Tax return: I think it is good that people tend to be faithful to their tax preparers. Reilly’s second law on tax law, as amended for the family’s public: “When a prospect tells you that his last two accountants have been surprised, it’s not long until the next turn. Like any other thing, this loyalty can be this is one of the lessons learned from the recent decision by Canada’s Canadian Tribunal of Caroline F. Whitsitt CIR. You will have to read or pass on for another lesson at the end.
The taxpayer who apply for tax refunds is appointed on the case, but I feel bad about a colleague, so call me James, my mythical friend, whose career in public accounting – is a parody of the mine. You cannot rule out the fact that the history of the Canadian tribunal tribe contains something that makes old Giacomo somewhat shabby. On the other hand, Dr. Whitsitt well received by the Canada Tax Court and taking comments to the Tax Commission, it seems strange that the IRS competition is fair in commerce. .
Start with good news
Caroline Whitsitt’s financial nightmare began with good news. A blood transfusion specialist, she and / or her ex-husband had the urge to buy 4,000 Immure shares in 1982 for $ 11,000. In 2011, TPG Capital agreed to buy Immure for nearly $ 2 billion, or $ 27 per share, accounting for about a third of the stock price. 4,000 Dr. Whitsitt’s actions have become 63,594 shares “among other things, through the tax return of the shares”, which has earned $ 1,717,038. In August, he told James that he would accept the TPG proposal. He’s a good customer telling you about transactions before it happens.
James begins to lose him
TPG, both for sellers or for their purposes, has structured the operation to promote implementation in 2012. However, there was a certain ambiguity in the documentation:
In January 2012, TPG’s agent, Computershare Trust Co. (Computershare), sent the applicant a check on January 4, 2012 for $ 1,717,038 (63,594 shares x $ 27 per share). This audit was accompanied by a document entitled “Corporate Action Board” which indicated the “payment date” on 19 August 2011 and the fiscal year in 2012. Computershare also attached a letter dated January 9, 2012, indicating that the reserve the applicant’s reserve was “processed” as from January 4, 2012.
However, tax return considered this an agreement 2011. To be honest, we cannot rule out that Whitsitt would have been better off to recognize the victory in 2011. The time value of money, the main problem of tax planning at that time, became quite insignificant. It can be argued that the transaction can be regarded as a sale of rates. I have to do more research than what I would like to know if this position will increase, but I probably would have followed the same path if Dr. Wit sets could have participated in 2011. As for the extension, you can learn a lot about how 2012 worked for it, when you need to solve, whether to announce the win in 2011 or 2012. More details in this post: http://www.lamantiquities.com/outsourcing-payroll-services-pros-and-cons/
He got worse
According to James’s instructions, Dr. Whitsitt sent $ 154,776 with an extension for his return in 2011. To a certain extent, the expiration date was extended. In February 2013, Dr. Whitsitt received a copy of his tax return in 2011 and 1040-V to send a balance of $ 5,393. James told him that this statement had been filed electronically. When he returns to the 2012 back, James has decided he has nothing to do with $ 1 717 038 1 099-B because, according to him, the profit was made in 2011. The most destructive error he could have done and, from a practical point of view, the probable cause of Dr. Witsett’s many problems.