Wesley Sierk's Blog

What are captive insurance companies? Mo

Posted in Uncategorized by rwsierk on June 6, 2014

What are captive insurance companies?
More than half of American big business is participating at some level in the captive insurance market. These businesses manage to their insurance risk and profit by it through the creation of their own insurance company. Some companies lease captives from traditional insurance company or belong to similar sector groups. They all have one goal in mind saving money on premiums and profiting from low claims. Steve Savant, syndicated financial columnist and talk show host of Let’s Get Down to Business, interviews nationally recognized captive insurance company expert, Wes Sierk, ChFC, ACI, ARM.



Here is a recent article on State Tax Cr

Posted in Uncategorized by rwsierk on December 31, 2013

Here is a recent article on State Tax Credits from the LA Times. http://ow.ly/sbahT

Avoid Paying Taxes in 2013. Put money in

Posted in Uncategorized by rwsierk on December 31, 2013

Avoid Paying Taxes in 2013. Put money into a domestic film. 3 to 1 deductions. For Every $1 Contributed, $3 in deductions off your Federal Tax Bill. Go to RMA Film for the details. http://ow.ly/sb8N3

According to Jerry Brown ” California’

Posted in Uncategorized by rwsierk on May 16, 2013

According to Jerry Brown ” California’s budget is balanced for the foreseeable future”. Does he thing we are that dumb?

California Superior Court Tells the Franchise Tax Board to Pound Sand and Protects California Taxpayer for their Nevada Corporation

Posted in Asset Protection, Taxes by rwsierk on February 22, 2013

In an amazing decision the California Superior Court tells the California Franchise Tax Board they could not tax a California resident for his Nevada Corporation. This is an example of doing things right, dotting every ‘i’ and crossing every ‘t’ works on behalf of the taxpayer. Thanks to Jay Adkisson for his insight and analysis on this case.





[Tentative and Proposed]


The action was tried before the Court on November 5, and November 6, 2012. Plaintiff, Daniel V Inc., submitted its closing argument on November 27, 2012. Defendant, California Franchise Tax Board, submitted its closing augments on December 11, 2012. On December 18, 2102, plaintiff submitted its rebuttal argument. After due consideration of those arguments, the evidence presented at trial and the pleadings on file, Court hereby issues its tentative and proposed statement of decision.


Plaintiff’s Complaint sets forth a single cause of action pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code sec. 19382 for the Refund of Taxes, Interest and Penalties Paid. The complaint alleges that the defendant Franchise Tax Board issued a Notice of Proposed Assessment with respect to Plaintiff’s 1997 and 1998 tax years. The proposed assessments were based upon defendant’s conclusion that plaintiff was commercially domiciled in the state of California. Plaintiff maintains that at all relevant times, it was a Nevada corporation, that its principle place of business was in Nevada and that it was commercially domiciled in Nevada. Plaintiff’s protests to the proposed assessment were denied, as were plaintiff’s subsequent appeals to the State Board of Equalization and plaintiff’s claims for a refund. Plaintiff paid the Franchise Tax Board a total of $123,414.02 for taxes, interest and penalties for the year 1997 and $2,150,500.00 for the year 1998.


The resolution of this cases rest on the single issue as to whether plaintiff has met its burden of proof in establishing that it was commercially domiciled in the state of Nevada for the years 1997 and 1998. To that end, plaintiff submitted documentary evidence and oral testimony to support its contention.

Daniel V is incorporated in the state of Nevada. Plaintiff has made it clear that it does not intend to rely upon any presumption that a commercial domicile is the place of its incorporation. Nevertheless, the court considers this fact as a starting point for any analysis in determining the commercial domicile of a corporation. Plaintiff submitted uncontroverted evidence in its case in chief to meet its burden of proof that Nevada was the commercial domicile of Daniel V, Inc. It maintained its corporate office in that state. Plaintiff’s bank accounts were held at the Bank of America branch in Las Vegas, Nevada. Its brokerage accounts were maintained with the Merrill Lynch office in Las Vegas, Nevada. Board of Directors meetings were held at the plaintiff’s office in Nevada. Plaintiff’s original books and records were maintained in Nevada. David Hehn was plaintiff’s only corporate officer. He resided in Nevada. He singed all plaintiff’s checks, handled plaintiff’s expenditures and business affairs from Nevada. From all objective criteria, it would appear that the state of Nevada was the place of plaintiff’s commercial domicile.

Defendant’s primary contention is that Ron Lane, a California resident, in fact managed and directed Daniel V, Inc. from California. Mr. Lane was Daniel V’s sole shareholder and a member of its board of directors. Revenue and Taxation Code sec. 25120(b) defines a corporation’s “commercial domicile” as “the principal place from which the trade or business of the taxpayer is directed or managed.” Defendant submitted no direct evidence to support its contention that Daniel V, Inc. was directed or managed by Ron Lane. The direct evidence produced at trial supports an entirely different conclusion. Both David Hehn and Ron Lane testified that Lane did not instruct Hehn on investments, that decisions on corporate matters were made by Hehn, and that Lane relied upon Hehn to manage Daniel V, Inc. The court found the testimony of both witnesses to be credible. By contrast, defendant’s evidence consisted entirely of circumstantial evidence from which defendant asks the court to infer Mr. Lane was directing or managing the affairs of Daniel V, Inc. from California. The evidence is simply insufficient to draw any such inference, particularly in the face of the direct evidence to the contrary.


The Court finds in favor of Plaintiff. The Court orders a refund of the taxes paid, the interest paid, and the penalties paid. The Court further finds plaintiff to be entitled to an award of interest at the legal rate from and after the date of each payment made by plaintiff.

The Court determines plaintiff to be the prevailing party and awards cost and fees in an amount to be determined on subsequent motion. If no objection is filed within the time proscribed by California Rule of Court 3.1590, the proposed statement of decision will be become final.

Plaintiff is to submit a proposed form of judgment.

Date: February 6, 2013
Mark V. Mooney
Judge of the Los Angeles
Superior Court

Obama Picks Political Warrior for Treasury

Posted in Political by rwsierk on January 11, 2013

Obama picks a political warrior for Treasury.

For those of you who missed it. From the WSJ

President Obama is expected to name Jack Lew as his Treasury secretary on Thursday, continuing his cabinet’s second-term makeover in his own image. He is assembling a team of personal and ideological loyalists whose job will be less to offer independent advice than to advance and implement his agenda for a larger, more redistributionist government.

Mr. Lew’s nomination will disappoint those (mostly naive CEOs) who were hoping for a second-term agenda more hospitable to business and private economic growth. Save for a stint in Robert Rubin’s Citigroup, where Democrats go to monetize their political connections, and a few years as an academic, Mr. Lew is a Washington lifer whose expertise is politics. He brings no special knowledge or experience in economic policy, private industry or global finance.

It’s notable how Mr. Lew’s reputation has changed during the Obama years. As White House budget director in the Clinton era, he was viewed by Republicans as a reasonable liberal they could do business with. But as budget director and chief of staff in the Obama White House, Mr. Lew has been the President’s most partisan and implacable negotiator.

Our sources who have been in the room with the 57-year-old say he is now a fierce defender of entitlements in their current form, resists all but token spending restraint, and favors higher tax rates. In taking these positions he no doubt reflects Mr. Obama, but no one should think he’ll emerge as his own man at Treasury.

It’s also worth noting how different Mr. Lew’s selection is from most modern Treasury secretaries, of either party. Democrats have tended to select men with credibility in the business or financial worlds. JFK chose Republican financier Douglas Dillon, while Bill Clinton chose moderate Texas Senator Lloyd Bentsen and then Mr. Rubin of Goldman Sachs . George W. Bush picked former or current CEOs, though until Hank Paulson economic policy was run out of the White House.

Mr. Lew’s selection signals similar White House dominance, as well as a degrading of Treasury’s traditional role as the voice for pro-growth policies. Mr. Lew is not the economic general you choose if you’re looking for tax reform or a bold growth agenda.

He’s the man you pick if you expect months of political trench warfare over taxes and spending. He’s the partisan you nominate if your overriding political goal is to destroy House Republicans in the midterm elections, not strike a deal with them.

Mr. Lew’s nomination would continue the post-election trend of Obama Unfettered. There’s no more restraining his progressive agenda, as during the last two years. Chuck Hagel will be unleashed to shrink the Pentagon and reduce America’s global military footprint. John Kerry will be dispatched to give engagement with Iran and other U.S. adversaries another try, whether or not they’re interested.

But Mr. Obama’s main project is to reorder the relationship of Americans to their government. His goal is to extend and entrench entitlements into the daily expectations of the middle class—from cradle to college to health care during the working years to retirement and then the grave. The productive engines of the private U.S. economy are to be reoriented to finance this income redistribution.

His first four years, at least before House Republicans rudely interrupted, were about extending and entrenching the entitlements. His next four years will be about protecting every inch of that expansion while trying to find the means to pay for it.

Mr. Lew’s main job will be to cajole or pound that money out of Republicans. And if he can’t do that, he’ll try to position Democrats to retake the House in 2014. Then in Mr. Obama’s final two years, the President and Nancy Pelosi could finish what they started and impose the new energy tax or value-added tax they know is essential to finance their dreams because it taps the middle…

The Fiscal Cliff Was Avoided! Oh Wait……

Posted in Political by rwsierk on January 3, 2013

Below is the summary of the bill, you MUST read all the way to the bottom where I put it in perspective.

American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (HR 8)

The legislation would allow tax rates to rise on the nation’s highest earners while also extending dozens of tax cuts for individuals and businesses. Specifically, the bill:

  • Raises the top tax rate to 39.6% for married couples earning $450,000; single taxpayers earning $400,000. These amounts will be indexed for inflation.
  • Raises long-term capital gains and qualifying dividends tax rate to 20% (from 15%) for taxpayers in the 39.6% tax bracket for regular and alternative minimum tax.
  • Permanently extends Bush-era tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 for all other taxpayers.
  • Reinstates phase out of personal exemptions and overall limitation on itemized deductions for married couples filing jointly earning over $300,000 and single taxpayers earning over $250,000.
  • Raises the maximum estate tax rate to 40% but keeps the exemption amount at $5 million, adjusted for inflation.
  • Extends for 5 years (through 2018) the American Opportunity Tax Credit to pay for higher education, and special relief for families with 3 or more children for the refundable portion of the child tax credit and increased percentage for the earned income tax credit.
  • Patches the AMT for 2012 and adjusts the exemption amount for inflation going forward.
  • Extends through 2013 the following individual tax benefits: above the line deduction for teacher expenses, relief from cancellation of debt income for principal residences, parity for employer-provided mass transit benefits, deduction for mortgage insurance premiums as interest, election to deduct state and local sales taxes in lieu of income taxes, above the line deduction for qualified education expenses, tax-free distributions from IRA accounts for charitable purposes.
  • Extends through 2013 certain business tax provisions that expired at the end of 2011 including: the research credit, the new markets tax credit, railroad track maintenance credit, mine rescue team training credit, work opportunity credit, the Section 179 asset expensing at $500,000, Section 1202 stock exclusion at 100%, and empowerment zone incentives. 
  • Extends 50% bonus depreciation through 2013.
  • Extends through 2013 certain energy tax incentives that expired at the end of 2011 including: energy efficient credit for existing homes, alternative fuel vehicle refueling property credit, biodiesel and renewable diesel incentives, wind credit, energy efficient credit for new homes, and credit for manufacture of energy efficient appliances.
  • The legislation does not continue the payroll tax holiday which reduced Social Security taxes from 6.2% to 4.2% for employees for 2011 and 2012. Consequently, the rate is now 6.2% for 2013.

You can read the numbers but let’s put it in perspective:

  • US Tax Revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
  • Federal Budget: $3,820,000,000,000
  • New Debt: $1,650,000,000,000
  • National Debt: $14,271,000,000,000
  • Recent Budget Cuts: $38,500,000,000

Now let’s remove the last 8 zeros and pretend it was your family’s ‘Fiscal Cliff’:

  • Family Income: $21,700
  • What your Family SPENDS Annually: $38,200
  • New Credit Card Debt: $16,500
  • Total Family Debt: $142,710
  • Recent Budget Cuts: $38.50

Was any ‘Fiscal Cliff’ really avoided?

You have to watch this video!!! I was sh

Posted in Uncategorized by rwsierk on December 6, 2012

You have to watch this video!!! I was shocked that the CFT would produce such a video. Shame on them. http://ow.ly/fTaGd

The Fun Has Begun!!

Posted in Political by rwsierk on November 14, 2012

The Fun Has Begun!!

White House press secretary Jay Carney said the president would bring to the table a proposal for $1.6 trillion in new taxes on business and the wealthy when he begins discussions with congressional Republicans, a figure that Obama outlined in his most recent budget plan. The targeted revenue is twice the amount Obama discussed with Republican leaders during debt talks during the summer of 2011.

California’s Liberal Supermajority

Posted in Political, Uncategorized by rwsierk on November 14, 2012

California’s Liberal Supermajority