What\u27s Mine Is Mine: Taxing Pre-Contribution Gains

This article conducts an analysis of the Internal Revenue Code\u27s varied income tax treatment between depreciated property and appreciated property transferred into C corporations by shareholders in nonrecognition transactions.7 It is at the entry point of the non-recognition transaction where the lobster pot unfairly doubles up on unrecognized gains at both the corporate and shareholder level notwithstanding that unrecognized losses generally remain singular at either level. The authors call into question this long-standing practice of artificial gain duplication upon corporate entry under Subchapter C. From a tax policy perspective, such disparate treatment makes little sense - particularly when the duplicated gain is not economically associated with the corporate solution (i.e., it was incurred pre-contribution). To properly appreciate the differing income tax treatment between pre-contribution gains and losses, the first part of this article explores the corporation as a separate taxpaying entity distinct from its shareholders, the lack of a coherent rational behind the double tax system, and the phantom gain enigma associated with pre-contribution gains. The next part of this article discusses the operation of Subchapter C with regard to formation, capital contributions, non-liquidating distributions, and liquidating distributions. We then discuss the general purpose behind Congress\u27 enactment of the loss limitation provisions and how we arrived at the current state of the law where pre-contribution losses generally remain singular while pre-contribution gains are duplicated. We conclude by making certain suggestions primarily designed to eliminate the gain duplication quagmire, such as a partial imputation system or a modified full integration system

The TurboTax Defense

This Article analyzes the “TurboTax defense” under section 6664(c) of the Internal Revenue Code. The Article addresses the issue of whether reliance on computer tax software may be permitted as reasonable cause in good faith exempting taxpayers from the accuracy-related penalty of section 6662(a). It suggests (1) the courts have missed an opportunity to clarify when a TurboTax defense is justifiable, (2) the software companies, in conjunction with the IRS, should work together to promote a more equitable, efficient, and effective use of computer tax software, (3) the Treasury should promulgate detailed guidelines or regulations establishing when a TurboTax defense can be used by an individual taxpayer, (4) the IRS should consider offering taxpayers the option of assessing their tax due or refund owing, and (5) the current informal partnership between the software companies and the IRS should be critically assessed to address advances in software technology and increasing taxpayer reliance on commercial tax preparation software

Evidential Reasoning for WebTrust Assurance Services

This is the author's final draft. The publisher's official version is available from: http://www.jmis-web.orgThis study looks at two aspects of assurance services. The first deals with the type(s) of evidential networks that will allow a professional accountant to provide assurance. Here, we develop an evidential network model for “WebTrust Assurance,” a service being provided by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA). Our model augments the AICPA/CICA approach and provides goals, sub-goals and evidence relevant to the overall assurance to be provided. The aggregation of evidence and the resolution of uncertainties follow the belief-function approach of Srivastava and Shafer. Next we develop a decision theoretic model for the assurance-planning problem. Our approach is based on estimating the expected value of providing various levels of assurance and is illustrated with several different scenarios that may be faced in practice. We also consider the role of ambiguity in decision situations such as planning WebTrust engagements and calculate bounds in expected value based on whether auditors are conservative or not in their approach to risk

Saving the Nonessential With Radical Tax Policy

Under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, for-profit entities are distinguishable from tax-exempt entities in that they, among other factors, pursue profits, and enjoy unrestricted commercial activities. The COVID-19 lockdowns prevented commercial activity for numerous for-profit small businesses. For the first time in United States history, a distinction was made between essential and nonessential businesses. Such distinction is historically absent in both legal scholarship and tax law; instead, it is a product of governmental reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic. Via executive order, nonessential businesses were characterized as being trivial to the fabric of society, and thus shuttered, while essential businesses were permitted to remain operational with little, if any, interruption. Essential business’ profits have since amassed from such consolidation. To date, there have been no proposals at the state or federal levels that adequately address the monumental financial and social impact that mandated lockdowns have had on small businesses, which employ approximately 47.5% of the private workforce. This article suggests that restructuring and preserving those businesses most harmed by the pandemic serves an overriding public interest, and radical societal events require radical tax policy initiatives. As such, this Article proposes that nonessential businesses negatively impacted by pandemic closures should be granted temporary tax-exempt status and treated in a similar manner to non-profit organizations throughout their economic recovery period

An Information Systems Security Risk Assessment Model Under Dempster- Schafer Theory of Belief Functions

This is the author's final draft. The publisher's official version is available from:.This study develops an alternative methodology for the risk analysis of information systems security (ISS), an evidential reasoning approach under the Dempster-Shafer theory of belief functions. The approach has the following important dimensions. First, the evidential reasoning approach provides a rigorous, structured manner to incorporate relevant ISS risk factors, related counter measures and their interrelationships when estimating ISS risk. Secondly, the methodology employs the belief function definition of risk, that is, ISS risk is the plausibility of information system security failures. The proposed approach has other appealing features, such as facilitating cost-benefit analyses to help promote efficient ISS risk management. The paper both elaborates the theoretical concepts and provides operational guidance for implementing the method. The method is illustrated using a hypothetical example from the perspective of management and a real-world example from the perspective of external assurance providers. Sensitivity analyses are performed to evaluate the impact of important parameters on the model’s results

The Dempster-Schafer Theory of Belief Functions for Managing Uncertainties: An Introduction and Fraud Risk Assessment Illustration

This is the author's final draft. The publisher's official version is available electronically from:<http://onlinelibrary.wiley. com/journal/10.1111/%28ISSN%291835-2561>.The main purpose of this paper is to introduce the Dempster-Shafer theory (“DS” theory) of belief functions for managing uncertainties, specifically in the auditing and information systems domains. We illustrate the use of DS theory by deriving a fraud risk assessment formula for a simplified version of a model developed by Srivastava, Mock, and Turner (2007). In our formulation, fraud risk is the normalized product of four risks: risk that management has incentives to commit fraud, risk that management has opportunities to commit fraud, risk that management has an attitude to rationalize committing fraud, and the risk that auditor’s special procedures will fail to detect fraud. We demonstrate how to use such a model to plan for a financial audit where management fraud risk is assessed to be high. In addition, we discuss whether audit planning is better served by an integrated audit/fraud risk assessment as now suggested in SAS 107 (AICPA 2006a, see also ASA 200 in AUASB 2007) or by the approach illustrated in this paper where a parallel, but separate, assessment is made of audit risk and fraud risk

An Evidential Reasoning Approach to Fraud Risk Assessment under Dempster-Shafer Theory: A General Framework

This paper develops a general framework under Dempster-Shafer theory for assessing fraud risk in a financial statement audit by integrating the evidence pertaining to the presence of fraud triangle factors (incentives, attitude and opportunities), and evidence concerning both account-based and evidence-based fraud schemes. This framework extends fraud risk assessment models in prior research in three respects. 1) It integrates fraud schemes, both account schemes through which accounts are manipulated, and evidence schemes through which frauds are concealed, into a single framework. 2) It incorporates prior fraud frequency information obtained from the Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Releases issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission into an evidential network which uses Conditional OR relationships among assertions. 3) The framework provides a structured approach for connecting risk assessment, audit planning, and evaluation of audit results. The paper uses a real fraud case to illustrate the application of the framework

A Review and Evaluation of Audit Quality Oversight

As a result of massive financial statement frauds at Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, Sunbeam, Waste Management, Xerox and others, the US Congress enacted the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX 2002). This Act sets up the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) which regulates the auditing profession in the US. The PCAOB issues auditing standards, inspects audit quality and also has enforcement powers. Following the US lead, nations, such as, Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom have set up national statutory bodies to monitor audit quality. This paper summarises the work of these national bodies and synthesises recent reports of these organisations concerning audit quality. Important lessons gleaned from this synthesis can be useful for those charged with audit regulation in India and elsewhere. For example, auditor regulation in India is in its nascent stage. In August 2013, the Companies Act of 2013 established the National Financial Reporting Authority (NFRA). NFRA is tasked with the monitoring of audits of public company financial statements in India, among other mandates. This paper discusses the draft rules for auditor oversight developed by NFRA and provides some suggestions as to how countries beginning to develop audit quality inspection procedures can benefit from the prior experiences of others