The more sources you access the better. Narrow information sources risk ‘echo chamber’ & confirmation bias mentality. The world is full of valuable insights - We need to tap into as many of them as possible. Keep an open mind!
Bank Presents The Golden Age Of Tax Dodging: Celebrities, Hollywood, And The Publicity Effect Today At Temple
IRS: The Tax Consequences Of Online Crowdfunding
Koch says its $3.6 billion purchase of Iowa fertilizer plant finalized Des Moines Register. Robin K: “Public subsidy of the outrageously rich.”
Party of one: Restaurants are catering to a growing number of solo diners Associated Press
Notes on the political economy of war Wolfgang Streeck, Journal of Keynesian Economics
The Machine Stops Aurelien. Another important piece.
The Nibelung’s Ring: The Early Philosophy John Micael Greer
Not Losing Sight of Imperialism Venezuelanalysis
Former tax accountant Nicholas Guy Birdseye fined for failing to allow ATO to audit his accounts
A former tax agent stripped of his credentials has been fined for failing to provide documents to the Australian Taxation Office. The Adelaide Magistrates Court heard that Nicholas Guy Birdseye did not produce all relevant documents needed to complete a lawful audit of his accounts to confirm the amount of tax he should have been paying - even after receiving two warning notices.
“The defendant, of course, as a former tax agent, would have been well cognisant of his obligations pursuant to the notice and the importance of compliance,” Magistrate Simon Smart said.
Birdseye was required to provide invoices and accounting records relating to funds received from nine sources, a schedule of assets, and information about his bank accounts.
Birdseye was deregistered as a tax agent in 2020, which was upheld a year later after the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed the decision made by the Tax Practitioners Board.
Birdseye pleaded guilty to one count of failing to provide documents to the Commissioner of Taxation. He submitted to the court that he was suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder and depression at the time.
This had “adversely affected” his ability to handle business dealings, which gave rise to his failure to comply with the ATO's notices. money, amid growing anger at scams that cost households at least $2.7 billion a year, according to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
But the new regime will not follow changes in the UK that put the greatest requirements on banks to pay the refunds, seeking instead to share the responsibility with tech platforms such as Facebook if they spread the scams.
Fifth Circuit Holds Criminal Statute of Limitations is Not Suspended for Equitable Tolling on Government's Alleged Excuses
More on United States v. Boler
Yesterday, I wrote a blog entry on United States v. Boler, ___ F.4th ___ (4th Cir. 2024). Fourth Circuit Applies Auer/Kisor Deference to Include in Guidelines "Loss" the Commentary Inclusion of "Intended Loss" (Federal Tax Crimes Blog 8/24/24), here. (The blog entry was cross-posted on my Federal Tax Procedure Blog, here.) I think there is more that can and should be said about Boler. This post will be more of a “notice” post (like the fabled notice pleading lawyers at least of my generation learned about early in our law school careers).
In United States v. Boler, ___ F.4th ___ (4th Cir. 2024), CA4 here and GS here [to come], the Court held that the term loss included the pecuniary loss that Boler intended from filing false refund claims with the IRS. Boler filed six returns claiming false refunds; the IRS paid refunds on only four of the returns. Boler wanted the loss to be calculated using only the amounts actually refunded and thus to exclude the refund amounts claimed but not refunded. The district court held that Sentencing Guidelines inclusion of loss included intended loss. Since the pecuniary loss is a principal driver of the Sentencing Guidelines calculations, the inclusion of the intended loss increased the advisory Guidelines sentence and factored into the resulting sentence. On appeal, Boler argued that the Guidelines required inclusion of the loss, which facially does not include intended loss and that, the Guidelines Commentary interpretation of “loss” to include intended loss was an invalid interpretation of the Guidelines term “loss.” The Court of Appeals held that loss included the intended loss. (This is perhaps a moot issue in the future, because the definition of loss in the Guidelines was changed effective November 1 to include intended loss.)
The issue, as framed by the majority, turned on the application of Auer/Kisor deference. So, what is Auer/Kisor deference? As interpreted in Kisor v. Wilkie, 588 U.S. 558 (2019), GS here, the Court updated and constricted Auer deference, but, as constricted, held that in some cases courts should defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous agency legislative regulations. The majority in Loper Bright did not mention Auer/Kisor deference, although it cited Kisor several times; the dissent said (S.Ct. at 2306-2307) that Kisor approved Auer deference “which requires judicial deference to agencies' interpretations of their own regulations.” (Hereafter, whenever I use the term regulations, I mean agency notice and comment regulations required for legislative regulations and permitted for interpretive regulations.) The Loper Bright opinions make no statement that Auer/Kisor deference is affected.