Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Does Giving Tax Advice Make You a 'Preparer'?
Signed by President Bush on May 25, The Small Business and Work Opportunity Tax Act of 2007 ('Small Business Act') includes new preparer penalty provisions that range up to 50% of the fee for preparing the tax return. Lawyers who give tax advice need to know that this legislation had a 'surprise' in it regarding whom the IRS considers a tax return preparer.
The new law replaces the original Code definition of 'income tax preparer' with 'tax return preparer.' A tax return preparer now includes any person who prepares for compensation, or who employs one or more persons to prepare for compensation, all or a substantial portion of any tax return or any claim for refund. In other words, this standard no longer applies solely to those who prepare income tax returns ' it also now encompasses those who prepare estate and gift tax returns, employment tax returns, excise tax returns, and exempt organization returns.
Moreover, you do not need to actually prepare or sign a tax return in order to be a tax return preparer under the law. The regulations currently state that a preparer includes any person who gives a taxpayer or other preparer sufficient information and advice so that the completion of the return or claim for refund is largely a mechanical or clerical matter, even though that person does not actually place or review the placement of information on the return or claim for refund. A person who merely gives advice on specific issues of law is a preparer if: 1) the advice is given for events which have occurred at the time the advice is rendered and is not given with respect to the consequences of contemplated actions, and 2) the advice is directly relevant to the determination of the existence, characterization, or amount of an entry on a return or claim for refund.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.