Mengwasser Martin Lall & Clark 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

The new year brings a new tax filing season. Mid-April may seem like a long time away in January but it is important to start preparing now for filing your 2011 federal income tax return. The IRS expects to receive and process more than 140 million returns during the 2012 filing season. Early planning can help avoid any delays in the filing and processing of your return.

Records

Initially, you will need to gather your records for 2011. A helpful jumping-off point is to review your 2010 return. Your personal situation may be unchanged from when you filed your 2010 return or it may have changed significantly. Either way, your 2010 return is a good vantage point for assembling the materials you will need to prepare your 2011 return.

If you need a copy of your previous year(s) return information, you have several options. You can order a copy of your prior-year return. Alternatively, you may order a tax return transcript or a tax account 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 return transcript does not reflect any changes you or the IRS made after the return was filed. A tax account transcript shows any later adjustments you or the IRS made after the tax return was filed.

If you changed your name as a result of marriage or divorce since you filed your 2010 return, you must advise the IRS. Your name as it appears on your return needs to match the name registered with the Social Security Administration. A mismatch will likely delay the processing of your return.

Forms W-2

Many taxpayers cannot begin preparing their 2011 income tax returns until they have their Forms W-2, Wage and Tax Statement. Employers have until January 31, 2012 to send you a 2011 Form W-2 earnings statement. If you do not receive your W-2 by the deadline, contact your employer. If you do not receive your W-2 by mid-February, contact the IRS. You still must file your return or request an extension to file even if you do not receive your Form W-2. In certain cases, you may be able to file Form 4852, Substitute for Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement.

Filing deadline

April 15, 2012 is a Sunday. Returns would normally be due the next day, April 16, 2012. However, April 16 is a holiday in the District of Columbia (Emancipation Day). As a result, the due date for 2011 returns is April 17, 2012. If the mid-April tax deadline clock runs out, you can get an automatic six-month extension of time to file through October 17. However, this extension of time to file does not give you more time to pay any taxes due. To obtain an extension, you need to file Form 4868, Application for Automatic Extension of Time to File U.S. Individual Income Tax Return.

Casualty losses

Many taxpayers experienced family, business and personal losses from hurricanes, tropical storms, wild fires, floods, and other natural disasters in 2011. For federal tax purposes, a casualty loss can result from the damage, destruction or loss of your property from any sudden, unexpected, or unusual event such as a hurricane, tornado, fire, or other disaster.

Casualty losses are generally deductible in the year the casualty occurred. However, if you have a casualty loss from a federally-declared disaster, you can choose to treat the loss as having occurred in the year immediately preceding the tax year in which the disaster happened. This means you can deduct a 2011 loss on your 2011 return or amended return for that preceding tax year (2010). If you have any questions about a casualty loss, please contact our office.

Retirement savings

Just because the calendar moved from 2011 to 2012 doesn’t necessarily mean you missed out on contributing to a retirement savings plan. You can contribute up to $5,000 to a traditional IRA for 2011 and you can make the contribution as late as April 17, 2012. However, if you or your spouse is covered by an employer retirement plan, this will affect how much, if any, of your contribution is tax deductible. Individuals age 50 and older may qualify for a catch-up contribution of $1,000 on top of the $5,000 maximum. Different rules apply to other types of retirement savings plans. Our office can review these rules in detail with you.

IRS Fresh Start Initiative

In 2011, the IRS announced a new program, called the Fresh Start Initiative, to help distressed taxpayers. The IRS adjusted its lien policies, increased the dollar threshold when liens are generally issued, made it easier for taxpayers to obtain lien withdrawals, and extended the streamlined offer-in-compromise program. Previously, the IRS had given its employees greater authority to suspend collection actions in certain hardship cases where taxpayers are unable to pay. This includes instances where a taxpayer has recently lost a job, is relying solely on Social Security, or is paying significant medical bills.

If you are experiencing hardship, the most important thing you can do is to remain in compliance with your tax obligations. If you owe back taxes, now is the time to pay them, if possible, or enter into an installment agreement, if you qualify, with the IRS. The IRS wants to see you making a good faith effort to pay your taxes.

Tax law changes

Along with assembling records and reviewing activities in 2011, it’s a good idea to review some of the tax law changes in 2011 that may affect your return. Our office can review your 2010 return and see which areas may have been affected by tax law changes for your 2011 return. In some cases, popular tax incentives that were available in 2010 were extended into 2011. You don’t want to miss out on any available tax breaks.

If you have any questions about preparing for the 2012 filing season, please contact our office.

Close

As 2012 gets underway, Congress has extended the employee-side payroll tax cut but a laundry list of tax incentives have expired and their renewal is in doubt. The fate of these incentives, along with the Bush-era tax cuts, will dominate debate in Washington D.C. in 2012. At the same time, tax planning in a time of uncertainty appears to have become the new normal.

Payroll tax cut

The Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011, approved by Congress on December 23 and signed by President Obama the same day, extends the 2011 payroll tax holiday through the end of February 2012. The employee-share of OASDI taxes is 4.2 percent for the period January 1, 2012 through February 29, 2012 (10.4 percent for self-employment income). The new law also includes a recapture provision for certain individuals. However, the House Ways and Means Committee reported that the recapture provision will only apply if the payroll tax reduction is not extended for the remainder of 2012. Lawmakers are expected to extend the employee-side payroll tax cut through the end of 2012, although not before difficult negotiations.

One speed bump to extending the payroll tax cut through the end of 2012 is its cost. The two-month extension is paid for by increasing certain fees charged to mortgage lenders. A full-year extension will require additional offsets (unless Congress decides not to offset an extension). Lawmakers are reportedly discussing additional revenue raisers, such as unspecified changes to the S corporation rules and the closing of a loophole for corporate jets. Other revenue raisers reportedly under consideration are repeal of certain oil and gas preferences and repeal of the last-in, first-out (LIFO) method of accounting. A variety of spending cuts are also on the table.

Extenders

After December 31, 2011, many popular but temporary tax breaks expire. The incentives, which are known as “extenders,” impact individuals and businesses. Some of the more popular individual extenders are the state and local sales tax deduction, the higher education tuition deduction, and the teachers’ classroom expense deduction. For businesses, the research tax credit is one of the most important extenders.

One immediate change that many taxpayers will notice is a drop in transit benefits. In 2011, commuters benefitted from more generous transit benefits. The 2011 monthly limit on the tax benefit for transit and vanpools of $230 per month reverts to $125 per month in 2012. However, the monthly limit for qualified parking provided by an employer to its employees for 2012 will increase to $240, up $10 from the limit in 2011.

Several bills have been introduced in Congress to extend the expiring incentives. However, the bills have languished in committee. One reason for the lack of movement is that Congress can extend the incentives in 2012 and make them retroactive to January 1, 2012. The extenders are also separate from the temporary Bush-era tax cuts, which are scheduled to expire after December 31, 2012. Many lawmakers do not want to link the extenders to the more-controversial Bush-era tax cuts.

IRS budget

One bill that did pass Congress at year-end 2011 was a fiscal year 2012 budget for the IRS. Congress voted to cut $305 million from the IRS’s FY 2012 budget. How this cut will impact IRS operations is unknown. In November 2011, the IRS offered buyouts and early outs to back-office employees to reduce its greatest expense: employee payroll. The IRS could also delay some business systems modernizations to save money. The IRS will likely keep customer service as close as possible to full funding, especially during the busy 2012 filing season.

Tax planning

One of the most significant challenges to long-term tax planning is the on-again, off-again nature of many tax incentives. Temporary incentives, such as the research tax credit and the state and local sales tax deduction, have become de facto permanent incentives because they are regularly extended. Nonetheless, they are temporary. Because of their temporary nature, taxpayers must have two tax plans: one that takes into account an extension of the incentives, and a second plan that does not.

If you have any questions about tax planning and tax legislation in 2012, please contact our office.

Close

The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), enacted in 2010, requires certain U.S. taxpayers to report their interests in specified foreign financial assets. The reporting requirement may apply if the assets have an aggregate value exceeding certain thresholds. The IRS has released Form 8938, Statement of Specified Foreign Financial Assets, for this reporting requirement under FATCA.

Reporting

For now, only specified individuals are required to file Form 8938, but specified U.S. entities will eventually also have to file the form. Taxpayers who do not file a federal income tax return for the year do not have to File Form 8938, even if the value of their foreign assets exceeds the normal reporting threshold.

Individuals who have to file Form 8938 include U.S. citizens, resident aliens for any part of the year, and nonresident aliens living in Puerto Rico or American Samoa.

Reporting applies to specified foreign financial assets. Specified foreign financial assets include:

A financial account maintained by a foreign financial institution;
Other foreign financial assets, such as stock or securities issued by a non-U.S. person, or an interest in a foreign entity.

The aggregate value of the individual’s specified foreign financial assets must exceed specified reporting thresholds, as follows:

Unmarried U.S. taxpayers, and married U.S. taxpayers filing a separate return – more than $50,000 on the last day of the year, or more than $75,000 at any time during the year;
U.S. married taxpayers filing a joint return – more than $100,000 on the last day of the year, or more than $150,000 at any time during the year; or
Taxpayers living abroad: if filing a joint return, more than $400,000 on the last day of the year, or more than $600,000 during the year; other taxpayers, more than $200,000 on the last day of the year, or more than $300,000 at any time during the year.

Taxpayers who report assets on other forms, such as Form 3520, do not have to report the asset on Form 8938, but must use Form 8938 to identify other forms on which they report.

Filing

Reporting applies for tax years beginning after March 18, 2010, the date that FATCA was enacted. Most taxpayers, such as those who report their taxes for the calendar year, must start filing Form 8938 with their 2011 income tax return.

If you have any questions about Form 8938, please contact our office.

Close

Depreciation is a reasonable allowance for wear and tear on property used in a trade or business or for the production of income. Property is depreciable if it has a useful life greater than one year and depreciates in value. Property that appreciates in value may also depreciate if subject to wear and tear. Depreciation ends in the tax year that the asset is retired from service (by sale, exchange, abandonment or destruction) or that the asset is fully depreciated.

Assets with useful lives of one year or less can be deducted as current expenses in the year of their costs. Depreciation cannot be claimed on an asset that is acquired and disposed of in the same year.

Depreciation begins in the tax year that the property is placed in service for either the production of income or for use in a trade or business. Property generally is considered placed in service when it is in a condition or state of readiness to be used on a regular, ongoing basis. The property must be available for a specifically assigned function in a trade or business (or for the production of income).

An asset actually put to use in a trade or business is clearly considered placed in service. If, on the other hand, an asset is not actually put to use, it is generally not considered placed in service unless the taxpayer has done everything he or she can to put the asset to use. For example, a barge was considered placed in service in the year it was acquired, even though it could not be actually used because the body of water was frozen. For a building that is intended to house machinery and equipment, the building's state of readiness is determined without regard to whether the machinery and equipment has been placed in service. Leased property is placed in service by the lessor when the property is held out for lease.

Generally, the year property is placed in service is the tax year of acquisition, but it could be a later time. An asset cannot be placed in service any sooner than the time that the business actually begins to operate.

In the case of agriculture, livestock cannot be depreciated until it reaches maturity and can be used; orchards cannot be depreciated until the trees produce marketable quantities of crops. Prior to those times, costs must be capitalized and cannot be written off.

Especially at year-end, placing an asset in service before the new year can mean the difference between claiming a substantial amount of depreciation on this year's return instead of waiting a full year. If you have any questions on how to qualify a business asset under this deadline, please contact this office.

Close