In Uncategorized on 03/15/2021 at 16:32

I’ve blogged often enough that lawyers can’t add, so I won’t chain-cite. Turns out lawyers also are wretched bookkeepers; I’ve admitted as much myself.

Lateesa Ward, Esq., is also in that category, as her numbers and those of her Sub S law firm, Ward & Ward Company, 2021 T. C. Memo. 32, filed 3/15/21, vary enough to send Judge Mark V. Holmes into one of his tabular exercises, from which Ms. Ward does not emerge well. For the tables, see 2021 T. C. Memo. 32, at pp. 4-5, 9, 12, and 13.

There’s the usual officer’s compensation for services (wages, with FICA) vs distribution of profits (taxed only above basis, and no FICA) contest, but as Ms. Ward cannot show basis or profits, it’s all compensation subject to FICA. Sched C is out, because Ms. Ward can’t show she was employed anywhere but at her Sub S. Filing a Sched C as well as Sched E for the same items didn’t help, especially when the forms didn’t agree. Fortunately, both Ms. Ward and IRS stiped out the Sched C as irrelevant.

There’s more, but I think we can stop here.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: