- Newsletters

Just hours before government funding was set to expire, President Trump on March 23 signed the bipartisan Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, averting a government shutdown. The $1.3 trillion fiscal year 2018 omnibus spending package, which provides funding for the government and federal agencies through September 30, contains several tax provisions and increased IRS funding.

The House approved the spending bill by a 256-to-167 vote on March 22. The Senate cleared the measure by a 65-to-32 vote.

Grain Glitch
The so-called "grain glitch" addressed within the omnibus package aims to fix an unintended consequence in the "pass-through" income deduction. The deduction is provided in new Code Sec. 199A, which was enacted last December as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97).

Before the fix, grain and other agricultural products sold to cooperatives received a tax advantage because those sales were deductible from a farmer’s gross sales. Sales to companies other than cooperatives were deductible only from net business income. The inadvertent advantage had been given to cooperatives as part of a drafting error, according to several Republican lawmakers.

The appropriations bill repeals the provision in Code Sec. 199A that allowed farmers to deduct 20 percent of their gross sales to cooperatives. As modified, the deduction is now limited to 20 percent of farmers’ net income, excluding capital gains. "This legislation restores the competitive balance in the agricultural marketplace by leveling the tax burden on independent and cooperative farming businesses," Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., said in a March 22 statement. The bill also modifies the deduction that is allowed to agricultural or horticultural cooperatives.

Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
Although Democrats have previously expressed an unwillingness to help Republicans correct issues within the new tax law, the parties agreed to the grain glitch fix in exchange for an expansion of the low-income house tax credit. The expansion is also included in the spending bill.

"This is the first increase in over a decade," Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wa., said on March 22. "Nearly $3 billion is a good start towards tackling the housing crisis in our cities and rural communities," she added. Cantwell spearheaded the efforts among Democrats for the credit’s expansion.

Technical Corrections
Numerous other technical corrections to previous tax bills spanning from 2004-2016 were included in the spending bill, none of which specifically address the TCJA. Included among the fixes are technical corrections to the partnership audit rules.

IRS Funding
The legislation provides the IRS with $11.43 billion in funding, close to $196 million more than currently enacted levels. $320 million is allocated specifically for implementation of the TCJA. The Trump administration had requested $397 million for implementation of the new tax law. According to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, the increased resources would provide an update to antiquated telephone systems and technology.

White House
President Trump rattled Capitol Hill on March 23 when he announced just hours before government funding was set to expire that he may not sign the government spending bill. Although Mick Mulvaney, Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) said on March 22 that the President would sign the omnibus package, President Trump took to Twitter on March 23 to suggest otherwise. "I am considering a veto of the omnibus spending bill…," Trump said in a tweet.

While Trump did, in fact, wind up signing the spending bill, which tops 2,200 pages, he told reporters at the White House that he was "unhappy" to do so. Trump criticized the $1.3 trillion omnibus package for being the second largest in history. "I say to Congress, I will never sign another bill like this again. I’m not going to do it again. Nobody read it. It’s only hours old," Trump said.

Close

The American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) has renewed its call for immediate guidance on new Code Sec. 199A. The AICPA highlighted questions about qualified business income (QBI) of pass-through income under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97). "Taxpayers and practitioners need clarity regarding QBI in order to comply with their 2018 tax obligations," the AICPA said in a February 21 letter to the Service.

New Deduction
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act created Code Sec. 199A. The deduction is temporary and begins this year.

Generally, qualified taxpayers may deduct up to 20 percent of domestic QBI from a partnership, S corporation or sole proprietorship. Congress put in place a limitation based on wages paid, or on wages paid plus a capital element, among other requirements. Certain service trades or businesses generally may not take advantage of the deduction but there are exceptions.

Almost immediately after passage of the new tax law, the AICPA and other tax professional groups urged on the IRS to move quickly on guidance. Recently, the National Society of Accountants (NSA) reported that the IRS would issue guidance on Code Sec. 199A this summer.

Immediate Concern
The AICPA identified several areas of immediate concern. They are:

Definition of Code Sec. 199A qualified business income.
Aggregation method for calculation of QBI of pass-through businesses.
Deductible amount of QBI for a pass-through entity with business in net loss.
Qualification of wages paid by an employee leasing company.
Application of Code Sec. 199A to an owner of a fiscal year pass-through entity ending in 2018.
Availability of deduction for Electing Small Business Trusts (ESBTs).

Services
The AICPA asked the IRS to describe what activities are included in the definition of a services trade or business. "The guidance should clarify that the definition of the term ‘accounting services’ includes any services associated with the determination of tax liabilities including preparation, tax planning, cost segregation services, services rendered with respect to tax credits and deductions, and similar consultative services,"the AICPA told the Service.

Close

A top House tax writer has confirmed that House Republicans and the Trump administration are working on a second phase of tax reform this year. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Tex., said in an interview that the Trump administration and House Republicans "think more can be done."

A Ways and Means spokesperson told Wolters Kluwer on March 15 that "there are opportunities in making individual tax cuts permanent, increasing innovation, [and] encouraging household savings."Confirmation that House GOP tax writers are mulling additional tax changes to the tax code comes just days after President Trump announced that he and House Republicans are very serious about working on a “phase-two” of tax reform. Trump quipped that Brady is the "king of tax cuts."

Individual Tax Cuts
Among expected changes, in particular, the temporary individual tax cuts enacted under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) could be made permanent, a Ways and Means spokesperson told Wolters Kluwer. For budgetary reasons, the cuts to individual tax rates and benefits were not made permanent under the new law. "While the tax cuts for families were long-term, they are not yet permanent, so we’re going to address issues like that," Brady said.

Criticism
Democratic lawmakers remain largely united in their criticisms of the TCJA. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., criticized the new tax law in a March 15 news conference for "giving 83 percent of the benefits to the top 1 percent, ultimately raising taxes for 86 million middle-class families while contending that it's a middle-class tax cut."

To that end, across the U.S. Capitol, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer has said Democrats would be reluctant to work with Republicans in making any fixes to the new tax law unless Republicans would be willing to address Democrats’ concerns with the law, as well. "We don't have much of an inclination, unless they want to open up other parts of the tax bill that we think need changes, to just help them clean up the mess they made," Schumer said.

Looking Forward
"Mainstream optimism is at record levels, our economy is really gaining momentum and booming in a big way," Brady said. "We’re always looking to improve the tax code," he said, adding that lawmakers are currently considering new ideas for tax reform. "We think there are some good ones." Lawmakers will not combine additional tax reform measures with technical corrections to the existing TCJA, according to Brady, emphasizing that any significant changes to come will be new ideas.

Close

The House Ways and Means Tax Policy Subcommittee held a March 14 hearing in which lawmakers and stakeholders examined the future of various temporary tax extenders post-tax reform. Over 30 tax breaks, which included energy and fuel credits, among others, were retroactively extended for the 2017 tax year in the Bipartisan Budget Act ( P.L. 115-123) enacted in February.

Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers have varying views on specific temporary tax provisions, but in general, seem to have largely been in agreement that year-end tax extenders are not good policy. New to the discussion, however, is whether such provisions are worthwhile now that business tax rates have been lowered along with full and immediate expensing under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97).

New Path Forward
The Ways and Means Committee is "charting a new path forward on temporary tax provisions,"Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Tex., said in his opening statement. "Temporary measures are rarely good tax policy."

According to Brady, numerous tax extenders only exist because of the previously outdated tax code and high tax rates. But now that tax reform has been enacted, these temporary tax breaks may serve less of a purpose. "Starting now, we’re going to apply a rigorous test to these temporary provisions,"Brady said.

To that end, Tax Policy Subcommittee Chairman Vern Buchanan, R-Fla., said that any temporary tax provision determined as no longer necessary post-tax reform should be eliminated. And, as for those that continue to serve an important role and enhance tax reform, permanence should be considered.

Tax Policy Subcommittee ranking member Lloyd Doggett, D-Tex., also weighing in on the issue, said that any temporary tax provisions that will remain need to be paid for moving forward. Additionally, Doggett criticized Republicans for not holding enough hearings on the TCJA, as well as the specific tax extenders currently under review. Doing so, he added, would enable needed discussion on relevancy as well as pay-fors.

Panels
Witnesses at the hearing were grouped into four panels, three of which consisted of several representatives from various industries including fuel, energy, and real estate. The other included witnesses from several think tanks and research organizations.

Generally, industry stakeholders argued that many of these temporary tax breaks remain important, even after tax reform. Buchanan, however, repeatedly asked witnesses why additional incentives were needed after tax cuts and full expensing were provided through tax reform under the TCJA. Several Republican lawmakers, including Buchanan, stated that tax provisions only add to the uncertainty of the tax system.

Several industry witnesses argued, in essence, that not all tax extenders are created equally and should thus be evaluated individually. Barry Grooms, testifying on behalf of the National Association of Realtors, told lawmakers that the tax exclusion for forgiven mortgage debt is unique and should be made a permanent part of our tax law. "Since it was first added to the Internal Revenue Code in 2007, this provision has provided much-needed financial relief for millions of distressed households,"Grooms testified. This exclusion makes the tax system fairer, Grooms added, stating that it provides assistance to families experiencing hardships.

Policy
Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, told lawmakers that tax extenders are generally poor policy and that most should be allowed to sunset. According to MacGuineas, not only do tax extenders add to the federal deficit, the temporary nature of tax extenders makes it difficult for businesses and individuals to plan and invest. "To be sure, there are sometimes legitimate reasons for temporary tax policy – to respond to a natural disaster or economic downturn, to test effectiveness, or to provide transition relief – but most of the tax extenders are temporary simply to hide their budgetary cost," MacGuineas testifed.

Likewise, David Burton, senior fellow in economic policy at The Heritage Foundation, spoke to the costliness of tax extenders. Burton testified that 13 energy tax extenders are unwarranted. "At roughly $53 billion over ten years, the revenue lost from these provisions is substantial," Burton included in his written testimony. Additionally, Burton told lawmakers that tax extenders make the tax system less fair.

Seth Hanlon, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, criticized Congress for not addressing tax extenders in the TCJA. Furthermore, Hanlon told lawmakers that tax extenders not only make the tax code more unstable and add to the federal deficit, but also complicate the IRS’s job during filing season.

"Congress should have ended the gimmicky routine on tax extenders long ago, and certainly should have done so in legislation that was billed as a once-in-a-generation tax reform," Hanlon testified. "But, better late than never."

Close

The IRS has released Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) to address a taxpayer’s filing obligations and payment requirements with respect to the Code Sec. 965 transition tax, enacted as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Creation Act ( P.L. 115-97). The instructions in the FAQs are for filing 2017 returns with an amount of Code Sec. 965 tax. Failure to follow the FAQs could result in difficulties in processing the returns. Taxpayers who are required to file electronically are asked to wait until April 2, 2018, to file returns so that the IRS can make system changes.

In general, Code Sec. 965 imposes a one-time tax on the untaxed post-1986 foreign earnings of foreign subsidiaries of U.S. shareholders by deeming the earnings to be repatriated. The foreign earnings held in the form of cash and cash equivalents are taxed at a 15.5 percent rate, and remaining earnings are taxed at an 8 percent rate. The taxpayer may elect to pay the tax in installments over eight years.

Amounts must be reported by a U.S. shareholders of deferred foreign income corporation (DFIC) or by a direct or indirect partner in a domestic partnership, a shareholder in an S corporation, or a beneficiary of another passthrough entity that is a U.S. shareholder of a DFIC.

The Appendix to Q&A 2 contains a table that describes, separately for individuals and entities, how items should be reported on the 2017 tax return. For example, an individual reports the Code Sec. 965(a) amount on Form 1040, Line 21, with the notation SEC 965 on the dotted line to the left of the Line.

A person with income under Code Sec. 965 is required to include with its return an IRC 965 Transition Tax Statement, signed under penalties of perjury, and in the case of an electronically filed return, in pdf format with the filename 965 tax. A Model statement is provided. Adequate records must be kept supporting the Code Sec. 965 inclusion amount, the deduction under Code Sec. 965(c), the net tax liability under Code Sec. 965, and any other underlying calculations of these amounts.

The FAQs provide details on how to make the multiple Code Sec. 965 elections, including the election to pay the tax in installments over eight years. For each election, a statement must be attached to the return and signed under the penalties of perjury, and in the case of an electronically filed return, in pdf format.

Form 5471 must also be filed with the 2017 return of a U.S. shareholder of a specified foreign corporation, regardless of whether the specified foreign corporation is a controlled foreign corporation. A statement containing information about the Code Sec. 965(a) inclusion must be attached to the Schedule K-1s of domestic partnerships, S corporations, or other passthrough entities.

Tax must be paid in two separate payments. One payment will reflect the tax owed, without Code Sec. 965. The second payment is the Code Sec. 965 payment. Both payments must be made by the due date of the applicable return (without extensions). Additional details for paying the tax are provided in the FAQs.

Persons who have already filed a 2017 tax return should consider filing an amended return based on the information in these FAQs and Appendices.

Close

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed an individual’s conviction for obstructing tax law administration. The government failed to show that the individual knew that a "proceeding" was pending when he engaged in the obstructive conduct.

Background
The individual owned and operated a freight service that transported items to and from the United States and Canada. The government charged the individual with violating the "omnibus clause" of Code Sec. 7212(a), which imposes criminal liability on anyone who "in any other way corruptly … obstructs or impedes, or endeavors to obstruct or impede, the due administration of" the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26).

The government alleged that the individual obstructed tax administration because he: (1) failed to maintain corporate books and records; (2) failed to provide his accountant with complete and accurate tax information; (3) destroyed business records; (4) was hiding income; and (5) was paying employees with cash. At trial, the jury was instructed that it must unanimously find that he corruptly engaged in one of the practices listed. However, the jury was not instructed that it had to find that the individual knew he was under investigation and intended to interfere with that investigation. Subsequently, the jury convicted the individual on all counts. Then, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction.

Tax Law Administration
The Supreme Court reversed and remanded. According to the Court, the verbs "obstruct" and "impede" require an object. Therefore, the taxpayer must hinder a particular person or thing. Moreover, the omnibus clause serves as a "catchall" for the obstructive conduct, not as a catchall for every violation that interferes with tax law administration.

Nothing in the statute’s history suggested that Congress intended the omnibus clause to apply to the entire Internal Revenue Code, including the routine processing of tax returns, tax payments and tax refunds. Further, if the omnibus clause applied to all tax law administration, many tax misdemeanors might turn into felonies and make specific criminal provisions in the Code redundant. Accordingly, the phrase "due administration of" the tax code referred only to some acts, not everything the IRS does.

Overly Broad Interpretation
A broad interpretation of the omnibus clause would also risk the lack of fair warning. Interpreted broadly, the provision could apply to a person who paid a babysitter in cash without withholding taxes, left a large cash tip in a restaurant, failed to keep donation receipts, or failed to provide every record to their accountant. Such individuals may know they are violating an IRS rule. However, they would not think they could be prosecuted for obstruction. Further, if Congress intended that outcome, it should have made that clear in the statute.

Government’s Argument
Further, the Court rejected the government’s argument that the need to show the obstructive conduct was corrupt cured any overbreath problem. However, a taxpayer who "willfully" violates the tax code intends someone to obtain an unlawful advantage. Moreover, relying upon prosecutorial discretion to narrow an otherwise overbroad statute puts too much power in the hands of the prosecutor, and risks undermining public confidence in the criminal justice system. Therefore, to secure a conviction under the omnibus clause, the government was required to show that there was a nexus between the individual’s conduct and an investigation, audit or other targeted administrative action.

Reversing and remanding a CA-2 decision 2016-2 ustc ¶50,453.

Close

You have carefully considered the multitude of complex tax and financial factors, run the numbers, meet the eligibility requirements, and are ready to convert your traditional IRA to a Roth IRA. The question now remains, however, how do you convert your IRA?

Conversion basics

A conversion is a penalty-free taxable transfer of amounts from a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA. You can convert part or all of the money in your regular IRA to a Roth. When you convert your traditional IRA to a Roth, you will have to pay income tax on the amount converted. However, a traditional IRA may be converted (or rolled over) penalty-free to a Roth IRA as long as you meet the requirements for conversion, including adjusted gross income (AGI) limits in effect until 2010. You should have funds outside the IRA to pay the income tax due on the conversion, rather than taking a withdrawal from your traditional IRA to pay for it - those withdrawals are subject to an early withdrawal penalty and they cannot be put back at a later time to continue to accumulate in the tax-free environment of an IRA.

Big news for 2010 and beyond

Beginning in 2010, you can convert from a traditional to a Roth IRA with no income level or filing status restrictions. For 2008, Roth IRAs are available for individuals with a maximum adjusted gross income of $116,000 ($169,000 for joint filers and heads of household). These income limits have prevented many individuals from establishing or converting to a Roth IRA. Not only is the income limitation eliminated after 2009, taxpayers who convert to a Roth IRA in 2010 can recognize the conversion amount in adjusted gross income (AGI) ratably over two years, in 2011 and 2012.

Example. You have $14,000 in a traditional IRA, which consists of deductible contributions and earnings. In 2010, you convert the entire amount to a Roth IRA. You do not take any distributions in 2010. As a result of the conversion, you have $14,000 in gross income. Unless you elect otherwise, $7,000 of the income is included in income in 2011 and $7,000 is included in income in 2012.

Conversion methods

There are three ways to convert your traditional IRA to a Roth. Generally, the conversion is treated as a rollover, regardless of the conversion method used. Any converted amount is treated as a distribution from the traditional IRA and a qualified rollover contribution to the Roth IRA, even if the conversion is accomplished by means of a trustee-to-trustee transfer or a transfer between IRAs of the same trustee.

1. Rollover conversion. Amounts distributed from a traditional IRA may be contributed (i.e. rolled over) to a Roth IRA within 60 days after the distribution.

2. Trustee-to-trustee transfer. Amounts in a traditional IRA may be transferred in a trustee-to-trustee transfer from the trustee of the traditional IRA to the trustee of the Roth IRA. The financial institution holding your traditional IRA assets will provide directions on how to transfer those assets to a Roth IRA that is maintained with another financial institution.

3. Internal conversions. Amounts in a traditional IRA may be transferred to a Roth IRA maintained by the same trustee. Conversions made with the same trustee can be made by redesignating the traditional IRA as a Roth IRA, in lieu of opening a new account or issuing a new contract. As with the trustee-to-trustee transfer, the financial institution holding the traditional IRA assets will provide instructions on how to transfer those assets to a Roth IRA. The transaction may be simpler in this instance because the transfer occurs within the same financial institution.

Failed conversions

A failed conversion has significant negative tax consequences, and generally occurs when you do not meet the Roth IRA eligibility or statutory requirements; for example, your AGI exceeds the limit in the year of conversion or you are married filing separately (note: as mentioned, the AGI limit for Roth IRAs will no longer be applicable beginning in 2010).

A failed conversion is treated as a distribution from your traditional IRA and an improper contribution to a Roth IRA. Not only will the amount of the distribution be subject to ordinary income tax in the year of the failed conversion, it will also be subject to the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty for individuals under age 59 1/2, (unless an exception applies). Moreover, the Tax Code imposes an additional 6 percent excise tax each year on the excess contribution amount made to a Roth IRA until the excess is withdrawn.

Caution - financial institutions make mistakes

The brokerage firm, bank, or other financial institution that will process your IRA to Roth IRA conversion can make mistakes, and their administrative errors will generally cost you. It is imperative that you understand the process, the paperwork, and what is required of you and your financial institution to ensure the conversion of your IRA properly and timely. Our office can apprise you of what to look out for and what to require of the financial institutions you will deal with during the process.

Determining whether to convert your traditional IRA to a Roth IRA can be a complicated decision to make, as it raises a host of tax and financial questions. Our office can help you determine not only whether conversion is right for you, but what method is best for you, too.

Close

In a period of declining stock prices, tax benefits may not be foremost in your mind. Nevertheless, you may be able to salvage some benefits from the drop in values. Not only can you reduce your taxable income, but you may be able to move out of unfavorable investments and shift your portfolio to investments that you are more comfortable with.

First, you should keep in mind that gain and loss on a sale of stock or mutual fund shares depends on the fair market value of the shares when sold or disposed of, compared to the cost basis of the stock. Your investments may have lost substantial value over recent periods. Nevertheless, if the stock's value when sold is higher than the basis, you still have a gain.

Example. You purchased X Corp stock in 2004, when it cost $5. At the end of 2007, the stock is worth $12. In November, 2008, you sell the stock when its value is $8 a share. Even though your investment has declined in value by 33 percent, you have a gain of $3 a share on the sale ($8 sales price less $5 cost).

The same tax-basis situation that may cause capital gain on the sale of shares that have dropped significantly in value over the past year also is causing many owners of mutual funds that have declined in value to be surprised with a capital gains distribution notice from their fund managers. If you own the mutual fund shares at the time of the capital gain distribution date, you must recognize the gain. Of course, that gain may be netted against your losses from stock or other capital asset sales.

If you realize a profit on a stock sale, the long-term capital gains tax is a maximum of 15 percent, while taxes on wages and other ordinary income can be taxed as high as 35 percent. For taxpayers in the 10 or 15 percent rate brackets, there is no capital gains tax. These reduced capital gains rates are scheduled to expire after 2010. Short-term capital gains (investments held for one year or less) are taxed at ordinary income rates up to 35 percent.

Capital losses can offset capital gains and ordinary income dollar for dollar. Capital gains can be offset in full, whether short-term or long-term. Ordinary income can be offset up to $3,000. If net capital losses (capital losses minus capital gains) exceed $3,000, the excess can be carried forward without limit and can offset capital gains and $3,000 of ordinary income in each subsequent year.

Because a capital loss can offset income taxed at the 35 percent rate, it can be advantageous to sell stock that yields capital gains in one year, while delaying the realization of capital losses until the following year.

Example. Mary has two assets. One asset would yield a $6,000 long-term capital loss when sold. The other would yield a $6,000 long-term capital gain. If Mary sells both assets in the same year, she has a net capital gain of zero. If she realizes the gain in 2008 and the loss in 2009 (by selling the assets in different years), she will increase her 2008 taxes by a maximum of $900 ($6,000 X 15 percent), but will reduce her taxes in 2009 and 2010 by a maximum of $2,100 ($3,000 X 35 percent X 2 years). She will reduce her taxes by $1,200 merely by shifting the timing of the sales.

Worthless securities. You can write off the cost of totally worthless securities as a capital loss, but cannot take a deduction for securities that have lost most of their value from stock market fluctuations or other causes if you still own them and they still have a recognizable value. You do not have to sell, abandon or dispose of the security to take a worthless stock deduction, but worthlessness must be evidenced by an identifiable event. An event includes cessation of the corporation's business, commencement of liquidation, actual foreclosure and bankruptcy. Securities become worthless if the corporation becomes worthless, even if the corporation has not dissolved, liquidated or ceased doing business.

If you would like to discuss these issues, please contact our office. We can help you consider your options.

Close

The high cost of energy has nearly everyone looking for ways to conserve and save money, especially with colder weather coming to many parts of the country. One surprising place to find help is in the financial markets rescue package (the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008) recently passed by Congress. Overshadowed by the financial provisions are some very important energy tax incentives that could save you money at home and in your business.

While the energy tax incentives in the new law are generous, they are also complex. The names of the tax credits and deductions themselves can be daunting. Don't be put off by all the complex rules. Our office can help you navigate them and take advantage of their benefits.

Individuals

Improvements. If you are thinking of installing insulation or new energy-efficient windows and doors, you may be eligible for the residential energy property credit. This credit (also known as the Code Sec. 25C credit) gives eligible taxpayers a lifetime credit of up to $500 for making energy-efficient improvements to their residences. Up to $200 of the credit can be taken for the cost of windows. Besides insulation and energy-efficient windows and doors, some electric heat pump water heaters, natural gas, propane and oil furnaces, and other items qualify. The credit limits and energy-efficiency ratings are very complex so please contact our office before you make a purchase. We don't want you to miss out on a potentially valuable tax break. However, because of a quirk in the new law, the residential energy property credit is not available for 2008. However, you can take advantage of it in 2009.

Alternative energy. This credit (also known as the Code Sec. 25D credit) sounds a lot like the credit for energy efficient property but it is different. The key word in the title of the credit is "alternative." This credit rewards individuals who install certain types of alternative energy systems in their homes, particularly systems that utilize solar power and wind energy. These include solar electric, solar water heating, small wind energy, and geothermal heat pump property. Generally you must install the property before the end of 2016.

Businesses

Solar and wind power. Businesses are also eligible for some valuable energy tax breaks. Businesses that install solar energy and small wind energy property can take advantage of special tax credits that can reach as high as 30 percent. Generally, the solar or wind energy property must be used to generate electricity that heats, cools or lights a building.

Improvements. There is also a special tax deduction for energy efficient improvements made to commercial buildings. Generally, the improvements to heating, cooling, ventilation, lighting, and other qualifying systems must significantly reduce annual energy costs. Many of the new heating, cooling and lighting systems currently on the market meet these standards. If you recently installed new heating, cooling or lighting systems, you may have qualified for a tax break without even knowing it.

Manufacturers and builders. Manufacturers of energy efficient appliances, such as washing machines and refrigerators, are eligible for special tax credits. Additionally, contractors that build energy efficient homes can take advantage of tax breaks.

Transportation

In the not too distant future, you may be able to purchase a plug-in electric vehicle. In anticipation of that day, Congress created a new plug-in electric vehicle tax credit. The credit is available to everyone: individuals and businesses. Electric plug-in vehicles could be on the market as soon as 2010 so keep this tax break in mind if you shop for one.

These are just the highlights of some of the many energy tax incentives in the new law. Please contact our office for more details.

Close

Nonbusiness creditors may deduct bad debts when they become totally worthless (i.e. there is no chance of its repayment). The proper year for the deduction can generally be established by showing that an insolvent debtor has not timely serviced a debt and has either refused to pay any part of the debt in the future, gone through bankruptcy, or disappeared. Thus, if you have loaned money to a friend or family member that you are unable to collect, you may have a bad debt that is deductible on your personal income tax return.

The fact that the debtor is a family member or other related interest does not preclude you from taking a bad debt deduction, provided that the debt was bona fide and that worthlessness has been established. A direct or indirect transfer of money between family members may create a bona fide debt eligible for the bad debt deduction. However, these transactions are closely scrutinized to determine whether the transfer is a bona fide debt or a gift.

Bona-fide debt and other requirements for deductibility

You may only take a bad debt deduction for bona-fide debts. A bona-fide debt is a debt arising from a debtor-creditor relationship based on a valid and enforceable obligation to repay a fixed or determinable sum of money. You must also have the present intention to seek repayment of the debt. Additionally, for a bad debt you must also show that you had the intent to make a loan, and not a gift, at the time the money was transferred. Thus, there must be a true creditor-debtor relationship.

Moreover, nonbusiness bad debts are only deductible in the year they become totally worthless (partially worthless nonbusiness bad debts are not deductible).

To deduct a bad debt, you must also have a basis in it, which means that you must have already included the amount in your income or loaned out your cash (for example, if your spouse has not paid court-ordered child support, you can not claim a bad debt deduction for the amount owed as this amount was not previously included in your gross income).

Reporting bad debts

You can deduct nonbusiness bad debts as short-term capital losses on Schedule D of your Form 1040. On Schedule D, Part I, Line 1, enter the debtor's name and "statement attached" in column (a). Enter the amount of the bad debt in parentheses in column (f). If you are reporting multiple bad debts, use a separate line for each bad debt. For each bad debt, attach a statement to your return containing the following:

A description of the debt, including the amount and date it became due;
The name of the debtor, and any business or family relationship between you and the debtor:
The efforts you made to collect the debt; and
An explanation of why you decided the debt was worthless (for example, you can show the debtor has declared bankruptcy or is insolvent, or that collection efforts such as through legal action will not likely result in the debt being paid).

If you did not deduct a bad debt on your original income tax return for the year it became worthless, you can file a refund claim or a claim for a credit due to the bad debt. You must use Form 1040X to amend your return for the year the debt became worthless. It must be filed with 7 years from the date your original return for that year had to be filed, or 2 years from the date you paid the tax, whichever is later.

Note. If you deduct a bad debt and in a later year collect all or part of the money owed, you may have to include this amount in your gross income. However, you can exclude from your gross income the amount recovered up to the amount of the deduction that did not reduce your tax in the year you deducted the debt.

Close

With the U.S. and world financial markets in turmoil, many individual investors may be watching the value of their stock seesaw, or have seen it plummet in value. If the value of your shares are trading at very low prices, or have no value at all, you may be wondering if you can claim a worthless securities deduction for the stock on your 2008 tax return.

Capital or ordinary loss treatment

When stock you own in a corporation becomes totally worthless during the tax year, you may be able to report a loss in the stock equal to its tax basis. Generally, a worthless stock loss is characterized as a capital loss because securities like stock that become worthless are usually treated as capital assets. When a security that is not a capital asset becomes wholly worthless, the loss is deductible as an ordinary loss. For example, if worthless stock is Code Sec. 1244 stock, ordinary loss treatment applies. Worthless stock is treated as if it was sold on the last day of the tax year.

Note. You may only deduct a loss on worthless securities if the loss is incurred in a trade or business, in a transaction entered into for profit, or as the result of a fire, storm, shipwreck, another casualty, or theft. It is generally assumed that an individual acquires securities for profit (although this assumption may be refuted).

Your stock is trading at $1.08 a share: Is it "worthlessness?"

A worthless stock deduction may only be taken when your securities have become totally worthless. You can not take the deduction for stock that has become only partially worthless. The Internal Revenue Code, however, does not define "worthlessness." Nonetheless, in the IRS's eyes, a company's stock is not going to be automatically considered worthless simply because the stock or security has plummeted in value and is now trading at mere dollars and cents.

With the current market turmoil, many stocks have taken big hits and dropped significantly in value, perhaps even trading for a $1.08 per share, but are nonetheless still alive and trading on an exchange. Therefore, you can not take a worthless stock deduction for a mere decline in value of stock caused by a fluctuation in market price or other similar cause, no matter how steep the decline, if your stock has any recognizable value on the date you claim as the date of loss. Even if a company in which you have stock files for bankruptcy, or lawsuits are filed against it, does not automatically qualify the stock or securities as worthlessness.

More hurdles to overcome

Even if you can establish that the stock you own has become totally worthless, the loss must be (1) evidenced by a closed and completed transaction, (2) fixed by identifiable events and (3) actually sustained during the tax year. First, you may only claim the deduction on your return for the tax year in which the stock has become completely worthless, and you must be able to show that the year in which you are claiming the loss is the appropriate tax year.

Generally, a worthless stock loss deduction can be taken in the year in which you abandon the stock. To abandon a security, you must permanently surrender and relinquish all rights in the security and receive no consideration in exchange for the security. But, whether the transaction qualifies as abandonment, and not an actual sale or exchange, is a facts and circumstances test.

If you would like to know whether the stock or other securities you own have become worthless, please contact our office. We can help you navigate these complex rules.

Close

The Housing Assistance Tax Act of 2008 (2008 Housing Act) gave a boost to individuals purchasing a home for the first time with a $7,500 first-time homebuyer tax credit. The credit was enhanced from $7,500 to $8,000 and extended for certain purchases under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (2009 Recovery Act). This article explains how to determine the credit for eligible first-time homebuyers.

The $7,500 credit

The first-time homebuyer tax credit is a refundable, but temporary, tax credit equal to 10 percent of the purchase price of the residence, up to $7,500 for single individuals and married couples filing jointly, and $3,750 for married individuals who file separately. The $7,500 credit is only available for first-time purchases of primary residences (i.e. no second homes) made on or after April 9, 2008 and before July 1, 2009. To be eligible to claim the credit, however, an individual (or his or her spouse) must not have had any type of ownership interest in a principal residence during the three-year period before the date that the principal residence, for which the credit is to be taken, is purchased. You can claim a credit of up to either $7,500, or 10 percent of the purchase price, whichever is less.

The $8,000 credit under the 2009 Recovery Act

The 2009 Recovery Act raised the $7,500 maximum credit to $8,000, and extended that level through 2009 for eligible home purchases. The new law also eliminates any required repayment to the IRS after 36 months in the home. However, the enhanced $8,000 credit only applies to purchase of a principal residence made by a "first-time" homebuyer after December 31, 2008. Purchases on or after April 9, 2008 and before January 1, 2009 continue to be governed by the original first-time homebuyer credit enacted in the 2008 Housing Act.

The credit must be repaid in equal installments over the course of 15 years; the credit is interest-free. Repayments start two years after the year in which the residence is purchased. If the taxpayer sells or no longer uses the home as his or her principal residence before repaying the credit, the unpaid amount accelerates and becomes due on the return for the year in which the residence is sold or no longer used as a principal residence. The credit does not need to be repaid if the taxpayer dies. Special rules also exist for an involuntary conversion and a residence transferred in a divorce.

Example. Jim and Marsha, a married couple, are new homebuyers. They have never owned any other real property as a primary residence. Their combined modified adjusted gross income (AGI) is $74,600. They purchase their home in June 2009. Their first-time home purchase qualifies for the full $7,500 credit. They may file an amended 2008 return to claim the credit. Repayments of the $7,500 credit would begin in 2011.

Example. Mary and Tim are married joint filers who close title on a new home in February 2009. Their combined modified AGI is $100,000. They are entitled to claim the $8,000 first-time homebuyer tax credit. If they remain in the home for 36 months, they are not required to repay the credit to the government.

Phase-outs

The $7,500 and $8,000 credits both begin to phase-out for married couples with modified AGI between $150,000 and $170,000, and for single taxpayers with modified AGI between $75,000 and $95,000. However, the new credit benefits more than just single individuals and married couples, and can be taken by all co-owners, such as same-sex couples and family members who buy the residence together. However, the total amount of the credit allowed to such individuals, jointly, cannot exceed $7,500 (or $8,000).

Figuring the credit

If your modified AGI exceeds income threshold at which the credit begins to phase-out - $75,000 for single filers and $150,000 for joint filers - use the following steps to help determine the amount of the credit you can take.

Subtract the "phase-out amount" ($75,000 for single filers, or $150,000 for joint filers) from your (or you and your spouse's) modified AGI.
Take this dollar amount and divide it by $20,000.
Multiply this number by $7,500 (for single and joint filers), $3,750 for a married individual filing separately, or 10 percent of the purchase price of your home, whichever amount is applicable in your circumstances. (For example, if the purchase price of your home is $50,000, you would be able to claim the credit up to $5,000, since 10 percent of $50,000 (the purchase price) is less than $7,500). The resulting amount is the total amount of the credit that you may claim.

Note. This same formula will work for determining the $8,000 credit under the 2009 Recovery Act. Simply substitute $8,000 for $7,500 where applicable.

Example. Jane, a single filer, is a first-time homebuyer. Her modified AGI is $80,000. She buys a home in October 2008 for $200,000. Because 10 percent of the purchase price ($20,000) is more than $7,500, the maximum credit amount she can claim is $7,500. However, because her modified AGI exceeds $75,000, she will not be able to claim the entire credit amount. Instead, she will be able to claim a credit of $5,625 ($80,000 - $75,000 = $5,000. $5,000 divided by $20,000 = .25. $7,500 multiplied by .25 = $1,875. $7,500 - $1,875 = $5,625).

Example. Michael is a single filer and first-time homebuyer. His modified AGI is $87,600. He buys a home in September 2008 for $50,000. Because 10 percent of the home's purchase price ($5,000) is less than the maximum amount of the allowable credit ($7,500), the maximum credit he can claim is $5,000. However, because his modified AGI exceeds the amount at which the credit phases out, his credit will be further reduced. Michael can claim a credit of $1,850 ($87,600-$75,000= $12,600. $12,600 divided by $20,000 = .63. $5,000 multiplied by .63 = $3,150. $5,000 - $3150 = $1,850.

Example. Linda and Ed, married joint filers, are first-time homebuyers. Their modified AGI is $162,400. They buy their first home in August 2008 for $300,000. Since their modified AGI exceeds the phase-out amount ($150,000 for joint filers), they will not be able to claim the entire credit amount of $7,500. Instead, they will be able to claim a maximum credit of $2,850 ($162,400 - $150,000 = $12,400. $12,400 divided by $20,000 = .62. $7,500 multiplied by .62 = $4,650. $7,500 - $4,650 = $2,850).

The credit amounts in every case will need to be repaid beginning two years after the date the home is purchased, in equal installments over the course of 15 years.

If you or anyone close to you is considering purchasing a first home as defined under the new law, the new tax credit may be able to make an otherwise difficult down payment sail through. Please contact this office for further details.

Close

As you open the doors of your new business, the last thing on your mind may be the potential for loss of profits through employee oversight or theft - especially if you are the only employee. However, setting up some basic internal controls to guard against future loss before you hire others can save you headaches in the future.

Soon after you start making money and the world realizes that they cannot live without your goods or service, you will probably need to hire employees. Although necessary for your growing company, hiring employees increases your risk of loss through errors, oversights and theft.

Implementing internal controls to help you monitor your business can decrease the need for constant supervision of your employees. Internal controls are checks and balances to prevent fraud, limit financial losses and reduce errors or oversights by employees. For example, the most basic internal control concept requires that certain tasks be handled by different people. This process, called "separation of duties", can greatly decrease the probability of loss.

The following basic internal control checklist includes suggestions that, once implemented, can help you and your employees avoid concerns about fraud or theft in the workplace:

Have one person open the mail and list all the checks on the deposit slip while another enters cash receipts in your financial records.

Make sure someone who does not handle the checkbook or purchasing is in charge of payments to suppliers and vendors.

Have your bank reconciliation done by someone who does not have access to daily checkbook transactions.

Make sure that you approve all vendors and that you count all goods received. Check all orders to make sure they are correct and of the quality you intended. Sign each check and review the invoice, delivery receipt and purchase order.

As your company grows, you may want to become less and less involved with the day-to-day operations of the business. The internal controls you put into place now will help keep the profits up, the losses down, and help you sleep better at night. If you need any assistance with setting up internal controls for you business, please feel free to contact our office.

Close