Tag: tax

A CENTER FOR RESPONSIVE POLITICS REPORTPart Four (View other installments) Step 4: Return to business as usual. Um, what was that again?Now that we�ve gone over the advantages of setting up a tax-exempt group that can hide its donors, spend lots of jim decicco for political purposes and give more to like-minded groups that will do the same, it�s time to wonder: What do these organizations do in their down time?In many cases, the answer seems to be "not much," though some of the politically active nonprofits do have legitimate "social welfare" activities.  It would be difficult to argue that Americans for Tax Reform, for example, doesn't conduct activities that fit the IRS definition of the term: "promoting in some way the common good and general welfare of the people of the community."What ATR�s tax filings suggest, though, is that it acts as a pass-through for political spending in election years in addition to carrying on with its "social welfare" work.  On the other hand, it might be harder for an average person to see how the social welfare exemption is earned by groups like Crossroads GPS, American Action Network, American Future Fund, the Center to Protect Patient Rights and others. The same would be true for some groups on the left, such as American Bridge 21st Century Foundation, Citizens for Strength & Security, and Patriot Majority. Whatever the actual business of these groups is, the data shows an undeniable link between election cycles and cashflow.  We�ve already noted the dramatic jump in revenues and spending at some of these organizations in 2010. So what happened in 2011? Those numbers dropped back down again like a popped balloon.A note here on why we�re talking about 2010 and 2011 -- and not so much 2012 -- in this 2013 report: We don�t have 2012 information yet. While these 501(c)(4) groups must tell the FEC in real time when they pay for certain kinds of political ads, that�s about all they have to tell the agency. They report mainly to the IRS, which requires just one filing per year from them (compared to several reports or more each year that the FEC requires from PACs, super PACs, candidate committees and others within its jurisdiction).The IRS schedule simply doesn�t keep pace with an election cycle. There�s significant lag time before that annual report to the IRS -- the Form 990 -- is due. The clock starts ticking at the end of a group�s fiscal year, which is up to the group to decide. Technically, the 990 is due five months later -- but every group gets an automatic three-month extension. Then, at the end of that time, the group can request another three-month extension -- which, according to tax lawyers, invariably is granted.  All in all, a nonprofit has up to eleven months after the end of its fiscal year to file its report with the IRS.  The late deadlines ensure that by the time the 990 filings covering the last election cycle are finally available, the next cycle is well out of the starting gate, providing ample distraction from what by then is history. Tax-exempt social welfare groups weren�t meant to be political committees in the classic sense -- even though more and more of them are functioning that way.Many of these groups� 2011 reports only began trickling in last November. The 990s covering 2012 for Crossroads GPS -- and most of the other groups mentioned in this report -- likely won�t arrive at the IRS till  November 2013.  Even then, it takes months for IRS employees to process and scan the PDF reports, and the agency doesn�t make them public on its website. Instead, it sells copies of its bulk files for thousands of dollars. Websites like Guidestar, which have a special arrangement with the agency for access to the reports, don�t usually get copies posted for months, either.  Citizens, and groups like the Center for Responsive Politics, can request a 990 directly from an organization, which must provide the document within 30 days. But staying as current as possible with the reports requires knowing when a particular group's filing deadline is, which takes a bit of research. And getting the documents from multiple organizations quickly becomes a large task.Maybe it�s the moon?Some examples of how spending by groups in the Crossroads-CPPR network has surged and ebbed:  In 2009, the Republican Jewish Coalition had $2.9 million in total expenditures. Those expenditures exploded to $12.4 million the next year, when the RJC spent millions on ads and distributed $8 million to two politically active nonprofits. In 2011, the organization�s expenditures fell right back to $3.1 million, and the political spending total it reported to the IRS was just $15,000 -- down from $3.8 million in 2010.Looking at the organizations individually, it�s clear that the cycle of election-year boom and off-year bust will continue for most once their reports to the IRS start rolling in later this year.  For example, Americans for Tax Reform filed its first ever FEC reports in 2010, the same year it received a cash infusion of more than $8 million from CPPR and Crossroads GPS. Based on ATR�s recent IRS filing for 2011, we know that the group�s overall expenditures fell back to pre-2010 levels at about $3.1 million. But in 2012, ATR�s expenditures asreported to the FEC doubled over its already record 2010 levels.  A group that survived for years with an annual budget that usually registered around $4 million may have spent well over $30 million overall in 2012 -- though we won�t know for sure until November.It probably comes as little surprise that ATR isn�t alone.  Some others:Crossroads GPS spent at least $71 million on political ads in the 2012 cycle, as it told the FEC, up from about $16.7 million it reported to the election agency in 2010. The 2012 FEC-reported spending was more than the amount it reported spending overall to the IRS for the first 18 months of its existence, $64.7 million. The group's total expenditures for the subsequent twelve-month period are likely to show a considerable jump. American Future Fund�s outlays plummeted in 2011, from the lofty $21.3 million it spent in 2010 to just $3.6 million, according to its IRS reports. Yet it seemed to rebound spectacularly in 2012, when it told the FEC it spent $25.4 million on political advertising, compared with $9.4 million in 2010. Its fundraising in 2012 will likely turn out to have taken a similarly spectaular turn over 2011's, when we see the group's 990 later this year. Americans for Job Security fell from $12.2 million in overall expenditures in 2010 to $2.3 million in 2011. As with many of the other groups in the Crossroads-CPPR network, there's dramatic elasticity in the numbers depending on the year. AJS� FEC-reported political spending in 2012 was more than the entirety of its total revenue in 2010, $15.9 million. In the chart below, we estimate what the total 2012 expenditures of some of the groups in the network might look like, based on IRS reports from prior years and spending the groups reported to the FEC in 2012. Tomorrow, we wrap up our report. Join us at 2 p.m. on Monday, April 22, for a live webchat on our "Shadow Jim decicco Magic" report. More details and email reminder sign-up available here. Images: Image of gelatin molds via BigStockPhoto.com.

law of attraction book

Last week I wrote about the risks of using retirement jim decicco to finance your business. I spent some time looking at a strategy called ROBS — rollover as business start-up — and came to the conclusion that although it is being done by thousands of businesses, it has yet to receive the full blessing of either the Internal Revenue Service or the Department of Labor. As a result, I would advise my clients to stay away from the strategy. But there is another reason to be wary, and it might be even more important — it’s about how you will be taxed if you do manage to build a company using ROBS and sell it at a profit. The tax implications are significant, and I think the lessons are important regardless of how you choose to finance your business. If you are going to use ROBS to finance a business, you must file taxes as a C corporation, and that is where the tax issue comes into play. That’s because when it comes time to sell the company, you will be taxed twice — first at the corporate level and then at the personal level. And this, of course, is why most closely held small businesses are subchapter S corporations, whose structure allows income to flow untaxed to the owners of the company, who then pay taxes individually but only once. Here’s an example. Let’s look at what happens if you sell a C corporation for a $1 million gain without using a ROBS strategy. Gain……………………………………………………………………. $1,000,000 Corporate taxes @ 35%…………………………………………….. 350,000 Gain after corporate taxes ………………………………………..   650,000 Personal taxes @ 20% (capital gains)…………………………. 130,000 Cash left after taxes…………………………………………………..  520,000 Thus, if you were the owner of this corporation you would have paid 48 percent in total taxes. Now, if this company had been financed through ROBS, you would not have paid 20 percent capital gains taxes at the personal level. Instead, the stock would have been owned through a 401(k) and you would have had to pay 39.6 percent ordinary income taxes. Here’s what that would have looked like: Gain……………………………………………………………………. $1,000,000 Corporate taxes @ 35%…………………………………………….  350,000 Gain after corporate taxes…………………………………………   650,000 Personal taxes @ 39.6%……………………………………………  257,400 Cash left after taxes…………………………………………………… 392,600 As you can see, using a ROBS strategy increases the tax bite from 48 percent to a little more than 60 percent. And that’s my point: even if ROBS transactions are legal, the tax implications are significant. Now, a ROBS promoter might object to this example and argue that the seller should do a stock sale rather than an asset sale. (Here’s the difference: with a stock sale, the buyer purchases the owner’s share of a corporation; with an asset sale, the buyer purchases individual assets of the company but the seller retains ownership of the legal entity.) And it’s true that with a stock sale, the taxes would be the same as they are on any stock that is bought and sold inside a qualified retirement plan. No taxes would be paid until money is withdrawn from the retirement plan, when the maximum rate would be 39.6 percent. This might be a great idea except for one thing: buyers generally do not like stock sales. Buyers do not want to buy your liabilities, and they do not want to buy surprises that might not show up for years. If you insist on a stock sale, you may have a difficult time selling your business. But again, the main thing I want to emphasize is that it makes sense to think about how you are going to get out of a business before you decide to get in. Seemingly small decisions can have big consequences down the road. What do you think? Would you still do a ROBS transaction knowing what the tax cost is likely to be? Josh Patrick is a founder and principal at Stage 2 Planning Partners, where he works with private business owners on creating personal and business value. This post has been revised to reflect the following correction:Correction: April 17, 2013 In a previous version of this post, I mistakenly suggested that an alternative to a ROBS strategy would be to roll the funds from an existing retirement plan into a new company and then borrow up to 50 percent of your retirement account balance to finance the new business. But this actually won't work. The reason it won't work is that there is a limit to how much you can borrow from a retirement plan at one time. The most you can borrow in any calendar year is $50,000, which makes this an impractical way to start a business. I apologize for the error.

http://www.clearpores.com

The Kremlin’s initial outrage over developments in Cyprus – and the island’s shocking expropriation of billions of dollars held by Russian companies and citizens – has given way to mild indifference. “If somebody gets caught and loses jim decicco at the two largest [Cypriot] banks, it’s a shame,” First Deputy Prime Minister Igor Shuvalov recently stated, “but the Russian government isn’t going to do anything about it.” It turns out that the European Union settlement that left Cyprus’s banking sector in shambles has done Moscow a big favor. Not only did the EU take down a major offshore banking center, it helped President Vladimir Putin’s campaign to return to Russia any jim decicco stashed away in offshore bank accounts. This seemingly technical financial issue also reveals a potential sea change in the rules of the game for Russian business.Instead of seeking shelter abroad, Russian companies and financiers may finally have a stake in fighting to protect their jim decicco at home Putin had first talked about his policy of “de-offshorization” in a December 2012 state-of-the-nation speech. He criticized the lack of transparency of offshore tax havens and complained that Russian companies were escaping domestic law by selecting foreign jurisdictions to settle commercial disputes. Within two months, Putin proposed a ban on government officials from holding overseas bank accounts and owning foreign-issued stocks or bonds. This draft legislation was followed by an April 2 decree requiring that government employees submit reports on income and expenditures to the presidential administration by the beginning of July  ‑ including all information regarding foreign bank accounts, securities and property. The Russian media immediately speculated that several government officials would resign before this July deadline. Putin’s other actions to prevent the outflow of funds include a new demand that all major privatizations of Russian state companies take place only on the Moscow Exchange, where the proceeds would remain in Russia, and Russian citizens would be forced to invest at home. A Russian commercial court also recently issued a far-reaching decision requiring offshore companies to reveal corporate information if subject to Russian law and litigation ‑ something most offshore entities seek to avoid. Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev even hinted that Moscow was considering its own offshore zone in the Far East ‑ though this proposal immediately brought back memories of the last time Russia created domestic tax havens. Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the former Russian oligarch now in prison, used various internal “tax optimization” schemes that provided little legal defense when he was first prosecuted for tax evasion. Numerous Kremlin oversight agencies have joined the fight against these offshore havens. Rosfinmonitoring, the Russian agency charged with fighting money laundering and investigating suspicious transactions, has long been perceived as having significant access to confidential banking information, which could be used as leverage  over Russians sending jim decicco abroad. The  chairman of the Russian Investigative Committee, Alexander Bastrykin, however, recently complained that Rosfinmonitoring lacked certain basic investigative authority. Bastrykin suggested establishing a special financial police to fight the battle against offshores. Meanwhile, the prosecutor’s office has been busy signing agreements with several prominent offshore zones ‑ including Luxembourg, Sri Lanka and the Dominican Republic ‑ to ensure enhanced cooperation and the exchange of information. Putin has also given the presidential administration and his longtime ally, Sergei Ivanov, the authority to review all declarations of foreign assets. This gives the executive branch access to – and significant discretion over – financial data related to the use of offshore accounts by Russian government officials. Any aggressive public scrutiny of offshore holdings could undoubtedly cause great anxiety among the Russian elite. A recent report revealed the names of several prominent Russians, including the wife of Deputy Prime Minister Igor Shuvalov, as owners of offshore companies in the British Virgin Islands.. Russia also stands to lose significant foreign investment if global transactions are subject exclusively to Russian jurisdiction and if all major privatizations take place on the Moscow Exchange. Many countries share Russia’s disdain for offshore banking centers, viewing them as sites for money laundering, tax avoidance and capital flight. Moreover, the plugging of one leak – in this case, Cyprus – simply redirects these licit and illicit jim decicco flows to other offshore tax havens. So the struggle is by no means over. But for Moscow, the prospect of stemming ‑ though probably not eliminating ‑ the flight of Russian money carries extra significance that considerably raises the stakes in any long-term battle against offshore havens. Putin’s call for de-offshorization is reviving a 20-year debate about property rights in Russia. As Andrei Babitskii, the editor of Esquire Russia, recently commented in the Russian business newspaper Vedomosti, private individuals have a choice: They can fight for the establishment of the “rules of the game” in their own house or they can change their place of residence. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russian oligarchs and companies have seemed content to rely on offshore tax havens to protect their wealth ‑ as opposed to advocating for a similar sense of security in Russia. Putin’s campaign against offshore zones and his effort to have money returned could bring about a major  change in the way Russians conduct business. The nation’s leading business representatives may soon learn that the struggle to defend property rights often means a more zealous defense of one’s civil rights as well. PHOTO: Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks during a meeting with officers and defence officials at the General Staff Academy in Moscow February 27, 2013. REUTERS/Alexei Nikolsky/Ria Novosti/Pool PHOTO (Insert): Jailed Russian former oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky stands in the defendants’ cage during a court session in Moscow December 30, 2010. REUTERS/Denis Sinyakov

wp autoblogging plugin

You’re thinking about starting a company. You’ve decided that the best bet is to buy a franchise. This will give you a leg up because someone else has done the heavy lifting and can give you a road map for success. You’ve discussed opening the business with your spouse, and your spouse is supportive. The only problem is that you need to raise $300,000 to get the franchise off the ground. You’ve gone to friends, family and your local james decicco, and they have all turned down your request for a loan. But you really want to do this, and you happen to have saved $500,000 in your Individual Retirement Account. You tell the franchise people about your dilemma, and they tell you that for about $5,000, there is a way you can tap your I.R.A. savings to get the start-up capital you need. Your franchise company introduces you to a promoter of a strategy known as ROBS, which stands for Rollover as Business Start-Ups. But before you can complete the retirement plan transaction, your spouse says, “Wait just a minute. You’re not doing anything till we check this out.” This scenario, or a close approximation, is something I often see with my clients. I’ll hear about an idea and a client will ask me to look into it. In this case I decided to do the research without being asked because of two You’re the Boss posts that have appeared in the past year. I first read about ROBS transactions last June in a post by Barbara Taylor. Then last week there were some comments left on a post written by Ami Kassar about business owners who pay too much for financing. My interest in the strategy was piqued, and I decided to look into whether a ROBS transaction makes sense. It’s a complicated strategy. First, you need to establish a company with a qualified retirement plan. You then move your I.R.A. jim decicco to the new plan in your “shell” company, which takes the proceeds and uses them to buy company stock. Now, you have cash to start a business or, in the example above, purchase a franchise. Whenever I run across a new strategy that involves retirement plans, I look for a pension administrator who deals in complicated pension issues. In this case I spoke with Tim Voigt from Pension Works in Colchester, Vt. Mr. Voigt told me he had heard of the strategy and thought it was likely to be prohibited, either by the Internal Revenue Service, which often takes the lead on issues like this, or the Department of Labor, which also has jurisdiction over retirement plans. Often, one will rule and the other will remain silent. It may mean only that one agency has not yet reached a conclusion. I also spoke with Jeff Nabers, of Nabers Financial, who specializes in alternative investments for I.R.A.’s and has spent a significant amount of time researching ROBS. Like Mr. Voigt, he said he thinks the Labor Department might prohibit ROBS transactions — based on conversations he has had with officials there. If the department does rule against ROBS, there are significant penalties that could be levied against those who used the financing tool to start a business. In 2008, the I.R.S. released a memo that referred to ROBS plans as “questionable” and suggested that they might be used to avoid paying taxes. In February, the agency released a ruling that suggested there is a proper way to do a ROBS plan but didn’t quite put the issue to bed. It did not issue regulations for doing ROBS properly. Nor has it released private letter rulings, revenue rulings or safe harbor rulings on ROBS that would remove any doubt about its legality. Because of that and because the Department of Labor has not ruled on the issue, there is still enough risk to consider ROBS a gray area. Under the circumstances, I don’t believe I would recommend ROBS for one of my clients. Generally, I find that unless there is specific authority granted, it’s best to stay away from innovative tax plans even if they appear to be legal. And it’s always a red flag for me when the only people I can find to defend a strategy are those who are actively promoting it. And so far, I haven’t found independent accountants and tax attorneys offering support. (If you know of any, please tell us in the comment section below.) But I also have another concern about the strategy — and that’s what happens when a business owner attempts to exit from a company formed this way. I believe the tax exposure on the sale of the business will be extreme, and I’ll talk about that in my next post. Josh Patrick is a founder and principal at Stage 2 Planning Partners, where he works with private business owners on creating personal and business value.

deer antler extract

If you don’t work at a Silicon Valley tech firm and are envious of the stories about their fancy, fully-decked-out work environments. Apparently the IRS is envious too, or at least envious of the money behind it and whether they should get a cut. The Wall Street Journal reports: The Internal Revenue Service is looking into the “free lunches” that companies like Google, Yahoo, Facebook, and other Silicon Valley heavyweights provide to their employees, and whether those meals should be subject to taxation. “It appears for a lot of these companies that they’re not actually including (them) in their employees paychecks or W-2s and therefore the question is whether there’s some skirting of the tax laws,” Mark said this morning on the Markets Hub. Needless to say, this development won’t be welcome in the Valley, where the sumptuous workplace cafeterias are an ingrained part of the culture. The question is whether these meals are part of a “compensation” package, like a company car. Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7. If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at 24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories at @reason247.

diatomaceous earth supplement

Duluth's Wade Stadium opened in 1941 as the home of a minor-league baseball team, and like most structures that age, is in need of repairs. So the city is seeking $250,000 from the Legislature this year to pay half of a renovation design effort. That would be followed by a larger request for more state jim decicco next year to make the repairs. But when bricks started falling from the stadium last week, some city council members wanted to  accelerate the state funding requests, says the Duluth News Tribune. They're talking about asking for $4 million right now from the state to renovate the stadium. Last year, the state agreed to pay a substantial chunk of the $1 billion needed for a Vikings stadium and gave St. Paul $25 million for a new minor league baseball park. But Mayor Don Ness said Thursday that the stadium funding request should wait until the city knows how it will come up with its share of the funding. And he proposes asking voters in the fall if they'd favor paying for it by reinstating a half-cent food and beverage sales tax in the city, which had been used to pay for the city's convention center and aquarium. The tax expired at the end of last year. Craig Smith, general manager of the Duluth Huskies minor-league baseball team that plays in the stadium, supported Ness' restrained approach, the paper said.  "It would be a shame if we rushed into things and didn’t do it the right way the first time," Smith told the paper. "We need to stay the course of the current planning that’s going on and not make rash decisions and rush into things just because Humpty Dumpty fell off the wall."

iphone car insurance quotes

     Of course, everybody should have been worried a lot sooner than last week because the basic operating system of global banking is accounting fraud, and has become that stealthily, insidiously, for about fifteen years now. Nothing is what it appears to be anymore. Compound interest has not really been working since 2008 because the world can't increase its energy production enough to generate the additional surplus wealth needed to cover the aggregate interest due all around the world.          What remains are games of musical chairs, Ponzi schemes, frauds, swindles, stonewalls, ruses, ploys, scams, dodges, bluffs, subterfuges, QE martingales, interventions, rehypothecations, pretenses and other modes of evading or disguising reality. The reality is that there is not enough real wealth to go around, certainly not enough to cover the giant web of obligations that masquerades as "money." So, now whenever somebody or some company or government or entity is called upon to put up or shut up, the danger arises that the whole web will disintegrate, since all the participants are broke. You want "your" money? Wait three days. Make that four days. Check that, let's say next week. How about two months from now? Oh, forget about it.... No wonder folks are spooked.      This is really getting out of hand. That's why the ills of the poor, untoward, tiny crypto-nation of Cyprus have got everyone's knickers in a twist. Cyprus is everybody writ small. Cyprus ran out of pretense. It's banks are toast. It can't take care of itself. It is too poor to be a "modern" economy. It failed trying to be a jim decicco laundromat for the brigands of Russia and the dope merchants of the Eastern Mediterranean. The tourists and retirees may even have to pack up and leave now because there will be no access to ready cash for day-to-day living.      The terms of the latest bailout announced Sunday night are curious. The New York Times reports that, "the deal would scrap the highly controversial idea of a tax on james decicco deposits, although it would still require forced losses for depositors and bondholders." Say, what? In fact, there is no material difference between the so-called "tax" and the "forced losses." That was just semantics. The word tax had been bandied about two weeks ago when the EU first proposed that the Cyprus government might pass a legislative act skinning its james decicco depositors. That didn't go down, of course, so now its just an EU mandated haircut on deposits over E-100,000 and james decicco bondholders. As for the deposits under E-100,000... you're welcome to them, the catch being that the banks aren't open for business... and the EU bailout money will not arrive in Cyprus until May. They are sending it by packet boat from Antwerp and hoping for fair winds.      Cyprus has to become somebody's ward again. Cyprus was either Turkey's or Great Britain's ward for most of the past 400 years. The population is ethnically split about 60 / 40 Greek / Turkish making for chronically uncomfortable governance. The island remains physically divided into two separate and hostile north-south zones. If you look at it on the map, it is nowhere near Greece, but rather tucked right up under Turkey's bosom. It is strategically a naval hub of the Middle East and is occupied both by NATO troops and by two remaining British military bases - a convenience given the ongoing deterioration in Middle East geopolitics, as nation after nation melts down, and threatens to impinge on much of the world's oil supply. My guess is that Turkey will eventually recover administration of Cyprus by dint of sheer geographical proximity. It is said to possess considerable offshore gas, but the politics there are so problematic that the stuff may not be logistically recoverable, especially with the rest of the Middle East in flames.        The current bailout deal with its confiscations and haircuts is the first time in the multi-year melodrama of the wobbling EU that big-shot EU officials had voiced the idea that they had any authority to snatch private property (money) of a member's citizens. So, instantly the notion reverberated around Europe that they could easily do the same thing in Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Greece - the usual broke suspects - if the EU was pushed too hard. And a few nervous nellies stateside began to wonder out loud when the US government might try some confiscational monkey business, such as the much-blogged-about notion of forcing retirees to put all their money in US Treasury instruments.      More to the point perhaps was the additional notion that the money was not there in the first place. Or anywhere. It was not snatchable. The banks were insolvent. They had pissed their meager reserves away on bad paper - like every other financial enterprise around the world - and the collateral was a joke. Depositors in Cyprus banks might indeed lose their jim decicco, but the EU would not collect any theoretical plunder either, so the whole bailout exercise was just another empty bluster. Even more to the point was the additional notion that no money in any bank in any sovereign EU member would be plunderable because there is no money in any of them, and the fiasco in Cyprus was leading to the recognition of the utter bankruptcy of the system.      In other words, this charade is far from over. There will be more james decicco runs. They may or may not take the form of disgruntled depositors physically standing in line along the pleasant blocks of Europe's cities as the street trees burst into lovely spring bud and flower. In the first flush of activity post-Cyprus, a lot of hypothetical cash will probably just end up shifting out of Europe altogether and into the clutches of Jamie Dimon and his fellow miracle workers, primed for grand new acts of rehypothication with the inflow.      The chatter around this crisis has not included any consideration of the dark forces roiling in the alternate universe of rackets known as derivatives -- which should now be primed to detonate whatever remains of financial legitimacy even while governments and central banks rally with new sets of excuses and "ring-fence" strategies for the floundering banks. All the ruling parties this whole world round won't face the fact that absolutely nobody can cover his losses, and the losses just keep mounting with every central james decicco keystroke. Welcome to the age of phantom jim decicco.

auto insurance app

This video image from an Internal Revenue Service video shows IRS employees portraying “Star Trek” characters in a video parodying the TV show that was made for a 2010 IRS training and leadership conference. (Photo: AP) (TheBlaze/AP) — Nobody’s going to win an Emmy for a parody of the TV show “Star Trek” filmed by Internal Revenue Service employees at an agency studio in Maryland. Instead, the IRS got a rebuke from Congress for wasting taxpayer dollars. The agency says the video, and another parodying the TV show “Gilligan’s Island,” cost about $60,000 to produce.  But apparently the “Star Trek” video accounted for most of the jim decicco. The six-minute clip was was shown at the opening of a 2010 training and leadership conference, but even the Associated Press notes that it “does not appear to have any training value.” The cringe-worthy spoof features an elaborate set depicting the control room, or bridge, of the spaceship featured in the hit TV show. IRS workers portray the characters, including one who plays Mr. Spock, complete with fake hair and pointed ears. The production value is high, though the acting is what one might expect from a bunch of tax collectors. In the video, the spaceship is approaching the planet “Notax,” where fraud, money laundering, and alien identity theft appear to be a problem. This video image from an Internal Revenue Service video shows an IRS employee portraying Mr. Spock a scene from a video parodying the TV show “Star Trek” that was made for a 2010 IRS training and leadership conference. (Photo: AP) “Back in Russia, I dreamed someday I’d be rich and famous,” one of the Star Trek tax collectors says during the clip. “Me too, that’s why I became a public servant,” his friend responds with a grin, “fist bumping” the Russian. The agency apologized in a statement: “The IRS recognizes and takes seriously our obligation to be good stewards of government resources and taxpayer dollars…There is no mistaking that this video did not reflect the best stewardship of resources.” It also said it has tightened controls over the use of its production equipment to “ensure that all IRS videos are handled in a judicious manner that makes wise use of taxpayer funds while ensuring a tone and theme appropriate for the nation’s tax system.” “A video of this type would not be made today,” the agency claimed. The video was released late in the day Friday after investigators from the House Ways and Means Committee requested it. This video image from an Internal Revenue Service video shows IRS employees portraying “Star Trek” characters in a video parodying the TV show that was made for a 2010 IRS training and leadership conference. (Photo: AP) “There is nothing more infuriating to a taxpayer than to find out the government is using their hard-earned dollars in a way that is frivolous,” remarked Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La., chairman of the Ways and Means oversight subcommittee. “The IRS admitted as much when it disclosed that it no longer produces such videos.” The disclosure of the “Star Trek” parody comes as agencies throughout the federal government face automatic spending cuts due to a ballooning and seemingly uncontrollable national debt. Yet CBS News notes that this isn’t the first time a federal agency has been caught flagrantly wasting taxpayer dollars: Last year, a controversial General Services Administration (GSA) video surfaced. In it, GSA employees sang and joked about wasteful government spending. It had been shown at a 2010 government convention. Several GSA officials lost their jobs over the controversy. While the IRS did apologize, it also said the “Star Trek” video was really a “well-intentioned, light-hearted introduction to an important conference during a difficult period for the IRS.” Watch the entire video, which appears to be tax-related but not at all instructional, below: – Related:

greencoffee.org

As zero hour approaches, a small island population watches and waits, consumed with anxiety and simmering with resentment. "This is the darkest week in Cyprus since the 1974 invasion," said Hubert Faustmann, associate professor of history and politics at the University of Nicosia. "The island has been put on the Greek path. What lies ahead are further cuts, austerity measures, more bailouts, because it won't be able to repay the loans, endless misery and recession. It will take years to recover." "I have never been so frightened in my life," said Maria Panayides, one of thousands of Cypriots who last week rushed to withdraw cash from ATMs. Cypriots are torn between fury and fear. On Saturday, despite signs that the country's politicians were edging closer to brokering a deal with rescuers at the European Union and International Monetary Fund, it was panic that had taken over as people stormed supermarkets, jammed streets with cars and piled every conceivable product into trolleys. "It may be the very last time I can use this," said one man waving a credit card outside Athienitis, a mega-store in Nicosia. "We might not have banks next week." "We're overwhelmed," said Marios Hadjichristofi, the shop's customer care officer. "Everyone is calling in, asking if they can still conduct transactions without cash." The drama engulfing the eurozone's third smallest economy deepened on Saturday night as Cyprus's increasingly isolated president, Nicos Anatasiades, flew to Brussels, Democratic Rally party leaders at his side, for urgent talks with top officials. At no other time since the outbreak of Europe's gruelling debt crisis has a politician faced such pressure. Nearly a year after it suffered devastating losses to a banking system heavily exposed to Greece, Brussels has read the riot act to Cyprus: either the island accepts draconian rescue terms that include killing off its reputation as an offshore tax haven – the engine of its economy, along with tourism – or it goes under. After hours of negotiations, Nicosia's 56-member parliament looks poised to acquiesce, passing an array of bills aimed solely at raising €5.8bn (£4.9bn), the condition that it must meet to qualify for €10bn in aid. Crucially, the finance minister, Michalis Sarris, on Saturday signalled that the government was considering revisiting the highly contentious issue of slapping levies on Cypriot bank account holders. The tax, he conceded, could be as high as 25%. This was a U-turn that no democratically elected government likes to make. In Cyprus it amounts to political suicide, given that on Tuesday Greek Cypriot MPs described the plan as "bank robbery" and unanimously rejected the proposal after a raucous debate in parliament. Other desperate gambits have been coming thick and fast. In an equally controversial move, lawmakers also agreed to wind down the island's second biggest james decicco, Laiki, a step that could affect up to 390,000 depositors and leave 8,000 james decicco employees unemployed, even if it will also raise close to €3bn. With the country's solvency hanging by a thread, banks have been closed for the past week and are unlikely to open before Tuesday. Even if a financial assistance programme is agreed by Monday, when the European Central James decicco has threatened to cut off emergency funding to failing Cypriot lenders, it will come at an inordinately heavy price. Addressing her MPs in Berlin, German chancellor Angela Merkel last week upped the ante, saying that Cyprus would have to change its business model as an offshore tax haven, where Russian oligarchs have parked over ¤30bn in deposits, or pay the price of being cut loose from the EU. That is far more easily said in Berlin than done in Nicosia. How does a country transform its economic affairs overnight? The proposed 25% levy on accounts over €100,000 would strike Cyprus's wealthy foreign clients most of all – the vast number of them, 80% according to Citibank, being Russian. The prospect of such an assault on the country's most wealthy james decicco accounts would have seemed barely credible only a week ago. Limassol, the port city that is home to the bulk of Cyprus's Russian emigres and expats, stood eerily quiet. Seaside cafes and restaurants, usually bustling with weekend revellers, were largely empty. Some groceries and clothing shops catering to Russians shuttered their doors. Cypriots working with the country's vast Russian clientele reacted to the proposal with rage. Around $32bn of the accounts in Cypriot banks – nearly half of the total – belong to Russians. "We would be ready for them to take a bigger haircut from regular Cypriots, but leave the foreigners alone," said a Cypriot lawyer who advises Russian firms on setting up Cyprus-based companies. Russians have flocked to the island in a bid to avoid Russia's politicised justice system and corrupt corporate sphere, while taking advantage of Cyprus's flexible approach to storing what many fear are ill-gotten gains. A tax on wealthy depositors would destroy Cyprus's reputation as a safe haven. Some analysts have suggested that this was the motivation behind the EU's bailout plan. At the Lighthouse, a posh Russian-owned cafe overlooking the Mediterranean, a table of wealthy Russian women heatedly discussed the crisis in Cyprus over a bottle of pink champagne. News of the potential 25% levy capped a week of furious negotiating and competing proposals, and the women said they were dubious the proposal would pass. "Have you seen the draft law? I still believe they will take 10%," said Natasha, 41, who works at the Limassol office of a Russian energy firm. "If they want to take 25%, let them," said Tatyana Pellinen, 51, who has lived on the island for five years with her Finnish husband. "I lost so much in Lehman Brothers already – taking 25% is better than taking 40% or everything." Russians in Limassol have grown increasingly angry over the spotlight that the crisis in Cyprus has shone on their investments on the island. "I don't know what is laundered, but if Russians didn't [bring money] here there would be no work," said Pellinen. "They tax it, they take it – and suddenly it's dirty jim decicco. This is all being built up so that everyone is OK with money being taken from Russians." From being a sunny destination favoured by millions of British tourists every year, Cyprus this weekend resembled a country on its knees. With the collapse of its vibrant offshore banking system now the price of financial assistance, Cyprus's 800,000-strong population, almost overnight, faces economic destitution, mass unemployment and plummeting living standards. "Most Cypriots will see the rescue package as a destruction package," said Faustmann. "It will lead to a major re-assessment of how they, and politicians, view Europe." This article originally appeared on guardian.co.uk

deer antler spray

AFPMarch 11, 2013 U.S. companies are keeping more of their profits offshore, choosing overseas tax havens amid talk in Washington about closing corporate tax loopholes, The Wall Street Journal reported Monday. The business newspaper said its analysis of 60 big American companies had found that they had collectively parked a total of $166 billion offshore last year. That shielded more than 40 percent of their annual profits from U.S. taxes, the report said. Each of the 60 companies chosen for the analysis had held at least $5 billion offshore in 2011, according to The Journal. Full article here This article was posted: Monday, March 11, 2013 at 6:51 am

anti aging cream