Skip to content

Compliance Building

Doug Cornelius on compliance for private equity real estate

Menu
  • Home
  • About
    • About
    • About Doug
    • About This Website
    • Why I Blog
    • Speaking Engagements
    • Contact
    • Publications
  • Archives
    • Topic Archive
    • Book Reviews
    • Most Popular
  • Subscribe
  • Disclaimers
    • Disclaimers
    • Policies and Procedures
    • Use of Site Content
    • Comments
    • FTC Disclosure
Menu

You’re a Victim of a Ponzi Scheme, But What About Your State Taxes?

Posted on June 11, 2009June 27, 2014 by Doug Cornelius
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

IRS_Logo

You missed the warning signs and got suckered into a Ponzi scheme. The IRS offered some tax relief for long-term Ponzi scheme investors (like some of the Madoff victims) who have paid taxes on gains from the investment. The IRS clarified the federal tax law governing the treatment of losses in Ponzi schemes. They also set out a safe harbor method for computing and reporting the losses.

The revenue ruling (2009-9) addresses the difficulty in determining the amount and timing of losses from Ponzi schemes and the prospect of recovering the lost money. The revenue procedure (2009-20) simplifies compliance for taxpayers by providing a safe-harbor for determining the year in which the loss is deemed to occur and a simplified means of calculating the amount of the loss.

But what about state taxes?

California: On March 25, 2009, the California Franchise Tax Board announced that the federal guidance (Revenue Ruling 2009-9 and Revenue Procedure 2009-20) regarding the treatment of Madoff-related or other Ponzi scheme losses would be generally applicable for California purposes.

Connecticut: On April 9, 2009, the Connecticut Department of Revenue Services released Connecticut Announcement No. 2009(7), which describes the effect for Connecticut income tax purposes of the reporting of Madoff-related or other Ponzi scheme losses under the Revenue Procedure 2009-20 safe harbor and under Revenue Ruling 2009-9. In general, Connecticut does not allow federal itemized deductions for Connecticut income tax purposes. Thus, any theft loss deduction claimed by a taxpayer under the Revenue Procedure 2009-20 safe harbor will not affect a taxpayer’s 2008 Connecticut income tax liability. However, if the amount of a taxpayer’s theft loss deduction allowed under Revenue Ruling 2009-9 or Revenue Procedure 2009-20 creates an NOL, then the taxpayer must file amended Connecticut income tax return(s) for the year(s) to which such NOL may be carried back for federal income tax purposes.

Massachusetts: On March 20, 2009, Massachusetts issued: “Notice—Individual Investors; Investments in Criminally Fraudulent Ponzi-type Schemes and Reporting of Fictitious Investment Income.” Massachusetts did not adopt the Revenue Procedure 2009-20 safe harbor in the case of individual investors since Massachusetts tax law does not recognize the theft loss deduction provided under federal tax law.

New Jersey: On April 2, 2009, the New Jersey Division of Taxation had issued guidance on the treatment of Madoff-related
or other Ponzi scheme losses for New Jersey gross income tax purposes. Under this guidance, taxpayers are allowed a theft
loss deduction for New Jersey gross income tax purposes in an amount equal to the original investment plus the income
reported in prior years minus distributions received in prior years. New Jersey does not allow NOL carrybacks or carry
forwards.

New York: On May 29, 2009, the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance issued guidance TSB-M-09(7)I (.pdf) on the
reporting of Madoff-related or other Ponzi scheme losses. In general, New York State will recognize the Revenue Procedure
2009-20 safe harbor.

For more information, Seyfarth Shaw put together some information: Some States Have “Weighed In” on Tax Treatment of Madoff-Related and Other Ponzi Scheme Losses (.pdf)

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Search for Stuff

Recent Stories

  • The SEC 2026 Rulemaking Agenda
  • The Alignment Gap: Rethinking Costs in Private Equity Fund Formation
  • PERE 100 and SEC Registration
  • Neither Admit Nor Deny To Be No Longer
  • What Will Form PF Look Like Next Year?
  • Is It a Chipset or Is It a Security?
  • When the Lawyer Is Breaking Bad
  • Will Investors Have an Appetite for Semi-Annual Reporting?
  • Special Forces Trading on Insider Knowledge
  • Prediction Markets and Compliance Programs

Fight Cancer

Please support my Pan-Mass Challenge
Make a donation to fight cancer. donate.pmc.org/DC0176
pan-mass challenge badge

I am a lawyer, but I am not your lawyer. Since I’m a lawyer, this website may be considered attorney advertising under the ethical rules of certain jurisdictions. Please read my disclaimers page before taking any action. And then, don't take any action based on what I wrote.

Creative Commons logo with the text 'Some Rights Reserved' and three symbols representing attribution, non-commercial use, and share alike.

Compliance Building - by Doug Cornelius is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.