Executive Benefit Strageties Inc.

Executive Benefit Strageties Inc. The goal of Executive Benefit Strategies Inc is to provide New Mexico companies with ways to retain top quality executive talent.

We help businesses owners:

Growing their business through their executive talent
-Provides Nonq-Qualified Executive Compensation Plans

Designing top quality exit strategies and living buyouts for business owners
-Without consulting us taxes can eat up the value of your business

Moving money from your business pocket to your personal pocket in a tax efficient manner
- We have a cap

ital transfer concept to eliminate out of pocket cost of tax burden

Garner a competitive advantage over your competition
-We redirect business capital reserves from flowing to the IRS

Shift personal wealth to creditor and predator protected assets
-We provide a umbrella of protection over you personal assets

Bring us on your team and we will work with your advisors
-Smart strategies to protect families and partners of business owners


Executive Benefit Strategies Inc. is a local firm in Albuquerque, New Mexico with access to national resources to provide New Mexico businesses peace of mind over their financial future.
_______________________________________

-Capital Transfer Strategy Solutions
-Non-Qualified Executive Compensation Plans
-Succession Planning Ideas
-Creative Living Buy-Outs
-Provide Asset Protection
-Tax Free Income Stream

To learn more contact Executive Benefit Strategies Inc. CEO Mary Lou Dobbs
Executive Benefit Strategies Inc.
505-688-6703
[email protected]

06/27/2023

A Rose, By Any Other Name

Ronald Reagan won the White House in 1980 partly by campaigning against incumbent Jimmy Carter and partly by campaigning against the 70% top income tax rate. Reagan preached a new gospel of "supply-side" economics, arguing that tax cuts would put money back in the pockets of ordinary Americans and unleash a wave of new economic activity and growth. And while Reagan's own running mate originally mocked it as "voodoo" economics, for forty years, that philosophy has influenced American tax policy, leading to more recent rounds of tax cuts in 2001, 2003, and most recently, 2017.

Of course, tax cuts aren't the only way the government can pump money into the economy. Sometimes it's more direct. For example, we spend north of $700 billion every year on national defense. That money doesn't just disappear into a black hole. It pays the salaries of 2.2 million active duty military personnel, 750,000 civilian personnel, and countless defense contractors. If you run a diner or a hardware store or a dental practice near a military base like Ft. Bragg, Ft. Campbell, or Ft. Hood, you benefit from that spending.

But sometimes Uncle Sam pumps money into pockets less directly, effectively passing a tax cut without actually cutting taxes. Businesses across the country may soon benefit from one of those moves.

Google and Meta — formerly Facebook — are drawing increasing fire for dominating the digital marketing space. Together, they hoover up 54 cents out of every digital advertising dollar, like a desperate partier doing lines in a nightclub bathroom. But Meta's tone-deaf responses to their endless string of scandals have won them no friends on Capitol Hill. (We call them "outrages"; Facebook calls them "days that end in 'y'.") Seriously, if you can put Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn and Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal on the same side of an issue, you're doing something.

Now Congress is considering antitrust action against the digital giants. How would that translate into "tax cuts"?

Well, if Congress and the DOJ break up Meta — specifically, separating the Facebook and Instagram platforms — competition should go up, and advertising costs should go down. That means thousands of small-to-medium-sized businesses will enjoy higher net profits, either because they spend less to get the same customers or get even more bang from their current ad spend. From where we sit, government action that puts money into business owners' pockets sounds an awful lot like a tax cut.

Ironically, while we can characterize shifting income from Silicon Valley to Middle America as a tax cut, it would actually mean more for Uncle Sam. Why? Because business owners generally pay a higher percentage of tax on their profits than Big Tech. Multinational companies like Google and Meta are famous for sidestepping tax on their billions in profits. From 2011-2020, Meta paid 12.7% in tax on $132.5 billion of income. But even if they paid the maximum corporate rate of 21%, that's significantly less than the maximum 37% for the small business owners who would benefit from lower ad costs.

As Congress starts to pressure Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, he looks more and more like a James Bond villain. (Don't be surprised if next time they haul him in to testify, he shows up petting a white cat on his lap.) But really, if Uncle Sam's antitrust action puts more money in your pocket, do you care if he keeps some of that windfall in the form of some tax dollars for himself?

04/26/2023

THAT'S HOT!!

Back in The Good Old Days, fame was something you earned by throwing a ball, selling a million records, lighting up a cinema screen, or landing on the moon. Then Paris Hilton decided she wanted to be famous without all that bother. So, armed with little more than a famous family name and fortune, a s*x tape, and some good old-fashioned moxie, she set the dial on her transporter to "celebrity" — and probably much to her surprise (and certainly ours), she actually got there!

What makes the whole thing even more amazing is that Paris started her climb before today's social media. Today there's an entire economy of YouTube "creators," Instagram "influencers," TikTok "stars," and whatever you call the people hanging out on Twitch. They're making names and creating fan bases for themselves in niche communities across the internet. A recent Morning Consult survey found that 86% of millennials and Gen Z-ers would post social media content for money. (If a star has lunch at Soho House and it doesn't get posted on Instagram, did it even really happen?)

On Veterans Day, an impossibly old (40!) Paris finally got married, to a venture capitalist, at a Bel-Air estate once owned by her grandfather. Naturally, cameras are trailing her for a new docuseries called Paris In Love that premiered last week on Peacock. (Peacock?) Now, Paris might think the world is breathlessly hanging on every move she makes. But for the most part, the world greeted the wedding with a yawn. That includes the gossip fans working in Washington at the IRS.

Getting married (or divorced) used to be a pretty big deal as far as taxes are concerned. There was the so-called "marriage penalty," which meant that most married couples paid more tax than they would if they were filing singly. And if the couple split, there would be a nice tax deduction for any alimony payments flowing from one ex-spouse to the other.

Today, though, the 2017 tax act has mostly eliminated the marriage penalty except in rare cases — for example, the cap on state and local tax deductions is capped at $10,000 for singles but not doubled to $20,000 for joint filers. That same act also eliminated special tax treatment for alimony arrangements entered into after 2018, which means that in the event Paris's marriage doesn't last "until death do us part," there won't be any chance to shift the tax burden on those payments to the lower-income spouse.

Having said that, you know who the IRS is watching? All those social media "celebrities." It turns out some of them aren't just making videos; they're making bank. Ryan Kaji made $29.5 million last year for his videos reviewing toys. Not bad for a nine-year-old. (Yes, you read that right.) Over on TikTok, Michael Le earned $20 million from his dancing videos and tutorials. Most of that money comes from advertising posted on the sites — typically 1-3 pennies per view on YouTube. Others use their platform to promote brands or hawk their own merchandise.

When was the last time you posted on Instagram? (Your pets have their own accounts, too — right?) Are you doing everything you can to monetize your name and your image? Or are you letting those opportunities slip away in the name of dignity, discretion, and good taste? If you can catch that particular lightning in a bottle, we'll be here to help you keep it!

04/05/2023

Free Advice

People have loved advice columns, in print and elsewhere, since Daniel Defoe launched the "Scandalous Club" back in 1704. Since then, we've lobbed questions to Abby, Ann, Polly, Prudence, Miss Manners, Dr. Phil, Dr. Ruth, Dr. Drew, Dr. Laura, and even Frasier Crane. ("I'm listening.") But few letters stand out like the one "Future Jailbird" sent last week to MarketWatch.com's "Moneyist" columnist, who covers "the ethics and etiquette of your financial affairs." Here are some highlights:

"Throughout our entire marriage, my wife and I jointly, upon our accountant's advice, defrauded the government by hiding income . . . . We are now divorcing after she left me for her pandemic boyfriend . . . . I say she's only entitled to our joint retirement, properties and holdings, and half of our joint business assets . . . . Yes, I know. This sounds ridiculous and yes, I know, we could both be in jail. I recommended no one do any digging, but she's adamant that she gets more, and damn the consequences of both our actions during the marriage to mutually defraud the government."

Wow. Hard to know where to start here, right? But let's dig in and give it a try.

Mrs. Jailbird sounds like a delight — a whiskey sour without the whiskey. Jailbird himself is clearly no prize, either. He sees nothing unfair in stealing from taxpayers — but doesn't want to share any of the loot with his literal partner-in-crime. He might want to rewatch the "Lufthansa heist" sequence from Martin Scorsese's romantic comedy Goodfellas to learn what happens when co-conspirators get greedy for their share of a score. (Spoiler alert: it doesn't end well.) We don't remember the kids on the playground chanting "swipers keepers, losers weepers," do you?

It's clear that Pandemic Boyfriend has no idea what sort of ride he's in for. Still, he probably deserves whatever he gets. As for the unnamed accountant, if he follows the Department of Justice's Twitter feed, , he'll see a fairly steady stream of press releases introducing readers to accountants who help their clients cheat. (Spoiler alert: it doesn't end well.)

MarketWatch's columnist advised getting a new accountant, a lawyer, and a mediator. "Your wife appears to have you over a barrel. She knows you well enough to take this gamble. The worst that can happen is you say no. What your wife does next is anyone's gamble." Still, he cautioned, if Mrs. Jailbird really does decide to Thelma-and-Louise her way into legend, "You both signed your tax returns, and you must take equal responsibility for that." (Spoiler alert: it's not gonna end well.)

Mr. & Mrs. Future Jailbird aren't the only couple turning to the Moneyist with their problems. Ex-Wife writes, "My ex-husband has a life insurance policy on me — and jokes he'll be 'Suspect No. 1' if I die. Other than haunting him, what can I do?" And Stuck writes, "My boyfriend talked me into depositing my paychecks into his bank account and paying for a car in his name. What can I do?" We suspect things won't end well for them, either.

There's gotta be a moral here, somewhere. Lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas? Keep your friends close and enemies closer? We're just sorry it's anonymous, meaning we probably won't learn how it ends. In the meantime, you can count on us to help you deliver the actual savings our lovebirds wanted, without all those sleepless nights, felony indictments, divorce lawyer bills, or public embarrassment!

03/29/2023

Unintended Consequences

Prussian Minister Otto von Bismarck once said that laws are like sausages: it's better not to see them being made. Frankly, that comparison is unfair to sausage makers. When was the last time a kitchen full of lawmakers cooked up something as tasty as a delicate Bavarian weisswürst, or as satisfying as a classic Wisconsin brat, or as fun as a cheddarwurst? But now the new administration has rolled out a grab-bag of tax changes as part of its American Jobs Plan (i.e., infrastructure week) and American Families Plan, and sausagemakers are rolling up their sleeves.

Changing the tax code used to be the sort of Serious Business you'd see in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. The landmark Tax Reform Act of 1986 was a heroic rewrite of the entire code following five days of sober hearings. A bipartisan coalition of legislative heavyweights like New York's Jack Kemp and New Jersey's Bill Bradley led the charge, battling a sea of lobbyists swamping "Gucci Gulch." The final text passed with majorities in both parties. (Ok, a few years later Dan Rostenkowski, the Ways & Means Chair who finally closed the deal, wound up in jail. But nobody's perfect.)

Today that sort of cooperation has vanished. (You thought it still works like Schoolhouse Rock? Awww, bless your heart.) Tinkering with the tax code is a grubby, partisan exercise in raw political power. Senate Republicans passed the 2017 tax act with hand-written edits in the margins, language we can only assume started out scrawled on the back of cocktail napkins. ("Hearings? We don't need no stinkin' hearings!") Few of the Senators voting on the $1.4 trillion bill had even seen the 479-page text before voting.

Now the circus is back in town. The White House has proposed raising the corporate rate back up to 28%, halfway between where it stood in 2017 and where it stands now. But rank-and-file Democrats, who seem happier closing loopholes than raising rates, look more inclined to settle on 25%. The administration has proposed hiking the capital gains rate on incomes over $1 million to 39.6%. That proposal drew fire faster than the first guy off the boat at Omaha Beach, and we'll probably wind up around 25% there, too.

Writing tax law is a wonderfully sadomasochistic interplay between pain and pleasure, between the bite of increases in one place and the sweet relief of cuts in another. Should estate taxes go back up? Will "coastal elites" get their unlimited state tax deductions back again? Come to think of it, the whole process might not be that different from deciding how much actual "meat" to stuff into those sausage casings, along with the "filler" and other icky stuff.

Whatever recipe they pick, lawmakers should consider how their plans might go wrong. In 1993, President Clinton thought it was unfair that corporate CEOs were making 60 times more than rank-and-file workers. So he added Code Section 162(m), which limits deductions for executive pay to "just" $1 million — except performance-based rewards like stock options and grants. Compensation committees laughed and restructured pay packages to meet the new rules. The result? For 2020, the average CEO took home over 300 times as much as the average employee.

We may not know until December what the tax system is going to look like in January. But our job won't change no matter where it goes: map a course for your finances to avoid any new red lights where you have to stop and pay, and take advantage of green lights where you can go without paying. Either way, you'll be way ahead of the people who settle for just recording their history under the new rules!

01/23/2023

Eat the Rich

Most Americans would agree that capitalism is the greatest wealth-creation engine the world has ever known. But it's hard to argue that capitalism distributes its rewards equally, and today's "winner take all" economy is concentrating wealth beyond Gilded Age levels. Forget about that top 1% the "Occupy Wall Street" movement targeted; we're talking the 1% of the 1%. That drives the central question of today's political economy: how hard should government work to combat inequality? People can and do argue in good faith from "not at all" to "lots harder than we are now."

Last week, the non-profit newsroom ProPublica cannonballed into that debate with a mighty splash — a report called The Secret IRS Files." Someone risked serious jail time to leak 15 years' worth of tax returns from bold-face names like Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and Warren Buffett. "IRS records show that the wealthiest can — perfectly legally — pay income taxes that are only a tiny fraction of the hundreds of millions, if not billions, their fortunes grow each year."

Pretty bold, and pretty damning, right? ProPublica continues, "America's billionaires avail themselves of tax avoidance strategies beyond the reach of ordinary people . . . . We compared how much in taxes the 25 richest Americans paid each year to how much Forbes estimated their wealth grew in that same time period. We're going to call this their true tax rate." But anyone who's taken a class in Federal Income Taxation can spot the flaw here — as the report itself acknowledges, those gains don't count as income "unless and until the billionaires sell."

What sort of numbers are we talking about? From 2004-2018, Warren Buffett's wealth grew by $24.3 billion. Yet over the same period, he paid just $23.7 million in federal income tax, for what ProPublica calls a "true" tax rate of just 0.10%. Scandalous, right? Storm the castle with torches and pitchforks! Well, no. Over that same period, Buffett reported $125 million of "income" under the statutory definition. So the $23.7 million he paid represents a far-less-scandalous 18.96%.

So, billionaires like Musk watch their stock soar and borrow against it to spend tax-free loan proceeds instead of selling it to spend taxable income. And the fabric in his socks is probably finer than the suits most men are buried in. But that strategy isn't limited to billionaires. If you bought a house 10 or 20 years ago, you've probably seen its value double or triple. You haven't paid any tax on that gain either. And you can borrow against it, just like Musk, with a home equity loan. Use the proceeds for business or investment and you can even deduct the interest you pay!

Oh, and when it comes time to sell that house? You'll get to exclude up to $500,000 of gain from your income. Elon Musk paid $17 million for a Bel-Air house in 2013, then sold it last June for $29 million. He'll pay a much bigger percentage of his gain in tax than you will.

We're not here to defend the tax system. But like it or not, it's the only one we've got. And as Judge Learned Hand famously said, "anyone may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible . . . there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes." (With a name like Learned Hand, he would know.) So count on us to help you pay less. ProPublica says it's perfectly legal . . . and Learned Hand says it's ethical and moral, too!

01/12/2023

All the Tender Sweetness of a Seasick Crocodile

Would you believe that Spotify offers over a million Christmas songs? There’s something for every taste. The best of them, like Placido Domingo and Luciano Pavarotti’s magnificent “O Holy Night,” are sublime evocations that lift the human spirit. Some, like Mariah Carey’s “All I Want for Christmas is You,” are banal background noise for department store Santas. And some, like Paul McCartney’s “Simply Having a Wonderful Christmas Time,” are just a lump of coal in your stocking.

But there’s one holiday classic everyone loves, and that’s “You’re a Mean One, Mr. Grinch.” We’re talking, of course, about Thurl Ravenscroft’s crypt-voiced rendition from the original 1966 animation. Fifty-three years later, the Grinch polls nearly as well as Santa Claus. And in Hollywood, where imitation is the most risk-averse form of flattery, that means cynical studio executives will churn out garbage remakes every few years until the day their hearts grow three sizes.

Remakes rarely delight critics and viewers the same way as the original. (The cover band at the country club Christmas party isn’t rockin’ around the Christmas tree quite like Brenda Lee, either.) But the 2000 live-action Grinch starring Jim Carrey grossed over $345 million. And last year’s animation with Benedict Cumberbatch cleared over half a billion. So it turns out the Scrooges at the IRS and various state tax departments don’t care which Grinch steals all those floo floopers and jing tinglers — they just want their share!

Fortunately, the tax code gives moviemakers a 39½-foot pole to keep the IRS at bay. From 2004 through 2016, Section 181 let you write off 100% of specified production costs, as soon as you incurred them, up to a cap of $15 million ($20 million in certain economically distressed areas). To qualify, you had to spend at least 75% of your production costs here in the U.S. The goal was to fight “runaway production,” where producers take everything else down to the last can of Who Hash abroad to film. And it worked, by helping domestic productions find financing.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 makes those same expenses, still called “Section 181 costs,” eligible for 100% bonus depreciation under Section 168(k). It also eliminates the previous $15 million cap. However, you can’t take your bigger write-off until the film is “placed in service,” meaning it’s actually released. And you may not get to write it off against your W2. At least the net income from moviemaking is eligible for the new Qualified Business Income deduction. (Even Little Cindy Lou Who knows that where Hollywood accounting is concerned, there’s never any “net.”)

Uncle Sam isn’t the only one who offers tax breaks for film producers. Many states offer incentives to lure productions to their jurisdictions like the Grinch lures his dog Max onto his sleigh. Louisiana has passed California as the most popular location for filming, thanks in part to the Bayou State’s generous 40% tax credit on expenses up to $180 million. New York is another film hotbed, with industry titans like Robert DeNiro investing $400 million in a Queens soundstage serving all phases of movie and TV production.

2019 is drawing to a close, and the holidays are here. It’s a special time of year, whichever holiday music brings you good cheer. And so, whether you’re celebrating from high atop Mt. Crumpet, or somewhere in the village down below, we wish you the very best of the season.

12/29/2022

Beam Me Up, Scotty!

Fifty-five years ago, NBC debuted a new series that producer Gene Rodenberry called "a Western in outer space — a so-called Wagon Train to the stars." Star Trek starred a journeyman Canadian actor named William Shatner as Captain James T. Kirk, helming a crew of comically diverse stereotypes (the Russian! The Scot! The Vulcan!) aboard the Starship Enterprise. Shatner went on to play the defining role of his career throughout the series' three-season run, as well as an animated spinoff and seven feature films.

Today, Shatner is still going strong at age 90, famous mostly for being William Shatner. And last week, he got to boldly go where few men have gone before, strapping on a space suit and joining three other passengers to the edge of space. He didn't use a transporter, or reach warp speed nine, or reach the Romulan neutral zone. He did it on a Blue Origin rocket owned by lifelong Trekkie Jeff Bezos; he topped out at just 2,235 miles per hour; and he climbed just 66.5 miles above the west Texas plain. But that was enough for him to describe it as "the most profound experience I can imagine."

Celebrity has its privileges. In Shatner's case, he paid for his flight with publicity. But two of his fellow passengers, both tech entrepreneurs, paid for theirs with cash. Blue Origin claims to have booked $100 million in ticket sales. Richard Branson's competing company, Virgin Galactic, has sold 600 tickets to space at roughly $200,000 each. And Elon Musk's SpaceX, which launched a Tesla into orbit, charges an estimated $50 million to ferry passengers all the way to the International Space Station.

Right now, those tickets are just defraying the cost of shooting people into space. But someone, someday, will finally turn a profit on space travel. (Will it happen before or after someone, someday, finally turns a profit on ride-sharing?) At that point, the sci-fi fans at the IRS will perk up and start paying attention.

Taxing individual astronauts is easy. Here in the U.S., you pay on all your income wherever you earn it. Now, you can exclude up to $107,600 of foreign income from your tax return, and you can claim a credit for foreign taxes you pay. But those rules assume you're paying tax somewhere else. In 2008, the Tax Court ruled that a married couple couldn't exclude wages they earned in Antarctica. Why? Because it isn't a "country," so there's no government, so there's no tax. While that may sound like the ultimate libertarian paradise (minus, y'know, the weather), the same precedent applies to astronauts earning income in space.

Taxing space businesses like Blue Origin presents tougher challenges. Corporations are infamous for shifting income to places like Bermuda or Ireland with lower rates than our own 21%. What happens when corporations argue the nexus of their income is space, where the marginal tax rate is lower than the force of gravity?

The real losers here are likely to be the states, which have no reach beyond their own borders. Elon Musk has already announced he's moving himself and Tesla to Texas to avoid California's maximum 13.3% tax. Who doubts he would move to Mars if he thought it could mean paying even less?

Someday, one of you reading this article is going to visit space. We don't know when and we don't know where, and you'll probably have to wait a while for it. But all of you can make smarter choices with your business and taxes. That's where we come in. So beam yourself up to our office and let's talk. It may not be as profound as traveling to space — but we're pretty sure you'll appreciate the results!

11/17/2022

Careful What You Wish For

It’s 2020, and yet in today’s Disneyfied America, little girls still dream of becoming princesses. Really, what’s not to like about it? You get all the pomp and circumstance of the royal court without the inconvenient stress of actually running the country. You get to show off the crown jewels. You even get to lead the paparazzi everywhere you go, so they can compete to make snarky comments about your dress or snap a pic of you picking your nose.

Actress Meghan Markle got to live the dream when she married Prince Harry to become Her Royal Highness, the Duchess of Suss*x. Apparently, though, princessing is a lot like Season Three of The Crown — it overpromises and underdelivers. Now she and Harry are giving up their “Royal Highness” titles, vacating the palace to become working blokes, and planning to spend more time in North America. Next stop, Canada: out with the Royal Philharmonic, polo and high tea, in with Nickelback, hockey, and poutine.

Naturally, the big move means big changes for the couple’s finances. People like us spilled gallons of ink writing about how Megan’s marriage would affect her taxes. So now that the Suss*xes have announced “Megxit,” you get to spend hours reading about them all over again. Spoiler alert: they’re still going to be a royal pain in the arse.

The couple have been drawing 95% of their state income — estimated at around $2.5 million per year — from Prince Charles’s Duchy of Cornwall income. They draw a few more quid from the tax-free Sovereign Grant, which the government pays the Queen for royal family operations. They also earn income from their own assets, estimated at $25 million for Harry (built on inheritances from the Queen Mum and Princess Di), and $5 million for Meghan (built on her acting career). The move will mean giving up their Sovereign Grant income, and possibly the Duchy as well.

So, off to work they go! Fortunately, they’re expected to command six-figure speaking fees. As a U.S. citizen, Meghan will keep paying U.S. tax no matter where in the world she speaks. However, if she spends more than six months abroad, she can exclude $107,600 of foreign income from her U.S. tax. That may sound like a lot to us — but for a princess, it barely covers the ladies’ maid and gas for the Bentley.

Meghan also needs to consider state taxes. (You probably thought princesses are too pretty to worry about that.) They were still deductible when she left, but now that deduction is capped at $10,000 per year (£7,665). She’s already moved her company, Frim Fram Inc., from California to Delaware, where she’ll avoid the Golden State’s 8.84% corporate tax.

Harry remains a Brit, which gives him more ways to plan where he lives and works. His British income is taxed at 45% on anything over £150,000. If he spends enough time in Canada, he’ll pay 33% on his Canadian income over $214,368. But if he spends too much time here, in the United States, everything becomes subject to our tax. (Don’t get too used to the California sun!)

We realize you aren’t making room in your family budget for tiaras and scepters. But you don’t have to be a royal to take advantage of planning to pay less tax. That’s where we come in. So count on us to help, without shipping you off to Canada!

11/09/2022

Making the Grade

People have always aspired to "make the grade" and take their place on the lists of the world's most famous and accomplished people. A generation ago, business executives and politicians aimed for Who's Who in America, while athletes aimed for the Hall of Fame and entertainers pined for stars on the Walk of Fame. Today, the internet has brought those lists online, made them searchable, and added new ones: Wikipedia.com for general noteworthiness, IMDB.com for Hollywood players, and the Forbes 400 for billionaires.

But there's one searchable online directory nobody wants to make, and that's the Bureau of Prisons Inmate Locator. And while most of the lucky nominees wind up on that list for drug offenses, weapons charges, or s*x offenses, the list has a fair number of tax cheats, too.

Two years ago, prosecutors indicted dozens of rich and famous parents for hiring a crooked college counselor named Rick Singer to buy their children's way into more prestigious colleges than they could earn their way into on their own. Sometimes that involved cheating on standardized tests. Other times, it involved using a fake charity to launder bribes to college coaches to admit the kids as athletic recruits.

Ironically, many of those parents got their kids admitted just in time for COVID-19 to empty those campuses. The kids wound up sitting in Zoom classes just like their classmates at state schools (oh, the horror!), and missing out on the real college experience that those of us who studied in a more innocent era enjoyed: keg stands, cow-tipping, and the occasional Walk of Shame. Today's vocabulary word is schadenfreude, kids.

When indictments dropped, the smart parents folded right away. Actress Felicity Huffman pled guilty just two months after the scandal broke and spent just 11 days in jail. Others dithered before bowing to the inevitable. Actress Lori Laughlin took two years to accept a plea deal that included spending two months in a very full house.

But a few hardy souls chose to go down swinging. Some people just can't take no for an answer — maybe that's why they wound up indicted in the first place. They included John Wilson, a private equity investor headquartered on Cape Cod. (Translation: he's a rich guy who does deals.) In 2014, he "donated" $220,000 to Singer's charity to buy his son's way into USC. He even deducted it on his taxes! He must not have had any problem sleeping at night because in 2018 he dropped another $1.5 million to get his twin daughters into Harvard and Stanford.

On Friday, Wilson's verdict came down. Not surprisingly, the jury found him and his co-defendant, a former casino executive, "guilty as hell." No, that's not an official verdict, but it really should be. Now Wilson stands convicted of various conspiracy and fraud charges, including one count of filing a false tax return. Sentencing is in February, and he can expect about four years in jail. Ironically, that's about as long as his kids spent in the considerably more prestigious institutions he cheated to get them into.

John Wilson was, by any measure, one of the most privileged people to walk the face of the earth, a card-carrying 1%er in the richest country in the history of the world. But that wasn't enough, not if his kids had to settle for Boston College instead of Harvard or UCLA instead of Stanford. Defrauding the government just means more jail time. Sometimes enough really is enough.

Address

920 Candelaria Road NW
Albuquerque, NM
87107

Opening Hours

Monday 9am - 5pm
Tuesday 9am - 5pm
Wednesday 9am - 5pm
Thursday 9am - 5pm
Friday 9am - 5pm
Saturday 9am - 5pm

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Executive Benefit Strageties Inc. posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share

Category