Drawing the line at bailouts

Even those folks who recognize that the $700 billion bailout and its progeny are probably necessary evils are unlikely to sit still if the federal government also provides “tacit bailouts” by cooling prosecution of fraud.

For example, a lot of people understand that government agencies shift their priorities and agendas as particular problems catch the public’s attention. Should taxpayers be concerned that federal agencies, in the midst of the bailout headlines, could take it upon themselves to opt against vigorous prosecution of banks for unrelated tax fraud schemes?

In other words, if a bank is engaging in tax fraud, and the bank is also a bailout beneficiary, is it likely that the Service will aggressively prosecute the bank for the tax fraud?

Will investigators be reluctant to be perceived as “piling on” the bank’s other troubles?

Will this reluctance mean that tax fraud will go unpunished?

If yes, banks and other financial entities will enjoy a "tacit bailout" in addition to the $700 billion dollar "official" bailout campaign. Their ill gotten tax fraud gains may go unpunished. The money they got from their fraud will stay in their pockets.

Senator Chuck Grassley echoes similar worries with regard to False Claims Act enforcement. He wrote a letter to the treasury secretary and the Attorney General last week urging them to issue messages that allegations of fraud against bailout beneficiaries would be treated seriously.

Grassley expressed concern that the bailout programs have been in place for seven weeks and still lack effective oversight. Ineffective oversight means that bailout participants could defraud taxpayers by improperly qualifying for federal funds that they should not receive.

Grassley advocated for whistleblowers and the FCA in particular. Hopefully, the Service will heed this viewpoint and adhere to rigorous tax fraud investigation without regard for whether or not the bank is part of the bailout program. Taxpayers are already investing billions into bailing out financial entities. The feds should be clear that taxpayers will draw the line when asked to invest any more money in financial entities that steal from the government. Enough is enough.

Virtual Income but Real Tax Liability?

You discover Linden Lab's Second Life virtual world web site, create your avatar, give him a full head of hair, and pump up his physique. You wander around Second Life for a while and then open up a virtual shop, selling creative and entertaining gizmos. Other avatars pay you in Linden Dollars (L$s), and you begin to turn those L$s into US dollars through a PayPal account. Business is great, and the Linden Dollars are rolling in. Good times.

Second Life's virtual transactions average between $1.2 million and $2 million per day. Approximately 70,000 people access the site daily. Some folks, through their avatars, have made enough money through their Second Life occupations to quit their real jobs and work all day online.

Congress and the IRS have noticed. They're trying to figure out what's going on and whether or not there's enough money involved to be concerned about possible tax fraud. Given Second Life's steady growth rate and its increasing virtual economy, Second Life and other virtual worlds will probably become the subject of new tax rules in the near future.

The current rule of thumb is that L$ income becomes taxable income when it turns into liquid US$. In other words, if you sell five hundred gizmos for L$25,600, you can turn the L$ into US$100. When that $100 hits your PayPal account, it is taxable income.

The IRS wants its share. Prudent real life beneficiaries of these enterprising avatars will make sure the income is reported to the Service.