Chicago is maintaining it’s decades-long tradition of putting mobsters in prison not for murder, not for racketeering, but for tax evasion.
Rudy Fratto pleaded guilty to tax evasion yesterdy which could result in a sentence of 12-18 months. He admitted to not paying $140,000 in taxes he owed on $800,000 earned from 2001-2007.
Despite being from a family of alleged mobsters, association with crooked cops, and an alleged threat to a government witness in another mob case, Fratto will simply take 2010 off.
It’s unlikely that this particular story will result in a historically inaccurate movie starring Kevin Costner but at least it demonstrates the consistency of Chicago law enforcement.
Reputed mobster admits tax evasion [Chicago Sun-Times via Roth & Company, P.C.]
Related Posts
The IRS is on YouTube and iTunes But Still Needs Our Help
We’re guessing that the IRS has been struggling for years to figure out how to relate better to the general public. They finally came to the conclusion that people like videos and audio as opposed to instruction booklets that make the New York Times look like a kaleidoscope. Clearly progress has been made, however, we still foresee challenges.
The biggest problem we have is that the videos are pretty much the live-action equivalent to the instruction booklets.
More, after the jump
Example:
Sorry we had to put you through that. Now our suggestions:
• Hugh Jackman or Megan Fox-types cast in the videos.
• A little song and dance, possibly performed by NPH.
• If a song and dance isn’t feasible, inject a little comedic relief. We’re thinking strategically inserted movie clips.
• Did we mention Hugh Jackman and Megan Fox?
As with anything in our society, celebrities (especially attractive ones) make everything better. Remember the Hollywood Vote Campaign videos? This is the model we would suggest the IRS strongly consider.
We’re fairly certain that Leonardo DiCaprio explaining how to avoid tax scams using his steely gaze will have a much greater affect on taxpayers than our friend here in the yellow blazer. Just a thought. If you’ve got other suggestions for the service on how to make their videos more watchable, discuss in the comments.
IRS Spotlights Recovery Credits on YouTube and iTunes [Web CPA]
Martin Shkreli Not Exactly On Top of His Taxes
As you may have heard, everyone's favorite man-child villain, Martin Shrkeli, is having a bit […]
Sex Change Expenses Are Deductible but You’re on Your Own for the C Cup
He seemed to have it all — a wife, three kids, a successful career. But it wasn’t enough. What he really wanted was another X chromosome. Our taxpayer, explains the Tax Court, “was uncomfortable in the male gender role from childhood and first wore women’s clothing secretly around age 10…discomfort regarding her gender intensified in adolescence…[The taxpayer] was a female trapped in a male body, and continued to secretly wear women’s clothing.”
So our taxpayer consulted a licensed social worker, which is apparently how these things are done, and after suitable counseling, decided to try on XX for size. The first steps down the path the the Misses Department seemed to suit the taxpayer, so he took the next big leap. $21,741 of surgical and related expenses later, the taxpayer was Ms. Rhiannon O’Donnabhain.
The Tax Court got involved when she deducted these expenses on her 2001 tax return. The IRS said that the expenses were not “medical” expenses under Sec. 219. It would be an unusual man who would undergo this sort of thing absent dire medical need: “The procedures that Dr. Meltzer carried out included surgical removal of the penis and testicles and creation of a vaginal space using genital skin and tissue.”
It took 139 pages and 4 separate opinions, but the Tax Court agreed that the gender reassignment surgery is a deductible medical expense. It’s surprising that it was so difficult, considering that the court is largely composed of men who wear dresses at work. But they felt it was necessary to go into the sort of privacy-killing detail that makes taxpayers think twice before spurning an appeals offer and going to Tax Court (oh, you mean you’re that Rhiannon O’Donnabhain!):
Petitioner, anticipating the formal recommendations for her surgery, went for a consultation and examination by Dr. Meltzer in June 2001 at his offices in Portland, Oregon. Dr. Meltzer concluded that petitioner was a good candidate for sex reassignment surgery. Dr. Meltzer’s notes of his physical examination of petitioner state: “Examination of her breasts reveal [sic] approximately B cup breasts with a very nice shape.”
Nice enough for government work, anyway. The Court ruled that while the hormone therapy, vaginoplasty, feminizing facial surgery and penis and testicle removal were deductible, breast augmentation was, well, too much:
given the contemporaneous documentation of the breasts’ apparent normalcy and the failure to adhere to the Benjamin standards’ requirement to document breast-engendered anxiety to justify the surgery, we find that petitioner’s breast augmentation surgery did not fall within the treatment protocol… Instead, the surgery merely improved her appearance.
So if the Tax Court’s view holds up on appeal, you can deduct the cost of changing sides, but if that’s not enough to make you sufficiently hot, you’re on your own.