Steven G. Newcom, CPA, P.C.

A "phase two" tax reform outline could be unveiled by House GOP tax writers by August. Republicans have started to increase their tax meetings related to the effort, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Tex., told reporters on June 13.

Tax Reform "2.0" Timeline

The precise timing of a "phase two" tax reform bill or discussion draft release remains "to-be-determined," a House Ways and Means Committee spokesperson told Wolters Kluwer on June 14. However, Brady told reporters he expects to see a legislative package outlined before the House’s August recess.

Previously, White House Legislative Affairs Director Marc Short predicted a late-summer release of the House’s tax bill. Further, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., has predicted that the House will approve the measure before midterm elections in November.

Individual Tax Cuts

Brady reiterated to reporters that "phase two" will focus on the individual side of the tax code. Moreover, making permanent the individual tax cuts enacted under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) will be the "centerpiece" of a " phase two" bill, Brady reportedly said. Additionally, Republican tax writers are considering proposals that would streamline the retirement savings process, a Ways and Means spokesperson previously told Wolters Kluwer.

Phase Two Fate Uncertain

The next major tax bill’s fate in the Senate remains uncertain. At least nine Democratic votes will be needed to reach the Senate’s 60-vote threshold. Brady has said he is hopeful for Democratic support.

However, Democratic lawmakers in the House and Senate remain largely opposed to the TCJA. Democrats have criticized the TCJA for primarily benefiting corporations. However, House Republicans are hopeful for bipartisan support on a new measure that focuses primarily on individual tax cuts.

Close

A bipartisan group of House and Senate lawmakers have introduced companion Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit (HTC) bills. The measure aims to strengthen the HTC by encouraging investment and minimizing administrative burdens, according to the lawmakers.

Rehabilitation Credit

As amended by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), the rehabilitation credit under Code Sec. 47 is limited to 20 percent of qualified rehabilitation expenditures (QREs) of the taxpayer for qualified rehabilitated buildings. The credit is claimed ratably over a five-year period beginning in the tax year in which the rehabilitated building is placed in service. A "qualified rehabilitated building" (QRB) is a building and its structural components for which depreciation is allowable, and that has been substantially rehabilitated and placed in service before the beginning of the rehabilitation. The building must be a certified historic structure, but any expenditure attributable to rehabilitation of the structure is not a QRE unless it is a certified rehabilitation.

Property is considered substantially rehabilitated only if the expenditures during an elected 24-month measurement period (60-month period for phased rehabilitations) ending with or within the tax year are greater than the adjusted basis of the property or $5,000.

Basis-Adjustment Requirement

The bipartisan Historic Tax Credit Enhancement Bill, introduced June 13, would eliminate the existing basis-adjustment requirement. Eliminating this requirement would "bring the HTC in line with other tax credits claimed over multiple years," according to a joint press release by the bill’s sponsors.

The measure was introduced by Sens. Bill Cassidy, R-La., Ben Cardin, D-Md., and Susan Collins, R-Me., and Reps. Darin LaHood, R-Ill., and Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore. "Protecting this credit was one of my top priorities in tax reform, and I’m glad there is bipartisan support for making it even better," Cassidy said in the joint press release. Cardin praised the measure for helping to create economic growth.

Improved HTC

Likewise, Collins said the bill would make the HTC easier to use as well as create economic development across the country. Additionally, an improved HTC would create jobs, according to Blumenauer. "Strengthening the Historic Tax Credit will further revitalize American cities while creating local jobs and spurring economic development in communities large and small," Blumenauer said.

Close

House tax writers have moved two bills through committee. The bills focus on IRS hiring and the tax treatment of mutual ditch irrigation companies. The House Ways and Means Committee approved the measures in a June 21 markup.

IRS Hiring

The Ensuring Integrity in the IRS Workforce bill (HR 3500) would set certain restrictions on the IRS’s hiring policy. The bipartisan bill would amend Code Sec. 7804 to prohibit the rehiring of any employee previously dismissed for certain misconduct issues.

The bill comes after two Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) reports noted that the IRS rehired hundreds of former employees with conduct violations. Over 200 of the more than 2,000 former employees rehired between January 2015 and March 2016 were previously terminated from the IRS for a substantiated conduct or performance issue, according to a July 2017 TIGTA report. Inspector General J. Russell George previously told lawmakers that the particular IRS hiring process is "bad decision making."

The bill, sponsored by Reps. Kristi Noem, R-S.D., and Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., originally passed the House with bipartisan support in the 114th Congress. However, the Senate never took up the measure. Also, Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., introduced a related bill in the Senate.

"If a person is fired for falsifying information or mishandling sensitive taxpayer data, it’s common sense that individuals should not be rehired," Noem said in a June 21 press release. "Nonetheless, the IRS has done this repeatedly."

Agriculture Tax Reform

Additionally, the Ways and Means Committee approved the Water and Agriculture Tax Reform bill (HR 519). The bill aims to facilitate water leasing and transfers to promote conservation and efficiency. HR 519 would amend the "tax treatment of mutual water storage and delivery companies so that they can maintain their nonprofit status even if more than 15 percent of their revenue comes from nonmembers," according to a June 21 press release by the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo.

HR 519 and HR 3500 are now headed to the House floor.

Close

The American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Taxation has expressed concerns to top Senate tax writers about certain congressional IRS reform efforts. The ABA Section of Taxation sent a June 6 letter to Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Chairman Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah and ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., regarding the House-approved bipartisan Taxpayer First Act (HR 5444).

IRS Reform

"The administrative reforms included in the House bills are a welcome step forward," Hatch previously told Wolters Kluwer. The House passed a package of bills in April, which aims to restructure the IRS for the first time in 20 years. Hatch told Wolters Kluwer that he is looking forward to working with his colleagues to find a path forward that reflects both House and Senate views on IRS reform.

While the SFC considers the House’s IRS reform package, the ABA Section of Taxation has asked Senate tax writers to consider certain suggestions to enhance IRS restructuring efforts. "We appreciate that Congress has turned its attention to the relationship between taxpayers and the agency charged with the assessment and collection of taxes," the letter said. The ABA Section of Taxation agrees with most of the House-proposed changes but has concerns with certain aspects of the bill, the letter noted.

Appeals

The House bill, HR 5444, proposes the establishment of an independent Office of Appeals along with a "generally available" right to appeal for taxpayers. While the letter to Hatch and Wyden supports a statutory right to appeals, among other things, it expresses concern that the IRS could limit certain taxpayer’s access to an appeal. "To the extent that the Service wishes to deny appeal rights to taxpayers, it should be required to articulate objective standards for when appeals will not be available, so that any Service determination to deny appeal rights can be measured against those standards," the letter said.

Additionally, the letter proposes that Congress remove certain limiting words from the bill’s provisions that discuss taxpayers’ rights to access case files. Currently, the bill states that only "specified taxpayers" will automatically be provided access to their case files. The ABA Section of Taxation urges Congress to allow all taxpayers access to information in their case file, regardless of income thresholds.

Senate Timeline

As for when the SFC will release its anticipated amendments to the House-approved IRS reform package remains unclear. The Senate’s legislative efforts toward restructuring the IRS are expected among lawmakers to be bipartisan.

Close

The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that nonqualified employee stock options are not taxable compensation under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act (RRTA). The term "money remuneration" in the Act unambiguously excludes "stock."

Background

Several railroads filed a refund claim for overpaid Railroad Retirement taxes. The railroads claimed they overpaid their taxes because they included the value of employee stock options when calculating the tax.

The IRS denied the refund request. The IRS argued that stock options were taxable "money remuneration" under the RRTA because stock can be easily converted into money.

The railroads replied that stock options are not money. Moreover, they argued that when Congress passed the RRTA, it sought to mimic existing industry pension practices. Generally, those practices ignored in-kind benefits like food, lodging, and railroad tickets.

Stock Options Not Money

When Congress adopted the RRTA in 1937, it understood "money" as "currency issued by a recognized authority as a medium of exchange." Stock options do not fall within this definition.

Further, while stock can be bought or sold for money, it is not usually considered a medium of exchange. Few people value goods and services using stock, or buy groceries or pay rent with stock.

Also, adding the word remuneration did not alter the meaning of the word money. Thus, "any form of money remuneration" indicated that Congress wanted to tax money compensation. It did not indicate that Congress wanted to tax things, like stock, that are not money.

Statutory Context

Moreover, the broader statutory context pointed to the same conclusion. For example, the 1939 Internal Revenue Code treated money and stock differently. However, the Federal Insurance Contribution Act taxes all remuneration, including benefits paid in a medium other than cash.

Further, a contemporaneous IRS rule explained that the RRTA taxed all money compensation. The rule lists examples like salaries, wages, commissions and bonuses. It also included things that could be used as money, like scrip. However, the rule did not suggest that stock was taxable compensation.

Thus, Congress knew the difference between money and other forms of compensation. The choice of Congress to use the narrower term for railroad pensions had to be respected.

Reversing and remanding CA-7, 2017-2 ustc ¶50,295.

Close

A member of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida had to pay federal income tax on distributions of gaming income that she and her family received from the tribe. The payments were taxable income under the Indian Gaming Revenue Act, rather than Indian general welfare benefits that were excluded from tax under Code Sec. 139E. Both the taxpayer and the tribe were bound by the decision.

Tribal Distributions

The Miccosukee Tribe distributed income to its members in quarterly payments. Historically, these payments were in the $20 to $25 range. In 1990, however, the tribe opened a gaming center that offered high-stakes bingo, poker, and video pull-tab machines. The tribe’s income, and its distributions to its members, increased substantially.

Each quarter, the tribe used the revenue of the gaming activities to fund per capita distributions to its members. But the tribe disregarded its federal tax obligations on these distributions. It neither reported the distributions nor withheld taxes on them. The tribe also told its members not to discuss the payments with outsiders, not to report them to credit card agencies, and not to cash the distribution checks in places that would report them to the IRS.

For the tax year at issue, the taxpayer received a total of $272,000, which represented payments for herself, her husband, and her two children. She did not file a tax return or pay any income tax for that year.

After the IRS assessed tax, interest and penalties against her, the taxpayer attempted to file a late return that reported the $272,000 as nontaxable income. She did not pay any of her assessment. The tribe intervened in her case as a matter of right.

District Court Decision

The District Court agreed with the IRS that the payments were distributions of gaming income that were fully taxable to the taxpayer. Most of the funds came from the gaming operation. The taxpayer and the tribe did not show what portion may have come from other, nontaxable sources.

Although the $272,000 included payments on behalf of the taxpayer’s husband and children, the taxpayer was responsible for tax on the entire amount. The tribe was structured as a matriarchy. Thus, the taxpayer was the head of her household, and the payments were all made available to her. She also spent all of the payments on household expenses, and she had reported all of the payments as her income when she tried to file a late return.

IGRA vs GWEA

The main issue on appeal was whether the tribe’s distributions were covered by the Indian Gaming Revenue Act or the Tribal General Welfare Exclusion Act.

The Indian Gaming Revenue Act (IGRA) was passed in 1988. It allows an Indian tribe to engage in gaming and distribute the revenue to members on a per capita basis. It also explicitly includes those distributions in a tribe member’s taxable income.

Code Sec. 139E was enacted in 2014 as part of the Tribal General Welfare Exclusion Act (GWEA). It excludes from federal taxation any payment made or services provided to or on behalf of an Indian tribe member under an Indian tribal government program. To be excludible, benefits provided under the program must be for the promotion of general welfare.

The court held that the exemption for Indian general welfare benefits under Code Sec. 139Edoes not apply to the per capita payments an Indian tribe makes from gaming revenue.

The taxpayer and the tribe claimed that GWEA effectively amended IGRA because it was more recent. The court disagreed, clarifying that IGRA applied only to gaming income, while GWEA was a law of general application. Thus, under the rules of statutory construction, IGRA continued to apply to distributions of gaming income because it was more specific than GWEA.

The court also rejected the characterization of the payments as distributions of the tribe’s tax revenues rather than its gaming income. The tax did not affect the nature of the gaming income. Instead, it was merely a mechanism to collect the income and distribute it to members.

The distributions also were not nontaxable income from Indian land, because they did not come directly from the use of the reservation land or its resources. Instead, the distributions came from improvements and related business activities–that is, gambling in the casino.

Effect on the Tribe

The tribe argued that it should not be included in the District Court’s judgment. However, the tribe had intervened as a matter of right because, if the court determined the payments were taxable, the tribe would have to report them and withhold income tax from them.

As an intervenor, the tribe had the same status as an original party. It also fully participated in the trial by arguing motions, attending depositions, presenting evidence, and examining witnesses. Thus, it was bound by the District Court’s judgment.

Affirming a DC Fla. decision, 2016-2 ustc ¶50,474.

Close

An individual shareholder of an S corporation restaurant operator was not allowed to claim FICA tip credits under Code Sec. 45B that the S corporation did not claim. The shareholder could not unilaterally and retroactively nullify the S corporation’s election to deduct FICA tip taxes.

Background

The restaurants owned by the S corporation had hired “tipped employees” whose earnings came partly from customer tips. The S corporation was required to pay taxes on these tips as part of its FICA tax payments. For the two tax years at issue, the S corporation did not claim any FICA tip credits. Instead, the S corporation deducted its payments of the FICA tip taxes on its Forms 1120S, and did not later amend those returns.

On his amended Forms 1040 for those tax years, the shareholder claimed he was entitled to flowthrough FICA tip credits with respect to his interest in the S corporation.

FICA Tip Credit

Code Sec. 45B allows an employer working in the food and beverage industry to claim business tax credits for the portion of the FICA taxes—i.e., social security and Medicare taxes—that it paid on employee tips in excess of the minimum wage. The employer must have employees who receive tips from customers for providing food or beverages for consumption, and must be deemed to have paid FICA taxes on the tips in excess of the minimum wage. The employer must not have already claimed a deduction for the FICA tax payment. An employer claims its FICA tip credits on Form 8846.

Here, when the S corporation chose to deduct its FICA tax payments, it had made an election not to claim any FICA tip credits. The S corporation never claimed or intended to claim FICA tip credits. Based on this reporting position, the shareholder was not entitled to any flowthrough FICA tip credits for either tax year.

S Corporation Elections

Under Code Sec. 1363(c) and its regulations, elections that affect the computation of items derived from an S corporation generally must be made by the S corporation, not separately by its shareholders. There are two exceptions: the shareholder claims any elections (1) for the deduction and recapture of certain mining exploration expenditures, and (2) for foreign tax credits.

In this case, the shareholder argued in effect that the S corporation’s election to deduct FICA tax payments could be changed unilaterally by his request, made in his capacity as a shareholder, that the S corporation amend its returns to claim the FICA tip credit. The shareholder’s position was rejected based on the plain text of Code Sec. 1363(c), and of Code Sec. 45B(d), which states that the credit does not apply to a taxpayer if the taxpayer elects to have the credit provision not apply.

Further, the Tax Court stated that it refused to create a new precedent that would give each individual shareholder the power to change an S corporation’s tax election unilaterally. Such a change, stated the court, would not only affect the tax liabilities of the requesting shareholder, but could also affect the tax liabilities of the shareholders who have not consented to the change.

Close

The Treasury Department and the IRS have issued final regulations that:

prevent a corporate partner from avoiding corporate-level gain through transactions with a partnership involving equity interests of the partner or certain related entities;
allow consolidated group members that are partners in the same partnership to aggregate their bases in stock distributed by the partnership for purposes of limiting the application of rules that might otherwise cause basis reduction or gain recognition; and
require certain corporations that engage in gain elimination transactions to reduce the basis of corporate assets or to recognize gain.

The Treasury Department and the IRS have issued final regulations that:

prevent a corporate partner from avoiding corporate-level gain through transactions with a partnership involving equity interests of the partner or certain related entities;
allow consolidated group members that are partners in the same partnership to aggregate their bases in stock distributed by the partnership for purposes of limiting the application of rules that might otherwise cause basis reduction or gain recognition; and
require certain corporations that engage in gain elimination transactions to reduce the basis of corporate assets or to recognize gain.

The Treasury Decision adopts as final certain rules set forth in proposed regulations issued in 2015, under Code Sec. 337(d) (with only minor, nonsubstantive clarifications) ( NPRM REG-149518-03), and Code Sec. 732(f) ( NPRM REG-138759-14).

The final regulations affect partnerships and their partners, and apply to transactions occurring on or after June 12, 2015. The regulations are effective on June 8, 2018.

Acquisition of Interest in Stock to Avoid Gain on Appreciated Property

A corporation that distributes appreciated property to its shareholders has to recognize gain under Code Secs. 311(b) and 336(a) as if the property were sold to the shareholders for its fair market value. However, taxpayers have tried to postpone or avoiding the recognition of that gain.

For example, if a corporation exchanges appreciated property for its own stock, the corporation would recognize gain on the exchange. But corporations have tried to avoid recognizing that gain by, for example, taking these steps:

the corporation enters into a partnership and contributes appreciated property;
the partnership acquires stock of that corporate partner; then
the partnership makes a liquidating distribution of the stock to the corporate partner.

The final regulations under Code Sec. 337(d) aim to prevent a corporate partner from avoiding gain recognition when it acquires or increases its interest in stock held by a partnership in exchange for appreciated property. Under the final regulations, a corporate partner may recognize gain when it is treated as acquiring or increasing its interest in stock of the corporate partner held by a partnership in exchange for appreciated property in a manner that avoids gain recognition under Code Sec. 311(b) or Code Sec. 336(a). The final regulations also provide exceptions under which a corporate partner is not required to recognize gain.

Limit on Basis Reduction or Gain Recognition for Consolidated Group Members

The final regulations limit rules that cause basis reduction or gain recognition for consolidated group members that are partners in the same partnership. Code Sec. 732(f)limits the basis of a distributed corporation’s property if—

a corporate partner receives a distribution from a partnership of stock in another corporation (distributed corporation);
the corporate partner has control of the distributed corporation, defined as ownership of stock meeting the requirements of Code Sec. 1504(a)(2), immediately after the distribution or at any time thereafter (control requirement); and
the partnership’s basis in the stock immediately before the distribution exceeded the corporate partner’s basis in the stock immediately after the distribution.

Under these circumstances, the basis of the distributed corporation’s property must be reduced by this excess. Further, the corporate partner must recognize gain to the extent that the basis of the distributed corporation’s property cannot be reduced.

In applying this rule, the final regulations allow the bases of consolidated group members to be aggregated if when two conditions are met: (1) two or more of the corporate partners receive a distribution of stock in a distributed corporation from the partnership; and (2) the distributed corporation is or becomes a member of the distributee partners’ consolidated group after the distribution.

Elimination Transactions

Final regulations restrict corporate partners from entering into gain elimination transactions. They focus on attempts to eliminate gain in the stock of a distributed corporation while avoiding the effects of a basis step-down in transactions. Under the regulations, in the event of a gain elimination transaction, Code Sec. 732(f) will apply as though the corporate partner acquired control of the distributed corporation immediately before the gain elimination transaction.

Future Proposed Regs?

The Treasury and IRS are considering publishing a new notice of proposed rulemaking to propose more substantive amendments to the final 337(d) regulations, and to allow for additional public comment with respect to proposals in response to certain comments received, further reflection by the Treasury IRS, and concerns raised by practitioners.

Close

Participants in the Son of BOSS tax shelter have maintained their perfect losing record in the Tax Court. Thus, another Son-of-Boss deal has failed to produce its promised loss deductions.

Son-of-BOSS Arrangements

Son-of-BOSS is a variation of a slightly older tax shelter known as the "bond and options sales strategy," or BOSS. Son-of-BOSS transactions take many forms, but they all have one thing in common: Assets that are encumbered by significant liabilities must always be transferred to a partnership. The goal is to increase basis in that partnership or in the assets themselves.

The liabilities are usually obligations to buy securities. However, they are typically not completely fixed when they are transferred to the partnership.

This contingency is supposed to let the partnership treat the liabilities as uncertain. This, in turn, is supposed to let the partnership ignore the liabilities in computing basis. The result is supposed to give the partners basis in the partnership or in the assets themselves. This increased basis is supposed to translate into large loss deductions for the partners, all with no actual economic losses.

The Tax Court has yet to fall for the scheme.

Invalid Partnerships

The court has used several theories to reject Son-of-Boss losses. In this case, the court once again relied on the fact that the two partnerships involved in the transactions did not actually exist.

The partnerships were invalid because they were created only to carry out tax avoidance schemes. Thus, their members never intended to run any business through them.

The partnerships also failed the “prongified” test for determining whether the parties intended to, and did in fact, join together for the present conduct of an undertaking or enterprise. One managed to scrupulously adhere to the formal requirements for looking like a partnership. However, it did not display any objective indication of a mutual combination for the conduct of an ongoing enterprise.

The second partnership barely even went through the motions. It filed partnership returns and issued K-1s to its purported partners. However:

There was no evidence the purported partners made any contributions to the partnership;
The partnership did not have a formal operating agreement;
The partnership did not conduct any business in its own name;
There was no real profit for the partners to control or withdraw; and
The partnership did not keep any books or records.

Since the partnerships were invalid, they were simply disregarded. Thus, the purported partners were treated as directly engaging in the partnerships’ activities and directly owning the partnerships’ property. This meant that the supposedly separate long and short options that were the heart of the transaction were actually a single-option spread. Thus the options were part of one contract, and they could not be separated to produce artificial losses.

Close

Taxpayers can request a copy of their federal income tax return and all attachments from the IRS. In lieu of a copy of your return (and to save the fee that the IRS charges for a copy of your tax return), you can request a tax transcript from the IRS at no charge. A tax transcript is a computer print-out of your return information.

Tax return copy

A copy of your tax return is exactly that: a copy of the return you filed with the IRS. According to the IRS, copies of individual tax returns are generally available for returns filed in the current year and the past six years. The IRS charges a fee of $57 to send taxpayers a copy of their return.

Requests for copies of tax returns should be filed on Form 4506, Request for Copy of Tax Return. The IRS has advised on its website that taxpayers should allow 60 days to receive a copy of their tax return.

Tax return transcript

A tax return transcript shows most line items from your return as it was originally filed, including any accompanying forms and schedules. However, a tax transcript does not show any changes the taxpayer or the IRS made after the return was filed. According to the IRS, a tax return transcript is generally available for the current and past three years.

Taxpayers can request transcripts online at the IRS web site, telephoning the IRS, or filing Form 4506T-EZ, Short Form Request for Individual Tax Return Transcripts. Businesses that need business-related information should file Form 4506-T, Request for Transcript of Tax Return. Taxpayers can request that the IRS send the transcript to their tax representative. The IRS reported on its website that transcript requests made online or by telephone generally will be processed within five to 10 days; transcript requests made by filing a paper form take longer to process.

Tax account transcript

The IRS also can provide a tax account transcript. This document shows basic data from the individual’s return and includes any adjustments the taxpayer or the IRS made after the return was filed. A tax account transcript is generally available for the current and past three years, according to the IRS and is provided at no-cost.

If you have any questions about the types of tax records available from the IRS, please contact our office.

Close

The start of the school year is a good time to consider the variety of tax benefits available for education. Congress has been generous in providing education benefits in the form of credits, deductions and exclusions from income. The following list describes the most often used of these benefits.

Exclusion From Income

Scholarships. A student enrolled in an educational program may receive a scholarship or fellowship to pay for all or part of the student‘s tuition and fees. These amounts are not included in the student‘s (or the parent’s) income. Need-based education grants, such as a Pell Grant, and tuition reductions are also excluded from income. However, amounts paid for work on campus may be taxable as compensation for services. Payments to cover room and board as opposed to tuition are also subject to tax.

Loan cancellation. Most students take out loans to pay for education expenses. Normally, if a debt is cancelled, the debtor has taxable income. However, if a student loan is canceled or reduced, the cancelled amount is not included in income.

Employer assistance. If you receive educational assistance benefits from your employer under an educational assistance program, you can exclude up to $5,250 of those benefits each year. Courses do not have to be related to your job. If they are related, further tax benefits may be available.

Education plans. Generally, amounts paid to establish an education plan, account or savings bond are not deductible. However, income on the account can grow tax-free (unlike a bank account, for example), and distributions of income from the account are not taxable if they are used for tuition and other qualified education expenses. These general rules apply to a Coverdell Education Savings Account (an education IRA), a qualified tuition program (QTP or “529 plan”), and certain U.S. savings bonds. In the last category or Series EE bonds issued after 1989 and Series I bonds. A qualified tuition program is established by a state and may provide payments for prepaid tuition or an account with tax-free earnings.

Tax Credits

LLC and AOTC. A lifetime learning credit (LLC) of up to $2,000 is available education expenses for a dependent for whom you claim an exemption. More recently, parents can claim an American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC) of up to $2,500 for college expenses paid for each eligible student. The current, enhanced level of the AOTC is scheduled to expire at the end of 2012, but the Obama administration has asked Congress to make it permanent.

Dependent care. Parents can take a credit for dependent care expenses paid so that they can work. Expenses for care do not include amounts paid for education. Expenses for a child in nursery school, pre-school, or similar programs for children below the level of kindergarten are expenses for care. Expenses to attend kindergarten or a higher grade are not expenses for care. However, expenses for before- or after-school care of a child in kindergarten or a higher grade may be expenses for care, so that a credit can be claimed.

Deductions

Some deductions can be taken directly against gross income, in determining adjusted gross income. These are adjustments to income or “above-the-line“ deductions. Other deductions can only be taken as an itemized deduction. An above-the-line deduction is more valuable.

Above-the-line. Tuition expenses of up to $4,000 can be deducted directly against income. Tuition that also qualifies for one of the education tax credits, however, can be used only once, either for a credit or this above-the-line deduction. Ordinarily, interest paid is a nondeductible personal expense (other than home mortgage interests). However, interest paid on a student loan interest is deductible and can also be taken as an adjustment to income.

Itemized. Not all education-related expenses are deductible. However, a taxpayer may be able to claim a deduction for the expenses paid for your work-related education. The deduction will be the amount by which qualifying work-related education expenses exceed two percent of adjusted gross income. These expenses are added to other itemized deductions, to determine whether the taxpayer will itemize or claim the standard deduction.

Gift tax

Generally, a person making a gift must pay gift tax if the gift exceeds a specified amount ($13,000 currently). However, tuition paid directly to an educational institution to cover tuition for someone else’s benefit (e.g. a grandchild) is not taxable gift irrespective of amount. Prepaid tuition plans can qualify for this benefit.

A variety of educational benefits are available. In some cases, a deduction or a credit (but not both) may be available for the same payment. Thus, it is important to determine the exact requirements for each benefit and the amount of the benefit. Our office can help you determine how to maximize these benefits.

Close

Whether for a day, a week or longer, many of the costs associated with business trips may be tax-deductible. The tax code includes a myriad of rules designed to prevent abuses of tax-deductible business travel. One concern is that taxpayers will disguise personal trips as business trips. However, there are times when taxpayers can include some personal activities along with business travel and not run afoul of the IRS.

Business travel

You are considered “traveling away from home” for tax purposes if your duties require you to be away from the general area of your home for a period substantially longer than an ordinary day's work, and you need sleep or rest to meet the demands of work while away. Taxpayers who travel on business may deduct travel expenses if they are not otherwise lavish or extravagant. Business travel expenses include the costs of getting to and from the business destination and any business-related expenses at that destination.

Deductible travel expenses while away from home include, but are not limited to, the costs of:

Travel by airplane, train, bus, or car to/from the business destination.
Fares for taxis or other types of transportation between the airport or train station and lodging, the lodging location and the work location, and from one customer to another, or from one place of business to another.
Meals and lodging.
Tips for services related to any of these expenses.
Dry cleaning and laundry.
Business calls while on the business trip.
Other similar ordinary and necessary expenses related to business travel.

Business mixed with personal travel

Travel that is primarily for personal reasons, such as a vacation, is a nondeductible personal expense. However, taxpayers often mix personal travel with business travel. In many cases, business travelers may able to engage in some non-business activities and not lose all of the tax benefits associated with business travel.

The primary purpose of a trip is determined by looking at the facts and circumstances of each case. An important factor is the amount of time you spent on personal activities during the trip as compared to the amount of time spent on activities directly relating to business.

Let’s look at an example. Amanda, a self-employed architect, resides in Seattle. Amanda travels on business to Denver. Her business trip lasts six days. Before departing for home, Amanda travels to Colorado Springs to visit her son, Jeffrey. Amanda’s total expenses are $1,800 for the nine days that she was away from home. If Amanda had not stopped in Colorado Springs, her trip would have been gone only six days and the total cost would have been $1,200. According to past IRS precedent, Amanda can deduct $1,200 for the trip, including the cost of round-trip transportation to and from Denver.

Weekend stayovers

Business travel often concludes on a Friday but it may be more economical to stay over Saturday night and take advantage of a lower travel fare. Generally, the costs of the weekend stayover are deductible as long as they are reasonable. Staying over a Saturday night is one way to add some personal time to a business trip.

Foreign travel

The rules for foreign travel are particularly complex. The amount of deductible travel expenses for foreign travel is linked to how much of the trip was business related. Generally, an individual can deduct all of his or her travel expenses of getting to and from the business destination if the trip is entirely for business.

In certain cases, foreign travel is considered entirely for business even if the taxpayer did not spend his or her entire time on business activities. For example, a foreign business trip is considered entirely for business if the taxpayer was outside the U.S. for more than one week and he or she spent less than 25 percent of the total time outside the U.S. on non-business activities. Other exceptions exist for business travel outside the U.S. for less than one week and in cases where the employee did not have substantial control in planning the trip.

Foreign conventions are especially difficult, but no impossible, to write off depending upon the circumstances. The taxpayer may deduct expenses incurred in attending foreign convention seminar or similar meeting only if it is directly related to active conduct of trade or business and if it is as reasonable to be held outside North American area as within North American area.

Tax home

To determine if an individual is traveling away from home on business, the first step is to determine the location of the taxpayer’s tax home. A taxpayer’s tax home is generally his or her regular place of business, regardless of where he or she maintains his or her family home. An individual may not have a regular or main place of business. In these cases, the individual’s tax home would generally be the place where he or she regularly lives. The duration of an assignment is also a factor. If an assignment or job away from the individual’s main place of work is temporary, his or her tax home does not change. Generally, a temporary assignment is one that lasts less than one year.

The distinction between tax home and family home is important, among other reasons, to determine if certain deductions are allowed. Here’s an example.

Alec’s family home is in Tucson, where he works for ABC Co. 14 weeks a year. Alec spends the remaining 38 weeks of the year working for ABC Co. in San Diego. Alec has maintained this work schedule for the past three years. While in San Diego, Alec resides in a hotel and takes most of his meals at restaurants. San Diego would be treated as Alec’s tax home because he spends most of his time there. Consequently, Alec would not be able to deduct the costs of lodging and meals in San Diego.

Accountable and nonaccountable plans

Many employees are reimbursed by their employer for business travel expenses. Depending on the type of plan the employer has, the reimbursement for business travel may or may not be taxable. There are two types of plans: accountable plans and nonaccountable plans.

An accountable plan is not taxable to the employee. Amounts paid under an accountable plan are not wages and are not subject to income tax withholding and federal employment taxes. Accountable plans have a number of requirements:

There must be a business connection to the expenditure. The expense must be a deductible business expense incurred in connection with services performed as an employee. If not reimbursed by the employer, the expense would be deductible by the employee on his or her individual income tax return.

There must be adequate accounting by the recipient within a reasonable period of time. Employees must verify the date, time, place, amount and the business purpose of the expenses.

Excess reimbursements or advances must be returned within a reasonable period of time.

Amounts paid under a nonaccountable plan are taxable to employees and are subject to all employment taxes and withholding. A plan may be labeled an accountable plan but if it fails to qualify, the IRS treats it as a nonaccountable plan. If you have any questions about accountable plans, please contact our office.

As mentioned, the tax rules for business travel are complex. Please contact our office if you have any questions.

Close

Individual retirement accounts (IRAs) -- both traditional and Roth IRAs -- are among the most popular retirement savings vehicles today. Protecting the value of your IRA (and other retirement accounts) is incredibly important. While some factors affecting the value of your retirement savings may be out of your control, there are many things within your control that can help you safeguard the wealth of those accounts and further their growth. This article addresses common mistakes regarding IRA distributions and contributions, and how to avoid them.

A recent report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, which oversees IRS activities through investigative programs, reports that an increasing number of taxpayers are not complying with IRA contribution and distribution requirements. Mistakes include, among other things, making excess contributions that are left uncorrected or failing to take required minimum distributions from their IRAs.

Making excess contributions

Knowing the maximum amount that you can contribute to your IRA is imperative to avoid negative tax consequences. A 6-percent excise tax applies to any excess contribution made to a traditional or Roth IRA. In 2010, individuals can contribute up to $5,000 to both traditional and Roth IRAs. Individuals age 50 or older can also make “catch-up” contributions of up to $1,000 to their IRA in 2010 as well.

If you withdraw the excess contribution amount on or before the due date (including extensions) for filing your federal tax return for the year, you will not be treated as having made an excess contribution and the 6-percent excise tax will not be imposed. You must also withdraw any earnings on the contributions as well.

Not contributing enough

On the opposite end of the spectrum, you may be contributing too little to your IRA. Although your financial and personal situation will dictate how much you contribute to your IRA each year, and whether you are able to contribute the maximum amount, there are benefits to making the maximum contribution. Contributing the maximum amount means larger tax-free or tax-deferred growth opportunity for your dollars, and a higher – expectedly – account value upon retirement. Moreover, contributing more to your traditional IRA means a larger tax deduction come April 15. Thus, failing to contribute the maximum allowable amount means you may be missing out on tax deductions in addition to tax-deferred, or tax-free earnings.

Not taking your RMDs

Required minimum distributions (RMDs) are minimum amounts that a traditional IRA account owner must withdraw annually beginning with the year that he or she reaches age 70 ½. The RMD rules also apply to 401(k) plans, Roth 401(k)s, 403(b) plans, 457(b) plans, SIMPLE IRAs, and SEP IRAs. However, Roth IRAs are not subject to RMD rules (beneficiaries of Roth IRAs must take RMDs, however).

If you fail to take a RMD, or fail to take the correct amount for the year, the IRS imposes a 50 percent penalty tax on the difference between the actual amount you withdrew and the amount that was required. This is a stiff penalty to pay. A specific formula is used to compute annual RMDs, based on your current age, the amount in your IRA as of a certain date, and your life expectancy. Generally, RMDs are calculated for each account (if more than one) by dividing the prior December 31st balance of the IRA (or other retirement account) by a life expectancy factor that the IRS publishes in Tables in IRS Publication 590, which can be found on the agency’s website.

Note. RMDs were suspended for the 2009 tax year, in order to help retirement plans hit by the economic downturn. However, individuals must begin taking RMDs again in 2010 and thereafter.

Failing to rollover IRA funds within 60-days

If you receive funds from an IRA and want to roll over the money to another, you have only 60 days to complete the rollover in order to escape paying taxes on transaction. In general, failing to complete a rollover from one IRA to another within the 60-day window has significant tax ramifications. If the funds are not rolled over within this timeframe, the amount is considered taxable income, subject to ordinary income tax rates. And, if you are younger than age 59 ½, you will pay an additional 10 percent tax. The distribution may also have state income tax consequences as well. (Note: Rollovers from traditional IRAs to Roth IRAs are taxable, regardless of whether they are completed within 60 days). If you have the option, make a direct rollover or transfer. A direct, trustee-to-trustee transfer involves your funds being directly rolled over from one financial institution to the other, avoiding the 60-day requirement since you never directly receive the money.

Also, you can generally only make a tax-free rollover of amounts distributed to you from IRAs only once in 12-month period. As such, you can not make another rollover from the same IRA to another IRA (or from a different IRA to the same IRA) for one year without the amount being subject to tax.

And, individuals age 70 ½ or older cannot rollover any RMD amounts. Make sure that if you must take an RMD for the year, you withdraw the amount prior to rolling over the IRA.

Make Roth IRA contributions after age 70 ½

If you continue earning income after reaching age 70 ½, you can continue contributing to your Roth IRA, on top of not having any RMD requirement. Therefore, you continue to accumulate tax-free savings. If you have earned income, and your financial and personal situation allow, consider continuing contributions to your Roth, building up tax-free money when you withdraw the funds.

Failing to name an IRA beneficiary

Don’t make the mistake of neglecting to name a beneficiary for your IRA. IRAs do not pass by will, but rather pass under the terms of an IRA Beneficiary Designation Form. If you have not named a beneficiary of your IRA, such as your spouse or child(ren), the “default” beneficiary usually is the account holder’s estate. Where there is no named beneficiary, distributions from the IRA must then generally be made as a lump sum or within five years after the owner’s death.

When you designate your child(ren) as the IRA beneficiary, the rules regarding distributions differ from those that govern IRAs held by a surviving spouse beneficiary. Non-spouse IRA beneficiaries must generally begin taking required distributions over their life expectancy or within five years after the IRA owner's death. Although taking required distributions, the undistributed IRA assets continue to grow in a tax-deferred manner. On the other hand, a surviving spouse beneficiary may elect to treat the IRA as his or her own, or take minimum distributions as a non-spouse beneficiary would.

Distributions from inherited IRAs are taxable to the recipient as ordinary income. Generally, the income tax rate tends to be higher when an IRA is paid to the estate instead of an individual beneficiary.

Roth IRA conversions

This year may be the first time you are eligible to convert your traditional IRA to a Roth. Beginning in 2010, any individual regardless of adjusted gross income (AGI) or filing status can take advantage of a Roth IRA conversion. Prior to 2010, the ability to convert a traditional IRA to a Roth was limited to individuals with AGIs of less than $100,000. Also, married individuals filing a separate return could not convert to a Roth IRA either. If you convert in 2010, you can elect to split (and defer) the tax you will owe on the conversion and pay half in 2011 and half in 2012.

The decision to convert to a Roth IRA depends on many factors, including the financial and tax consequences of the transaction. Sometimes, it may be wiser depending on your situation to stick with your traditional IRA, especially if you will pay more tax on the conversion than in the account, or you don’t have outside funds to pay for the conversion tax. Do the math carefully and talk with your tax advisor beforehand.

Close