Newsletters

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

As businesses weather challenging economic times, one boost can come from depreciation.  The term “depreciation” is often associated with complicated accounting and tax transactions but the fundamental concept is fairly simple. Depreciation should not be overlooked as a valuable tool.

As businesses weather challenging economic times, one boost can come from depreciation.  The term “depreciation” is often associated with complicated accounting and tax transactions but the fundamental concept is fairly simple. Depreciation should not be overlooked as a valuable tool.

Basics

Depreciation is essentially an income tax deduction.  Depreciation allows you to recover the cost or other basis of qualified property. The rules for depreciation vary depending on the type of property.  In recent years, these rules have been made more complex by tax legislation for bonus depreciation and special treatment of certain property.  We’ll discuss bonus depreciation later.

Generally, tangible property is depreciable. Tangible property is depreciable if it is subject to wear and tear. Tangible property includes machinery and equipment, motor vehicles, and furniture.  Land, however, is not tangible property for depreciation purposes.  Intangible property also may qualify for depreciation.  One of the most widely used types of intangible property in every business activity is computer software.  Copyrights and patents, which are intangible property, are also depreciable.  Many types of property are not depreciable (although there are always exceptions). One type of business property that is not depreciable is inventory.

Use

To be depreciable, the property, whether tangible or intangible, must be used for business or in other income-producing activities. It is not the nature of the property itself which is determinative but rather the purpose for which the property is held. If you use property for business and for personal purposes, you can only deduct depreciation based only on the business use of that property.

Depreciation begins when a taxpayer places property in service for use in a trade or business or for the production of income. The property must have a determinable useful life of more than one year. Property that is placed in service and disposed of in the same year cannot be depreciated. Property ceases to be depreciable when you have fully recovered the property’s cost or other basis or when you retire it from service, whichever happens first.

Let’s look at an example: Olivia owns a small candy company.  Olivia purchases a new candy-making machine. The machine is delivered in November 2012. However, the machine is not installed and operational until February 2013. If the machine had been ready and available for use when it was delivered, it would be considered placed in service in 2012 even if it was not actually used until 2013.

Methods

Generally, the method for calculating depreciation is determined by the type of property and when the property was placed in service. For tangible property, there are currently three systems of depreciation in effect, depending on when the property was placed in service. They are the modified accelerated cost recovery system (MACRS) for property placed in service after 1986, the accelerated cost recovery system (ACRS) for property placed in service after 1980 but before 1987, and the pre-1981 system (which included the straight-line method, declining-balance method, and certain other methods based on useful life and salvage value) for property placed in service before 1981.

Bonus depreciation

Bonus depreciation is intended to encourage businesses to make capital investments by enabling them to write these investments off more quickly. Under current law, 50 percent bonus depreciation is available for qualified property acquired after December 31, 2007 and placed in service before January 1, 2013 (before January 1, 2014 in the case of certain property with a long production period and certain noncommercial aircraft).  A 100 percent bonus depreciation rate applies to property acquired after September 8, 2010 and placed in service before January 1, 2012 (before January 1, 2013 for certain property with a long production period and certain noncommercial aircraft).  Several bills are pending in Congress to extend 100 percent depreciation through 2012.

Let’s look at an example:  ABC Co., a calendar-year taxpayer, acquires and places in service business equipment that costs $1 million on June 1, 2012. Under current law, ABC may claim an additional first-year depreciation deduction of 50 percent of the basis of the property, or $500,000. The remaining $500,000 of adjusted basis is recovered under the depreciation provisions other than the additional allowance.

Other considerations

While the basic concept of depreciation itself may be simple, strategies in its implementation to minimize tax liability sometimes may not be so straightforward.  Decisions over whether to classify a particular asset within one or another depreciation “class,” whether certain components of a building can be depreciated faster than the building itself, whether something is an improvement that requires depreciation or a repair that may be deducted immediately in full, and whether early disposition of a particular asset raised the pitfall of depreciation recapture are some of the many “fine points” surrounding depreciation that can make a significant difference in a business’ taxable income.

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

Education tax incentives are often underutilized because the rules are so complex. Some of the incentives are tax credits; other deductions. There are also savings plans for education costs. Making things even more complicated is the on-again, off-again nature of the education tax incentives.  Under current law (as of June 2012), several taxpayer-friendly features of the incentives are scheduled to expire.

Education tax incentives are often underutilized because the rules are so complex. Some of the incentives are tax credits; other deductions. There are also savings plans for education costs. Making things even more complicated is the on-again, off-again nature of the education tax incentives.  Under current law (as of June 2012), several taxpayer-friendly features of the incentives are scheduled to expire.

American Opportunity Tax Credit

The American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC) is an enhanced version of the old Hope credit. The AOTC offers eligible taxpayers a credit of 100 percent of the first $2,000 of qualified tuition and related expenses and 25 percent of the next $2,000.  That means the credit reaches a maximum of $2,500.   

Four years. The AOTC can be claimed for the first four years of a student’s post-secondary education (including college and university, vocational school and other qualified institutions of learning).

The full AOTC is available to individuals whose modified adjusted gross income is $80,000 or less ($160,000 or less for married couples filing a joint return). If your modified adjusted gross income is above that amount, the credit begins to phase out.  Eligible individuals may receive a refund of 40 percent of the AOTC. 

Sunset.  The AOTC is scheduled to expire after 2012.  At that time, the old Hope credit will return.

Lifetime Learning Credit

The Lifetime Learning Credit is often in the shadow of the AOTC.  One reason may be that the Lifetime Learning Credit and the AOTC cannot be claimed in the same year. The Lifetime Learning Credit reaches $2,000 for qualified educational expenses.

Key difference. There is one very valuable difference between the Lifetime Learning Credit and the AOTC. There is no limit on the number of years the Lifetime Learning Credit can be claimed.  This requires careful planning.  Individuals who are considering graduate school may want to use the AOTC for undergraduate expenses and the Lifetime Learning credit for graduate school expenses.

No sunset.  The Lifetime Learning Credit is not scheduled to expire after 2012.  It is one of the few tax incentives that have essentially remained unchanged in recent years.

Student Loan Interest Deduction

Individuals who took out loans to finance their post-secondary education may qualify for a deduction. Student loan interest is interest you paid during the year on a qualified student loan. The loan proceeds must have been used for qualified higher education expenses, including tuition and room and board.

Above-the-line. The student loan interest deduction (and the expired higher education deduction discussed below) is an above-the-line deduction. This means you can claim the deduction even if you do not itemize deductions.

Sunsetting features. Under current law, there is no limitation as to the number of months during which interest paid on a student loan is deductible.  After December 31, 2012, a 60-month limitation is scheduled to return. The student loan interest deduction is subject to income limits.  Under current law, the   deduction is reduced when modified adjusted gross income exceeds $60,000 for single individuals ($125,000 for married couples filing a joint return) and is completely eliminated when modified adjusted gross income is $75,000 or more for single individuals ($155,000 for married couples filing a joint return). After December 31, 2012, these income limitations are scheduled to be significantly lower.

Coverdell Education Savings Accounts

Coverdell Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) are similar to IRAs. Contributions are not tax-deductible but the funds grow tax-free until distributed. Distributions are tax-free if they are used for qualified education expenses of the beneficiary.

Not just post-secondary.  Under current law, funds in a Coverdell ESA can be used for elementary and secondary school expenses as well as post-secondary education costs.  Coverdell ESAs are the only education tax incentive to offer this feature.  The AOTC, Lifetime Learning Credits and 529 plans (discussed below) are limited to post-secondary education.  However, this special feature of Coverdell ESAs is scheduled to expire after 2012.  At that time, Coverdell ESA dollars will only be available for post-secondary expenses.

Contribution limitation.  Total contributions to a Coverdell ESA cannot be more than $2,000 in any year for the beneficiary. This rule applies no matter how many Coverdell ESAs are established. However, the $2,000 amount is scheduled to fall to $500 after 2012. Income limitations also apply. If you use the funds in a Coverdell ESA for a non-qualified purpose, there is a 10 percent additional tax.

529 Plans

States and institutions of higher learning can create so-called “529 plans.” Funds in a 529 plan can be used for qualified post-secondary expenses, such as tuition and room and board, of the designated beneficiary.  Contributions are not tax-deductible but distributions are tax-free, so long as they pay qualified expenses. There are many 529 plans. Before selecting one, please contact our office.  We can help you select the 529 plan that meets your expectations.

No income limitations. 529 plans are similar to Coverdell ESAs with one very important difference. There are no income limitations for contributors. 

Higher education deduction

Finally, there is the higher education deduction.  This popular deduction allows eligible individuals to claim a deduction for certain higher education costs.  The higher education tuition deduction reaches $4,000.  That’s the good news....the bad news is that the deduction expired after 2011.

May be renewed.  There have been several attempts in Congress to renew the deduction for 2012 but they have failed to pass.  Congress could renew the deduction late in 2012 or early in 2013 and make the deduction retroactive to January 1, 2012.

Like other education incentives, the higher education deduction had some restrictions.  One of the most important is income.  An individual’s modified adjusted gross income could not exceed $80,000 ($160,000 if married filing a joint return).

We have covered a lot of ground discussing these education tax incentives.  Please contact our office for more details and to discuss how we can create a plan using some or all of these incentives that delivers the most value.

Proposals to reform retirement savings plans were highlighted during an April 2012 hearing by the House Ways and Means Committee.  Lawmakers were advised by many experts to move slowly on making changes to current retirement programs that might discourage employers from sponsoring plans for their workers.  Nevertheless, it is clear that Congress wants to make some bold moves in the retirement savings area of the tax law and that likely it will do so under the broader umbrella of general “tax reform.” While tax reform is gaining momentum, it is unlikely to produce any change in the tax laws until 2013 or 2014. Considering that retirement planning necessarily looks long-term into the future, however, now is not too soon to pay some attention to the proposals being discussed.

Testimony

The Chief of Actuarial Issues and Director of Retirement Policy for the American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries testified that current federal tax incentives can transform taxable bonuses for business owners into retirement savings contributions that benefit both owners and employees. “This incentive for the business owner to contribute for other employees results in a distribution of tax benefit that is more progressive than the current income tax structure," she observed.

An American Benefits Council representation warned at the hearing that the wisest course for lawmakers is to not enact new laws that would disrupt the success of the current system. Short-term retirement legislation designed to boost tax revenues generally do so by eliminating the existing savings incentives and eroding the amount that workers actually save.

Committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich. questioned whether the large number of retirement plans now existing with their different rules and eligibility criteria leads to confusion, reducing the effectiveness of the incentives in increasing retirement savings. Ranking member Sander Levin, D-Mich., questioned the value of making tax reform-inspired changes to retirement plans. "Tax reform should approach retirement savings incentives with an eye toward strengthening our current system and expanding participation, not as an opportunity to find revenue," Levin said.

JCT report

In advance of the hearing, the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) summarized the tax treatment of current-law retirement savings plans and described some recent reform proposals in a report, “Present Law and Background Relating to the Tax Treatment of Retirement Savings” (JCX-32-12). The report highlighted several of the recent proposals on retirement savings:

Automatic enrollment payroll deduction IRA.  President Obama has proposed mandatory automatic enrollment payroll deduction IRA programs.  An employer that does not sponsor a qualified retirement plan, SEP, or SIMPLE IRA plan for its employees (or sponsors a plan and excludes some employees) would be required to offer an automatic enrollment payroll deduction IRA program with a default contribution to a Roth IRA of three percent of compensation. An employer would not be required to offer the program if the employer has been in existence less than two years or has 10 or fewer employees.

Expand the saver's credit.  The Administration has also proposed to make the retirement savings contribution credit, known as the saver's credit, fully refundable and for the saver’s credit to be deposited automatically in an employer-sponsored retirement plan account or IRA to which the eligible individual contributes. In addition, in place of the current credit ranging from 10 percent to 50 percent for qualified retirement savings contributions up to $2,000 per individual, the proposal would provide a credit of 50 percent of such contributions up to $500 (indexed for inflation) per individual.

Consolidate plans.  The JCT also reviewed two retirement proposals from the Bush administration:  Consolidating traditional and Roth IRAs into a single type of account called Retirement Savings Accounts (RSAs) and creating Lifetime Savings Accounts (LSAs) that could be used to save for any purpose with an annual limit for contributions of $2,000. The JCT explained that the tax treatment of RSAs and LSAs would be similar to the current tax treatment of Roth IRAs (contributions would not be deductible, and earnings on contributions generally would not be taxable when distributed). Additionally, the Bush Administration had proposed to consolidate various current-law employer-sponsored retirement arrangements under which individual accounts are maintained for employees and under which employees may make contributions into a single type of arrangement called an employer retirement savings account (ERSA).

The American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries (ASPPA) told the Ways and Means Committee that the large number of plans with different rules and criteria does not reduce the effectiveness of the incentives in increasing retirement savings. ”Consolidating all types of defined-contribution type plans into one type of plan would not be simplification,” the ASPPA cautioned. “It would disrupt savings, and force state and local governments and nonprofits to modify their retirement savings plans and procedures.”

The family partnership is a common device for reducing the overall tax burden of family members. Family members who contribute property or services to a partnership in exchange for partnership interests are subject to the same general tax rules that apply to unrelated partners. If the related persons deal with each other at arm's length, their partnership is recognized for tax purposes and the terms of the partnership agreement governing their shares of partnership income and loss are respected.

Interfamily gifts

Because of the tax planning opportunities family partnerships present, they are closely scrutinized by the IRS. When a family member acquires a partnership interest by gift, however, the validity of the partnership may be questioned. For example, a partnership between a parent in a personal services business and a child who contributes little or no services is likely to be disregarded as an attempt to assign the parent's income to the child. Similarly, a purported gift of a partnership interest may be ignored if, in substance, the donor continues to own the interest through his power to control or influence the donee's business decision. When a partnership interest is transferred to a guardian or trustee for the benefit of a family member, the beneficiary is considered a partner only if the trustee or guardian must act independently and solely in the beneficiary's best interest.

Capital or services

The determination of whether a person is recognized as a partner depends on whether capital is a material income-producing factor in the partnership. Any person, including a family member, who purchases or is given real ownership of a capital interest in a partnership in which capital is a material income-producing factor is recognized as a partner automatically. If capital is not a material income-producing factor (for example, if a partnership derives most income from services, a family member is not recognized as a partner unless all the facts and circumstances show a good faith business purpose for forming the partnership.

If the family partnership is recognized for tax purposes, the partnership agreement generally governs the partners' allocations of income and loss. These allocations are not respected, however, to the extent the partnership agreement does not provide reasonable compensation to the donor for services he renders to the partnership or allocates a disproportionate amount of income to the donee. The IRS can re-allocate partnership income between the donor and donee if these requirements are not met.

Investment partnerships

The general rule for determining gain recognition for marketable securities does not apply to the distribution of marketable securities by an investment partnership to an eligible partner. An investment partnership is a partnership that has never been engaged in a trade or business (other than as a trader or dealer in the certain specified investment-type assets) and substantially all the assets of which have always consisted of certain specified investment-type assets (which do not include, for example, interests in real estate or real estate limited partnerships).

If a family limited partnership (FLP) qualifies as an investment partnership, the FLP could redeem the partnership interest of an eligible partner with marketable securities without the recognition of any gain by the redeemed partner. To qualify, substantially all the assets of the FLP must always have consisted of the eligible investment assets, and the holding of even totally passive real estate interests (real estate that does not constitute a trade or business), for instance, must be kept to a minimum. In addition, any eligible partner must have contributed only the specified investment assets (or money) in exchange for his or her partnership interest.

Everybody knows that tax deductions aren't allowed without proof in the form of documentation. What records are needed to "prove it" to the IRS vary depending upon the type of deduction that you may want to claim. Some documentation cannot be collected "after the fact," whether it takes place a few months after an expense is incurred or later, when you are audited by the IRS. This article reviews some of those deductions for which the IRS requires you to generate certain records either contemporaneously as the expense is being incurred, or at least no later than when you file your return. We also highlight several deductions for which contemporaneous documentation, although not strictly required, is extremely helpful in making your case before the IRS on an audit.

Everybody knows that tax deductions aren’t allowed without proof in the form of documentation.  What records are needed to “prove it” to the IRS vary depending upon the type of deduction that you may want to claim.  Some documentation cannot be collected “after the fact,” whether it takes place a few months after an expense is incurred or later, when you are audited by the IRS.  This article reviews some of those deductions for which the IRS requires you to generate certain records either contemporaneously as the expense is being incurred, or at least no later than when you file your return.  We also highlight several deductions for which contemporaneous documentation, although not strictly required, is extremely helpful in making your case before the IRS on an audit.

Charitable contributions.  For cash contributions (including checks and other monetary gifts), the donor must retain a bank record or a written acknowledgment from the charitable organization. A cash contribution of $250 or more must be substantiated with a contemporaneous written acknowledgment from the donee.  “Contemporaneous” for this purpose is defined as obtaining an acknowledgment before you file your return.  So save those letters from the charity, especially for your larger donations.

Tip records.  A taxpayer receiving tips must keep an accurate and contemporaneous record of the tip income.  Employees receiving tips must also report the correct amount to their employers.  The necessary record can be in the form of a diary, log or worksheet and should be made at or near the time the income is received.

Wagering losses.  Gamblers need to substantiate their losses. The IRS usually accepts a regularly maintained diary or similar record (such as summary records and loss schedules) as adequate substantiation, provided it is supplemented by verifiable documentation.  The diary should identify the gambling establishment and the date and type of wager, as well as amounts won and lost. Verifiable documentation can include wagering tickets, canceled checks, credit card records, and withdrawal slips from banks.

Vehicle mileage log.  A taxpayer can deduct a standard mileage rate for business, charitable or medical use of a vehicle.  If the car is also used for personal purposes, the taxpayer should keep a contemporaneous mileage log, especially for business use.  If the taxpayer wants to deduct actual expenses for business use of a car also used for personal purposes, the taxpayer has to allocate costs between the business and personal use, based on miles driven for each.

Material participation in business activity.  Taxpayers that materially participate in a business generally can deduct business losses against other income.  Otherwise, they can only deduct losses against passive income.  An individual’s participation in an activity may be established by any reasonable means.  Contemporaneous time reports, logs, or similar documents are not required but can be particularly helpful to document material participation.  To identify services performed and the hours spent on the services, records may be established using appointment books, calendars, or narrative summaries.

Hobby loss.  Taxpayers who do not engage conduct an activity with a sufficient profit motive may be considered to engage in a hobby and will not be able to deduct losses from the activity against other income.  Maintaining accurate books and records can itself be an indication of a profit motive.  Moreover, the time and activities devoted to a particular business can be essential to demonstrate that the business has a profit motive.  Contemporaneous records can be an important indicator.

Travel and entertainment.  Expenses for travel and entertainment are subject to strict substantiation requirements. Taxpayers should maintain records of the amount spent, the time and place of the activity, its business purpose, and the business relationship of the person being entertained. Contemporaneous records are particularly helpful.

A disregarded entity refers to a business entity with one owner that is not recognized for tax purposes as an entity separate from its owner.  A single-member LLC ("SMLLC"), for example, is considered to be a disregarded entity. For federal and state tax purposes, the sole member of an SMLLC disregards the separate legal status of the SMLLC otherwise in force under state law.

A disregarded entity refers to a business entity with one owner that is not recognized for tax purposes as an entity separate from its owner.  A single-member LLC ("SMLLC"), for example, is considered to be a disregarded entity. For federal and state tax purposes, the sole member of an SMLLC disregards the separate legal status of the SMLLC otherwise in force under state law.

As the result of being “disregarded,” the SMLLC does not file a separate tax return.  Rather, its income and loss is reported on the tax return filed by the single member.

• If the sole owner is an individual, the SMLLC's income and loss is reported on his or her Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. This method is similar to a sole proprietorship.
• If the owner is a corporation, the SMLLC's income or loss is reported on the corporation's Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return (or on Form 1120S in the case of an S Corporation). This treatment is similar to that applied to a corporate branch or division.

An SMLLC is not the only entity treated as a disregarded entity. Two corporate forms are also disregarded: a qualified subchapter S subsidiary and a qualified REIT subsidiary. However, SMLLCs are by far the most common disregarded entity currently in use.

For federal tax purposes, the SMLLC does not exist. All its assets and liabilities are treated as owned by the acquiring corporation.

Even though a disregarded entity’s tax status is transparent for federal tax purposes, it is not transparent for state law purposes. For example, an owner of an SMLLC is not personally liable for the debts and obligations of the entity. However, since the entity is disregarded, the owner is generally treated as the employer of disregarded entity employees for employment tax purposes.

For further details on disregarded entities or how this tax strategy may fit into your business operations, please contact our offices.