site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   2527 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for December 13, 2024

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Random opinion from the US Tax Court:

During the years at issue Mohamad Nasser Aboui was the sole shareholder of HPPO [Corp. Autoville Motors], an S corporation for federal tax purposes. HPPO owned several used car dealerships. Mr. Aboui formed HPPO in 2009 by consolidating multiple used car lots that he owned. He contributed $5,167,089 of used cars to HPPO for its starting inventory.

Most of HPPO’s customers had poor credit. Many did not have checking accounts and paid HPPO in cash. Often HPPO used the cash to pay its employees and other expenses and did not deposit it into HPPO’s bank accounts. HPPO offered in-house financing to its customers. It financed approximately 90% to 95% of its sales and retained security interests in the cars. When HPPO financed a car purchase, it reported the sale price as income in the year of sale.

Customers repaid the loans in less than 10% of HPPO’s sales. HPPO repossessed approximately 25% of the cars within three to four months of purchase and approximately 50% within one year. During the years at issue HPPO was unable to repossess over 250 cars after the buyers stopped making payments. When HPPO repossessed a car, it typically was in worse condition than when HPPO had sold it, sometimes with serious mechanical issues from the buyer’s failure to service the car.

HPPO bartered with mechanics for repair services in exchange for rental of HPPO’s garage space or as payment for the purchase of a used car. Mr. Aboui started using the barter system to recoup equipment and other costs that he incurred to set up HPPO’s repair services. Typically, the cars that HPPO sold to the mechanics were older and required too many repairs for HPPO to fix for resale. The mechanics submitted invoices for their services. HPPO reported the invoiced amounts as expenses and also reported the related income.

Did they get into trouble for anything here? Seems fairly sensible tbh..

This IRS investigation was due to poor accounting, not to any allegedly-exploitative lending practices.

This is the Friday Fun Thread. I posted this opinion to enable people to laugh at the car buyers. Alternatively, you can laugh at the dealership, if you prefer:

Around 2014 Mr. Aboui decided to close HPPO because his family was experiencing serious health issues and because HPPO was unprofitable.… HPPO ceased business by 2018.

 

Respondent [the Commissioner of Internal Revenue] began an audit of petitioners’ and HPPO’s returns in September 2015. **At that time petitioners’ accountant was gravely ill, and he later died. His death contributed to a lack of progress on the audit. In October 2018 petitioners gave a power of attorney to a new representative who erroneously told the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) revenue agent (RA) that HPPO was a cash basis taxpayer and that HPPO did not include the total sale prices in gross receipts in the year of sale. Other actions by the new representative further delayed production of HPPO’s records.** Petitioners later replaced the representative in an attempt to resolve the audit. However, by that time, after working on the case for nearly five years, the RA decided to close the audit.

During the audit petitioners produced or provided access to the DMV sales reports and dealer jackets as well as other records. These documents contained sufficient information to determine HPPO’s gross income but likely not HPPO’s deductible expenses. Petitioners delayed providing access to HPPO’s accounting software because HPPO did not retain a license for the software after it ceased business. The RA never had access to the software, but petitioners reactivated it before trial.

Or you can laugh at the IRS:

Because the RA concluded that petitioners did not provide sufficient records or access to HPPO’s accounting software, she went through the arduous process of reviewing thousands of pages of bank statements and canceled checks to determine whether the debits from HPPO’s bank accounts were used to pay expenses related to HPPO’s business.

 

When the parties were preparing for trial, petitioners offered thousands of pages of records to substantiate HPPO’s expenses and COGS as well as HPPO’s income. Despite encouragement from the Court, respondent did not review the records.

 

The RA testified that she treated HPPO as a cash basis taxpayer. The Code requires the IRS to use a taxpayer’s chosen method of accounting as long as it clearly reflects income. It is clear to the Court that HPPO used a hybrid method of accounting that reported its gross receipts from car sales using the accrual method and its expenses (and possibly other income) using the cash method. Taxpayers are permitted to use hybrid methods. Respondent has not argued that HPPO’s hybrid method does not clearly reflect income, and we find that it does. Rather, respondent tries to deny that the RA used the cash method even though the RA testified at trial that she used the cash method.

 

Mr. Aboui was incredibly forthright in this testimony. He admitted that HPPO received cash and used it to pay wages and other expenses. Also, HPPO acquired significant inventory through trade-ins that was not accounted for as debits in HPPO’s bank records. These facts, in addition to the RA’s calculations that show reporting of gross income significantly greater than HPPO’s deposits for 2013–15, make use of the bank deposit analysis to determine HPPO’s COGS and deductible business expenses extremely inaccurate. Furthermore, there is no indication from our review of HPPO’s returns that it deducted the payments from HPPO’s bank accounts that the RA identified as nondeductible.

How many man-years were spent on this case between everyone involved?

The saddest tragedy of the IRS is how it wastes such a massive amount of everyone's time on an activity that is among the most painful and boring possible.

After ditching several accountants for making mistakes, I do my own taxes now. My business is much simpler than this car dealer's. And yet, I spend on the order of 50-100 hours a year on taxes and other government bullshit. I hate every moment of it.

It boggles my mind that there are people, millions of people, who do this full time. What a horrible waste.

The negative externalities of our tax system are enormous. Imagine if the government forced everyone in the country to sit in a dentist's chair getting their teeth picked at for 10-20 hours a year. That's the level of pain we're talking about here.

fwiw, blame Congress (and the tax preparation industry), not the IRS. The IRS has asked Congress for years to simplify the tax code (and made suggestions about how it could be done). Congress chooses to make it complex, and guess which industry is opposed to making it less so?

I haven't read Graeber's Bullshit Jobs so I don't know if this is what he had in mind, but at least in my head canon the US tax preparation industry is certainly up there when it comes to bullshit jobs.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats