Have
you heard the one about the
doggie day care deduction?
The male model? The pimped-out
Amish buggy?
That's right
-- Bankrate's back with another
nine of the craziest tax write-offs
you've ever heard of, in the
hope it will make paying your
2006 federal income tax a
little bit easier.
For our last
installment of the nine
weirdest write-offs, we
combed the country collecting
stories from certified public
accountants about the craziest
tax deductions they'd ever
seen. The search turned up
plenty of ingenious ways in
which taxpayers have tried
to justify deducting everything
from ostrich breeding to sperm
donations to dog food.
Dogs once again
get their due in this year's
collection. While our pets
may seem like part of the
family, as we will see, attempts
to treat them as actual dependents
-- or more outrageously, subcontractors
-- simply won't fly with the
Internal Revenue Service.
It's never a good idea to tempt fate by trying to slide one by Uncle Sam. Serious consequences may result from underreporting income, filing a false or erroneous claim, or attempting to make up your own personal tax rules.
Deductions in the tax code tend to fall into two broad categories, according to John Barghini, a CPA and partner in Hansen, Jergenson, Nergaard & Co. LLP of Minneapolis.
"Deductions
are primarily related to business
activities or where our government
wants to reward us for being
family people, as in dependent
and day care deductions,"
he says.
While it may seem like deductions would be easy to abuse, Barghini says most taxpayers don't consider the reward worth the risk.
"I think there is more unreported income than there are overstated deductions," he says. "The deductions where people tend to fudge it are in charitable contributions. And some you can't fudge, because things like mortgage interest or real estate taxes are typically reported to the IRS."
Ah, but that doesn't mean we don't try.
| Here are nine of the craziest write-offs we've ever heard of. Warning: Don't try these at home! |
|
|
|
 |
|
1.
Hidden asset
Elizabeth Dittrick of Dittrick
& Associates in Cleveland
was a staff accountant with
Arthur Andersen when she witnessed
a particularly uncomfortable
client meeting with a married
couple. The deduction was
legitimate; it was the underlying
asset that proved to be the
problem.
"We were
going over their tax information
and the tax manager asked
the gentleman, 'Now what about
the mortgage interest deduction
for the condo in Utah?' Unfortunately,
the wife didn't know about
the condo in Utah, where he
had set up his mistress. It
was a big 'oops' moment. There
was this stony silence in
the room. It was absolutely
awful," she recalls.