forums

Secret tapes unraveling high school

CashMoneyCane said:
This seems germane but still shouldn't matter to the person giving unless there would be something like payroll taxes involved, which there aren't. And again, if the IRS f**ks the kids, the system remains intact and nobody bats an eye.
Click to expand...


Yes, it absolutely matters.

For the record, there was just an article that came out in the last few days that said that the Top 1% of income-earners in the US under-report their income by 21%, on average.

Thus, to the IRS, the focus is better placed NOT on W-2s and 1099s, but on forms of income that are unreported, particularly by the wealthy. That's where the big dollars are anyhow.

This is not a criticism of any poster on a personal basis, but you are focusing on the TAXES TO BE PAID. However, to the IRS, it is just as important to file the return, even if very little money is collected (more relevant to the gift tax example than the payroll tax example).

Furthermore, let's not forget two things. First, payroll taxes (particularly FICA/Medicare) are paid by BOTH the employer and the employee. Second, payroll taxes (and sales/use taxes) are considered "trust taxes", and both the IRS and state agencies will go after you HARD for violations on these particular taxes. Also, these are tax obligations where the IRS/state agencies can go after the officers of a company INDIVIDUALLY. You don't get to escape liability by saying "but the corporation did it".

So, yeah, we can sit here and come up with a rationale of "but the dollars are small". It's still a federal tax avoidance scheme that can result in criminal prosecution.

And, yes, I'd be happy to let the IRS have a go at prosecuting these SEC schools and their boosters.
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
It's a bit of a misdirect here.

If you gave a bunch of people $10K gifts, you don't have to file a gift tax return.

If you give a bunch of people $50K gifts, you should file a gift tax return, and then you reduce your (eventual) estate tax deduction.

For the record, it is generally the GIVER who pays the gift tax.

Also, even if gift tax is not imposed, you should still FILE.
Taxpayers that expect to have a taxable estate may sometimes prefer to pay gift taxes as they occur, rather than saving them up as part of the estate.
Click to expand...

OK, I hear you here, but if it goes to the estate, and we're talking about actual potential criminal tax liability, why the **** would the giver care if he's dead?

Further, you always should file for everything. But we know that's not the case unless your name is Ned Flanders.

Regardless, my point remains, even if the IRS gets involved, unless a bag men gets busted on a Nevin Shapiro level or the university is complicit, there's no real deterrent to anyone else to stop the behavior.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Yes, it absolutely matters.

For the record, there was just an article that came out in the last few days that said that the Top 1% of income-earners in the US under-report their income by 21%, on average.

Thus, to the IRS, the focus is better placed NOT on W-2s and 1099s, but on forms of income that are unreported, particularly by the wealthy. That's where the big dollars are anyhow.

This is not a criticism of any poster on a personal basis, but you are focusing on the TAXES TO BE PAID. However, to the IRS, it is just as important to file the return, even if very little money is collected (more relevant to the gift tax example than the payroll tax example).

Furthermore, let's not forget two things. First, payroll taxes (particularly FICA/Medicare) are paid by BOTH the employer and the employee. Second, payroll taxes (and sales/use taxes) are considered "trust taxes", and both the IRS and state agencies will go after you HARD for violations on these particular taxes. Also, these are tax obligations where the IRS/state agencies can go after the officers of a company INDIVIDUALLY. You don't get to escape liability by saying "but the corporation did it".

So, yeah, we can sit here and come up with a rationale of "but the dollars are small". It's still a federal tax avoidance scheme that can result in criminal prosecution.

And, yes, I'd be happy to let the IRS have a go at prosecuting these SEC schools and their boosters.
Click to expand...

My recollection is the employer pays payroll taxes on a W2 but not on a 1099 (based on very limited experience running books for a business). In this case, the recipient would more likely be on a 1099 basis as they're not employed, but independent contractors.

And again, the booster (presumably) is not part of the school. So how is the school complicit to the IRS?

I'm clearly not a tax guy. I'm a private banker by background. All we do is help our clients not pay taxes.
 
CashMoneyCane said:
OK, I hear you here, but if it goes to the estate, and we're talking about actual potential criminal tax liability, why the **** would the giver care if he's dead?

Further, you always should file for everything. But we know that's not the case unless your name is Ned Flanders.

Regardless, my point remains, even if the IRS gets involved, unless a bag men gets busted on a Nevin Shapiro level or the university is complicit, there's no real deterrent to anyone else to stop the behavior.
Click to expand...


Why the **** would the giver care? Clearly, you have not done tax work for wealthy individuals before. The whole reason why they spend tons of money on tax advisors and accountants and trust documents and lawyers (etc. etc. etc.) is to minimize the taxes paid and maximize the power they have (during life and beyond) to impact their friends and family.

You don't spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to protect millions and millions of dollars, only for everything to go to **** and be taken away by the IRS anyhow. Literally, nobody does that.

And don't act like "only Ned Flanders" files tax returns. That's just ridiculous.

If you don't think IRS criminal penalties are a deterrent, then I don't know what to tell you. You're on your own.
 
Advertisement
CashMoneyCane said:
My recollection is the employer pays payroll taxes on a W2 but not on a 1099 (based on very limited experience running books for a business). In this case, the recipient would more likely be on a 1099 basis as they're not employed, but independent contractors.

And again, the booster (presumably) is not part of the school. So how is the school complicit to the IRS?

I'm clearly not a tax guy. I'm a private banker by background. All we do is help our clients not pay taxes.
Click to expand...


Again, you should probably keep your limited experience out of this, because you continue to be incorrect. That's not an insult either, it is just a reflection that a little bit of knowledge can be dangerously misguided.

The distinction between an employee and an independent contractor does NOT mean there is no employment. An independent contractor is SELF-EMPLOYED and pays the SE (self-employment) tax. Oh, and the SE tax is DOUBLE what an employee pays in FICA/Medicare. Meaning, that when you pay SE tax on your 1099 income, you are paying BOTH the employer AND the employee portion. So the combined number is close to 20% (which is why a bunch of *****-*** athletes mistakenly think they are paying MORE THAN 50% in income tax, which they are not). It doesn't take long for the non-reporting and non-payment of SE tax to become a HUGE tax obligation, particularly if a kid is paid six-figures to go to Alabama. Oh, and don't even get me started on P&I (penalties & interest).

As for what you think of boosters, you are wrong. Which is why each university has to monitor the actions of boosters. Which is why Miami was (almost) busted for stuff that Nevin Shapiro did. Each university BENEFITS if boosters do illegal things, thus no university can simply turn their backs on such activity and act like they are immune because the illegality was done by boosters.

And that is why both Alabama and UGa have compliance people reaching out to this "Nub" character.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Why the **** would the giver care? Clearly, you have not done tax work for wealthy individuals before. The whole reason why they spend tons of money on tax advisors and accountants and trust documents and lawyers (etc. etc. etc.) is to minimize the taxes paid and maximize the power they have (during life and beyond) to impact their friends and family.

You don't spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to protect millions and millions of dollars, only for everything to go to **** and be taken away by the IRS anyhow. Literally, nobody does that.

And don't act like "only Ned Flanders" files tax returns. That's just ridiculous.

If you don't think IRS criminal penalties are a deterrent, then I don't know what to tell you. You're on your own.
Click to expand...

No, I just managed investment portfolios for billionaires, including people more wealthy than I'm sure anyone on this site has worked with. I have often and frequently encountered tax work for the extremely wealthy, including things like modeling cascading GRAT's and managing CDIT portfolios, if you even know what that is. So perhaps I'm not quite as ignorant as you'd like to think, and maybe we take step back from the unnecessary jabs on the nuance of tax laws. I let the lawyers do the tax work because, admittedly, it's not my area of expertise, and I understand extremely well, again, as a private banker, the lengths the wealthy take to minimize taxes.

Further, you seem to not be keeping up with the train of thought here, as I'm talking about potential criminal liability. If you're trying to say that a big booster gives one rat's *** about his spoiled grandchildren getting another hundred thousand dollars after he's dead over his beloved football team winning another ring while he's alive, I'd say your logic is highly flawed.

Finally, at no point did I say "only Ned Flanders files tax returns." I said no one files for (or rather claims) every single thing they should file for. That's kind of an enormous difference.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Again, you should probably keep your limited experience out of this, because you continue to be incorrect.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should go ahead and put your d!ck on the table since you seem to want to take jabs in wild arrogance/ignorance as to my professional background while clearly not understanding it, even after I've explained it very clearly.

You're a T&E attorney who has advised multiple billionaires, correct? You're at something like a Greenberg Traurig or Holland & Knight? Because if not, well, I've sure worked alongside T&E attorneys advising multiple billionaires as my clients, while determining the most prudent course of action to manage their assets so as to avoid taxable implications.

Tell me again how "limited" my experience is. I've already admitted I'm not a tax expert. But to sit here and try and throw stones at my experience when you clearly don't know what it is or understand what a private banker does only serves to make you look like a fool.
 
Advertisement
CashMoneyCane said:
No, I just managed investment portfolios for billionaires, including people more wealthy than I'm sure anyone on this site has worked with. I have often and frequently encountered tax work for the extremely wealthy, including things like modeling cascading GRAT's and managing CDIT portfolios, if you even know what that is. So perhaps I'm not quite as ignorant as you'd like to think, and maybe we take step back from the unnecessary jabs on the nuance of tax laws. I let the lawyers do the tax work because, admittedly, it's not my area of expertise, and I understand extremely well, again, as a private banker, the lengths the wealthy take to minimize taxes.

Further, you seem to not be keeping up with the train of thought here, as I'm talking about potential criminal liability. If you're trying to say that a big booster gives one rat's *** about his spoiled grandchildren getting another hundred thousand dollars after he's dead over his beloved football team winning another ring while he's alive, I'd say your logic is highly flawed.

Finally, at no point did I say "only Ned Flanders files tax returns." I said no one files for (or rather claims) every single thing they should file for. That's kind of an enormous difference.
Click to expand...


Look, you've always been an arrogant individual who likes to brag about what he does, as if that purchases additional respect or credibility.

All you have to do is look at your "if you even know what that is" line. Yeah, I have an LL.M. in Tax Law. I "know what that is".

But, yeah, you are pretty ignorant. Not just because you don't know things (and CONTINUE to yap as if your "investment banking knowledge" is on point here), but because you continue to sneer at others who are simply trying to provide accurate information to rebut your misstatements.

I don't know how to convince you as to how ridiculous your statements are, so I'm going to stop trying. I'll leave you with a couple of real world realities that show just how misguided your "spoiled grandchildren" nonsense is. First, if you honestly believe that the loss to an estate for non-filing would be only "another hundred thousand dollars", that's your choice. But you're wrong.

More importantly, if you had paid even a few seconds of attention to any of the "booster" cases that have ever been publicized, you would realize that no wealthy booster actually reaches into his own pocket to fund "winning another ring". These cases will ALWAYS involve a booster using a legal entity, such as a business or charity, to disguise the true nature of the dealings. So while these boosters LOVE to have people think that the beneficence is coming from them personally (and the first layer of analysis and discussion would certainly involve the individual booster, since a student-athlete usually has no idea whether that booster will ultimately hide that payment on the books of a legal entity), the reality is that the forensic accounting will usually find the substance of the illicit transactions buried within a legal entity. Therefore, the boosters are usually throwing around other people's money (which they may, in fact, have control over).

You are entitled to think that if the IRS (and/or state revenue departments) finally wades into this area, that nothing will happen. That's on you. You are free to underestimate this jeopardy if you so choose. But I guarantee you, the next big fight that Donald Trump faces will not involve the launch of his social media platform, but will be with the legal authorities in New York (both fed and state).

And tax prosecution usually does not end well. Or cheaply.
 
Last edited:
CashMoneyCane said:
Maybe you should go ahead and put your d!ck on the table since you seem to want to take jabs in wild arrogance/ignorance as to my professional background while clearly not understanding it, even after I've explained it very clearly.

You're a T&E attorney who has advised multiple billionaires, correct? You're at something like a Greenberg Traurig or Holland & Knight? Because if not, well, I've sure worked alongside T&E attorneys advising multiple billionaires as my clients, while determining the most prudent course of action to manage their assets so as to avoid taxable implications.

Tell me again how "limited" my experience is. I've already admitted I'm not a tax expert. But to sit here and try and throw stones at my experience when you clearly don't know what it is or understand what a private banker does only serves to make you look like a fool.
Click to expand...

Jesus Christ you have a small ****
 
TheOriginalCane said:
It's like in law school, when people first learn about "adverse possession" or "intentional infliction of emotional distress". They think they can apply those terms to every factual scenario.

Gifts are supposed to have "donative intent". No quid pro quo. The reason our (past) contributions to UM Athletics were not always tax deductible is that we often received something of value in return.

When there is a quid pro quo ("I will give you this money if you come to Alabama"), there is no longer a gift. It is a payment for services. It is income.

To use another example, if you bribe a politician with $15,000, it is still a bribe and not a gift.

Character counts. And by that, I obviously meant the character of the income.
Click to expand...
Thank you for reminding me as to why I didnt good to law school!!! :)

I understand your point, and its a good one, BUT.....at $15K or below, a gift return is not even required, and if the donor was audited about the payment, wouldnt any tax due be on the athlete, which the IRS is not likely to enforce?!?
 
Advertisement
CashMoneyCane said:
Maybe you should go ahead and put your d!ck on the table since you seem to want to take jabs in wild arrogance/ignorance as to my professional background while clearly not understanding it, even after I've explained it very clearly.

You're a T&E attorney who has advised multiple billionaires, correct? You're at something like a Greenberg Traurig or Holland & Knight? Because if not, well, I've sure worked alongside T&E attorneys advising multiple billionaires as my clients, while determining the most prudent course of action to manage their assets so as to avoid taxable implications.

Tell me again how "limited" my experience is. I've already admitted I'm not a tax expert. But to sit here and try and throw stones at my experience when you clearly don't know what it is or understand what a private banker does only serves to make you look like a fool.
Click to expand...


I'm sure you've stood alongside a toilet before, but it doesn't make you a plumber.

Your experience in tax is, by your own admission, limited. I never impugned your bona fides as an investment banker.

Dab your tears and shut the fvck up.
 
SpikeUM said:
Thank you for reminding me as to why I didnt good to law school!!! :)

I understand your point, and its a good one, BUT.....at $15K or below, a gift return is not even required, and if the donor was audited about the payment, wouldnt any tax due be on the athlete, which the IRS is not likely to enforce?!?
Click to expand...


You are correct, the smaller the amount is, the less likely the IRS is to discover it, and try to enforce the non-filing/non-payment.

BUT...more recently (on Zoom, and on the Propst tape) the amounts that I have heard mentioned are high-five-figure and low-six-figure amounts.

But, sure, if Chubb got 90 installment payments of $1,000 instead of 3 installment payments of $30,000, it would be a lot harder for the IRS to figure it out.
 
The one thing I know is that a lot of prosecutions are based on how quickly the case can be closed. There's hesitance to prosecute a case that will drag on when instead they can prosecute a dozen smaller cases. Combine that with the amount of evidence required to be certain of winning and you get a legal system that gives tacit approval to bags.
 
Advertisement
CashMoneyCane said:
Maybe you should go ahead and put your d!ck on the table since you seem to want to take jabs in wild arrogance/ignorance as to my professional background while clearly not understanding it, even after I've explained it very clearly.

You're a T&E attorney who has advised multiple billionaires, correct? You're at something like a Greenberg Traurig or Holland & Knight? Because if not, well, I've sure worked alongside T&E attorneys advising multiple billionaires as my clients, while determining the most prudent course of action to manage their assets so as to avoid taxable implications.

Tell me again how "limited" my experience is. I've already admitted I'm not a tax expert. But to sit here and try and throw stones at my experience when you clearly don't know what it is or understand what a private banker does only serves to make you look like a fool.
Click to expand...
Don't bother bruh... this is the same dude that did a "last laugh" argument by posting some indeed salary link showing Tax attorneys making 99k per year lol
 
JD08 said:
The one thing I know is that a lot of prosecutions are based on how quickly the case can be closed. There's hesitance to prosecute a case that will drag on when instead they can prosecute a dozen smaller cases. Combine that with the amount of evidence required to be certain of winning and you get a legal system that gives tacit approval to bags.
Click to expand...


I think that is true in many areas of law.

Tax tends to be a bit different. First, the outcome is not just "put someone in jail", there is also the recovery of money. Which, of course, helps to fund the lawsuits themselves. Second, there is the "deterrent" factor. You don't have to put all the tax criminals in jail if you manage to scare most of them straight. Third, there is an increasing trend towards holding corporate officers and directors liable if their behavior substantially deviates from fiduciary responsibility.

I think there is an important takeaway here, and that is the IRS has NOT previously litigated these types of cases very often. It might be lucrative if they did. I tend to think that tiny-***** redneck wannabe-moguls are easier nuts to crack than the guys who work on Wall Street. We'll see.
 
SFbayCane said:
Ive said for many years now, the ONLY way to stop the illegal stuff that occurs in recruiting is for the IRS to get involved. Anything short of that is just a media story.
Click to expand...
That’s what Sam Jankovich said that n the mid-‘80’s when we lost a recruit we badly wanted and we were sure there was money involved. I believe that was the 1985 recruiting season and it still hasn’t happened. I guess the only theory would be under reporting of income but Ive never heard of anyone making a credible report to the IRS. Maybe it’s happened, I don’t know.

it seems schools that lose a recruit are very unlikely to report on the program who cheats, either to the IRS or the NCAA.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top