<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>SC Tax Lawyers / South Carolina…</title>
	<atom:link href="http://sctaxlawyers.com/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://sctaxlawyers.com</link>
	<description>South Carolina , North Carolina and Federal Tax Matters</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 May 2013 20:34:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>South Carolina Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Sales and Use Tax Exemptions&#8230;For Now</title>
		<link>http://sctaxlawyers.com/south-carolina-supreme-court-rejects-challenge-to-sales-and-use-tax-exemptions-for-now</link>
		<comments>http://sctaxlawyers.com/south-carolina-supreme-court-rejects-challenge-to-sales-and-use-tax-exemptions-for-now#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 May 2013 20:29:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam B. Landy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Sales Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bodman vs. SC and SCDOR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[individual sales tax exemption]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sales cap]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sales tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax exemption]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sctaxlawyers.com/?p=462</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On Wednesday, May 8, 2013, the South Carolina Supreme Court (the “Court”) rejected a taxpayer’s constitutional challenge to the state’s sales and use tax caps and exemptions codified in South Carolina Code Sections 12-36-2110 and 12-36-2120.  However, the Court expressly&#160;&#8230; <a href="http://sctaxlawyers.com/south-carolina-supreme-court-rejects-challenge-to-sales-and-use-tax-exemptions-for-now">finish&#160;reading&#160;South Carolina Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Sales and Use Tax Exemptions&#8230;For Now</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://sctaxlawyers.com/south-carolina-supreme-court-rejects-challenge-to-sales-and-use-tax-exemptions-for-now/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Accounting Firm Members Held Personally Liable For Client&#8217;s Unpaid Federal Employment Taxes</title>
		<link>http://sctaxlawyers.com/accounting-firm-members-held-personally-liable-for-clients-unpaid-federal-employment-taxes</link>
		<comments>http://sctaxlawyers.com/accounting-firm-members-held-personally-liable-for-clients-unpaid-federal-employment-taxes#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2013 19:48:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Erik P. Doerring</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Accounting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Liable]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sctaxlawyers.com/?p=455</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A federal district court has ruled that the members of an accounting firm were each personally liable for the trust fund potion of the unpaid federal employment taxes of their client. Buddy Light Accounting &#38; Tax Services provided accounting and&#160;&#8230; <a href="http://sctaxlawyers.com/accounting-firm-members-held-personally-liable-for-clients-unpaid-federal-employment-taxes">finish&#160;reading&#160;Accounting Firm Members Held Personally Liable For Client&#8217;s Unpaid Federal Employment Taxes</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://sctaxlawyers.com/accounting-firm-members-held-personally-liable-for-clients-unpaid-federal-employment-taxes/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>South Carolina Property Owners Can Now Challenge Property Tax Valuations Where They Did Not Own Property In The Prior Year</title>
		<link>http://sctaxlawyers.com/south-carolina-property-owners-can-now-challenge-property-tax-valuations-where-they-did-not-own-property-in-the-prior-year</link>
		<comments>http://sctaxlawyers.com/south-carolina-property-owners-can-now-challenge-property-tax-valuations-where-they-did-not-own-property-in-the-prior-year#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Apr 2013 17:42:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Erik P. Doerring</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Property Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[property tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[South Carolina Administrative Law Court (ALC)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax practitioners]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taylor v. Aiken County Assessor]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sctaxlawyers.com/?p=446</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In what can only be considered a “game-changer” for South Carolina property owners, the South Carolina Court of Appeals in Taylor v. Aiken County Assessor, ___ S.E.2d ___, 2013 WL 1223185 (S.C. Ct. App., March 27, 2013) has recently ruled&#160;&#8230; <a href="http://sctaxlawyers.com/south-carolina-property-owners-can-now-challenge-property-tax-valuations-where-they-did-not-own-property-in-the-prior-year">finish&#160;reading&#160;South Carolina Property Owners Can Now Challenge Property Tax Valuations Where They Did Not Own Property In The Prior Year</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://sctaxlawyers.com/south-carolina-property-owners-can-now-challenge-property-tax-valuations-where-they-did-not-own-property-in-the-prior-year/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>IRS Modifies and Temporarily Expands Worker Voluntary Classification Settlement Program</title>
		<link>http://sctaxlawyers.com/irs-modifies-expands-worker-voluntary-classification-settlement-program</link>
		<comments>http://sctaxlawyers.com/irs-modifies-expands-worker-voluntary-classification-settlement-program#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2012 14:54:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jeffrey T. Allen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Forms 1099]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[independent contractor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[VCSP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voluntary classification settlement program]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sctaxlawyers.com/?p=423</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The IRS announced an important settlement program, the Voluntary Classification Settlement Program or VCSP, on September 21, 2011.  Under VCSP, qualifying employers who misclassified workers as independent contractors were able to come forward and enter into a settlement with the&#160;&#8230; <a href="http://sctaxlawyers.com/irs-modifies-expands-worker-voluntary-classification-settlement-program">finish&#160;reading&#160;IRS Modifies and Temporarily Expands Worker Voluntary Classification Settlement Program</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://sctaxlawyers.com/irs-modifies-expands-worker-voluntary-classification-settlement-program/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>IRS Announces New Procedures for U.S. Citizens Residing Overseas Who Have Not Filed Tax Returns and Reported Income</title>
		<link>http://sctaxlawyers.com/new-procedures-for-u-s-citizens-residing-overseas-who-have-not-filed-tax-returns-and-reported-income</link>
		<comments>http://sctaxlawyers.com/new-procedures-for-u-s-citizens-residing-overseas-who-have-not-filed-tax-returns-and-reported-income#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2012 15:00:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam B. Landy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FBAR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[income tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IRS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new alternative compliance procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OVDP]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sctaxlawyers.com/?p=413</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The IRS has long been aware of U.S. taxpayers living overseas who have not filed federal income tax returns or Reports of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (“FBARs”).  Earlier this year, the IRS announced the reopening of its successful Offshore&#160;&#8230; <a href="http://sctaxlawyers.com/new-procedures-for-u-s-citizens-residing-overseas-who-have-not-filed-tax-returns-and-reported-income">finish&#160;reading&#160;IRS Announces New Procedures for U.S. Citizens Residing Overseas Who Have Not Filed Tax Returns and Reported Income</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://sctaxlawyers.com/new-procedures-for-u-s-citizens-residing-overseas-who-have-not-filed-tax-returns-and-reported-income/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>First Circuit Ruling May Provide More Flexibility for Conservation Easement Donors in Dealing With Lenders</title>
		<link>http://sctaxlawyers.com/first-circuit-ruling-may-provide-more-flexibility-for-conservation-easement-donors-in-dealing-with-lenders</link>
		<comments>http://sctaxlawyers.com/first-circuit-ruling-may-provide-more-flexibility-for-conservation-easement-donors-in-dealing-with-lenders#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2012 14:00:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>George E. Morrison</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conservation easement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[income tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IRS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[subordination of lender rights]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sctaxlawyers.com/?p=402</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in Kaufman v. Shulman, Docket No. 11-2017P-01A (1st Cir., July 19, 2012), reversed a Tax Court decision siding with the IRS which had disallowed a couple&#8217;s conservation easement deduction.  The Tax Court&#160;&#8230; <a href="http://sctaxlawyers.com/first-circuit-ruling-may-provide-more-flexibility-for-conservation-easement-donors-in-dealing-with-lenders">finish&#160;reading&#160;First Circuit Ruling May Provide More Flexibility for Conservation Easement Donors in Dealing With Lenders</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://sctaxlawyers.com/first-circuit-ruling-may-provide-more-flexibility-for-conservation-easement-donors-in-dealing-with-lenders/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Importance of a Qualified Appraisal for Conservation Easements</title>
		<link>http://sctaxlawyers.com/importance-of-qualified-appraisal-for-conservation-easements</link>
		<comments>http://sctaxlawyers.com/importance-of-qualified-appraisal-for-conservation-easements#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2012 14:00:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam B. Landy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conservation easement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[income tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[qualified appraisal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Treasury Regulations]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sctaxlawyers.com/?p=391</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Landowners may be allowed a federal income tax deduction for the contribution of a conservation easement restricting donated property.  A qualified conservation contribution is a donation of a qualified real property interest to a qualified organization which is exclusively used&#160;&#8230; <a href="http://sctaxlawyers.com/importance-of-qualified-appraisal-for-conservation-easements">finish&#160;reading&#160;The Importance of a Qualified Appraisal for Conservation Easements</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://sctaxlawyers.com/importance-of-qualified-appraisal-for-conservation-easements/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Rejects IRS Transferee Liability Theory</title>
		<link>http://sctaxlawyers.com/transferee-liability-theory-reject</link>
		<comments>http://sctaxlawyers.com/transferee-liability-theory-reject#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Jun 2012 14:00:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jeffrey T. Allen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[company shareholder]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intermediary transaction tax shelter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IRS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[liable as a transferee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[starnes v. commissioner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sctaxlawyers.com/?p=383</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On May 31, 2012 the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in the case of Starnes v. Commissioner, upholding a decision of the United States Tax Court which determined that the former shareholders of a corporation were not&#160;&#8230; <a href="http://sctaxlawyers.com/transferee-liability-theory-reject">finish&#160;reading&#160;Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Rejects IRS Transferee Liability Theory</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://sctaxlawyers.com/transferee-liability-theory-reject/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>IRS Announces More Flexible Offer-in-Compromise Terms to Help More Struggling Taxpayers Make a Fresh Start</title>
		<link>http://sctaxlawyers.com/flexible-offer-in-compromise-fresh-start</link>
		<comments>http://sctaxlawyers.com/flexible-offer-in-compromise-fresh-start#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Jun 2012 13:18:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam B. Landy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Income Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal tax liability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fresh start]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IRS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OIC]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sctaxlawyers.com/?p=377</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On Monday, May 21, 2012, the Internal Revenue Service announced another expansion of its &#8220;Fresh Start&#8221; initiative by offering more flexible terms to its Offer in Compromise (“OIC”) program with the goal of assisting more financially distressed taxpayers in resolving&#160;&#8230; <a href="http://sctaxlawyers.com/flexible-offer-in-compromise-fresh-start">finish&#160;reading&#160;IRS Announces More Flexible Offer-in-Compromise Terms to Help More Struggling Taxpayers Make a Fresh Start</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://sctaxlawyers.com/flexible-offer-in-compromise-fresh-start/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Eighth Circuit Ruling Highlights Risks in S-Corporation Compensation Planning</title>
		<link>http://sctaxlawyers.com/s-corporation</link>
		<comments>http://sctaxlawyers.com/s-corporation#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2012 14:00:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>George E. Morrison</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment Tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dividend distribution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employee shareholder]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reclassified dividends as additional salary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[s-corporation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sctaxlawyers.com/?p=368</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, in the recent case of Watson, P.C. v. US, 109 AFTR 2d 2012-1059, 668 F. 3d 1008 affirming the district court below, held that an S-corporation shareholder’s 2002 and 2003 reported salaries were unreasonably low,&#160;&#8230; <a href="http://sctaxlawyers.com/s-corporation">finish&#160;reading&#160;Eighth Circuit Ruling Highlights Risks in S-Corporation Compensation Planning</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://sctaxlawyers.com/s-corporation/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
