Podcast (practical-tax): Play in new window | Download
Michael Cupps discusses remote working, the four-day workweek and the future of office space. Tenant and Landlord Attorney Todd RothBard talks about Pandemic relief for landlords and tenants and where it’s headed.
Episode Transcript
Intro:
Welcome to the Practical Tax podcast, with tax attorney Steve Moskowitz. The Practical Tax podcast is brought to you by Moskowitz, LLP, a tax law firm.
Disclaimer:
The information contained in this podcast is based upon information available as of date of recording and will not be updated for changes in law regulation. Any information is not to be considered tax advice or legal advice and does not form an attorney/client relationship. Further, this podcast may be construed as attorney advertising. You should see professional consultation for your individual tax and legal situation.
Chip Franklin:
Welcome to Practical Tax. I’m Chip Franklin. That is Steve Moskowitz, tax attorney. Steve, this is fascinating where we are right now in the post pandemic world and the remote working and people kind of trickling back in. I know you are making a move for your employees to be better for them and safer and a new location. What’s your experience with some of your clients and everybody else? Is remote working going to hang in there or is it starting to go away?
Steve Moskowitz:
Oh, no. Remote working is alive and well and will be with us for the rest of our lives. A lot of people prefer as a matter of fact, I’ve seen surveys where a lot of employees said, if I can’t work remotely for you, I’ll work remotely for somebody else. And if you think about it, it makes a lot of sense because how much time do you spend commuting? First of all, you could use that time to work more or to play more, not to mention the cost of commuting, not to mention you go into the office, you’re wearing your fancy duds. If you’re at home, you’re probably in jammies or sweats, not to mention, how about all those people that have kids and are either home to take care of the kids or close to school. If something happens, you can run right to school as opposed to being in the corporate world.
And even if you left, as soon as you got the phone call, it would take you a while to get to the school. So it’s an awful lot of advantages. And another thing is that for example, here in San Francisco, a lot of people have left San Francisco and said, well, why should they pay a lot of money for a small, not so hot apartment when they can move to another state, buy a house for what they were paying for rent and also maybe move to a state, doesn’t even have an income tax. Not to mention people that say, “Well, I can go to a resort area and work from there.” Not to mention all the countries that are saying, “Hey, we’ll give you a special visa, come and work in our country. We just like you to stay here and spend some money in our hotels and our restaurants.”
Chip Franklin:
I think I read somewhere, Steve, like 75,000 American professionals moved to Barcelona last year and they’re working from Barcelona. And many of them from California.
Steve Moskowitz:
Well, talk about moving. If you move to Puerto Rico, you can legally avoid most of your federal taxes.
Chip Franklin:
Well, let’s talk a little bit about that with an expert. Michael Cupps is from ActiveOps and these guys, they know this cold and he’s nice enough to join us here. Michael, obviously you heard this conversation. It seemed like we were moving towards the possibility of a four-day work week, but then it kind of got flipped with the pandemic where people are working remote. First of all, do you concur with Steve that this is here to stay?
Michael Cupps:
Oh, absolutely. We see it in our customers and they’re the biggest banks and insurance companies on the globe. And they’re as much as they try, they’re not those employees aren’t coming back.
Chip Franklin:
That should be good for the business, right? I mean guys, right, it’s good for everybody, it seems.
Michael Cupps:
Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. When they actually sit and think about what that can do, whether it’s real estate or their access to new employees, that they can go recruit in areas they wouldn’t be recruiting before, poaching from a competitor. All of those things are now at their discretion.
Chip Franklin:
There’s got to be downsides though. There are psychological downsides, and then of course I would imagine managing remote employees is a new challenge.
Michael Cupps:
It is, and it isn’t. We’ve had customers like Anthem Healthcare, for example. They were remote before the pandemic and they just kind of sailed through the pandemic without change. It comes down to teaching your leaders and teaching your managers how to handle it. It’s a different environment. Doesn’t mean it’s any less productive or more productive. It just means it’s different. And some of those managers that grew up going to the office every day, it’s tough to get them to see it a different way. So it’s important to get those managers retrained and skilled in a way that they now know how to engage the employees the right way.
Chip Franklin:
Do you guys know the story of Anthem and how they grew? This is a company that just changed the way medical billing is done. And they did it by hiring somebody on the sixth level, not on the top, but their whole business plan was the people that really know how to make this stuff work aren’t upstairs, they’re down on the bottom floor. And they went and they found this woman who was doing all the medical billing and was talking about all the problems with it. And so a few companies started handle it on the efficiency and everything grew from that. It is interesting. I wonder with remote employees, do you get that kind of hey, can I stop and talk to you for a minute? I have an idea. It seems to be that that might be a little bit of a problem as well. And Steve, I’m going to ask you as well, because you have tons of associates. When you don’t see them face-to-face, is something lost in that?Let me ask you, Steve first.
Steve Moskowitz:
When you talk about face-to-face, we have Zoom. So it is kind of face-to-face and you have to weigh everything else, advantages and disadvantages, where you can do an awful lot through Zoom. And what about when you have employees on the other side of the world? What about when somebody really can’t leave their home for some reason, they have small children. What about all the people that you can do business with now that wouldn’t have before? For example, now people really don’t mind that you’re thousands of miles from them. Everybody’s gotten so used to it. A client can calls us from Florida and say, “Hi, Steve. I’d like you to help with my taxes.” And doesn’t matter that I’m in California.
Chip Franklin:
But I guess it depends on the business, right, Michael?
Michael Cupps:
Yeah. Yeah. Certainly-/p>
Steve Moskowitz:
It also, Chip, could depend on the person, because some people are just happier in their homes. Other people want to go and physically be with somebody. It’s a difference between being able to shake hands with somebody or not. But again, even shaking hands today, some people don’t believe in doing that anymore.
Chip Franklin:
Well, in the middle of all this, I was a standup comic. I’ve been since 1980, and I did a comedy show for The Punchline in a Zoom thing like this. Let me tell you, it was unsatisfying to say the least. There are some things, obviously that salespeople will tell you that, medical sales, I got to come in. You got to see it in my hands. I got to talk to you. Those kind of relationships. Let me talk about the four-day work week. Is that dead now because everybody’s at home? Are they going to give them a Friday off?
Michael Cupps:
No, it’s actually picking up steam again. There was this an experiment going on in the UK with about 700 companies trying it out to see how it plays out. And then there’ll be results of that study. It’s not complete yet, but it’s actually I think catching more steam than it was before the pandemic, mainly because people now realize that they can work flexibly and it doesn’t have to be a Friday that everybody gets off. It could be 20% of your work population gets Monday off and the other 20%, Friday, and then Wednesday, et cetera. So with flex schedules the way they are, the way we learn to work from home or work remotely, it actually is more convenient now.
Steve Moskowitz:
And with other things too, like email. In the old days, if you wanted to speak to somebody, you both had to be available at the same time to speak together. Now somebody can send an email at three o’clock in the morning and somebody can answer it at 11 o’clock at night and they’ve communicated. They didn’t have to be together at the same time.
Chip Franklin:
Hopefully you remember to turn the notification off on your iPhone. So it doesn’t ding at three in the morning. I get that all the time. What about the financial incentives for a company to go to a four-day work week when they’re already remote? Steve, are there some financial incentives there? Obviously you’re still paying for health, salary, all the disability, all the stuff, workman’s comp, all that stuff. Does it really benefit a corporation to go four days in your mind?
Steve Moskowitz:
The benefit is what are we talking about with employee satisfaction? And somebody says, “You know, boss, I’d really be happier with you and the job if I could work four days a week. I’ll work the same number of hours.” It depends on the person. Somebody would rather stretch it out and say, “Look, maybe their endurance isn’t as great. And they would just rather have five days.” Someone say, “Well look, I would rather work four days, 10 hours.” And that was always a big thing with people that had a long commute, they’d say, “Wow, I don’t have to spend half the day commuting, but can have a three day weekend,” which is nice for some people. On the other hand, some people work seven days a week. Some people say, “Well, you know what? I want to be able to take a longer vacation.” So it has more flexibility if it’s something that at least as much work can be done and makes somebody happier, then that’s a good idea.
Chip Franklin:
Michael, obviously it’s a worker’s market right now with unemployment so low. I got to think to myself though that there’s probably something in there for the worker to try, like what just Steve was saying. WeWork and some of these other companies, they love this open, the masters of this whole idea, everybody feels part of a group. I know we’re not there yet, but are we getting closer using things like we’re talking with right now? This is pretty new, this format we’re on right now. Is it all green pastures ahead for you, in your mind?
Michael Cupps:
Well, it may not be for some employers and some managers because they’re still relearning. And I think there’s really three things to enable a fully flexible work week, whether it’s four days or as Steve mentioned, other modifications of it. One is you have to manage the resources and help employees understand how to manage their work. Just as Steve said, you still have a risk of burnout, but they need to understand they’re working 10 hours rather than eight hours a day. And the work still has to get done. So it’s up to the companies and managers to allocate the work to the right people at the right time, to get it done and still meet customer expectations.
We also have to get managers back to managing instead of them trying to find data and look for things to do and get on a Zoom call because they didn’t see that employee today. We need to teach them how to manage with data and how to get back to managing what really they’re there to do. And then the third thing is leadership has to embrace it. They have to build an engagement model with employees that the employee doesn’t feel at risk because of a proximity bias, that they’re comfortable working, wherever they’re working. And as long as they get their work done, they’re encouraged and part of the team. Those types of experiences, that type of retraining and skilling will enable this environment to continue.
Steve Moskowitz:
And also Chip, it depends an awful lot on the individual employee. A self-starter could actually say, “You know what? I can get more work done at home than I can with people in the office.” On the other hand, you have the other extreme where somebody was always, “Well if the boss isn’t watching. I can watch a movie instead of working.” So yes, there are certain people that need to be watched and that’s the type of people you’d probably be better off not hiring.
Chip Franklin:
Do we need to reteach-
Steve Moskowitz:
And then other people do the same work whether the boss is watching or not. And that’s the kind of person that I’d want to hire.
Chip Franklin:
Michael, do we need to retool the way we teach management in college and in grad schools?
Michael Cupps:
Yeah, absolutely. They may be catching up because we’re seeing that shift already naturally. But the reality is, managers are taught to, with their eyes and ears, and their eyes and ears now are different mechanisms. It’s data that comes in through systems. It’s dashboards, it’s Zoom calls, it’s whatever. It’s not walking out on the floor and seeing your staff and making sure they’re looking at your watch, looking at them and are they there at the right time?
It really shouldn’t matter if we’re measuring outputs rather than inputs, then if the work’s getting done, as Steve mentioned, you want those self starters, those people that will get the work done. And you don’t really have to motivate them. You say this is what we expect this week or this day or this month, and they will go get it done. And that’s when you have a really healthy environment, because then they’re free to go do what they need to do, whether it’s with their kids or family or et cetera.
Chip Franklin:
For those that are listening to us on the MP3 version of this, this is Practical Tax with Steve Moskowitz. Our guest is Michael Cupps from ActiveOps. Last question here, because this is one that I think that we’ve been hearing about since 2008, when President Obama was elected and started talking about Obamacare and the Affordable Care Act. Would a single payer health plan by the government be supported or resisted by most Fortune 1000 companies. Do you guys have any insights or guess on that?
Steve Moskowitz:
I would say it depends an awful lot on the motivation of the company. For my employees, I bought them the best healthcare because I want them to have that. And I wasn’t looking to save money on it. I wanted to be well taken care of. And being a tax attorney, I opposed the government my whole life.
I just don’t trust them to do the healthcare. And you look at the way government does things. Look at the VA, look at the VA. People are dying because they just can’t be taken care of. And I’m a firm believer in private business. As far as a single payer, some employers might. If it’s less expensive, some employers might be inclined to go for that. But as an employer, I wanted the better healthcare for my employees. I didn’t take the cheaper one. I took the better one.
Chip Franklin:
Well, I have a PPO too, but it seems to me that government’s already in there and getting them out, it’s going to be trying to get a bird out of your house without killing it.
Michael Cupps:
And Chip, I don’t know about the corporate view on a single payer. I really don’t know. But the other thing that might get missed in that transition is all the wellness programs that the companies and the health insurance companies come up with to help the employees outside of just general basic healthcare. It’s making sure they’re looking after their mental wellness or their physical wellness and things like that. So companies would have to find a way to replace that.
Part of what we do is also provide wellbeing metrics as part of our solutions for remote work and managing that thing. And it’s extremely important. I think if you went to a single payer government system, corporations would still need to find a back fill for those types of programs that play a massive role in overall wellness. And the motivation for employers is if they can reduce sickness and attrition because of wellbeing, they’re more productive.
Chip Franklin:
That’s great stuff. Michael, will you come back again with us, please?
Michael Cupps:
Would love to. I enjoyed it.
Chip Franklin:
Great stuff, thank you.
Steve Moskowitz:
Thanks so much.
Chip Franklin:
Thank you. Thank you so much. See you now. Again, Michael Cupps from ActiveOps with us here on Practical Tax. And I think this might be one of your favorite questions. Tell me about the benefits of having a pension.
Steve Moskowitz:
Oh, I could make a whole show out of it.
Chip Franklin:
Short thing.
Steve Moskowitz:
In summary-
Chip Franklin:
Just a short one though./p>
Steve Moskowitz:
Four major benefits. One, you pay less taxes. Two, your retirement earnings are not taxed while they’re in the retirement or pension account. Three, timing. Almost all other expenses, you have to write the check by December 31st year one in order to deduct it in year one. With pensions, and I’m using the term pensions and retirement accounts interchangeably, although there is some debt differences, technical differences, but with the pension account, and there’s over 20 different types of plans, with a lot of them, you can set them up and fund them up until the time of filing the return plus extension.
What that means is you can be about three quarters of the way into year two, set it up, put the money in and still deduct it from year one and last but not least, it’s really safe. The federal government’s protected the assets. So if you’re in business, people like to sue people in business, and that’s just the way it is in our country, but if you get sued and the plaintiff wins an amount in excess of your insurance, they can’t touch your pension. Although I hate to mention his name, look at OJ Simpson. He’s had a giant judgment against him for how many years? He’s not lost a penny of his pension. And even if hard times befall you and you have to file bankruptcy, even the bankruptcy court won’t take it away from you. So it’s so very powerful for multiple reasons.
Chip Franklin:
Good stuff. Ask a tax attorney. Again, you can find all these on moskowitzllp.com or YouTube or all the social platforms. Okay, this is a real interesting area because as we know during COVID, there were eviction moratoriums and that was also hard on landlords. So it went both ways. For the people that couldn’t pay, landlords weren’t getting rent and they had to pay somebody. And that was a very difficult time for a lot of people. It was unusual because I don’t remember that time in my life of having that kind of recession that had that kind of effect. Maybe we did in ’08, but I really noticed it in ’19. Was it really more dramatic in the past two years than you remember it from the past, Steve?
Steve Moskowitz:
It depends who you ask, but so many people got hurt and this was just widespread over business owners, wage earners, everybody. It just really, really hit such a wide section of the economy.
Chip Franklin:
Yeah. Well let’s bring in a guy who knows a lot about it and actually somebody, you know each other. Todd Rothbard is an attorney who specializes in landlord and tenant relations. And he’s nice enough to join us today. Todd. Good to see you again, my friend.
Steve Moskowitz:
Welcome, Todd. Good to see you.
Todd Rothbard:
Nice to see you, Steve.
Chip Franklin:
So where are we from that? Are we seeing a lot of tenant rent rearrangement in the last two years?
Todd Rothbard:
Well, I’m not sure what you mean by rearrangement, but certainly things have changed on a number of levels. Obviously during COVID there was a lot of difficulty paying rent, although because of all the various government programs, both on the unemployment side and on the rent support side, a lot of people wound up with a lot more money during COVID than they had before COVID. From my perspective, the largest problems have been first of all, the moratorium measures in many respects were confusing and ill considered.
The government came along and decided to pay rent for people, which was nice from my client’s perspective because they were getting money that otherwise they would’ve had to have written off. And I always thought it was more fair to spread the burden rather than placing it on the poor folks who happen to own property by spreading it across the tax base, which is essentially what those government programs did.
Where I thought they were unfair was that a lot of people, yeah most people are honest, most people pay their rent to make it a priority. Even during COVID 97% of people were paying their rent and many of them had to scrimp and save to do it. Many of them had to borrow from relatives. Many of them had to take out loans. They didn’t get a dime back from the government. It was just the people that blew it off completely, they found their rent paid for them by the government.
So it’s sort of like with the student loans for college, they talk now about forgiving the student loans and all those people who work so hard to pay them off are going, “Hey, what about me?” So in that sense, I thought it was not as fair as it could be. But getting back to the eviction process itself during the moratorium, it was very difficult. And even post moratorium, it’s very difficult because the courts are just ridiculously overburdened and underfunded. Things that used to take a day take a month. The state of California is running a $100 million pledges surplus, but for some reason doesn’t seem to want to spend any of it on the courts. And it just really difficult making the process work as it used to.
Chip Franklin:
I talked to a few landlords during this when I was on the air and a lot of them thought there were people just trying to gin the system. They got funds and they just didn’t pass it along to their landlords. California had a rent assistance program and I wonder how many landlords actually saw that money? Did it go directly to the landlords or did it go to the tenant?
Todd Rothbard:
Yeah, no. One of the very positive things about the program is their first priority was to pay the landlord directly and only if the landlord for whatever reason wouldn’t accept the money, would they give it to the tenant. So the great bulk of the funds did in fact go to the landlord. But yes, there was certainly a lot of scamming that went on. I could give you examples that would make your ears curl. I had one Google employee making a seven figure income who just basically said to landlord, I know you can’t do anything about it, so I’m not going to pay my rent. I had a situation up in Fremont, this poor couple, Indian couple, had just moved to the country, worked for years to meet their American dream of buying a home. So they buy this home in Fremont, but they still have six months left to run on their apartment lease.
So they said, well, you know what? We’ll rent out our new home until we get out. So they rented to this woman, COVID hits, the woman says I can’t pay the rent. And they say, okay, we’ll work with you. Turns out she’s renting the house on Zoom or on … What’s the name of the housing rental?
Chip Franklin:
Airbnb.
Todd Rothbard:
Yeah, Airbnb, she’s renting it out pocketing $9,000 a month, none of which is going to my poor client. Meanwhile, she rents to someone even flakier than she is and this guy throws her out. He’s living there and there’s no way to evict because Alameda County has put at a complete moratorium on evictions. So this guy’s living there for another year. And my poor clients are sitting there having to pay the mortgage on the house. The woman partitioned the house off. Just an absolute nightmare.
Steve Moskowitz:
Tell us some of your most interesting cases as an attorney.
Todd Rothbard:
Gee, I often say that I haven’t had an interesting case in years, but I deal in landlord tenant law and I over the years have had … The one I just pointed to was fascinating because it was so frustrating. I’ve had others that were enjoyable because there was a lot involved. I had one case where I had a family that owned a piece of land in Los Altos, upon which the developer had built a three-story office building and a 54-unit apartment complex.
But they were on a ground lease, and the lease was added into 30 years ago and they were making a grand total of $3,000 a month while the developer was making a fortune. So they came to me and they said, “What can we do to break the lease?” And that turned out to be a very interesting case they went on. The best thing about it was at the end of the day, it was resolved by the property being sold and the proceeds being split. And everybody was happy. The defendant-
Steve Moskowitz:
That is the rare legal case when everybody is happy, because usually the way the legal system is, the more for one, the less for the other. That’s why I enjoy doing tax law because nobody in my career ever said to me, “The IRS really needed that money.”
Todd Rothbard:
Exactly.
Chip Franklin:
Todd, do you think California is doing the right thing when it comes to landlord rights? Because there seems to be a lot more pressure to protect tenants.
Todd Rothbard:
Well, it’s funny. I represent both landlords and tenants and fairness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. When I represent landlords, I say, “Oh, everything favors the tenants.” When I represent tenants it’s, “Everything favors the landlord.” I think the legislature tries to be even keeled and fair. But I certainly think the tendency in recent years has been more toward what is called tenants rights.
I think though, that the part of the picture that is not quite so evident is I often say it’s not really tenants rights they’re protecting, it’s the rights of those who abuse the system because 99% of tenants have no problems with their landlords. They pay their rent. Everybody’s happy. But you have 1% of people who play games and the system seems to have made it more and more possible for irresponsible tenants to play those games and drag out the system. What … Go ahead. I’m sorry.
Chip Franklin:
No, Steve.
Steve Moskowitz:
Oh no. I was just going to say for our viewers something that is very important if they’re looking to hire Todd. It’s a big advantage that Todd represents both sides because whichever side you’re on, having the knowledge of the other side is so very useful.
Todd Rothbard:
I absolutely agree. I in fact do all three sides because I occasionally play judge pro tem in hearing eviction cases. So I see it-
Steve Moskowitz:
That’s invaluable, Todd.
Chip Franklin:
Well, it’s interesting. Steve and I have this in common. I think I grew up in apartments. I don’t know if, I think you did. You spent a lot of time in apartments as a kid too, right Steve?
Steve Moskowitz:
Sure. Yeah.
Chip Franklin:
And there’s that old saying, it’s actually a Paul Simon song. One man’s ceiling is another man’s floor. You learn a lot about consideration for people when you’re in there. So when I was fortunate enough to own a rental property and I had one during the recession and my tenant couldn’t pay for a couple months, I didn’t kick him out. I didn’t want to go with that. And I said, okay, I’m going to trust you. And he eventually got it back to me. He got through it and we keep in touch today. Unfortunately that’s not always the case, and it’s a difficult thing to go to. But I guess the question is, does tax laws encourage investments in rental properties, Steve, like it used to?
Steve Moskowitz:
Oh, absolutely. There’s so much. For example, as far as selling it, there’s capital gains, which is a much lesser tax rate. You can do things like cost segregation analysis to greatly increase your depreciation. So you have the most beautiful thing in life, a positive cash flow with a tax loss. And then if you do it right, especially if you’re married and you have a spouse that can be a real estate professional, you can have a situation where even though you have this situation, let’s assume you had a doctor who was making a million dollars from her rental building and half a million dollars from her medical practice. She uses cost segregation analysis. She increases her depreciation. So now there’s no tax profit from the business. Again, her checking account has an extra million bucks in it, but there’s no tax to pay. But because of the accelerated depreciation, she has an extra half a million dollars of loss from the building.
Hubby becomes a real estate professional. She takes that extra half a mill, writes it off against her salary. Now she’s made a million and half dollars and legally hasn’t paid any taxes on it. Then eventually you sell the property and go into an opportunity zone and then you postpone your capital gains. And then if you hold the property properly in the opportunity zone, when you sell that, there’s no capital gains. So you can make a zillion dollars and there’s no capital gains. And then when you know the tricks of the trade, you say, “Well wait a minute, opportunity zones. Aren’t they in challenged areas?” Yes they are. But you only have to put 63% of your investment into the opportunity zone. The other 37% you can put on Park Avenue, Rodeo Drive, Beverly Hills, but it’s one investment. So you make beaucoup from Beverly Hills and once again, you still don’t pay any taxes. Welcome to my world. This is what the Fortune 500 does, but we do it for much smaller clients.
Chip Franklin:
Wow. That’s why-
Steve Moskowitz:
I could go on and on and on.
Chip Franklin:
No, but I guess that’s-
Steve Moskowitz:
Eventually you guys are going to want to have dinner and go to sleep and I could keep going.
Chip Franklin:
Hey, real quick. When I started standup comedy in like 1978, you want to hear one of my first jokes? I said, “I’m feeling really good. I just sold my house today. It kind of ticked my landlord off, but I’m feeling good.” Anyways, but let me ask you this question. If somebody doesn’t pay Steve, can I write that off as a loss, if they don’t pay their rent?
Steve Moskowitz:
It depends if you’re a cash basis, taxpayer or accrual basis taxpayer. So most small businesses are a cash basis, the answer would be no, because you never reported the income. Bigger companies are usually accrual basis where they could, but for most people, the answer would be no.
Chip Franklin:
It’s good to see you guys together again, because you guys have worked together before on stuff, right?
Todd Rothbard:
Well Steve’s represented me, actually, and helped me claw a few dollars back from the government in the form of the employee retention credit. I’m always pleased when someone does what they say they’re going to do for what they say they’re going to charge at the speed they say they’re going to do it. And I was pleased on all three counts.
Chip Franklin:
Wow.
Steve Moskowitz:
It was our pleasure.
Chip Franklin:
That’s good news. Well Todd, thank you so much again. Really appreciate. Will you come back and talk to us again?
Todd Rothbard:
If you insist.
Chip Franklin:
You’re a great guy, man. Be well, all right?
Steve Moskowitz:
Thanks so much.
Chip Franklin:
Thank you so much, my friend. Bye-bye. Again, Todd Rothbard, attorney. I had a opportunity to speak to him at length before the show and great guy. It’s fun stuff. Yeah, but very complicated too. I learned that when we had those properties. We had two different properties and it was just … Man, I was glad when I sold it, to be honest with you, Steve, because it was overwhelming and trying to find the right people to handle it and get the right advice.
Steve Moskowitz:
Kind of like a boat owner, happiest day in his or her life is the day when he buys the boat, and when she sells the boat.
Chip Franklin:
On that note, thank you, my friend. You be well. Look forward to next time.
Steve Moskowitz:
My pleasure, thanks.
Chip Franklin:
That is Steve Moskowitz, and this has been Practical Tax.
Outro:
Thanks for joining us on the Practical Tax podcast with tax attorney Steve Moskowitz. To hear more and view more podcasts, go to moskowitzllp.com/practicaltax.