It may be too early to tell (or we may never know) how widespread these attitudes and policies have pervaded the IRS.  However, at a minimum, this situation highlights the public’s perception of the IRS as a powerful government agency whose requests can be intimidating due to the complexity of the tax code, the potential financial implications of a negative result (the cost of going through an audit can be several thousand dollars depending on the extent) and the personal nature of the information necessary to calculate taxes.  Though this recent IRS scandal is definitely not going to improve the public’s perception of the Service, we can hope that the current Congressional hearings and other potential investigations will help the IRS work to change its image through real organizational change.

In the meantime, there are some attitudes that you can adopt to help feel more comfortable working with the Service.  For example, the IRS is naturally going to apply professional skepticism when reviewing returns for accuracy.  As such, it is perfectly acceptable to apply the same level of skepticism when reading and responding to IRS information requests.  If the IRS requests information that seems to be out of the scope of an audit or simple letter notice, ask why the IRS needs the information.  As this IRS publication released less than a month before the “scandal” hit the news indicates, in some cases, a simple phone call with an agent or other IRS representative will clear up the issue.  And of course if you would rather not deal with the IRS yourself, contacting a CPA representative is always a good option.

*Thank you to Andy Nentwich, Tax Senior, for his contributions to this post.

• When financial experts are needed in litigation matters
• Different objectives of the deposition
• Preparing your expert witness for their deposition
• Areas for examination in a deposition
• Examples from depositions

My colleague Rebekah Smith presented this seminar in Columbus on May 14^th and received rave reviews, such as:

• “Great presentation – very good presentation materials, too – really benefitted from it.”
• “Very informative – helpful in explaining financial information in layman terms – great job!”
• “The ‘expert’s view’ was good to think about.  Loved the written materials, example questions, real life case examples.”

We hope that you will consider joining us in Cincinnati on May 30^th.  If you are interested in attending the seminar, please click here to register.

Each year since the program began in 1993, the Forty Under 40 awards program has recognized rising young business leaders in the Columbus area. Award winners are selected for their business leadership, career accomplishments and community involvement.  A panel of six judges reviewed each entry and ranked nominees in four main areas: reason for nomination, professional development, awards and recognitions and community involvement.

Jennifer and the other honorees in the 21^st class of promising central Ohio young professionals will celebrate at a gala on May 23^rd at Hollywood Casino Columbus. Click here for details on the event as well as a full list of the 2013 honorees. The following photo was snapped at the Columbus Business First photo shoot last week. Stay tuned to our Facebook page for more photos and details post event.

I think I speak for everyone here at GBQ when I say “Congratulations, Jennifer!” We couldn’t be prouder. Your dedication to the profession, our clients and the community is inspiring!

As a quick recap, GBQ has seven brand attributes that define us as a firm and individuals: Passionate, Sociable, Responsible, Highly-Motivated, Attentive, Savvy and Personable.  I want to take this time to discuss more about why the word Personable is used to define us. We are all about providing great client service here at GBQ and we believe that one way in accomplishing this is by letting our personalities shine.

I was recently spending time with friends and had the opportunity to meet some new people.  After spending some time laughing and sharing stories, I was asked more about what it is that I do.  I told them I was a Senior Associate at a CPA firm, where I audit and review financial statements.  To this statement I got the following response and I quote, “You have too much of a personality to be an accountant!”  In response to that I said, “Thanks,” but in my mind not sure what she meant by “for an accountant”.  This seemed like a sort of back-handed compliment in the sense that apparently accountants are not expected to have personalities.  But then I realized that maybe in relation to other accountants she had known or met, I did have “too much” of a personality.

This one story highlights just one reason we use personable to define ourselves. Here at GBQ we are breaking the mold of your typical “boring” accountant.  As I think about the people around our office I know that there are so many others with personalities that shine with the best of them.  I sometimes wonder if some people have missed their calling as comedians or maybe they have side gigs. Take Mike Effler and Chris Mast for example, they showed their skills on the microphone at last year’s firm meeting with their song No Sleep Till Billing.  And then there is Ada Perkins, who always has people laughing and can draw everyone’s attention with any one of her many stories.

So be on the lookout for the wave of accountants that have “too much” personality because they are probably from the GBQ family! If you missed the first installment of this journey, don’t worry, you can read it by clicking here, which of course I highly recommend!

Many financial institutions will outsource some of their more flashy applications, such as bill pay, to third parties.  Other times smaller institutions will have to rely on a third party for services like credit and debit card interchange processing.  It’s important to know what type of controls those vendors have in place to protect the confidential information of your members and what controls your company is responsible for to address and ensure they are in place.  Depending on your type financial institution and services provided, you or your vendor may be required to have a SOC1, SOC2 or a SOC3 examination.  It’s up to you to make sure that your vendors are top notch and their examinations are up-to-date.

Even the most diligent of vendors and service organizations can fall short of proper controls if the processes are not followed through on the credit union’s end.  With smaller financial institutions, it can be difficult to ensure that individuals have the appropriate access and authorizations.  GBQ’s Risk Advisory Services is a great way to gain knowledge and advice for anything related to IT controls as they can sometimes become a twisted maze of confusion. Working with a consultant who will coach and advise you in this area is a great way to reduce the likelihood of breaches in your information.

*Thank you to Dan Conway, Assurance Staff, for his contributions to this post.

• Construction Industry Advisor – Spring 2013
• Investigative Due Diligence for Nonprofit Organizations
• The State of Ohio’s Charitable Community
• Real Estate Insights
• Ohio Incumbent Workforce Training Voucher Program – Round Two
• Unique Challenges to Valuing Start-Up Companies

If you’d like to subscribe to one of the above newsletters or check out the other publications we regularly produce, visit the resources page of our website.  We also host several events every month on various accounting and consulting topics.  Our upcoming seminars and webinars include:

• Tax Headwinds – How to Protect Your Business Investment
• Nonprofit Webinars
  • Financial Literacy and Fiduciary Responsibility for Board Members
  • Top 10 Financial Management Areas for CEOs of Nonprofits
• Depositions: An Expert’s View – Columbus & Cincinnati
• State and Local Tax Update – Spring 2013

E-mail info@gbq.com if you’d like to be added to one of the above invite lists. We hope to see you at one of our upcoming events!

• No traffic – When you are the first one to go to the office and the last one to leave, there isn’t anyone else left on the road to slow your commute!
• Free food – Those at the top recognize that we are putting in long and sometimes late-night hours, so to compensate, they feed us pizza, Chick-fil-A, Max & Erma’s, ice cream and more pizza.  Need I say more?
• No TV – Since you don’t have much extra time to watch TV, you don’t have to worry about it rotting your brain.
• Happy Hours – Appetizers and ice cold beverages are always a great cap off the end of a long week and a much needed reprieve from number crunching.  Since we host a few here at GBQ, it can also be a great opportunity to get to know our clients outside of the work environment.
• Accounting Olympics – Events included a Crock Pot Challenge, Gatorade Flip Cup, a hot dog eating contest and a relay race capped off by a 10-key competition.
• Our Clients – When and where else do you get an opportunity to interact with so many interesting and unique businesses and personnel on a weekly basis?

Although I may not be crossing off the squares on my calendar, counting down the days to the next busy season, at least I now have a few excuses to keep the panic from setting in.  And in the meantime, I’ll be honing my 10-key skills until next year’s competition.

*Thank you to Kyle Culver, Assurance Senior, for his contributions to this post.

So what does this golf story have to do with forensic accounting or economic damages?  In a recent newsletter, my colleague, Rebekah Smith, wrote about a case that resulted in the disqualification of a damages expert.  The Court was critical of the fact that two experts – utilizing the same method – arrived at vastly different conclusions.  Setting aside the specifics of that case, I think that the situation at the Masters can provide some insight as to how this can happen.

Let’s assume that Mr. Woods did not make an illegal drop (as argued here); therefore, he was wrongly penalized.  Mr. Woods then files suit against the Masters tournament to recover his lost earnings.  Assuming he prevails, what are his damages?  Mr. Woods finished the tournament tied for fourth and earned $352,000 – the winner received $1,440,000.  If Mr. Woods would have won the tournament “but-for” the penalty, his damages might be more than $1 million.  Is this reasonable – or pure speculation?  How might damage experts assess the situation?

On the one hand, an expert could focus on Mr. Woods’ impressive career statistics – pointing out that Mr. Woods has won 36 of 46 tournaments when leading after the second round (although he would have been two strokes back in this one) and 52 of 56 tournaments (including 14 of 15 majors) when leading after three rounds.  In the absence of the turmoil caused by the penalty, Mr. Woods may have recorded a better score on Saturday and put himself into position to win the Masters on Sunday.

On the other hand, it has been 5 years since Mr. Woods’ last major victory, he has never won a major when trailing going into the final round (and his one loss when leading after 3 rounds was the last time Mr. Woods was in that position) and he faltered in the weekend rounds of several majors last year.

My point is not that Mr. Woods would have won the Masters this year – nor is it to assess which data set is better.  Rather, I find this situation illustrative of what damage experts often face – a myriad of facts that must be reviewed, analyzed and assessed to determine the appropriate bases for assumptions that need to be made in the course of preparing a damage calculation.

What do you think – would Mr. Woods have won the Masters “but-for” the penalty?  Would he have any recourse – and a claim for damages – if the penalty was not appropriate?  Please share your thoughts in the comment section below.

That being said, Jan Hatsius’ process has my respect.  He is very careful about overstating what he can say based on the data he is looking at.  That’s in part why I am encouraged by his statements about the housing market.  In particular, the following is good news:

1. Housing may be one reason for optimism about the broader U.S. economy. “I still think housing is recovering at an impressive and very pleasing clip,” he said, noting that weaker construction employment in March was probably weather-related.
2. “In general, housing is moving up, that’s providing a direct positive impulse to (gross domestic product) and there’s probably a positive wealth effect,” he said. “That’s not really where the slowdown is going to be coming in the GDP numbers.”

In the interest of full disclosure, elsewhere in his statements recently he has predicted rising interest rates which, although expected, won’t be good for the economy.

So here’s to Jan and hoping that he’s right!

The interview takes place as production of Diamonds Are Forever (DAF) winds up in 1971.  At the time, it was thought DAF would be his last Bond film.  As background, Lazenby had just flopped in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service and Connery was reprising his portrayal of Bond to save the franchise.  The interviewer asks whether Sean was worried about how Bond is perceived as an affront to women’s new independent spirit.

“If you’ve made something and you leave it around and somebody picks it up, everybody will pick it up and see it as something else or look at it in a different way and I don’t think there’s anything you can do about it after you’ve done it and have committed oneself to doing it that way initially…”

What I think he’s expressing here is that after you’re gone from the scene, others will interpret the story and critique your work and there’s not a darn thing you can do about it.  So my advice is, do the best you can.  Build the strength of the business and the value of the investment then turn it over, at a fair price, to someone you think will care for it (or alternatively who will pay more for it) and then move on; knowing they will critique your work with the luxury of not having to figure it out from the inside, which is always more challenging.