Tax Accountant Dublin CA | CPA

Cameron Announces That G8 Will Focus On 3Ts: Taxes, Transparency & Trade

admin — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 03:26:24 +0000

ENNISKILLEN, NORTHERN IRELAND – JUNE 17: Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper is greeted by Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron (L) at the official arrival of the G8 leaders at the G8 venue of Lough Erne on June 17, 2013 in Enniskillen, Northern Ireland. (Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)

As the G8 Summit kicked off today, all eyes were on British Prime Minister David Cameron to set the agenda. He announced that three Ts, taxes, transparency, and trade, would be priorities as world leaders settled in for the two day conference.

G8 is term for the Group of Eight, a group of the governments of eight of the world’s eleven wealthiest countries. Those countries are:

Canada (Prime Minister Stephen Harper)
France (President François Hollande)
Germany (Chancellor Angela Merkel)
Italy (Prime Minister Enrico Letta)
Japan (Prime Minister Shinzō Abe)
Russia (President Vladimir Putin)
United Kingdom (Prime Minister David Cameron)
United States of America (President Barack Obama)

Those countries in the top eleven not represented as part of the G8 are Brazil, India and China.

How wealthy are those eight countries that are part of the G8? Last year, G8 nations made up 50.1% of the world’s GDP (gross domestic product).

The location of the summit rotates through the G8 countries and the leader of the host country sets the agenda. Last year, the summit was hosted by the United States and was held at Camp David. This year, the summit is hosted by the United Kingdom and opted to host the event in Northern Ireland.

While there will be a host of issues discussed – you can count on Syria being at the forefront of conversation – Cameron made it clear that economic issues will be driving this particular summit:

Making sure we have more trade deals so we keep prices down, making sure we have greater transparency so we can help developing countries get the tax and revenue that they need, and this issue of taxation, making sure we crack down on tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance, so right across the world, countries get the tax revenue they need to keep taxes down for hard-working people.

Tax evasion is a hot topic now individually in most of the G8 countries. The U.S. has been making headway in forcing countries like Switzerland to give up identities of U.S. taxpayers said to be hiding money offshore. Germany has also sounded the alarm about tax avoidance, making a high profile arrest of football coaching star Uli Hoeness; Italy, likewise, raised the stakes in the tax world by recently slapping fashion icons Dolce Gabbana with millions in fines for tax evasion and convicting former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of tax fraud. Most recently, Spain, while not a member of the G8, was bailed out by the EU to save its flailing economy: under pressure from its peers to appear tough on tax crimes, it sent its own message about tax avoidance with a very public allegation against football super star Lionel Messi.

The recent spate of public tax charges are part of an overall message the G8 hopes to send to the world about the need for tax and economic transparency as part of efforts to shore up financial stability.

Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the EU Commission said, in reference to the problem, “I hope that bank secrecy and tax havens will soon belong to the past.”

It’s a lofty goal for the G8. Trillions of dollars are thought to be holed up in offshore accounts in tax havens around the globe resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars in lost tax revenue.

None of those tax havens – like Switzerland – will be specifically represented at the G8 Summit though some countries like Cyprus will be represented as part of the EU (European Union). The EU is considered the “9th member” of the G8 but is not allowed to host a summit.

–

Want more taxgirl goodness? Sign up to receive posts by email, follow me on twitter (@taxgirl), hang out with me on Facebook or check out my new YouTube channel. You can also buy my book in print at Amazon.com or as an ebook for the Kindle, or the Nook from Barnes and Noble.

Article source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2013/06/17/cameron-announces-that-g8-will-focus-on-3ts-taxes-transparency-trade/

Go Cart Thieves Hit Valley Christian Center in Dublin, CA

admin — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 03:26:21 +0000

Go Cart Thieves Hit Valley Christian Center in Dublin, CA

by Around Dublin Team | Topics: Announcements · Local Issues · Schools

News of more criminal activities around the Valley Christian Schools in Dublin, CA has surfaced. Dublin Police Services responded to Valley Christian Center two weeks ago for a report of stolen items. A total of elevan personalized, motor-driven Go Carts were stolen from a locked storage container located in the parking lot of The Valley Christian Center. The Go Carts range in value from $1,000 to $2,000 each and were used by participants of a youth ministry program to teach students and church members how to drive and race Go Carts. Valley Christian Center is located at 7500 Inspiration Drive.

In addition to the eleven Go Carts that were stolen, two Go Cart motors and several other pieces of Go Cart equipment was also stolen. The total loss is valued at $16,840. Video surveillance of the incident captured a mid-sized vehicle (no further description) and a U-Haul shaped truck without the U-Haul markings leaving the scene.

Frames on the stolen Go Carts included Margay, Invader, CRG, Alphakart, Trackmagic, and Emmick. Anyone with information related to the Go Carts theft at Valley Christian Center on June 3rd is asked to contact Dublin Polices Services Detective Dawn Sullivan at (925) 833-6667.

Published on June 17, 2013

Article source: http://www.arounddublinblog.com/2013/06/dublin-ca-go-cart-thieves-hit-valley-christian-center/

What I Think Of Taxes: A Child’s Perspective

admin — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 09:09:53 +0000

I woke up this morning the mother of an eleven year old. I’m still not sure how that happened. But I’m sure glad that it did.

Here’s what you need to know about my daughter, Kate. She’s a daddy’s girl. She’s super smart and pays attention to detail: in the fourth grade, she won an award for “best data presentation” at the science fair for the City of Philadelphia. She loves animals (especially horses and dogs) probably more than she loves people. Last month, she ran her first 5k with Girls on the Run and hopes to do another one. She also plays soccer and ice hockey. Yes, ice hockey.

She has a gift for telling stories and writing: while her younger sister seems destined for the stage, Kate has announced her intentions to become the next Mark Twain. In fact, she spends a lot of time thinking about what she wants to do when she grows up. I suspect everyone thinks she’ll be a lawyer since her dad and I are. We have a different take: we always say that our kids can be whatever they want when they grow up but we draw the line at lawyer and exotic dancer – and we’re willing to bend on exotic dancer.

Kate hasn’t always been interested in what it is that her dad and I do. She was crushed in kindergarten to find out that I “worked with taxes” not “drove taxis” – she had told everyone the latter. But lately, she has more interest. She flips through Forbes and asks questions. She talks politics (she has informed me that if I am not happy with what’s happening in government, then I need to tell somebody) and has quite a bit of insight for someone you’d expect to be more concerned about who Taylor Swift is dating.

This morning, I asked her opinion about taxes. And she was happy to oblige. She wrote the following piece, which I hope you’ll enjoy:

What I think of taxes
by Kate Erb

Taxes are very important to us – why? Taxes pay for schools, roads, the government, et cetera. All of those are important. Schools need money to pay teachers who need to buy stuff like food. They also buy school supplies kids need to get a good education. Roads provide access to places we need to get to, but they need money for the materials and their workers. The government need to pay employees and to run our country.

What I think about taxes is that though we have to pay a lot of money that we need to pay for food and clothing other people also need the money. Like with the budget cut schools don’t have enough money. I moved away from a school that was forced to do unpleasant things from lack of money. All the kids were unhappy and a lot of kids didn’t want to go to school anymore. They need more money!

Taxes also pay for electricity and water. Without the money they can’t produce electricity and water so they tax you. If you don’t pay they stop providing electricity. Some people don’t understand others need the same things that you need and they get they money through taxes. But the taxers sometimes don’t get some people don’t have enough money to pay taxes right away. Think. Tax day. Some people can’t get the payment in one day, like the people poorer than you. Why not tax week or tax month?

Imagine this: there are no taxes, and you are a teacher. You don’t have enough supplies for the students at school and you can’t pay for your own children’s necessities. Not enough food or water. If there were no taxes, you would be somewhat like that. Now imagine someone is hurt and you can’t pay to help them. Maybe it’s your child or husband or sibling. Do you want to find yourself in this situation? Absolutely not. We need taxes.

Now do you see why taxes are important? Some people might laugh, but you could actually die. With no money you have no food, and when you have no food you die. We need taxes. Help a person and pay the taxes to get people money. Wouldn’t you like to get money? Of course!

You don’t have to agree with her, of course. But I hope you think about what she said and what it means in the context of her world. I think that’s what is missing from much of the debate on taxes these days: a little bit of perspective. We can all learn something from each other – even an 11 year old.

–

Article source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2013/06/16/what-i-think-of-taxes-a-childs-perspective/

Early Resident Move-ins at Pleasanton, CA’s Stoneridge Creek Scheduled for …

admin — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 09:09:51 +0000

The day many seniors have been waiting for is just around the corner. According to Troy Bourne, vice president of planning for Stoneridge Creek in Pleasanton, CA, early move-ins for residents are scheduled to begin later this month. Campeau and her team will be responsible for assisting the community’s future residents with the entire move-in process, including helping them with interior design selections, providing referrals for packing and moving services, performing final walk-throughs with residents, and coordinating individual move-in days for residents.

Mallory Campeau has been appointed move-in coordinator for Stoneridge Creek. Prior to assuming the move-in coordinator position, Campeau served as marketing assistant and office manager for Stoneridge Creek. She was also an administrative assistant at a Northern California law firm. A resident of the beautiful City of Lafayette., Campeau graduated from Saint Mary’s College of California with a bachelor of arts degree in sociology.

“The move-in coordinator is one of the most important positions at Stoneridge Creek because a smooth move-in process for every resident is our highest priority,” Bourne said. “As with any move, there are a myriad of details that need to be considered. Many of our future residents have lived in their current home for several years, and moving can be a fairly new experience for them. Mallory has been a member of our team for the past three years and is an excellent fit for this position as a result of her enthusiasm, energy and understanding of the needs of our future residents.”

Stoneridge Creek, located on 46 acres at 3300 Stoneridge Creek Way off Stoneridge Drive and across from the highly popular Livermore Valley Premium Outlets, will celebrate its grand opening in September. The continuing care retirement community for people 60 years of age and older will offer up to 635 independent living residences featuring 20 different floor plans and a comprehensive package of services, amenities, activities, fine dining and transportation.

On-site amenities include several restaurant venues ranging from casual to fine dining; a resident library; billiard and card rooms; computer lab and business center; spa and fitness center; open-air pool and steam room; performing arts theatre for musical and theatrical performances; movie theatre; and an art studio and woodworking shop. Residents will enjoy a variety of outdoor recreational amenities including tennis courts, short-game golf course, dog park, walking and cycling trails, and bocce and croquet courts.

CreekView Health Center will be located adjacent to the main campus. The health center, with 74 assisting living apartments including a dedicated memory support area, will also include 68 skilled nursing beds. Licensed by the state’s Department of Health Services and Department of Social Services, the health center will be staffed with nursing professionals 24 hours a day. It will be open to the general public as well as Stoneridge Creek residents. CreekView Health Center is not owned by Stoneridge Creek, it but will provide services to Stoneridge Creek residents under a priority contract.

A full-scale replica of one of Stoneridge Creek’s most popular floor plans is located in the community’s information center at 5698 Stoneridge Drive. in Pleasanton. For additional information about Stoneridge Creek, please call (800) 850-3167 or visit StoneridgeCreek.com.

Article source: http://www.arounddublinblog.com/2013/06/pleasanton-ca-stoneridge-creek-early-move-ins/

How Do Americans Feel About Higher Energy Taxes?

admin — Sun, 16 Jun 2013 14:45:30 +0000

Sixty-nine percent of Americans oppose raising taxes on oil and natural gas companies.

That surprising statement is the upshot of a new survey released by polling service Harris Interactive . And while the fact that it reached this conclusion at the behest of its client, the American Petroleum Institute, isn’t exactly a shocker, the details of Harris’ survey are.

Take the demographics of the survey, for example. Surprisingly, the people Harris chose to answer its poll skewed “liberal” a bit. Of the 1,000 registered voters polled, 48% say they “approve … of the job that Barack Obama is doing as president.” What’s more, a significant plurality of those polled identified themselves as Democrats (34%), rather than Republicans (27%) or independents (29%).

So what kind of legislation does it take to persuade voters to rush to the defense of Big Oil?

What are you against?
Let’s start with what exactly it is that these “69% of Americans” say they’re against. API commissioned Harris to run its poll in response to an Obama administration proposal to impose “$90 billion” in new taxes on the oil and natural gas industry. Specifically, the proposed new taxes break down like this:

$28.3 billion: to forbid “last-in, first-out” accounting, a standard method of accounting, but one that makes a company look less profitable when the costs of its raw materials (in this case, oil) are rising.
$17.4 billion: to deny the oil and gas industry the tax breaks contained in the 2004 American Jobs Creation Act. Manufacturing companies get to deduct 9% of their costs when creating domestic jobs. Oil and gas companies can deduct only 6% — and now the administration wants to cut that to 0%.
$11 billion: to prevent companies’ writing off “intangible drilling costs” incurred when getting a well ready to produce. API analogizes these costs to the research and development work that a semiconductor company must do — and gets to write off — before it can start selling computer chips. Last year, Intel reported spending $10.3 billion on such RD work, putting 19% of its revenues out of reach of the tax man, but the president’s budget proposal would leave that tax break untouched.
$11 billion more: to tax foreign-earned income of U.S.-based companies twice (to encourage more business to be done in-country).
$10.7 billion: to forbid of accounting for oilfield development costs based on “percentage depletion” as an oilfield’s reserves are used up.
$10.1 billion: to levy Superfund taxes on the industry to pay for cleaning up toxic waste — which may or may not have been created by oil and gas companies in the first place.
$1.4 billion: to require that money spent on geological and geophysical research, to find oil and gas reserves, be expensed over longer periods of time.
And finally, rounding out the $90 billion figure, $100 million and change to repeal deductions for using “tertiary injectants” to improve oil flow from a field — for example, by sequestering carbon in an old oil well, to help both (a) get rid of the greenhouse gas and (b) force more of the oil out so it doesn’t get wasted.

$28.3 billion here, $11 billion there — pretty soon, you’re talking real money
So right off the bat, we can see there are some pretty big sums at stake in this proposed legislation. It’s not hard to understand why an oil industry mouthpiece like API would oppose them. It’s not hard to understand why investors in oil stocks might be a bit upset as well.

Let’s get specific
But how much might these taxes actually cost the oil companies that we, as shareholders, invest in?

API says the oil and gas industry as a whole already pays “more than $86 million to the federal Treasury every day.” This works out to an industrywide tax bill upward of $31 billion — so by loading $90 billion on top, the administration is proposing to quadruple the industry’s tax bill, which does sound a bit harsh.

Using the rough “quadrupling” estimate as a ballpark figure, and spreading it out across the industry equally, you might think ExxonMobil‘s tax bill, for example, would go from last year’s $30.4 billion to nearly $120 billion — wiping out the company’s $45 billion profit entirely.

The truth may not be quite as bad as that (for shareholders) — nor as lucrative as that (for taxpayers hoping Exxon will shoulder more of their burden). You see, while Exxon paid more than $31 billion in taxes last year, the vast majority went to the foreign countries in which it does business, and from which it obtains much of its oil. Exxon actually only paid the IRS a bit under $3 billion. So even in the worst-case scenario of a quadrupling of Exxon’s U.S. income-tax liability, we’d probably only be “milking the tiger” for an additional $9 billion in taxes, reducing the company’s profits by 20%.

Similarly, only $687 million of ConocoPhillips‘ $7.9 billion in 2012 taxes ended up at the IRS.

Chevron investors, on the other hand, may have more to worry about, as $3.9 billion of the $20 billion it spent on income taxes in 2012 went to the United States. Pass all of these new taxes and impose them on Chevron … and its U.S. tax bill could swell to perhaps $15.5 billion, reducing its profits by $11.6 billion — or 44%.

So why do conservatives and liberals alike oppose higher taxes on oil and gas companies? Maybe they just own a lot of Chevron stock.

Article source: http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/06/15/how-do-americans-feel-about-higher-energy-taxes/

Alameda Transportation Agency Breaks Ground on Suite of I – 580 Corridor …

admin — Sun, 16 Jun 2013 14:45:28 +0000

Alameda Transportation Agency Breaks Ground on Suite of I-580 Corridor Improvements

by John M. Zukoski | Topics: Local Issues · Public Works

Last Thursday, Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) and its partners, including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), broke ground on the I-580 Westbound HOV Lane and Corridor Improvement Projects at the Freisman Road cul-de-sac in Livermore. A number of elected officials representing the local jurisdictions and the projects’ planning and funding agencies participated in the groundbreaking, recognizing the importance of this corridor to regional economic development and freight movement.

The groundbreaking celebrated a suite of corridor investments, including a new 13-mile westbound high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane, from Greenville Road overcrossing in Livermore to the San Ramon/Foothill Road overcrossing in Dublin/Pleasanton; an eastbound auxiliary lane between Isabel Avenue and First Street in Livermore; as well as widening of two eastbound bridges at Arroyo-Las Positas. These projects, anticipated to be complete in fall 2014, promises to reduce congestion, encourage carpools and improve air quality along this critical mobility corridor, while setting the stage for future high-tech mobility improvements. “Mobility is essential to attracting and retaining jobs throughout the Tri-Valley, and truly maximizing job creation and innovation,” said Livermore Mayor John Marchand.

“These projects are part of a larger series of capacity and operational improvements we have delivered and will continue to deliver to this region into the future,” said master of ceremonies Alameda CTC Chair and Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty. “Measure B dollars, combined with local, regional, state and federal fund sources have resulted in over $1.3 billion in investments in the Tri-Valley.”

Published on June 16, 2013

Article source: http://www.arounddublinblog.com/2013/06/livermore-ca-580-corridor-improvements-break-ground/

The Other Complication for Airbnb and the Sharing Economy: Taxes

admin — Sat, 15 Jun 2013 20:29:01 +0000

Sharing economy businesses like Airbnb, RelayRides, and FlightCar have come under fire recently, with participants accused of failure to comply with insurance regulations, building codes, and other rules. In addition to those complications, which I wrote about in the recent issue of TIME magazine, there’s the problem of taxes. Namely, it seems as if almost no one involved in the sharing economy knows exactly what taxes they’re supposed to pay, nor when or how to pay them. And for several reasons — the rules are unclear, enforcement is almost nonexistent, and many feel that “sharing” shouldn’t be taxed at all – very few people pay them.

One part of the equation is fairly straightforward: Money earned from renting out a room in your apartment, loaning your car to a stranger, or from any other sharing economy business is considered income, and participants therefore may have to pay income taxes on those earnings. Airbnb, in fact, sends 1099-Misc forms to all hosts who are supposed to pay taxes on their rental income.

The site also mentions that a state or locality may require that other short-term rental fees or taxes be paid, and this is where things get really, really messy. According to Airbnb, it’s entirely up to the host to include the proper taxes in their rental listing rates, and then it’s up to the host to pay them. “You are responsible for managing your tax and other regulatory obligations,” Airbnb’s Taxes FAQ section says. “Please contact a tax professional or city compliance department for advice about your tax status and compliance.”

How many Airbnb hosts actually hand over hotel taxes to the local tax collector? No one really knows, but it’s likely that the percentage is tiny—perhaps even zero. Most cities haven’t even clarified if short-term hosts should be paying hotel taxes on their rental income, because such a stipulation would implicitly tell residents that short-term rentals are legal — which is itself unclear in many cases.

In the spring of 2012, San Francisco made it clear that short-term rentals are indeed subject to hotel taxes. The treasury office announced that its interpretation of existing laws require “anyone who rents out a guest room to pay the city’s roughly 15 percent transient occupancy tax — commonly referred to as the hotel tax,” as the San Francisco Chronicle explained. Over the last few months, however, Steven T. Jones of the Bay Guardian has repeatedly pointed out that no Airbnb listings in San Francisco mention the hotel tax. The paper estimates that the transient occupancy taxes (TOT) that should be collected by Airbnb, or Airbnb hosts, amount to at least $1.8 million per year.

(MORE: Sharing Is Hard: Legal Trouble for Airbnb, RelayRides, FlightCar)

The city won’t say how much, if anything, it collects in hotel taxes from Airbnb rentals. What’s more, there seems to be some mystery as to who should be paying the taxes—Airbnb or the individual hosts? And how does this work? Should somebody just be dropping off a bag of money at city hall?

Greg Kato, policy and legislative manager for the San Francisco treasurer and tax collector, clarified over the phone that there is indeed a process for an Airbnb host to collect and pay TOTs. First, the host must register as a business with the treasurer and get a certificate of authority to collect the tax. There are some application fees involved (like $25), and quarterly filings of taxes with the city.

Simple, right? Actually, the forms and red tape probably seem like quite a hassle to the individual who just wants to rent a room out for a few days a year. I’m not running a business, many will think, why should I be registering as one? (Officially registering with the city would also seem scary to anyone with an inkling that their building or neighborhood doesn’t allow short-term rentals.) What’s more, the certificate of authority form is plainly written with hotels in mind, asking for things like the “hotel name.” To which a sensible Airbnb host might respond, I’m not running a hotel, and my apartment doesn’t have a name.

Kato said that regardless of the verbiage, the forms apply to short-term rental hosts. And when money is changing hands as it does in the Airbnb arrangement, the host is undoubtedly running a business in the city’s eyes. Because the business directly involves transient occupants (i.e., Airbnb guests), payment of the transient occupancy tax is required. Kato also pointed out that there’s a misperception about what the TOT is. “It’s a tax on the transient occupant, not on the hotel or person hosting a short-term rental,” he said. “If I am a visitor in San Francisco, I am the one personally being taxed, regardless of whether the space is in an apartment or a 20-story hotel.”

(MORE: Amazon’s New Grocery Service: For $299, You Never Had to Leave the House Again)

In the 14 or so months since San Francisco announced that short-term rental operators should be paying the TOT, Kato says that people have occasionally contacted his office asking for guidance. “I haven’t been overwhelmed with calls,” he said. “Maybe 20, and most were anonymous—people saying they were calling for a friend or something.” And how many Airbnb hosts have followed the proper steps for registering and are now paying hotel taxes? No one knows.

Airbnb hosts in other cities have little reason to worry about paying hotel taxes, but that’s only because in many municipalities, it’s not entirely clear if Airbnb rentals are legal. And how would anyone pay taxes on a business arrangement that’s not acknowledged as lawful?

In New Orleans, for instance, the Times-Picayune reported a few months ago that hundreds of short-term rentals are listed at Airbnb and other sites for the French Quarter area, despite a local law banning rentals of fewer than 60 days in the neighborhood (or less than 30 days anywhere else in the city). None of these rentals contribute hotel occupancy taxes to the city, of course, and members of a local business and property owners association “estimated that licensed hotels, motels, inns and bed-and-breakfasts annually lose $13 million in revenue to short-term rental scofflaws,” according to the Times-Picayune. “That adds up to about $1.4 million in taxes and licensing fees the city fails to collect every year, they said.”

(MORE: Why Hotels Aren’t Making a Killing on Fees Like the Airlines)

In the recent case in which an Airbnb host in New York City was fined $2,400 for renting part of his apartment to strangers, the host testified that he did not know if his guest paid hotel taxes — because Airbnb payments go directly to Airbnb. In any case, it would be surprising if anyone did pay hotel taxes in this instance—because the judge ruled the host wasn’t supposed to be renting out the space in the first place! Besides, the city hasn’t explicitly stated that short-term rentals should incur hotel taxes; doing so would basically be an endorsement of the concept as 100% acceptable and legal, and that’s something regulators in New York and many other cities don’t seem ready to do.

In situations where Airbnb hosts are theoretically expected to pay hotel taxes, the obligation strikes many as inherently unfair—because these residents are not running a hotel. Hosts typically view their rental practices as only marginally different than having a friend stay over. It’s not a full-fledged business, they argue, and taxing it as such is wrong. Besides, as one Airbnb host explained to the Financial Times, taxes are already being paid to the locality:

“For us, we’re already paying taxes toward the city: property tax, sales tax anytime I buy something,” said Quynh Yamada, a San Francisco nurse who rents her two-bedroom apartment on Airbnb during the summer. “I don’t see why I have to pay extra.”

While some say Airbnb hurts cities because it competes with the hotel tax-collecting hotels, Airbnb counters that its model helps city businesses in a major way—especially in residential neighborhoods where there are few hotels, and where tourists probably wouldn’t venture if it weren’t for their short-term Airbnb rental. “We know that our community has already had a very positive economic impact on neighborhoods throughout the world,” David Hantman, Airbnb’s head of global policy, said in a statement. “Last year, an independent economist found that activity facilitated through Airbnb contributed $56 million to the San Francisco economy.”

(MORE: Southwest Airlines: We’re Not Really About Cheap Flights Anymore)

Likewise, a new Airbnb study estimates that Airbnb rentals contributed roughly $240 million to the local economy in Paris over a one-year span. This is partly due to the fact that Airbnb guests reportedly take their time visiting the city, with an average stay of 5.2 nights, compared to 2.3 nights for hotel guests.

Airbnb welcomed the recent news from Amsterdam that clarified that, under certain circumstances, short-term rentals were legal in the city. But in many cities around the world, the legality of short-term rentals remains muddled. For Airbnb, the largest priority is making sure that it’s OK for people to earn a little money by hosting travelers. “The first step is clarifying existing laws to ensure that average families can rent out their homes occasionally,” said Hantman.

Having to pay taxes on room rentals, after all, is better than not being allowed to rent rooms at all.

Article source: http://business.time.com/2013/06/15/the-other-complication-for-airbnb-and-the-sharing-economy-taxes/

Alameda County’s Asian Population Sees Big Jump

admin — Sat, 15 Jun 2013 20:29:00 +0000

Alameda County’s Asian population followed national trends and grew more than any other demographic between 2010 and 2012, according to numbers released Wednesday from the U.S. Census Bureau.

“Asians and Hispanics have long been among our nation’s fastest-growing race or ethnic groups,” noted Thomas Mesenbourg, the Census Bureau’s acting director.

The trend holds true in Alameda County, where the Asian population jumped six percent to 419,603 last year, according to census numbers. The number of Hispanic residents grew 3.6 percent, to 352,707.

Those declaring two races grew 5.6 percent to 60,239.

Nationally, more than 60 percent of the Asian population’s growth was a result of migration to the U.S. from other countries, census officials said. California has more Asian residents than any other state, with 6 million.

By comparison, much of the national Hispanic population’s growth was due to natural increase, or a greater number of births than deaths, according to census data.

The number of white, non-Hispanic residents grew 1 percent during the same time period, to 521,029, according to census figures. While still the largest ethnic group, whites make up only 33.5 percent of Alameda County’s more-than 1.5 million population.

Article source: http://dublin.patch.com/groups/editors-picks/p/alameda-countys-asian-population-sees-big-jump_a963705c

Defining Real Estate Broadly to Avoid Corporate Taxes

admin — Sat, 15 Jun 2013 02:06:15 +0000

Lisa Kyle for The New York TimesCorbis Images is one of the clients of the information storage company Iron Mountain.

Shares of the information storage company Iron Mountain dropped about 15 percent last week on the news that the I.R.S. was “tentatively adverse” toward at least one aspect of its plan to convert into a Real Estate Investment Trust, or REIT. The primary legal issue appears to be whether Iron Mountain’s racking storage units qualify as real estate assets.

To qualify as a REIT, a company must meet certain numerical tests, including a requirement that 75 percent of its assets be “real estate assets.” REIT status is important because it allows a company to avoid paying the corporate tax. REITs instead pay out most of their income as dividends to investors, who are taxed at individual rates.

REITs were intended to be the equivalent of mutual funds for real estate investing. Publicly traded companies are normally taxed as corporations, and in the absence of the REIT provisions, it would be more difficult for small investors build a diverse portfolio of real estate assets.

Standard Deduction

View all posts

The problem is that many companies that resemble normal operating businesses now qualify as REITs.

Iron Mountain is a great example. Only on its tax return would one describe it as a real estate business. The value of the business turns on its ability to deliver information management services, including virtual and real document storage. The value of its real estate holdings is almost incidental to the business model.

Even though it seems like a stretch, Iron Mountain’s legal argument is not bad. Iron Mountain argues that the racking units are properly thought of as real estate, as they are affixed to the foundation of the building shell and intended to remain permanently in place.

In a securities filing, Iron Mountain disclosed that it learned that the I.R.S. formed a working group to define real estate for purposes of the REIT provisions. That the I.R.S. was “tentatively adverse” suggests it may not be persuaded by Iron Mountain’s arguments, or perhaps that it may simply be holding off on decisions like this while the working group examines the issue.

Other companies trying REIT conversions that could be affected include Lamar Advertising, an outdoor advertising firm, and Equinix, a data center operator. A front page New York Times article in April described other kinds of companies, like prison and casino operators, that have successfully converted to REITs.

The problem for the taxing authorities is that as the definition of REITs has expanded over time, the corporate tax base has eroded as more companies that look and act like ordinary businesses avoid paying the corporate tax.

The significance of the formation of an I.R.S. working group on the issue is unclear. In a newsletter, a tax expert, Robert Willens, apparently referring to The Times article, suggested that “the I.R.S. is reacting, uncharacteristically I might add, to the articles in the popular press that have questioned whether the Service has been unduly liberal in awarding REIT rulings.” Mr. Willens predicts that the working group will review recent rulings and conclude quickly that that nothing needs to be changed.

The erosion of the corporate tax base is a problem for Congress and the Treasury Department to address through tax legislation, not for the I.R.S. to change through its ruling policy. Congress shares responsibility for the problem thanks to its decision to allow taxable REIT subsidiaries to conduct activities that would otherwise jeopardize the qualifying status of REITs.

REITs often enter into cost-sharing agreements with taxable subsidiaries. One thing we learned from the Senate investigation into Apple’s offshore tax planning was the mischief that can be achieved through innocuous-looking cost-sharing agreements. Allowing the tax status of a parent company to depend on the arm’s length agreements of subsidiaries under common control is a proven recipe for tax avoidance.

Congress should revisit the broad availability of REIT status. Only by stemming the erosion of the corporate tax base will it be able to bring the corporate tax rate down to be more in line with our global trading partners.

For a discussion of how “blocker” entities, including taxable REIT subsidiaries, enable alterations to the tax base, see “ ‘Blockers,’ ‘Stoppers,’ and the Entity Classification Rules,” The Tax Lawyer (2011) by Willard B. Taylor.

Victor Fleischer is a professor at the University of Colorado Law School, where he teaches partnership tax, tax policy and deals. Twitter: @vicfleischer

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/defining-real-estate-broadly-to-avoid-corporate-taxes/

Home Invasion on Inspiration Drive in Dublin , CA

admin — Sat, 15 Jun 2013 02:06:13 +0000

Menacing Burglars Invade Home on Inspiration Drive in Dublin, CA

by Around Dublin Team | Topics: Announcements · Local Issues

Residents in and around Dublin, CA are advised to be on high alert. A home on the top of Inspiration drive, close Valley Christian Schools, was robbed yesterday morning. The suspects were filmed entering the premise at exactly 9:00AM.

The suspects allegedly used a crow bar to force entry through the front door. The suspect in the back of the picture was holding presents the family bought for a Dublin student, who is set to graduate from fifth grade.

Some have reported that the suspects were seen driving a white van with the words ‘mobile auto glass’ on the side. Anyone with information about these suspects are encouraged to contact Officer Bao of Dublin Police Services at (925) 462-1212.

Published on June 14, 2013

Related Articles

No related articles.

Article source: http://www.arounddublinblog.com/2013/06/dublin-ca-inspiration-drive-home-invasion/