Outsourcing has become easier with modern technologies like the Internet.  I suspect outsourcing will become even more popular as businesses seek greater efficiency and as professional services become more specialized.

If you are a business handling confidential client information, outsourcing comes with risks and responsibilities.  The risks are fairly obvious.  Sensitive information in the hands of third parties presents opportunities for identity theft, fraud, and other illegal or unseemly activities.  In many cases, you cannot closely monitor third party activities or easily hold them accountable for mishandling information or breaking confidences.

Such risks probably do not outweigh the benefits of outsourcing, but they should perhaps inspire your adhesion to policies and procedures designed to minimize them.  For example, maybe all your clients should know about and give explicit written consent to your outsourcing, even if your outsourcing seems like a commonplace, obvious, or implied part of the service being offered.  Although you may have good relations with your third-party vendors, keep in mind that the good relations are yours, not your clients’.  Even if you regularly outsource to a firm which you know and trust and which has its own professional responsibilities, your clients may have personal reasons for avoiding contact with your vendors of first choice.

You may also wish to formally evaluate the credibility of third-party vendors you hire to perform outsourced work, perhaps maintaining a list of credentials for being eligible to handle confidential information.  Explaining these concerns to your clients, and the steps you’ve taken to mitigate them, will inspire confidence in your services.

Stephen Hudak of the Orlando Sentinel writes about the criminal tax conviction of Wesley Snipes tax advisor, Eddie Ray Kahn:

While Wesley Snipes fights to stay out of prison, a Lake County tax protester earned an additional 20 years behind bars for advising the movie star and 4,000 other clients how to beat the Internal Revenue Service.

Eddie Ray Kahn, 67, who operated a “tax defier” organization from a rented second-floor office in downtown Mount Dora, and three other Florida men were convicted of conspiracy in federal court in Washington.

All worked for Kahn’s American Rights Litigators, which prosecutors described in a sentencing memorandum as “the Walmart of tax fraud,” selling bargain-priced schemes to help people dodge tax obligations.

Kahn was convicted as a co-defendant in Snipes’ trial in 2008 and received a 10-year sentence in that case. But federal court records say his now-defunct organization, which operated for seven years as American Rights Litigators or the Guiding Light of God Ministries, had a presence in all 50 states and more than 4,800 paying members in the U.S.

http://blog.pappastax.com/index.php/2010/09/06/wesley-snipes-and-the-eddie-ray-kahn/

Just got back to our house (rather than stay on the Strip, we decided to rent a private home) from the first day of the ICSC RECon in Las Vegas.  Keeping in mind that I am a first timer, here are some initial impressions.

Thank goodness for the cool weather.  That made walking miles and miles easier.

The morning breakout sessions were even better than I thought they would be.  The panel on workouts gave good, practical advice for dealing with lenders in a variety of distressed situations. I learned some things I will use and I will also probably study up more and blog about what additional things I learn.

The legal special interest group session was also good with practical advice from in-house folks.  Some of the advice was fairly obvious -- keep in touch, let us know about changes, bill regularly and with sufficient detail.  The best advice I think was this: don't buy me lunch - make me want to use your firm.  I was somewhat miffed -- perhaps wrongly so -- by a large firm lawyer saying something like, "You can't compete with the guy working out of his house on price, so you have to develop expertise or make yourself stand out in other ways."  It made me feel cheap, until I learned my billing rates were higher than large companies want to pay for commodity work (not that I really do a lot of that).  It seems like law firms are racing each other to the bottom on hourly rates.  I will not do that. I charge a fair fee, be it hourly or an alternative fee arrangement; I work quickly and efficiently and make the client look good, thus adding value.  So I am comfortable with what I do, and I cannot remember the last time a client complained about my bill.  Like I say: try me once and you will not be disappointed.

http://dirtattorney.blogspot.com/2010/05/icsc-recon-day-one-thoughts-and.html

Postmortem wealth transfers to IRA beneficiaries continues to present estate planning challenges.  Although perhaps not the final word on the matter, the IRS now prevents postmortem trust reformation designed to allow trustees to treat them as designated beneficiary trusts.  The relevant ruling is PLR 201021038.

The broadness of the limited power of appointment was perhaps the most critical flaw in the subject trust.  It was too broad to be able to determine the correct measuring life.  There were other flaws as well, most notably the trust’s naming of charities as potential beneficiaries.

The tax consequences of this ruling are devastating to any similarly-flawed trust:  Beneficiaries cannot stretch out required withdrawals over the lifespan of the oldest beneficiary but would presumably have to withdraw all money from the plan within just a few years.

Unless a tax court modifies this ruling – and until it does – the bar is very high indeed for those who draft trusts for the purpose of receiving postmortem IRA distributions.  In short, get it right the first time!  I would read and reread section 401(a)(9) to ensure the trust conforms to the section’s standards precisely.  Going forward, you may also wish to give grantors an opportunity to review the terms of their trusts to ensure they conform with the changing law on this subject.  A brief look every three-to-five years is appropriate, although factors like ill health or legal developments with dramatic impact may warrant more frequent reviews.

http://www.marathonlegalblog.com/trackback/14