| This article is part of a series on |
| Taxation in the United States |
|---|
 |
 United Statesportal |
Taxation of illegal income in the United States arises from the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, enacted by the U.S. Congress in part for the purpose of taxing net income. [1] As such, a person's taxable income will generally be subject to the same federal income tax rules, regardless of whether the income was obtained legally or illegally.
Al Capone was successfully prosecuted for tax evasion. Additionally, Soviet spy Aldrich Ames, who had earned more than $2 million cash for his espionage, was also charged with tax evasion as none of the Soviet money was reported on his tax returns. Ames attempted to have the tax evasion charge dismissed on the grounds his espionage profits were illegal, but the charges stood.
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that requiring a person to declare income on a federal income tax return does not violate an individual's right to remain silent, [2] although the privilege may apply to allow the person to refrain from revealing the source of the income. [3]
In James v. United States (1961) , [4] the Supreme Court held that an embezzler was required to include his ill-gotten gains in his "gross income" for Federal income tax purposes. In reaching this decision, the Court looked to the seminal case setting forth the tax code's definition of gross income, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Glenshaw Glass Co. , [5] in which the Supreme Court held that a taxpayer has gross income when he has "an accession to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion". [6] At the time the embezzler acquired the funds, he did not have a consensual obligation to repay, or any restriction as to his disposition of the funds. [7] If he had acquired the funds under the same circumstances legally, there would have been no question as to whether he should have gross income. Therefore, the embezzler had gross income under the tax code, even though the application of another body of law would later force him to return the money.
While embezzlers, thieves, and the like are forced to report their illegally acquired income for tax purposes, they may also take deductions for costs relating to criminal activity. For example, in Commissioner v. Tellier, a taxpayer was found guilty of engaging in business activities that violated the Securities Act of 1933. [8] The taxpayer subsequently deducted the legal fees he spent while defending himself. [8] The U.S. Supreme Court held that the taxpayer was allowed to deduct the legal fees from his gross income because they meet the requirements of §162(a), [9] which allows the taxpayer to deduct all the "ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on a trade or business." [10] The Court reasoned (and the Internal Revenue Service did not contest the point) that it was ordinary and necessary for a person engaged in a business to expect to have legal fees associated with that business, even though such things may only happen once in a lifetime. [9] Therefore, the taxpayer in Tellier was allowed to deduct his legal fees from his gross income, even though he incurred the fees because of his crime. The U.S. Supreme Court in Tellier reiterated that the purpose of the tax code was to tax net income, not punish unlawful behavior. [11] The Court suggested that if this was not the case, Congress would change the tax code to include special tax rules for illegal conduct. [12]
Deductions relating to unlawful conduct may be disallowed when to allow them would sharply frustrate a national or state policy prohibiting such conduct. [13]
Congress may impose specific provisions that prohibit deductions in connection with illegal activity or other violations of law. No deduction is allowed for fines or similar penalties paid to a government for the violation of any law. [14]
Internal Revenue Code section 280E specifically denies a deduction or credit for any expense in a business consisting of trafficking in illegal drugs "prohibited by Federal law or the law of any State in which such trade or business is conducted." [15]
Similarly, no business deduction is allowed "for any payment made, directly or indirectly, to an official or employee of any government [ . . . ] if the payment constitutes an illegal bribe or kickback or, if the payment is to an official or employee of a foreign government, the payment is unlawful under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977." [16] Similarly, tax deductions and credits are denied where for illegal bribes, illegal kickbacks, or other illegal payments under any Federal law, or under a State if such State law is generally enforced, if the law "subjects the payor to a criminal penalty or the loss of license or privilege to engage in a trade or business." [17] No deduction is allowed for kickbacks, rebates, or bribes made by those who furnish items or services for which payment may be made under the Social Security Act. [18]
Recently[ when? ], the provisions of Internal Revenue Code section 280E are being applied by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to businesses operating in the medical marijuana industry. [19] Section 280E provides:
A person with income from selling a Schedule I substance is allowed to take a tax deduction for the cost of goods sold but not any other tax deductions. [19] [21] Unlike for other business activities, tax deductions are not allowed for ordinary and necessary business expenses such as rent, utilities, and advertising. [22]
Even though 38 states and the District of Columbia have medical marijuana laws (with 24 of those states and D.C. now allowing marijuana to be consumed without a doctor recommendation), the IRS is applying section 280E to deny business deductions. Businesses operating legally under state law argue that section 280E should not be applied because Congress did not intend the law to apply to businesses that are legal under state law. The IRS asserts that it was the intent of Congress to apply the provision to anyone "trafficking" in a controlled substance, as defined under federal law (as stated in the text of the statute). Thus, section 280E is at the center of the conflict between federal and state laws with respect to medical marijuana. [23] [24]
This is still the case when the marijuana is medical marijuana recommended by a physician as appropriate to benefit the health of the user, as explained by the United States Tax Court in Californians Helping to Alleviate Med. Problems, Inc. v. Commissioner ("CHAMP"). [25]
The United States of America has separate federal, state, and local governments with taxes imposed at each of these levels. Taxes are levied on income, payroll, property, sales, capital gains, dividends, imports, estates and gifts, as well as various fees. In 2020, taxes collected by federal, state, and local governments amounted to 25.5% of GDP, below the OECD average of 33.5% of GDP.
A tax deduction is an amount deducted from taxable income, usually based on expenses such as those incurred to produce additional income. Tax deductions are a form of tax incentives, along with exemptions and tax credits. The difference between deductions, exemptions, and credits is that deductions and exemptions both reduce taxable income, while credits reduce tax.
Section 179 of the United States Internal Revenue Code, allows a taxpayer to elect to deduct the cost of certain types of property on their income taxes as an expense, rather than requiring the cost of the property to be capitalized and depreciated. This property is generally limited to tangible, depreciable, personal property which is acquired by purchase for use in the active conduct of a trade or business. Buildings were not eligible for section 179 deductions prior to the passage of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010; however, qualified real property may be deducted now.
For households and individuals, gross income is the sum of all wages, salaries, profits, interest payments, rents, and other forms of earnings, before any deductions or taxes. It is opposed to net income, defined as the gross income minus taxes and other deductions.
The United States federal government and most state governments impose an income tax. They are determined by applying a tax rate, which may increase as income increases, to taxable income, which is the total income less allowable deductions. Income is broadly defined. Individuals and corporations are directly taxable, and estates and trusts may be taxable on undistributed income. Partnerships are not taxed, but their partners are taxed on their shares of partnership income. Residents and citizens are taxed on worldwide income, while nonresidents are taxed only on income within the jurisdiction. Several types of credits reduce tax, and some types of credits may exceed tax before credits. Most business expenses are deductible. Individuals may deduct certain personal expenses, including home mortgage interest, state taxes, contributions to charity, and some other items. Some deductions are subject to limits, and an Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) applies at the federal and some state levels.
The Household and Dependent Care Credit is a nonrefundable tax credit available to United States taxpayers. Taxpayers that care for a qualifying individual are eligible. The purpose of the credit is to allow the taxpayer to be gainfully employed. This credit is created by 26 U.S. Code (U.S.C) § 21, section 21 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC).
In the United States tax law, an above-the-line deduction is a deduction that the Internal Revenue Service allows a taxpayer to subtract from his or her gross income in arriving at "adjusted gross income" for the taxable year. These deductions are set forth in Internal Revenue Code Section 62. A taxpayer's gross income minus his or her above-the-line deductions is equal to the adjusted gross income. Because these deductions are taken before adjusted gross income is calculated, they are designated "above-the-line". Thus, those deductions allowed in computing "taxable income" under section 63 of the IRC are "below-the-line deductions". Above-the-line deductions may be more valuable to high-income taxpayers than below-the-line deductions. Since tax year 2018, above-the-line deductions are reported on Schedule 1 of IRS Form 1040.
Taxpayers in the United States may have tax consequences when debt is cancelled. This is commonly known as cancellation-of-debt (COD) income. According to the Internal Revenue Code, the discharge of indebtedness must be included in a taxpayer's gross income. There are exceptions to this rule, however, so a careful examination of one's COD income is important to determine any potential tax consequences.
INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that expenditures incurred by a target corporation in the course of a friendly takeover are nondeductible capital expenditures.
Under United States tax law, certain performing artists are eligible to deduct the expenses incurred in the course of their employment as performing artists. The deduction itself is provided by IRC § 62(a)(2)(B), while qualifications of a Qualified Performing Artist ("QPA") are provided by IRC § 62(b).
Under the United States taxation system, an enterprise may deduct business expenses from its taxable income, subject to certain conditions. On occasion the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has challenged such deductions, regarding the activities in question as illegitimate, and in certain circumstances the Internal Revenue Code provides for such challenge. Rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court have in general upheld the deductions, where there is not a specific governmental policy in support of disallowing them.
A casualty loss is a type of tax loss that is a sudden, unexpected, or unusual event. Damage or loss resulting from progressive deterioration of property through a steadily operating cause would not be a casualty loss. “Other casualty” are events similar to “fire, storm, or shipwreck.” It is generally held that wherever force is applied to property which the owner-taxpayer is either unaware of because of the hidden nature of such application or is powerless to act to prevent the same because of the suddenness thereof or some other disability and damage results.
Vitale v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1999-131 (1999) is a case that demonstrates a policy limit on the deduction of business expenses.
Section 183 of the United States Internal Revenue Code, sometimes referred to as the "hobby loss rule," limits the losses that can be deducted from income which are attributable to hobbies and other not-for-profit activities. Generally, losses which occur in for-profit activities are not limited and can be used to offset other income from other activities. But the § 183 limitation curtails those deductions when the activity is deemed a hobby.
Commissioner v. Banks, 543 U.S. 426 (2005), together with Commissioner v. Banaitis, was a case decided before the Supreme Court of the United States, dealing with the issue of whether the portion of a money judgment or settlement paid to a taxpayer's attorney under a contingent-fee agreement is income to the taxpayer for federal income tax purposes. The Supreme Court held when a taxpayer's recovery constitutes income, the taxpayer's income includes the portion of the recovery paid to the attorney as a contingent fee. Employment cases are an exception to this Supreme Court ruling because of the Civil Rights Tax Relief in the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. The Civil Rights Tax Relief amended Internal Revenue Code § 62(a) to permit taxpayers to subtract attorney's fees from gross income in arriving at adjusted gross income.
Grynberg v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 255 (1984) was a case in which the United States Tax Court held that one taxpayer's prepaid business expenses were not ordinary and necessary expenses of the years in which they were made, and therefore the prepayments were not tax deductible. Taxpayers in the United States often seek to maximize their income and decrease their tax liability by prepaying deductible expenses and taking a deduction earlier rather than in a later tax year.
Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S. 680 (1989), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court relating to the Internal Revenue Code § 170 charitable contribution deduction.
A tax protester is someone who refuses to pay a tax claiming that the tax laws are unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. Tax protesters are different from tax resisters, who refuse to pay taxes as a protest against a government or its policies, or a moral opposition to taxation in general, not out of a belief that the tax law itself is invalid. The United States has a large and organized culture of people who espouse such theories. Tax protesters also exist in other countries.
Haverly v. United States, 513 F.2d 224 is a United States income tax case.
The alternative minimum tax (AMT) is a tax imposed by the United States federal government in addition to the regular income tax for certain individuals, estates, and trusts. As of tax year 2018, the AMT raises about $5.2 billion, or 0.4% of all federal income tax revenue, affecting 0.1% of taxpayers, mostly in the upper income ranges.