay, and at the same time compete with oversees labor markets. Even wealthy American taxpayers would soon bring back their illegal offshore never taxed income to spend here in the United States.

As funds flow back to the Government from the VAT and NST, Congress could begin to pay down the National Debt and wipe out annual deficits without cutting funds to existing Government services and agencies. The underground economy would soon vanish, and tax revenue as a percentage of GDP would rise dramatically. With increased spending for goods and services by all Americans, the US Treasury would soon see a dramatic increase in tax receipts from both the VAT and the NST. In fact, the last dramatic increase in tax revenue as a percentage of GDP was in 1943 with the introduction of the W2 form during World War II. History perhaps will show a VAT/NST combination to be a likewise dramatic turning point for America, allowing us to once again regain our place as a world political and economic leader in the 21st century.

In conclusion, replacing the corporate and personal income tax with VAT and NST would be not only good for America but provide a revolutionary new way Americans pay taxes in the 21st century. Ask your elected officials their position on VAT and NST. Is Congress willing to scrap the 100 year old income tax for both corporations and individuals? Make sure you voice is heard before the next Presidential election. Let’s keep American business here in America. Ask Congress to think seriously about replacing the corporate and personal income tax with a National VAT and NST. Thank you for joining Chris Moss CPA on TaxView.

See you next TaxView,
Kindest regards,
Chris Moss CPA

When a Gift Is Not a Gift

Welcome to TaxView with Chris Moss CPA

Are you an entrepreneur with family business? Have you thought about your children and grandchildren being more involved in your business? Perhaps a Family Limited Liability Company (Family LLC) is just what you need. Properly structured for your unique situation, the Family LLC is a 21st century way to hand down the family business for generations to come in a safe, protected and orderly business structure. But if you set up your Family LLC be aware you face dangerous IRS tax mines hidden in IRS Code Section 2036(a) that could explode your tax plan into an IRS audit focusing on when a gift is not a gift (GINAG) and when a transfer is not a transfer (TINAT). Indeed, you may experience unexpected increases in estate tax so high the children might have to sell the farm just to pay the tax. So if you don’t want GINAG or TINAT, or just want to learn more about them, stay with us here on TaxView with Chris Moss CPA to fully understand how to avoid GINAG, TINAT, and Section 2036(a) so you can save and preserve your assets for your children for many generations to come.

Section 2036(a) prohibits you transferring property out of your estate that are “testamentary “in nature. The US Supreme Court in Grace V US, 395 US 316 (1969) has defined “testamentary” as those transfers which leave you in significant control over the property transferred. For example you still control the business you just transferred to your children. Section 2036(a) does not apply to transfers that are bona-fide sales for adequate and full consideration. Furthermore, the bona fide sale exception is satisfied where the record establishes you had a legitimate and significant nontax reason for creating your Family LLC, and your children received membership interests proportionate to the value of the property transferred. Turner v IRS 2011 at page 33. Therefore, all transfers and gifts to adult or minor children in a Family Limited Liability Company must be perfectly executed to comply with Section 2036(a). See Bigelow v IRS, 503 F.3d 955 (2007) Affirming Bigelow v IRS T.C. Memo. 2005-65; also see Rector v IRS 2007.

Our first US Tax Court case is True v IRS 2001. Dave and Jean True made direct gifts in their family business to some or all of their children every year form 1955-1993 at the maximum annual exclusion each year. True did not use a Family LLC. Instead of using an LLC Operating Agreement, True created restrictive buy-sell agreements for all of the family. This Agreements gave Dave True total control over all family business. Dave True died on June 4, 1994 with many various trusts in place with True still maintaining control over all businesses. An Estate Tax return was filed on March 3, 1995 with the Estate valued less the value of all the gifts given to all the children over all the years. The estate was audited by the IRS in 1998. Do you all see the GINAG and TINAT coming?

Sure enough the IRS determined that the whole purposes of the gifts to the True children and related buy-sell agreements was to avoid estate tax. The Government sent the True family a bill for over $75 Million plus $30 Million in penalties adding back all those gifts as a violation of Section 2036(a). This is major GINAG. Why? True was giving everything away without a business structure to back up his estate plan making the primary motive to avoid estate tax. As the Court notes on page 108 of this over 300 page Opinion, Dave True had “control” over the whole operation which made for good GINAG in that he had a “life estate” in the business operations. In my view if True had set up a Family Limited Liability Company with normal restrictions placed in a family Operating Agreement allowing the family under unanimous consent provisions to control the assets, GINAG and TINAT would have been avoided, and assets would have been preserved and protected from Section 2036(a). Unfortunately for the True children, IRS wins True loses.

Our next case is Hurford v IRS 2008. Thelma Hurford was a very wealth widow. On advice of legal counsel she formed a Family Limited Partnership which allowed her to transfer assets, including farms and ranches into a single entity. Hurford gave a 25% interest to each of her children. But Hurford still maintained control over everything. GINAG is written all over this. Hurford even remained the sole signatory on many of the accounts. Hurford died on February 19, 2001. The estate tax return was filed on September 26, 2001. The IRS audited the return on November 18, 2004 claiming Hurford owed over $20 Million for estate and gift tax. Hurford appealed to US Tax Court in Hurford v IRS 2008.

Judge Holmes and the Government proposed GINAG for the whole estate plan calling it nothing more than a transparently thin substitute for a will. The Court agreed with the Government finding that Hurford retained an impermissible interest in the assets she had tried to transfer to her children in total violation of Section 2036(a). Further the Court noted that Thelma commingled her own funds with the partnerships until shortly before she died, and that there was no meaningful economic activity where the partnership furthers family investment goals or where the partners work together to jointly manage family investments. You guessed it IRS wins Hurford loses.

Our last case: Stone vs IRS 2003. Mr. and Mrs. Stone founded multiple business ventures. They were also beneficiaries of various trusts. Perhaps due to or because of all this wealth, the family and 4 children Eugene, Rivers, Rosalie and Mary and other parties sued each other in the early 1990s over these trusts. After settlement of all the litigation, Stone formed 5 family limited partnerships in 1996 for his wife and 4 adult children. The partnership agreements provided unanimous consent of all partners to sell, transfer or encumber property and the children worked in the businesses owned by the partnerships. Mr. Stone died as a South Carolina resident on June 5, 1997 at age 89. Mrs. Stone died on October 16, 1998 at age 86. An estate tax return was filed for both Mr. and Mrs. Stone and the IRS eventually audited. The Government sent Mr. Stone a bill for $8 Million and Mrs. Stone a bill for $1.5 Million claiming the transfers to the partnerships violated Section 2036(a). Stones appealed to US Tax Court Stone v IRS 2003.

Judge Chiechi notes that the Stones retained enough assets in their estate to maintain their life style. The Court found that transfers were motivated primarily by investment and business concerns relating to the management of certain of the respective assets of Mr. and Mrs. Stone during their lives and thereafter. The Court concludes that the partnerships had economic substance and operated as joint enterprises for profit through which the children actively participated in the management and development of the assets and therefore the transfers were bona fide sales for adequate and full consideration in money or money’s worth under section 2036(a). Stone wins IRS Loses. Also see Mirowski v IRS US Tax Court 2008

So what does this all mean for us? If you have a business or perhaps multiple businesses and your tax attorney has suggested a Family Limited Liability Company which will own all of these businesses make sure the operating agreements protect you from Section 2036(a) and GINAG and TINAT. Based on the US Tax Court case law, retain some assets for yourself to maintain your lifestyle and perhaps transfer everything else to the LLC. Regarding adult children who are willing to participate in the family business see to it that they are signatures on the bank accounts and make sure there are unanimous consent requirements for all important decisions. Any gifts to minor children through the annual tax free gift exclusion require an absolute legitimate bullet proof non tax purpose in forming the LLC. Finally consult a tax attorney to create your unique business plan. Avoid GINAG and TINA. Most importantly avoid violation of Section 2036(a). You will be ready for any IRS audit coming your way and your assets will be part of your family legacy to your children and your children’s children for many years to come.

Thanks for joining me on TaxView with Chris Moss CPA.

Kindest regards
Chris Moss CPA

Yacht and Boating Tax Deductions

Welcome to TaxView with Chris Moss CPA

There are thousands of American taxpayers who deduct expenses in connection with operating a motor yacht or luxury sailing craft. Indeed, there are legitimate tax write offs in connection with yacht ownership but perhaps there are also equally as many which are not so legitimate. Just about everyone out there deducts sales tax paid as a tax write off when you first buy your yacht. If you consider purchasing the yacht as a second home, mortgage interest may also be a deductible tax write off. But you may want to steer clear of yacht charter businesses with lots of losses unless you are an experienced sea captain who has withered many a storm at sea. So if you own a yacht and you are curious as to whether or not there are legitimate tax write offs for boating enthusiasts stay with us here on TaxView with Chris Moss CPA to find out which boating income tax deductions are hot and which ones are not.

Whether you sail for a living or just plain love the ocean and waterways for motoring your water craft, the key IRS regulation you need to know about is Section 274, added to the IRS Code in the Revenue Act of 1962, prohibiting tax deductions in connection with the operation of a yacht as an entertainment facility. The Joint Committee on Taxation report points out that the 1962 Act requires that a yacht must be used for business, not entertainment. So if you purchase your yacht or yachts through the family business you would have to convince the IRS and ultimately the US Tax Court that your yacht purchase was not an entertainment facility for entertaining customers, but was used strictly 100% for business travel. Even just one instance of entertainment could disallow all deductions for business travel if the Government classified your yacht as an “entertainment facility”. Regarding this specific set of facts, the risk of adverse IRS audit action against you perhaps outweighs the possible rewards for using your yacht exclusively for travel.

Of course you can always deduct yacht expenses if you own a yacht type business like a yacht charter business. Unfortunately, for most of us who are working other jobs or earning money from other investments in the family business, the US Tax court rarely will allow you to deduct yacht charter losses against your other income. Yacht charter losses have consistently been disallowed by US Tax Court for lacking profit motive under Sect 183 including: Ballard v IRS 1996, Magassy v IRS 2004, Lucid v IRS 1997, Hilliard v IRS 1995, Courbois v IRS 1997, and Peacock v IRS 2002 and lack of material participation under Section 469(c) including Oberle v IRS 1998 and Goshorn v IRS 1993. In all these cases IRS wins you lose.

But there is good news. There are in fact legitimate boating expenses that are safe and relatively easy to deduct on your tax return as long as you consult with your tax attorney to bulletproof the strategy. You can deduct interest secured by the boat under IRS Section 163. You can also use designate your yacht as your primary and exclusive home office for your family business as described in IRS Pub 587.

However, for those of you who want a more comprehensive tax strategy, you can transfer ownership of your yacht to your Family Limited Liability Company and organize a yacht brokerage service which refurbishes high end yachts to sell for a profit. Your business could even use yacht charters as a marketing tool to promote the boating lifestyle to potential customers.. You make your money when you sell the yacht to a family who perhaps chartered your yacht a few months earlier. Your tax and business structure in this case avoids the entertainment facility black hole because you have successfully converted “entertainment” into a brilliant marketing strategy.

To win with this strategy you are expected by the Courts to keep excellent extemporaneous, contemporaneous accounting records and travel logs, and that you maintain accurate cost basis history documentation. The yacht business, furthermore, becomes part of your entire estate plan along with all the other assets transferred to the family LLC for eventually gifting to children and grandchildren with a watertight operating agreement including all the usual discounts and marketability restrictions.

Unfortunately for legendary criminal defense attorney F Lee Bailey vs IRS U S Tax Court the Government won big time against Bailey because he did not keep accurate records for his boat refurbishing business back in 2012. IRS wins Bailey loses. Also see Knauss v IRS 2005 involving a taxpayer who lost big against the IRS simply because he couldn’t produce accurate cost basis documentation. IRS wins Knauss loses.

Notwithstanding the record keeping requirements, there are excellent rewards for starting out with a yacht refurbishing business as part of an overall estate plan. If you are set up correctly you can use forward Section 1031 or Reverse 1031 tax free exchange treatment each time you refurbish and then sell your yacht. But be warned, this is a very complex business plan incorporated into an equally challenging estate plan all set up with an entrepreneurial foundation for family unity, protection, and asset preservation. Please consult your tax attorney and qualified intermediary to bullet proof this tax strategy prior to ever filing your tax return.

In conclusion, if you truly love sailing the seas, there are legitimate expenses for boating that can be deducted on your personal or business tax return. But without a water tight business structure, perhaps through a family limited liability company as part of your overall estate plan, your yacht may not be prepared for what lies ahead. Best practice is to get plenty of professional advice before deducting any boating expenses on your tax return. Finally, whatever tax plan you decide on, have your tax attorney disclose the plan openly and honestly to the government as part of your tax return filing to the IRS with plenty of supporting documentation and US Tax court case law. You will be glad you did if you happen to be audited years later. Thanks for joining us on TaxView with Chris Moss CPA.

Kindest regards,
Chris Moss CPA