On July 4, President Donald Trump signed into law a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) application extension bill that Congress had quickly passed just before the Independence Day holiday. According to several senators, the measure was "surprisingly" introduced and approved by unanimous consent in the Senate late on June 30. It cleared the House the evening of July 1.

On July 4, President Donald Trump signed into law a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) application extension bill that Congress had quickly passed just before the Independence Day holiday. According to several senators, the measure was "surprisingly" introduced and approved by unanimous consent in the Senate late on June 30. It cleared the House the evening of July 1.

Most notably, the bill pushes out the PPP application window deadline five weeks from June 30 to August 8. "The resources are there. The need is there. We just need to change the date," Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., said. Prior to the extension, the small business loan program was set to expire at midnight on July 1 with over $130 billion left in funding.

Mnuchin, Rettig Testify
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and IRS Commissioner Charles "Chuck" Rettig testified before House and Senate committees on June 30, just hours before the PPP application period was set to close.

"There appears to be bipartisan support to repurpose the [remaining] $134 billion for PPP," Mnuchin told lawmakers during a House Financial Services Committee hearing on June 30. Mnuchin stated that "it should be done," and that the administration is looking toward targeted industry-specific relief.

Additionally, Mnuchin told lawmakers that he has been having discussions about more PPP-related relief with the House and Senate Small Business Committees. Reportedly, lawmakers are currently considering an extension or a second round of the PPP.

As for "phase four" of Congress’s next economic relief package, Mnuchin again alluded to a narrower approach. "We would anticipate that any additional relief would be targeted to certain industries that have been especially hard-hit by the pandemic, with a focus on jobs and putting all American workers who lost their jobs, through no fault of their own, back to work."

Meanwhile, several PPP-related bills have been introduced in the Senate over the last few weeks, and most recently a bipartisan PPP Forgiveness bill introduced on June 30. The Paycheck Protection Small Business Forgiveness Bill, authored by bipartisan members of the Senate Banking Committee, would streamline the forgiveness of certain PPP loans.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, also called for an extension of the small business loan program. "It is the last day small business can apply for PPP, but the economic crisis is not over. Senators Cardin, Shaheen, Coons and I will take to the Senate floor and demand we pass a bill to extend it," Schumer said in a June 30 tweet.

IRS 2020 Filing Season, Agency Redesign
In other news, Rettig testified on June 30 before the Senate Finance Committee (SFC) on IRS operations during the 2020 tax filing season. Notably, Rettig told senators that the decision not to further extend the 2019 tax year filing and payment deadline beyond July 15 was made in consultation with professional services organizations, adding that too many due dates can be confusing for taxpayers.

To that end, Treasury first signaled in a June 29 press release that it would not further extend the 2020 filing season. "Treasury and IRS encourage taxpayers to file their taxes by July 15, or file for an automatic extension of time to file to October 15," the press release stated.

"The IRS understands that those affected by the coronavirus may not be able to pay their balances in full by July 15, but we have many payment options to help taxpayers," Rettig said in the press release. "These easy-to-use payment options are available on IRS.gov, and most can be done automatically without reaching out to an IRS representative."

Additionally, Rettig told SFC members that the IRS is well underway in its redesign of the agency for the first time in over 20 years. As noted in Rettig’s testimony, the foundational components of a new holistic taxpayer experience will include the following:

• Expanded Digital Services. An improved experience through self-service digital channels by building upon existing online accounts and introducing online accounts for tax professionals and business taxpayers.
• Seamless Experience. Taxpayers should be guided to the resources and communication channels that will resolve their issues most effectively and efficiently.
• Proactive Outreach and Education. Educate the taxpayer community by proactively providing information in the language, timing, and method taxpayers need or prefer.
• Focused Strategies for Reaching Underserved Communities. Establish a consolidated program to engage with historically underserved communities to address issues of communication, education, transparency and trust, as well as access to quality products and services.
• Ecosystem of Partnerships. Establish, shepherd, and facilitate a collaborative and interactive network of partnerships across the entire tax ecosystem and bring together existing efforts.
• Enterprise Data Management and Advanced Analytics. An enterprise data management strategy that includes a cross-enterprise understanding of the customer experience, emerging needs and expectations, and operational data.

"If you can look into the seeds of time, and say which grain will grow and which will not, speak then unto me." — William Shakespeare

"If you can look into the seeds of time, and say which grain will grow and which will not, speak then unto me." — William Shakespeare

The Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) was enacted under the bipartisan Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136) on March 27, 2020. The PPP, a seemingly ever-evolving small business loan program, was derived from an unprecedented partnership between certain private lending institutions and the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). After its enactment in late March, the program quickly went from concept to implementation when it launched on April 3, 2020.

Fast forward to a somewhat rocky roll-out with several speed bumps and shake-ups, akin to a Shakespearean plotline, President Donald Trump on June 5, 2020, signed into law the bipartisan Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act (PPPFA) of 2020 ( P.L. 116-142). The PPPFA makes several enhancements to the swiftly implemented loan program, including providing for an extension of the expense forgiveness period from 8-to-24 weeks. The legislation also reduces the 75 percent payroll ratio requirement to 60 percent, extends the two-year loan repayment requirement to five years for future borrowers (existing PPP loans can be extended up to five years if lender/borrower agree), allows payroll tax deferment for PPP recipients, and extends the June 30, 2020, rehiring deadline to December 31, 2020.

Accordingly, the SBA, in consultation with Treasury, officially published in the Federal Register updated interim final rules (effective immediately upon publication, as opposed to the "regular order" of first issuing a proposed rule with a preliminary comment period) on June 16 and June 18, and issued new and revised forgiveness applications forms on June 17. Additional guidance is expected. The SBA is accepting comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov.

Wolters Kluwer recently spoke with Daniel G. Strickland, an associate with Eversheds Sutherland, about some of the underlying tax policy issues and lingering complexities with the PPP, and subsequent legislation and guidance. Strickland, who regularly works with the IRS on behalf of taxpayers to obtain benefits offered by the IRS, and with taxpayers to resolve tax controversy disputes with the IRS, currently serves as co-chair of the Federal Bar Association’s Tax Practice and Procedure Committee, as well as chair of the D.C. Bar Association’s New Tax Practitioner Subcommittee. Prior to tax practice, Strickland clerked for several years at the U.S. Tax Court.

To Double-Dip, or not to Double-Dip: That is the Question…(Well, One of Them)
Wolters Kluwer: Can you expand upon the preventive double-benefit tax policy position behind the IRS’s controversial Notice 2020-32, I.R.B. 2020-21, 837, which states that business expenses paid with tax-exempt income, i.e. a forgivable PPP loan, are not deductible under Code Sec. 265? Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said recently, "if the money that is coming is not taxable, you can't double dip."

Daniel Strickland: Good question. As you correctly state, the IRS published Notice 2020-32 to address the tax treatment of expenses that would otherwise be deductible but that were paid using PPP loan proceeds that are forgiven.

From the IRS’s perspective, Congress only exempted the amount of forgiveness from taxation; it did not allow deductions for the expenses paid with forgiven proceeds. Notice 2020-32 points to section 265 as providing legal support for the proposition that otherwise-deductible expenses are not allowable for deduction to the extent that the income is wholly exempt from taxation.

My take is that the IRS is drawing a line at government-sponsored business expenses. In other words, for the taxpayers to receive forgiveness, the loan proceeds must be spent in a certain way. If they are, then it is as if the government paid those expenses directly in a valiant effort to prop up the COVID-affected small businesses. But there is an issue with the IRS’s position: a borrower cannot know the extent to which it will even be eligible for forgiveness—let alone whether its substantiation will be sufficient. And given the deadline for application for forgiveness, borrowers might not even know in the same tax year.

Wolters Kluwer: Sen. John Cornyn, R-Tex., recently introduced the bipartisan Small Business Expense Protection Act ( S. 3612), which moves to essentially nullify Notice 2020-32, clarifying congressional intent that the receipt and forgiveness of a PPP loan would not affect the deductibility of ordinary business expenses. What is your take on the underlying policy of this bill, and do you see the IRS reversing Notice 2020-32 before the measure moves through Congress?

Daniel Strickland: Senator Cornyn has the right idea. In my mind, a few simple examples show the logic: If I borrowed money from a bank and spent the proceeds on deductible expenses, I could deduct those expenses from my income when I file my taxes. If the bank forgave my debt, I would need to recognize the forgiven amount as income. If, on the other hand, I received a gift, I could also use that gift to pay for deductible expenses and then deduct those expenses from my income. I would not generally include the gift in my income – setting aside the differences between corporate taxes and individual taxes—since many small businesses are sole proprietorships or disregarded entities. When the CARES Act provided that the forgiven PPP loan amounts were not subject to tax, conceptually, the loans are turned into gifts. The deductibility should be no different. And the tax treatment should be the same irrespective of the type of corporate entity involved.

That is where the Senator is coming from. Unfortunately, the existence of a bill in Congress isn’t going to be enough to convince the IRS to about-face. The fact that there are still holds on Senator Cornyn’s bill is concerning to me.

"Know You of This Taxation?"
Wolters Kluwer: Are there other tax-related implications taxpayers and practitioners should keep in mind specific to PPP loan forgiveness?

Daniel Strickland: There are always tax implications. In the absence of congressional action on the deductibility question, another arises regarding timing. As detailed in the SBA’s interim final rule, SBA-2020-0035:

If you do not submit to your lender a loan forgiveness application within 10 months after the end of your loan forgiveness covered period, you must begin paying principal and interest after that period. For example, if a borrower’s PPP loan is disbursed on June 25, 2020, the 24-week period ends on December 10, 2020. If the borrower does not submit a loan forgiveness application to its lender by October 10, 2021, the borrower must begin making payments on or after October 10, 2021.

Taxpayers may not know whether—or to what extent—their PPP loans are forgiven until 2021, and some may not know until after they file their 2020 income tax returns. How should the deductions be reported?

In addition, we don’t know how the state and local taxing authorities will react.

Wolters Kluwer: Although the SBA, in consultation with Treasury, has addressed the PPPFA’s 60 percent "cliff" to allow for partial forgiveness if the 60 percent threshold is not reached, an added variable to the equation now exists. According to a June 8 joint Treasury/SBA statement and now updated guidance, partial forgiveness will be subject to at least 60 percent of the loan forgiveness amount having been used for payroll costs. What is your interpretation of this new variable, and is the solution to the 60 percent "cliff," as termed by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Me., who was recently drafting a bill to address the issue, correctly addressed through regulatory guidance? Do you foresee any pushback?

Daniel Strickland: If I am honest, this one took me a couple times to read to understand that it isn’t internally inconsistent:

If a borrower uses less than 60 percent of the loan amount for payroll costs during the forgiveness covered period, the borrower will continue to be eligible for partial loan forgiveness, subject to at least 60 percent of the loan forgiveness amount having been used for payroll costs.

I certainly understand what the SBA is trying to do here, but I think the better explanation is in the SBA’s updated interim final rule, Docket No. SBA-2020-0035. The SBA does a great job explaining the math behind the partial forgiveness.

But to your question, I am not sure that this falls within the realm of regulatory guidance. The hurdle is going to be with the language of the PPPFA:

LIMITATION ON FORGIVENESS.—To receive loan forgiveness under this section, an eligible recipient shall use at least 60 percent of the covered loan amount for payroll costs, and may use up to 40 percent of such amount for any payment of interest on any covered mortgage obligation (which shall not include any prepayment of or payment of principal on a covered mortgage obligation), any payment on any covered rent obligation, or any covered utility payment.

That being said, the SBA is creating a taxpayer-favorable solution to the PPPFA’s 60 percent "cliff." I am not sure who in their right mind will object, but given the pressure put onto the SBA’s rules in courts across the country, it will be interesting to see what happens next and how the agencies show reasoned decision-making in their rules that diverge from the statutory text.

"All’s Well That Ends Well?"
Wolters Kluwer: The PPP application process is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2020. Notably, prior to Senate approval of the PPPFA, the congressional record was updated with a letter from the bipartisan, bicameral PPPFA authors and policy architects to state that the PPPFA’s "extension of the covered period does not authorize the [SBA] to issue any new PPP loans after June 30, 2020, as this date remains fixed by section 1102(b) of the CARES Act." Furthermore, Treasury and the SBA, too, recently reaffirmed the June 30 cutoff date.

However, Mnuchin told lawmakers recently that another round of loans is on the discussion table, following Sen. Tim Scott’s, R-S.C., inquiry as to whether there is an appetite for further enhancing and extending the PPP. Moreover, fellow Senate Small Business Committee members Chris Coons, D-Del., and Ben Cardin, D-Md., have introduced the Prioritized Paycheck Protection Program (P4) Bill, which would authorize new lending under the PPP to borrowers with 100 employees or less who have or will soon exhaust the original PPP loan. A Democratic companion bill was introduced in the House on June 18.

Are you aware of any calls among taxpayers or practitioners to extend PPP loan applications beyond June?

Daniel Strickland: The SBA has been processing loans fast, processing more than 14 years’ worth of loans in 14 days in the initial round of funding. Since then, however, things have slowed down. I haven’t heard any calls for extension recently. But at the same time, the most recent numbers I saw suggested that there is still more than $125 billion available. The next round of published data will give us some indication of what happens. If there is still a significant amount of money left over, and if there is a need, I can certainly see Congress extending the loan application deadline without expanding the available funds. It would be additional taxpayer relief at no additional cost to the government. But with the PPPFA’s changes, we might see the remaining funds mostly or completely extended. In that case, I think we wouldn’t see an extension without another tranche of available funding.

"Confusion Now Hath Made His Masterpiece"
Wolters Kluwer: As for when pension expenses are paid and incurred, current guidance does not indicate whether the amount that is "paid by Borrower" can include retirement contributions attributable to all of 2019, 2020, or even the two years combined. Absent any further guidance, how would you advise taxpayers and practitioners on the matter?

Daniel Strickland: That is a tough question. The short answer is that there are a lot of unanswered questions like this one. The SBA and IRS are publishing guidance as quickly as they can, but it isn’t possible to give the requisite considered decision-making and answer all of the outstanding questions at the same time. What that means for taxpayers and practitioners is that each situation needs to be carefully considered. Without specific guidance, there is a risk that certain expenses don’t qualify for forgiveness or that a portion of the loan could be called for repayment.

The first thing that I advise is to work with an attorney to evaluate the specific facts of each situation and to look at the tax and business consequences of each option. In general, where there is no clear answer, having advice in writing from your attorney that the answer you choose is the right answer can help protect businesses from some of the negative consequences of being wrong.

Wolters Kluwer: Outside the most recently published interim final rules, are there other unanswered questions for which you think Treasury and the SBA could issue additional PPP guidance?

Daniel Strickland: There are a number of unanswered questions with respect to definitions. As you reference above, the one that makes most practitioners’ lists is this issue of paid versus incurred. The loan amount is determined using "monthly payments by the applicant for payroll costs incurred." And forgiveness is determined based on "the sum of the following costs incurred and payments made during the covered period." Another outstanding question is how the forgiveness reduction exemptions will work with the cure date being shifted to December 31 and how the "option to use an eight-week covered period" for those taxpayers who have already received their loan proceeds will work if the June 30 cure date falls within the 8-week covered period.

These are just the tip of the iceberg of unanswered questions.

Wolters Kluwer: Executive agencies, including the IRS and SBA, have been increasingly reliant on sub-regulatory FAQs as a means for issuing guidance lately. What are some potential consequences or drawbacks to this method?

Daniel Strickland: Receiving guidance by FAQ is certainly an efficient way to push information out to taxpayers and practitioners. But as you allude, there are some potential issues—both legal and practical. The first for me is in the second introductory paragraph:

Borrowers and lenders may rely on the guidance provided in this document as SBA’s interpretation of the Paycheck Protection Program Interim Final Rules . . . . The U.S. government will not challenge lender PPP actions that conform to this guidance 1[.]

Footnote 1 provides:

This document does not carry the force and effect of law independent of the statute and regulations on which it is based.

Although "borrowers . . . may rely on the guidance," it is only the SBA’s interpretation of its own interim final rules. There is certainly an open question as to the level of deference to which the FAQs are entitled.

Second to that is the issue of whether the government will challenge taxpayer actions that conform to the guidance. Although the guidance provides some comfort to lenders, and the lenders will be the ones approving loan forgiveness applications, there are still a slew of potential consequences in the fine print that could be asserted against borrowers.

Third is the complexity in advising clients. If you are paying daily attention to the guidance, the tempo of guidance isn’t a big deal, but what I am noticing is that the guidance is changing—think about the initial PPP interest rate of 0.50 percent fixed rate announced by Treasury that was later changed to 1.00 percent fixed rate—and few of the published thought guidance pieces are being updated. For practitioners who are trying to play catchup after receiving a client question, this can be complicated and a great deal of time can be lost spinning their wheels trying to figure out why two seemingly well-reasoned articles have divergent facts or conclusions.

Last, but not least, for taxpayers who are looking for answers online, this could be devastating when it comes to applications for forgiveness. If practitioners are having to sift through the outdated legal analysis by comparison to the newest FAQ iteration, how can taxpayers be confident that they are only relying on the correct version. And when the next round of guidance comes out, those taxpayers must rinse and repeat.

"Tomorrow, and Tomorrow, and Tomorrow…"
Wolters Kluwer: Looking ahead, any closing thoughts or advice for practitioners related to the PPP moving forward?

Daniel Strickland: We all want to get to the right answer. For taxpayers and practitioners alike, it is important to ask questions. The SBA, for example, is receptive to discussing concerns and comments. And given the frequency of guidance, it is more important than ever to be involved in the process. For taxpayers specifically, asking questions of their advisers can protect small businesses against the "penny-wise, pound-foolish" adage. I know I want to protect my clients from missteps and help them take fullest advantage of these benefits.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Trump Administration’s rule under the Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148) that any nongovernment, nonpublicly traded employer can refuse to offer contraceptive coverage for moral or religious reasons, and that publicly traded employers can refuse to do so for religious reasons. Application of this rule had been halted by litigation, but the Administration is now free to apply it.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Trump Administration’s rule under the Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148) that any nongovernment, nonpublicly traded employer can refuse to offer contraceptive coverage for moral or religious reasons, and that publicly traded employers can refuse to do so for religious reasons. Application of this rule had been halted by litigation, but the Administration is now free to apply it.

The issues in the case were: (1) whether the ACA actually requires contraceptive coverage or was that just a creature of regulations that any administration may change, and (2) whether the administration complied with Administrative Procedures Act (APA) in light of the surprising breadth of the regulation going well beyond religious objections to include any moral objection.

Contraceptive Regulation
The prior version of this regulation included an exception for religious employers and small businesses with a religious objection. They had to self-certify that they qualified. Some objected. Shortly after the Administration changed hands, it issued a new version as an interim final regulation.

The Treasury, Health and Human Services (HHS), and Labor Departments have nearly identical versions of these rules. The Treasury version is Reg. §54.9815-2713(a)(1)(iv), but it references HHS regulations (45 CFR 147.131–147.133), and that is where much of the change was made.

The new rule provides that a nongovernment employer that has religious or moral objections to providing coverage for some or all forms of birth control can simply not provide the coverage. These rules also apply to colleges and universities providing student health insurance coverage. The religious exemption is open to any nongovernment employer, including both nonprofit and for-profit entities. The same holds true for the moral exemption, except only the religious exemption is available for publicly traded employers. An objecting employer need not file anything with the government, though affected plan participants need to be notified of mid-plan year coverage changes. Employers are free to pick and choose among contraceptives if they do decide to offer contraceptive coverage.

These regulations extend the exemption for objecting employers to objecting health insurance issuers, and to objecting individuals under which a health insurance issuer may offer a separate benefit package option to any individual who objects to coverage or payments for some or all contraceptive services based on the individual’s sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions.

Authority Under ACA
The majority opinion by Justice Thomas viewed the ACA as blank slate on what it required for women’s preventive health. The relevant ACA provision provides that, with respect to women, a group health plan and a health insurance issuer shall, at a minimum provide additional preventive care and screenings "as provided for" in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). At the time of the ACA’s enactment, these guidelines were not yet written.

The HRSA Guidelines were based on recommendations compiled by the Institute of Medicine (now called the National Academy of Medicine). The Guidelines included the contraceptive mandate, which required health plans to provide coverage for all contraceptive methods and sterilization procedures approved by the Food and Drug Administration, as well as related education and counseling.

The same day the Guidelines were issued in 2011, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury (the Departments) issued interim final regulations requiring contraceptive coverage, with exceptions for churches. The Departments determined that it was appropriate that HRSA take into account the mandate’s effect on certain religious employers, and concluded that HRSA had the discretion to do so through the creation of an exemption. Ever since, the HRSA has been tasked (according to the majority opinion) with devising religious exemptions. The majority opinion concluded that ACA granted the HRSA broad authority to define preventive care and screenings, which implies that the HRSA also has broad power to create any religious and moral exemptions. Thus, if the HRSA changes its mind, there is nothing in the ACA to prevent it.

Justice Ginsburg’s dissent (joined by Justice Sotomayor) argued the legislative language HRSA in fact only delegates to the HRSA the task of compiling a list of services that should be provided. The ACA did not delegate the authority to determine who must provide the coverage for these services. Justice Kagan’s concurrence (joined by Justice Breyer) disagreed with the majority and dissent about the clarity of the ACA’s language on this, but from the beginning the Departments acted as if it were up to the HRSA to make this call. Under the Chevron doctrine, the interpretation of unclear legislation by the agency tasked with enforcement is owed due deference by the courts.

No “Open-Mindedness” Test
The majority opinion found no violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. The fact that the final rules made only minor alterations to the interim final regulations did not render the final rules procedurally invalid, because nothing in the record suggested that the Departments maintained an open mind during the post-promulgation process. The “open-mindedness” test has no basis in the APA, according to Justice Thomas.

The majority opinion also addressed the issue of calling the document containing the interim final rules "Interim Final Rules with Request for Comments" instead of "General Notice of Proposed Rulemaking." The request for comments readily satisfied the APA notice requirements, Justice Thomas ruled. Even assuming that the APA requires an agency to publish a document entitled "notice of proposed rulemaking," there was no prejudicial error here.

Justice Kagan’s opinion questioned whether the rule was not arbitrary and capricious. The rule went beyond what the Departments’ justification supported, raising doubts about whether the solution lacks a "rational connection" to the problem described. Few employers have expressed reservations about self-certification, and in any case the new exemption includes any employer (except publicly traded employers) with a moral objection whether it is religious or not.

Where’s RFRA?
The majority opinion stopped its authority analysis at holding that the ACA authorized the regulation, and stated that it did not need go into the requirements of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). Justice Alito (joined by Justice Gorsuch) filed a concurrence taking the position that RFRA compels an exemption for the Little Sisters and any other employer with a similar objection to what has been called the accommodation to the contraceptive mandate.

The IRS has issued guidance to employers on the requirement to report the amount of qualified sick and family leave wages paid to employees under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (Families First Act) ( P.L. 116-127). This reporting provides employees who are also self-employed with information necessary for properly claiming qualified sick leave equivalent or qualified family leave equivalent credits under the Families First Act.

The IRS has issued guidance to employers on the requirement to report the amount of qualified sick and family leave wages paid to employees under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (Families First Act) ( P.L. 116-127). This reporting provides employees who are also self-employed with information necessary for properly claiming qualified sick leave equivalent or qualified family leave equivalent credits under the Families First Act.

Background
Under the Families First Act, many employers with fewer than 500 employees must provide paid leave to employees due to circumstances related to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Certain employers must provide an employee with up to 80 hours of paid sick leave if the employee cannot work or telework because he or she:

1. is subject to a federal, state or local quarantine or isolation order related to COVID-19;
2. has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19;
3. is experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and seeking a medical diagnosis;
4. is caring for an individual who is subject to a federal, state, or local quarantine or isolation order related to COVID-19, or has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19;
5. is caring for a son or daughter if the child’s school or place of care has been closed, or the child’s care provider is unavailable, due to COVID-19 precautions; or
6. is experiencing any other substantially similar condition specified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services in consultation with the Secretaries of the Treasury and Labor.

The employee is entitled to paid sick leave at his or her regular pay rate (or if higher, the applicable federal, state, or local minimum wage), up to:

• $511 per day ($5,110 in the aggregate) if the employee cannot work for reasons listed in (1), (2), or (3), above;
• $200 per day ($2,000 in the aggregate) if the employee cannot work for reasons listed in (4), (5), or (6) above.

The Families First Act also amends the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to require employers to provide expanded paid family and medical leave to employees who cannot work or telework for reasons related to COVID-19. An employee can receive up to 10 weeks of paid family and medical leave at two-thirds the employee’s regular rate of pay, up to $200 per day ($10,000 in the aggregate) if the employee cannot work because he or she is caring for a son or daughter whose school or place of care is closed, or whose child care provider is unavailable, for reasons related to COVID-19.

Eligible employers may receive a refundable payroll credit for required qualified sick leave wages or qualified family leave wages paid to an employee, plus allocable qualified health plan expenses. An equivalent credit is available to self-employed individuals carrying on a trade or business, if the self-employed individual would be entitled to receive paid leave if he or she were an employee of an employer (other than himself or herself). The refundable credits apply to qualified leave wages paid with respect to the period beginning on April 1, 2020, and ending on December 31, 2020.

Reporting Qualified Leave Wages
In addition to reporting qualified sick leave wages paid and qualified family leave wages paid in Boxes 1, 3 (up to the social security wage base), and 5 of Form W-2 (or, in the case of compensation subject to the Railroad Retirement Tax Act (RRTA), in Boxes 1 and 14 of Form W-2), employers must report to the employee the following types and amounts of the wages that were paid, with each amount separately reported either in Box 14 of Form W-2 or on a separate statement:

• the total amount of qualified sick leave wages paid for reasons (1), (2), or (3) above, labelled as "sick leave wages subject to the $511 per day limit" or in similar language;
• the total amount of qualified sick leave wages paid for reasons (4), (5), or (6) above, labelled as "sick leave wages subject to the $200 per day limit" or in similar language; and
• the total amount of qualified family leave wages paid, labelled as "emergency family leave wages" or in similar language.

If a separate statement is provided and the employee receives a paper Form W-2, the statement must be included with the Form W-2 provided to the employee. If the employee receives an electronic Form W-2, the statement must be provided in the same manner and at the same time as the Form W-2.

Self-Employed Individuals
Self-employed individuals who are claiming qualified sick leave equivalent or qualified family leave equivalent credits, and who are also eligible for qualified sick leave and qualified family leave wages as employees, must report the qualified leave wage amounts described above on Form 7202, Credits for Sick Leave and Family Leave for Certain Self-Employed Individuals, included with their income tax returns. They also must reduce (but not below zero) any qualified sick leave or qualified family leave equivalent credits by the amount of these qualified leave wages.

The IRS has issued guidance and temporary relief for required minimum distribution (RMD) changes in 2020. Distributions that would have been RMDs under old law are treated as eligible rollover distributions. The 60-day rollover period deadline for any 2020 RMDs already taken has been extended to August 31, 2020. Notice 2007-7, I.R.B. 2007-5, 395 is modified.

The IRS has issued guidance and temporary relief for required minimum distribution (RMD) changes in 2020. Distributions that would have been RMDs under old law are treated as eligible rollover distributions. The 60-day rollover period deadline for any 2020 RMDs already taken has been extended to August 31, 2020. Notice 2007-7, I.R.B. 2007-5, 395 is modified.

SECURE and CARES Acts
The new guidance addresses RMD issues arising from recent unexpected changes in the rules. The Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019 (SECURE Act) ( P.L. 116-94), enacted at the end of 2019, changed the required beginning date for RMDs for individuals turning age 70-1/2 in 2020. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136), enacted in March 2020, waived the RMD requirements for 2020.

Plans, administrators, and individuals were taken by surprise. Some plans and participants treated distributions as RMDs even though they were not under new rules then in effect. The SECURE Act provided no relief. However, the CARES Act allowed plans and participants to treat would-be RMDs as eligible rollover distributions. Still, under the rules, individuals have 60 days to recontribute distributions, and can only do that once in a 12-month period. That left individuals who took early distributions twisting in the wind, not to mention people taking monthly RMD installments.

60-Day Deadline Extended
Under the new relief, any distribution already taken in 2020 that would have been an RMD under the old rules has a 60-day recontribution deadline of no earlier than August 31. For example, if someone took a distribution in January 2020 that would have been an RMD under the old rules (either sets of old rules), they have until August 31 to recontribute it to an eligible plan or IRA.

For an IRA owner or beneficiary who has already received a distribution that would have been an RMD in 2020 but for the 2020 RMD waiver under the CARES Act or the change in the required beginning date under the SECURE Act, the recipient may repay the distribution to the distributing IRA, even if the repayment is made more than 60 days after the distribution, provided the repayment is made no later than August 31, 2020. The repayment will be treated as a rollover, but will be subject to the one rollover per 12-month period limitation or the restriction on nonspousal beneficiary rollovers.

SECURE Act Relief
Distributions that were intended as RMDs but in fact are not due to the SECURE Act change in required beginning date are treated as eligible rollover distributions. RMDs do not have to satisfy rules regarding mandatory withholding, the option of a direct rollover, and notice of that right. Under this relief, individuals and plans can still treat these as eligible rollover distributions.

2020 Waiver Guidance
The IRS has clarified that the CARES Act relief applies for 2020 distributions that would have been RMDs, had it not been for the 2020 RMD waiver. These include distributions to a plan participant paid in 2020 (or paid in 2021 for the 2020 calendar year in the case of an employee who has a required beginning date of April 1, 2021) if the payments equal the amounts that would have been RMDs in (or for) 2020 had it not been for 2020 RMD waiver. They also include distributions that are one or more payments (that include the 2020 RMDs) in a series of substantially equal periodic payments made at least annually and expected to last for the participant’s life or life expectancy, the joint lives (or joint life expectancies) of the participant and the participant’s designated beneficiary, or for a period of at least 10 years.

For a plan participant with a required beginning date of April 1, 2021, distributions paid in 2021 that would have been an RMD for 2021 had it not been for the CARES Act are treated as eligible rollover distributions. However, a plan participant with a required beginning date of April 1, 2021, must still receive RMD for the 2021 calendar year by December 31, 2021. If the employee receives a distribution during 2021, that distribution is an RMD for the 2021 calendar year to the extent the total RMD for 2021 has not been satisfied even if the distribution is made on or before April 1, 2021, and accordingly, is not an eligible rollover distribution. However, to the extent the RMD for 2021 has been satisfied, subsequent amounts distributed in 2021 that would otherwise not be eligible rollover distributions may be rolled over.

Extended Deadlines Due to 2020 Waiver
If a plan permits an employee or beneficiary to elect whether the 5-year rule or the life expectancy rule applies in determining RMDs, then the deadline for making that election typically would be the end of calendar year following the calendar year of the employee’s death. For example, if a 50-year-old employee in a plan providing the election died in 2019 with his sister as his designated beneficiary, the plan provision would require the election by the end of 2020. However, that type of plan may be amended to permit the extension of the election deadline to the end of 2021.

The RMD waiver extends the time for making a direct rollover for a nonspouse designated beneficiary if the participant died in 2019. A special rule provides that if the 5-year rule applies to a benefit under a plan, the nonspouse designated beneficiary may determine the amount that is not eligible for rollover because it is an RMD using the life expectancy rule in the case of a distribution made prior to the end of the year following the year of death. This special rule is modified so that if the employee’s death occurred in 2019, the nonspouse designated beneficiary has until the end of 2021 to make the direct rollover and use the life expectancy rule.

Plan Amendments
The guidance provides a sample plan amendment for defined contribution plans that plan sponsors may adopt to implement waiver rules. Any plan amendment must be adopted no later than the last day of the first plan year beginning on or after January 1, 2022 (January 1, 2024, for governmental plans), and must reflect operation of the plan beginning with the effective date of the plan amendment. Timely adoption of the amendment must be shown by a written document signed and dated by the employer (including an adopting employer of a pre-approved plan). IRAs do not need to be amended.

The IRS has clarified and provided relief for mid-year amendments reducing safe harbor contributions. An updated safe harbor notice and an election opportunity must be provided even if the change is only for highly compensated employees. Coronavirus (COVID-19) relief applies if a plan amendment is adopted between March 13, 2020, and August 31, 2020. For nonelective contribution plans, the supplemental notice requirement is satisfied if provided no later than August 31, 2020, and the amendment that reduces or suspends contributions is adopted no later than the effective date of the reduction or suspension. Notice 2016-16, I.R.B., 2016-7, 318, is clarified.

The IRS has clarified and provided relief for mid-year amendments reducing safe harbor contributions. An updated safe harbor notice and an election opportunity must be provided even if the change is only for highly compensated employees. Coronavirus (COVID-19) relief applies if a plan amendment is adopted between March 13, 2020, and August 31, 2020. For nonelective contribution plans, the supplemental notice requirement is satisfied if provided no later than August 31, 2020, and the amendment that reduces or suspends contributions is adopted no later than the effective date of the reduction or suspension. Notice 2016-16, I.R.B., 2016-7, 318, is clarified.

Mid-Year Amendments
Safe harbor contributions for a plan year may be amended during the plan year to reduce or suspend future matching or nonelective contributions only under certain conditions. Among them are that the employer must either (1) be operating at an economic loss for the plan year, or (2) have included in the plan’s safe harbor notice for the plan year a statement that the plan may be amended during the plan year to reduce or suspend safe harbor contributions, and that the reduction or suspension will not apply earlier than 30 days after all eligible employees are provided notice of the reduction or suspension.

The reduction or suspension of safe harbor contributions may be effective no earlier than the later of the date the amendment is adopted or 30 days after eligible employees are provided in a supplemental notice. Eligible employees must be given a reasonable opportunity (including a reasonable period after receipt of the supplemental notice) prior to the reduction or suspension of safe harbor contributions to change their cash or deferred elections and, if applicable, their employee contribution elections.

Safe Harbor Contributions
Reductions or suspensions of contributions. If a plan amendment that reduces or suspends safe harbor matching or nonelective contributions during a plan year is adopted between March 13, 2020, and August 31, 2020, then the plan will not be treated as failing to satisfy the requirement that the employer either (1) is operating at an economic loss; or (2) has included in the plan’s safe harbor notice for the plan year a statement that (a) the plan may be amended during the plan year to reduce or suspend the safe harbor contributions and (b) the reduction or suspension will not apply until at least 30 days after all eligible employees are provided notice of the reduction or suspension.

Supplemental notice requirement. If a plan amendment that reduces or suspends safe harbor nonelective contributions during a plan year is adopted between March 13, 2020, and August 31, 2020, then the plan will not be treated as failing to satisfy the supplemental notice requirements merely because it is not provided to eligible employees at least 30 days before the reduction or suspension of safe harbor nonelective contributions is effective, provided that (1) the supplemental notice is provided to eligible employees no later than August 31, 2020, and (2) the plan amendment that reduces or suspends safe harbor nonelective contributions is adopted no later than the effective date of the reduction or suspension of safe harbor nonelective contributions.

There is no relief with respect to the timing of supplemental notices for a mid-year reduction or suspension of safe harbor matching contributions because matching contribution levels communicated to employees directly affect employee decisions regarding elective contributions (and, if applicable, employee contributions).

HCE Contributions
The new notice clarifies that an updated safe harbor notice and an election opportunity (as required by Notice 2016-16, I.R.B. 2016-7, 318) must be provided to highly compensated employees (HCEs) to whom the mid-year change applies, determined as of the date of issuance of the updated safe harbor notice. This rule applies even if the change only applies to HCEs.

The IRS amended final regulations with guidance on the Code Sec. 199A deduction for suspended losses and shareholders of regulated investment companies (RICs). The amendments address the treatment of suspended losses included in qualified business income (QBI), the deduction allowed to a shareholder in a regulated investment company (RIC), and additional rules related to trusts and estates. The IRS had previously issued final and proposed regulations addressing these issues (NPRM REG-134652-18)

The IRS amended final regulations with guidance on the Code Sec. 199A deduction for suspended losses and shareholders of regulated investment companies (RICs). The amendments address the treatment of suspended losses included in qualified business income (QBI), the deduction allowed to a shareholder in a regulated investment company (RIC), and additional rules related to trusts and estates. The IRS had previously issued final and proposed regulations addressing these issues ( NPRM REG-134652-18)

Background
Code Sec. 199A provides a deduction of up to 20 percent of qualified business income (QBI) from a U.S. trade or business operated as a sole proprietorship, or through a partnership, S corporation, trust, or estate. If the taxpayer’s taxable income exceeds the threshold amount in Code Sec. 199A(e)(2), the deduction may be limited. Statutory limitations are subject to phase-in rules. Code Sec. 199A also provides individuals and some trusts and estates a deduction of up to 20 percent of their combined qualified real estate investment trust (REIT) dividends and qualified publicly traded partnership (PTP) income.

461(l) Losses
Under Reg. §1.199A-3(b)(1)(iv), previously disallowed losses or deductions allowed in the tax year are generally taken into account for computing QBI, except to the extent the losses or deductions were disallowed, suspended, limited, or carried over from tax years ending before January 1, 2018. The final regulations amend Reg. §1.199A-3(b)(1)(iv)(A) to specifically reference excess business losses disallowed by Code Sec. 461(l) and treated as a net operating loss (NOL) carryover for the tax year for purposes of determining any NOL carryover in subsequent tax years. The IRS notes that the list of statutes in the regulation is not exhaustive

Phase-in Rules for SSTB Losses
The amendments also clarify how the phase-in rules apply when a taxpayer has a suspended or disallowed loss or deduction from a specified service trade or business (SSTB). If the individual’s taxable income is at or below the threshold amount in the year the loss or deduction is incurred, the entire disallowed loss or deduction is treated as QBI from a separate trade or business in the later tax year in which the loss is allowed. If the individual’s taxable income is within the phase-in range, only a percentage of the disallowed loss or deduction is taken into account in the later tax year. If the individual’s taxable income exceeds the phase-in range, the loss or deduction is not included in QBI.

Conduit Treatment
The final regulations provide conduit treatment for qualified REIT dividends earned by a RIC. Conduit treatment happens when a RIC treats dividends paid to a shareholder in the same or similar manner as the shareholder would treat the underlying item of income or gain if the shareholder realized it directly. The Treasury Department and IRS continue to consider comments on whether to provide conduit treatment for qualified PTP income, and for RIC income from an activity that would generate QBI if conducted by a partnership or an S corporation.

Separate Share Rule
The separate share applies for a trust or estate described in Code Sec. 663(c) with substantially separate and independent shares for multiple beneficiaries. Under the final regulations, the trust or estate will be treated as a single trust or estate for determining taxable income, net capital gain, net QBI, W-2 wages, unadjusted basis immediately after acquisition (UBIA) of qualified property, qualified REIT dividends, and qualified PTP income for each trade or business of the trust or estate, and for computing the W-2 wage and UBIA of qualified property limitations.

Applicability
The amended regulations apply to tax years beginning 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. However, taxpayers may choose to apply the amendments before that date. Taxpayers who chose to rely on the proposed regulations issued in February 2019 may continue to do so until the date these amendments are published.

The Treasury Department and the IRS have released drafts of proposed partnership forms for tax year 2021 (the 2022 filing season). The proposed forms are intended to provide greater clarity for partners on how to compute their U.S. income tax liability for relevant international tax items, including claiming deductions and credits. The redesigned forms and instructions will also give useful guidance to partnerships on how to provide international tax information to their partners in a standardized format.

The Treasury Department and the IRS have released drafts of proposed partnership forms for tax year 2021 (the 2022 filing season). The proposed forms are intended to provide greater clarity for partners on how to compute their U.S. income tax liability for relevant international tax items, including claiming deductions and credits. The redesigned forms and instructions will also give useful guidance to partnerships on how to provide international tax information to their partners in a standardized format.

The draft forms are:

• Schedule K-2 (Form 1065), Partners’ Distributive Share Items—International, and Instructions for Schedule K-2.
• Schedule K-3 (Form 1065), Partner’s Share of Income, Deductions, Credits, etc.—International ; and Instructions for Schedule K-3.

These proposed forms would apply to a partnership required to file Form 1065 only if it has "items of international tax relevance" (i.e., generally, foreign activities or foreign partners). The changes would not affect domestic partnerships with no international tax items to report.

Partner Reporting of International Items
Partners must report international tax information on their tax returns on several tax forms and schedules. They generally obtain this information from their partnerships, usually through narrative statements attached to one or more Schedules K-1 (Form 1065), Partner’s Share of Income, Deductions, Credits, etc. Since partnerships compile these statements in a variety of formats, partners might have difficulties translating the statements onto their own returns.

To ease this burden, the Treasury and IRS state that the proposed changes would provide a standard format that offers greater clarity to both partnerships and their partners. This standard format is designed to better align the information that partnerships provide on the schedules with the tax forms used by partners, so that partners can more easily prepare their tax returns, and the IRS can more efficiently verify taxpayer compliance. It is intended that all information to be reported on the new schedules is already necessary for the partnership to provide to partners or is available to the partnership.

Draft Schedules K-2 and K-3
Any partnership that is required to file Form 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership Income, and has items relevant to the determination of the U.S. tax or certain withholding tax or reporting obligations of its partners under the international provisions of the Code, will be required to complete the relevant parts of Schedule K-2 and Schedule K-3.

The proposed parts included in new Schedule K-2 (Form 1065) replace portions of existing Form 1065, Schedule K, lines 16(a) through 16(r). The proposed schedule provides for international tax information to be reported in a standardized manner. The partnership will attach Schedule K-2 to its Form 1065.

The proposed parts included in new Schedule K-3 (Form 1065) replace portions of Schedule K-1 (Form 1065), Part III, Boxes 16 and 20. The proposed schedule provides information to the partner generally in the format of the following forms that the partner might need to complete:

• Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return;
• Form 1040-NR, U.S. Nonresident Alien Income Tax Return;
• Form 1116, Foreign Tax Credit (Individual, Estate, or Trust;
• Form 1118, Foreign Tax Credit—Corporations;
• Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return;
• Form 1120-F, U.S. Income Tax Return of a Foreign Corporation;
• Form 4797, Sales of Business Property;
• Form 8949, Sales and Other Dispositions of Capital Assets;
• Form 8991, Tax on Base Erosion Payments of Taxpayers With Substantial Gross Receipts;
• Form 8992, U.S. Shareholder Calculation of Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI); and
• Form 8993, Section 250 Deduction for Foreign Derived Intangible Income (FDII) and Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI).

The partnership will provide Schedule K-3 to its partners according to the timeline for providing Schedule K-1.

Comments Requested
The draft schedules and instructions have been released to allow partnerships and other stakeholders time to consider the proposed changes and provide comments that can be taken into account in finalizing the schedules and instructions. The Treasury and IRS will be actively engaged with stakeholders to solicit input on these proposed changes before the forms are finalized later in 2020.

Affected stakeholders can submit comments through September 14, 2020. Written comments should be sent to the following email address: lbi.passthrough.international.form.changes@irs.gov with the subject line: "International Form Changes."

For additional information and updates, see https://www.irs.gov/businesses/1065-form-changes.

Other Revisions
The Treasury and IRS plan similar revisions, as applicable, to Form 1120-S, U.S. Income Tax Return for an S Corporation, and Form 8865, Return of U.S. Persons With Respect to Certain Foreign Partnerships. They welcome comments on similar changes to be made to these forms for the 2021 tax year.

The Treasury and IRS have issued final regulations covering the Code Sec. 250 deduction for foreign-derived intangible income (FDII) and global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI). Proposed regulations were issued on March 6, 2019 (NPRM REG-104464-18). The final regulations maintain the basic approach and structure of the proposed regulations and provide guidance on computation of the deduction and the determination of FDII, including in the consolidated return context. Additionally, rules requiring the filing of Form 8993, Section 250 Deduction for Foreign-Derived Intangible Income and Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income, are finalized.

The Treasury and IRS have issued final regulations covering the Code Sec. 250 deduction for foreign-derived intangible income (FDII) and global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI). Proposed regulations were issued on March 6, 2019 (NPRM REG-104464-18). The final regulations maintain the basic approach and structure of the proposed regulations and provide guidance on computation of the deduction and the determination of FDII, including in the consolidated return context. Additionally, rules requiring the filing of Form 8993, Section 250 Deduction for Foreign-Derived Intangible Income and Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income, are finalized.

Section 250 Deduction
The Code Sec. 250 deduction is available to domestic corporations for:

• a portion of profits attributable U.S. activities that serve foreign markets, and
• a portion of profits of controlled foreign corporations (CFCs).

The deduction is available with respect to a domestic corporation’s "excess return" or return in excess of fixed return on tangible assets, derived from serving foreign markets. FDII is the portion of the excess return derived from serving foreign markets directly from the United States. GILTI is the portion of the excess return derived through foreign affiliates. The deduction results in a lower effective U.S. tax rate on a U.S. corporation’s FDII and GILTI.

Documentation Requirements
The proposed regulations defined terms and provide specific documents that were required to establish that income was derived from serving foreign markets. Commentators found that the proposed regulations could present compliance burdens. Accordingly, the final regulations provide a more flexible approach than the specific documentation requirements.

For many types of sales and services, eligibility for the Code Sec. 250 deduction is subject to the general requirement under the Code that deductions must be supported by sufficient substantiation, including the use of available business records.

More specific substantiation requirements are required for:

• intangible property;
• sales of general property to resellers and manufacturers; and
• the provision of general services to recipients.

The requirements include either:

• a specific document;
• information from the recipient obtained or created in the ordinary course of a trade or business; or
• a taxpayer statement with corroborating evidence.

Taxpayers may choose a method of substantiation among the methods. The specific substantiation requirements do not apply to businesses with less than $25 million in gross receipts. The final regulations also eliminate references to the use of market research to establish foreign use.

The final regulations clarify how to establish foreign use for sales of digital content and how to establish a recipient’s location outside of the United States with respect to electronically supplied services and advertising services. The final regulations:

• evaluate the sale of a copyrighted article under the general property rules, rather than under the rules for foreign use of intangible property;
• provide new rules for establishing whether a sale of digital content is for foreign use;
• define "digital content" as a computer program or any other content in digital format; and
• provide that a sale of general property that primarily includes digital content is a foreign-derived deduction eligible income (FDDEI) sale if the end user downloads or accesses the content on a device located outside of the United States.

The final regulations add two subcategories of general services:

• a subcategory of general services for electronically supplied services; and
• a subcategory for advertising services.

In these cases, the location of the recipient is where the content is accessed or viewed.

Foreign Military Sales and Services
The proposed regulations provided special rules to cover U.S. Defense Contractors’ military sales of equipment and provision of services to the U.S. government that are subsequently sold or provided to a foreign government.

The final regulations adopt the proposed regulations, which treat sales and services provided to the U.S. government under the Arms Export Control Act as a sale or provision of services to the foreign government that is eligible for the deduction. The final regulations relax the substantiation requirements, so that the general substantiation requirements apply.

Ratio of FDDEI to DEI
A corporation’s FDII is defined as its deemed intangible income (DII) multiplied by the corporation’s foreign-derived ratio. This is the ratio of the corporation’s foreign-derived deduction eligible income (FDDEI) to its deduction eligible income (DEI).

The final regulations retain the rule that the domestic corporation must allocate expenses to its gross FDDEI to determine the numerator of the foreign-derived ratio.

Deduction for Individuals
The final regulations extend the Code Sec. 250 deduction with respect to GILTI, to individuals—including individual partners and individual S corporation shareholders—making the Code Sec. 962 election to be treated as a domestic corporation.

Additional Changes
Additional changes in the final regulations generally expand situations in which a transaction will be an FDDEI transaction, including:

• a property service may be a FDDEI service if it is provided with respect to property temporarily located in the United States;
• the definition of transportation services is revised to include freight forwarding services;
• the sale of a manufacturing method or process intangible to a foreign unrelated party is for foreign use based on the location of the manufacture rather that the end user;
• elimination of the rule that allowed the deduction for sales of international property only if certain time and use thresholds were met and the replacement of foreign use based on place of registration;
• clarification that general property includes physical commodities sold pursuant to derivative contracts, and that hedging sales impact a taxpayer’s income; and
• removal of the rule that the sale of an interest in a foreign branch is treated as giving rise to foreign branch income preventing the deduction.

Taxpayers can also use any reasonable method to determine the ordering of rules that limit deductions based on taxable income until additional rules are issued.

The IRS is calling on any taxpayers involved in syndicated conservation easement transactions who receives a settlement offer from the agency to accept it soon. The Service made this request in the wake of the Tax Court’s recent strike down of four additional abusive syndicated conservation easement transactions.

Settlement Offers
Time-limited settlement offers, which the IRS announced on June 25 ( IR-2020-130), are only being made to certain taxpayers with pending docketed Tax Court cases involving this type of abusive transaction. The IRS declared that these and other recent Tax Court decisions support the abusive nature of the underlying syndicated conservation easement deduction.

The four recent Tax Court decisions in question disallowed conservation easement deductions totaling nearly $21 million ( Village at Effingham, LLC, TC Memo. 2020-102, Dec. 61,715(M); Riverside Place, LLC, TC Memo. 2020-103, Dec. 61,716(M); Maple Landing, LLC, TC Memo. 2020-104, Dec. 61,717(M); Englewood Place, LLC, TC Memo. 2020-105, Dec. 61,718(M)).

Abusive Transactions
While recognizing the important role of legitimate conservation easement deductions in incentivizing land preservation for future generations, the IRS pointed out that abusive syndicated conservation easement transactions have been of concern for several years.

In listed syndicated conservation easement structures, promoters syndicate ownership interests in real property through partnerships, using promotional materials to suggest that prospective investors may be entitled to a share of a conservation easement contribution deduction that equals or exceeds two and one-half times the investment amount. The promoters obtain an appraisal that greatly inflates the value of the conservation easement, based on a fictional and unrealistic highest and best use of the property before it was encumbered with the easement. After the investors invest in the partnership, the partnership donates a conservation easement to a land trust. Investors in the partnership then claim a deduction based on an inflated value. According to the IRS, the investors typically claim charitable contribution deductions that grossly multiply their actual investment in the transaction and defy common sense.

The IRS is aware that some promoters of these abusive transactions have downplayed the significance of the string of recent court decisions holding in the government’s favor, arguing that their cases are somehow different or that those decisions might be reversed on appeal. These promoters ignore common sense and argue that the real dispute is about value, neglecting to explain how the reporting of short-term appreciation, often exceeding many multiples of reality, could possibly withstand judicial scrutiny. "Taxpayers should ignore this nonsense, take an objective look at their cases, and cut their losses," said IRS Chief Counsel Mike Desmond; "abusive transactions, like settlement offers, do not get better with time, and this is a good opportunity to get out," he added.

A business can deduct only ordinary and necessary expenses. Further, the amount allowable as a deduction for business meal and entertainment expenses, whether incurred in-town or out-of-town is generally limited to 50 percent of the expenses. (A special exception that raises the level to 80 percent applies to workers who are away from home while working under Department of Transportation regulations.)

A business can deduct only ordinary and necessary expenses. Further, the amount allowable as a deduction for business meal and entertainment expenses, whether incurred in-town or out-of-town is generally limited to 50 percent of the expenses. (A special exception that raises the level to 80 percent applies to workers who are away from home while working under Department of Transportation regulations.)

Related expenses, such as taxes, tips, and parking fees must be included in the total expenses before applying the 50-percent reduction. The 50-percent reduction is made only after determining the amount of the otherwise allowable deductions. However, allowable deductions for transportation costs to and from a business meal are not reduced.

The 50-percent deduction limitation also applies to meals and entertainment expenses that are reimbursed under an accountable plan to a taxpayer's employees. In that case, it doesn't matter if the taxpayer reimburses the employees for 100 percent of the expenses.

Employee-only meals.  If the value of any property or service provided to an employee is so minimal that accounting for the property or service would be unreasonable or administratively impracticable, it is a de minimis fringe benefit that is excluded for income and employment tax purposes.  Such benefits that are food-related may include occasional parties or picnics, occasional supper money due to overtime work, and employer-furnished coffee and doughnuts.

A subsidized eating facility can be a de minimis fringe if it is located on or near the business premises and the revenue derived from it normally equals or exceeds direct operating costs. Further, if more than one-half of the employees are furnished meals for the convenience of the employer, all meals provided on the premises are treated as furnished for the convenience of the employer. Therefore, the meals are fully deductible by the employer, instead of possibly being subject to the 50-percent limit on business meal deductions, and excludable by the employees.

Beginning January 1, 2014, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) requires individuals to carry comprehensive health insurance (referred to as minimum essential coverage or MEC). Individuals without coverage must make a shared responsibility payment to the IRS, unless they qualify for an exemption. This requirement is known as the individual mandate. The individual mandate also applies to children and other dependents.

Beginning January 1, 2014, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) requires individuals to carry comprehensive health insurance (referred to as minimum essential coverage or MEC). Individuals without coverage must make a shared responsibility payment to the IRS, unless they qualify for an exemption. This requirement is known as the individual mandate. The individual mandate also applies to children and other dependents.

Minimum essential coverage

The individual mandate applies on a monthly basis. The payment amount is based on the number of months in the calendar year that the individual lacks MEC and does not have an exemption. An individual who is covered by health insurance that provides MEC will not owe the payment. MEC includes certain government-sponsored coverage, such as Medicare, most employer group health plans, and coverage offered in the individual market.

Affordability and other exemptions

The payment does not apply if the coverage available to the employee is not "affordable." MEC is not affordable if it costs more than eight percent of the taxpayer's household income for the year. If an individual is not eligible for employer coverage, the individual's minimum required contribution is the premium for the lowest cost bronze-level plan offered by an affordable insurance exchange.

There are nine categories of exemptions from the individual mandate. These include religious, Indians, individuals who do not have to file a return, hardship, and unaffordable coverage.

Payment

The payment owed by an individual without coverage or an exemption is the lesser of: the monthly payment amount for each individual (maximum three family members), or the monthly national average bronze plan premiums for the family. The monthly payment amount is the greater of: a flat dollar amount, or the excess income amount. The flat dollar amounts are $95 in 2014, $325 in 2015, $695 in 2016, and an indexed amount amount after 2016. The amount is cut in half for an individual under 18.

The excess income amount is the excess of the taxpayer's household income over the taxpayer's filing threshold, multiplied by a percentage. The percentage is 1.0 percent for 2014; 2.0 percent for 2015, and 2.5 percent after 2015.

Collection

A taxpayer must report liability for the payment on the taxpayer's income tax return.  The penalty is payable upon notice and demand by the IRS. Because the IRS cannot use liens or levies to collect the payment, it expects to collect the payment primarily through refund offsets.

Facilitated by the speed, ubiquity, and anonymity of the Internet, criminals are able to easily steal valuable information such as Social Security numbers and use it for a variety of nefarious purposes, including filing false tax returns to generate refunds from the IRS. The victims are often unable to detect the crime until it is too late, generally after the IRS receives the legitimate tax return from the actual taxpayer. By that time the first return has often been long accepted and the refund processed. Because of the ease, speed, and difficulty involved in policing cybercrime, identity theft has grown rapidly. One estimate from the National Taxpayer Advocate Service has calculated that individual identity theft case receipts have increased by more than 666 percent from fiscal year (FY) 2008 to FY 2012.

Facilitated by the speed, ubiquity, and anonymity of the Internet, criminals are able to easily steal valuable information such as Social Security numbers and use it for a variety of nefarious purposes, including filing false tax returns to generate refunds from the IRS. The victims are often unable to detect the crime until it is too late, generally after the IRS receives the legitimate tax return from the actual taxpayer. By that time the first return has often been long accepted and the refund processed. Because of the ease, speed, and difficulty involved in policing cybercrime, identity theft has grown rapidly. One estimate from the National Taxpayer Advocate Service has calculated that individual identity theft case receipts have increased by more than 666 percent from fiscal year (FY) 2008 to FY 2012.

There is, however, another dangerous facet of identity theft that costs the government, taxpayers, and businesses millions of dollars each year. That is business identity theft, which like its consumer counterpart involves the theft or impersonation of a business's identity. To add insult to injury, business identity theft can have crippling federal tax consequences. The following article summarizes the problem of business taxpayer identity theft, the methods employed by thieves, and the means by which you can protect your business.

Business v. individual identity theft

Businesses generally deal with larger transactions, have larger account balances and credit lines than individual taxpayers, and can set up and accept merchant credit card payments with numerous banks. Business information regarding tax identification numbers, profit margins and revenues, officers, and even officer salaries are often public and easily accessed. At the same time remedies and enforcement tend to focus more on individual identity theft. Thus, business identity theft can be more lucrative and arguably less dangerous to engage in than individual taxpayer identity theft.

Methods used

Only some of the many business identity theft schemes relate to tax. Nevertheless, such schemes can be devastating for businesses, resulting in massive employment tax liabilities for fictitious wages or huge deficiencies in reported income. Identity thieves can use a business's employer identification number (EIN) to initiate merchant card payment schemes, file false tax returns, and even generate hundreds of fake Form W-2s in furtherance of more individual taxpayer identity theft.

How they do it

Business identity theft can require less effort than individual identity theft because less information is required to establish a business or open a line of credit than is required of individuals. In general, the thief needs to obtain the business's EIN, which is easy to acquire. Common sources for an EIN include:

• Filings made to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) such as the Form 10-K, which includes the EIN on its first page;
• Public databases that enable users to search for business entities sometimes also display the employer's EIN;
• Websites specifically designed to search for EINs, such as EINFinder.com;
• Business websites sometimes openly display the EIN; and
• Forms W-2, W-9, or 1099.

Once a thief has the EIN, he or she may file reports with various state Secretaries of State to change registered business addresses, registered agents' names, or even appoint new officers. In some cases the thief will apply for a line of credit using this new information. Since the official Secretary of State records display the changed information, potential creditors will not be alerted to the fraud. In one case, however, criminals changed the names of a business's officers by filing with the Secretary of State's office and then sold the whole business to a third party. In the end, however, once an identity thief has established a business name, EIN, and address information, he or she has all the basic tools necessary to perpetrate business identity theft.

Best practices

Businesses should review their banks' policies and recommendations regarding fraud protection. They should know what security measures are being offered and, if commercially reasonable, take them. In a recent U.S. district court case from Missouri, the court found that a bank was not liable for a fraudulent $440,000 wire transfer because it had offered the business a commercially reasonable security procedure, and the business had rejected it. The decision cited Uniform Commercial Code Article 4A-202(b), as adopted by the Missouri Code. Many other states have also adopted the UCC, meaning victimized businesses might find themselves without recourse against their banks in the event of a large fraudulent wire transfer.

Other easy preventative measures that businesses can take include monitoring their financial accounts on a daily basis. They should follow up immediately on any suspicious activity. Businesses should also enroll in email alerts so that they would immediately be apprised of any change in your account name, address, or other information.

A business should also monitor the information on its business registration frequently, whether or not the business is active or inactive. Often businesses that close do not go through the formal dissolution process, which terminates all of the corporate authority. They instead let the charter be forfeited by the Secretary of State. These forfeited charters may be easily reinstated and hijacked by identity thieves.

After fraud occurs

If it is too late, and a fraudulent transaction has occurred in your business's name, take immediate action by contacting your bank, creditors, check verification companies, and credit reporting companies. Report the crime to your local law enforcement authorities and your state's secretary of state business division. Finally, whenever possible, memorialize all correspondence in writing and keep it in your records.

If you'd like more information on how you can take steps to safeguard your personal or business "identity" through safeguarding your tax and other financial accounts, please contact this office.

Vacation homes offer owners tax breaks similar-but not identical-to those for primary residences. Vacation homes also offer owners the opportunity to earn tax-advantaged and even tax-free income. This combination of current income and tax breaks, combined with the potential for long-term appreciation, can make a second home an attractive investment.

Vacation homes offer owners tax breaks similar-but not identical-to those for primary residences. Vacation homes also offer owners the opportunity to earn tax-advantaged and even tax-free income. This combination of current income and tax breaks, combined with the potential for long-term appreciation, can make a second home an attractive investment.

Homeowners can deduct mortgage interest they pay on up to $1 million of "acquisition indebtedness" incurred to buy their primary residence and one additional residence. If their total mortgage indebtedness exceeds $1 million, they can still deduct the interest they pay on their first $1 million. If one mortgage carries a substantially higher rate than the second, it makes sense to deduct the higher interest first to maximize deductions.

Vacation homeowners don't need to buy an actual house (or even a condominium) to take advantage of second-home mortgage interest deductions. They can deduct interest they pay on a loan secured by a timeshare, yacht, or motorhome so long as it includes sleeping, cooking, and toilet facilities.

Gains from selling a vacation home are generally taxed as short-term or long-term capital gains.  While gain on the sale of a principal residence can be excludable, gain on the sale of a vacation home is not. Recent rules limit the amount of prior gain on a vacation residence that can be sheltered if a vacation home is converted into a primary residence.

Vacation home rentals. Many vacation home owners rent vacation homes to draw income and help finance the cost of owning the home. These rentals are taxed under one of three sets of rules depending on how long the homeowner rents the property.

• Income from rentals totaling not more than 14 days per year is nontaxable.
• Income from rentals totaling more than 14 days per year is taxable and is generally reported on Schedule E (Form 1040), Supplemental Income and Loss. Homeowners who rent their properties for more than 14 days can deduct a portion of their mortgage interest, property taxes, maintenance, utilities, and other expenses to offset that income. That deduction depends on how many days they use the residence personally versus how many days they rent it.
• Owners who use their home personally for less than 14 days and less than 10% of the total rental days can treat the property as true "rental" property if certain rules are followed.

If you are considering the purchase of a vacation home, our offices can help compute your true, "after-tax" cost of ownership in determining whether such a purchase makes sense.

Vacation homes offer owners many tax breaks similar to those for primary residences. Vacation homes also offer owners the opportunity to earn tax-advantaged and even tax-free income from a certain level of rental income. The value of vacation homes are also on the rise again, offering an investment side to ownership that can ultimately be realized at a beneficial long-term capital gains rate.

Vacation homes offer owners many tax breaks similar to those for primary residences. Vacation homes also offer owners the opportunity to earn tax-advantaged and even tax-free income from a certain level of rental income. The value of vacation homes are also on the rise again, offering an investment side to ownership that can ultimately be realized at a beneficial long-term capital gains rate.

Homeowners can deduct mortgage interest they pay on up to $1 million of "acquisition indebtedness" incurred to buy their primary residence and one additional residence. If their total mortgage indebtedness exceeds $1 million, they can still deduct the interest they pay on their first $1 million. If one mortgage carries a substantially higher rate than the second, it makes sense to deduct the higher interest first to maximize deductions.

Vacation homeowners don't need to buy an actual house (or even a condominium) to take advantage of second-home mortgage interest deductions. They can deduct interest they pay on a loan secured by a timeshare, yacht, or motor home so long as it includes sleeping, cooking, and toilet facilities.

Capital gain on vacation properties. Gains from selling a vacation home are generally taxed as long-term capital gains on Schedule D. As with a primary residence, basis includes the property's contract price (including any mortgage assumed or taken "subject to"), nondeductible closing costs (title insurance and fees, surveys and recording fees, transfer taxes, etc.), and improvements. "Adjusted proceeds" include the property's sale price, minus expenses of sale (real estate commissions, title fees, etc.). The maximum tax on capital gain is now 20 percent, with an additional 3.8 percent net investment tax depending upon income level. There's no separate exclusion that applies when selling a vacation home as there is up to $500,000 for a primary residence.

Vacation home rentals. Many vacation home owners rent those homes to draw income and help finance the cost of owning the home. These rentals are taxed under one of three sets of rules depending on how long the homeowner rents the property.

1. Income from rentals totaling not more than 14 days per year is nontaxable.
2. Income from rentals totaling more than 14 days per year is taxable and is generally reported on Schedule E of Form 1040. Homeowners who rent their properties for more than 14 days can deduct a portion of their mortgage interest, property taxes, maintenance, utilities, and other expenses to offset that income. That deduction depends on how many days they use the residence personally versus how many days they rent it.
3. Owners who use their home personally for less than 14 days and less than 10% of the total rental days can treat the property as true "rental" property, which entitled them to a greater number of deductions.

Questions over the operation of the new 3.8 percent Medicare tax on net investment income (the NII Tax) continue to be placed on the IRS's doorstep as it tries to better explain the operation of the new tax.  Proposed "reliance regulations" issued at the end in 2012 (NPRM REG-130507-11) "are insufficient in many respects," tax experts complain, as the IRS struggles to turn its earlier guidance into final rules.

Questions over the operation of the new 3.8 percent Medicare tax on net investment income (the NII Tax) continue to be placed on the IRS's doorstep as it tries to better explain the operation of the new tax.  Proposed "reliance regulations" issued at the end in 2012 (NPRM REG-130507-11) "are insufficient in many respects," tax experts complain, as the IRS struggles to turn its earlier guidance into final rules.

A public hearing on the existing regulations, held at IRS headquarters in Washington, D.C., in early April 2013, only confirmed how the application of the NII Tax to certain categories of income—particularly income arising from "passive activities"—is challenging even the experts. Nevertheless, taxpayers are not getting a reprieve from the immediate application of this new tax.  The 3.8 percent Medicare surtax on net investment income (NII) became effective January 1, 2013. Current confusion over exactly how the 3.8 percent operates can impact on tax strategies that should be put into motion in 2013. Any misinterpretation can also bear on 2013 estimated tax that may be due to cover any 3.8 percent NII Tax liability.

NII Tax Thresholds

For tax years beginning after December 31, 2012, the NII surtax on individuals equals 3.8 percent of the lesser of: net investment income for the tax year, or the excess, if any, of:

• the individual's modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) for the tax year, over
• the threshold amount.

The threshold amount in turn is equal to:

• $250,000 in the case of a taxpayer making a joint return or a surviving spouse,
• $125,000 in the case of a married taxpayer filing a separate return, and
• $200,000 in any other case.

Trusts and estates are also subject to the NII surtax, to the extent of the lesser of: (i) undistributed net investment income, or (ii) the excess of adjusted gross income over the dollar amount at which the highest tax bracket begins (which, for 2013, is $11,950).

Net Investment Income

The primary confusion over application of the 3.8 percent NII Tax revolves around finding a precise definition of "net investment income" as enacted by Congress. To appreciate the complexity of the task, just look at the applicable Internal Revenue Code provision. Code Sec. 1411(c)(1) defines net investment income as the sum of:

• Category (i) income: Gross income from interest, dividends, annuities, royalties, and rents, other than such income which is derived in the ordinary course of a trade or business not described in Code Sec. 1411(c)(2);
• Category (ii) income: Other gross income derived from a trade or business described in Code Sec. 1411(c)(2); and
• Category (iii) income: Net gain attributable to the disposition of property, other than property held in a trade or business not described in Code Sec. 1411(c)(2); over

Deductions properly allocable to such gross income or net gain.

A Code Sec. 1411(c)(2) trade or business includes a passive activity under Code Sec. 469 with respect to the taxpayer or trading in financial instruments or commodities.

Comment.  Code Sec 1411 effectively creates a new tax and a new tax base, on top of the income tax, alternative minimum tax, self-employment tax and payroll taxes. Nevertheless the Preamble to the proposed regs states that, except as otherwise provided, the income tax rules should apply to Code Sec. 1411 unless good cause otherwise exists. Practitioners have asked the IRS that the final regulations give greater reassurance of this general rule.

Complexity

The IRS has stated that the principal purpose of Code Sec. 1411 is "to impose a tax on unearned income or investments of certain individuals, estates, and trusts." Unfortunately, Code Sec. 1411 is not so direct and simple, with its three categories of income (that is, (i), (ii) and (iii), above), complicating matters, albeit in an effort to close every door to those who try to "game the system."

Application of the 3.8 percent NII Tax to capital gains and dividends from a personal stock portfolio is clear under this rule of thumb. But clarity breaks down when a "trade or business" is thrown into the mix and the concept of "passive activity" is added to it.

If gain or other income is the result of an active business activity, it generally escapes NII Tax. However, when the "active" business is a passive activity (for example, a rental business), it may be deemed to generate income that is subject to the NII Tax. Furthermore, when a passive activity is not merely incidental to a business however otherwise active that business should be, the NII Tax also becomes an issue. 

Passive Activity

Any revised or additional rules from the IRS on the application of the NII Tax on passive activities should be made more user friendly to the broad middle range of taxpayers and their advisors, one expert at the hearing recommended.  The IRS should err on the side of explaining things clearly and simply, even at the expense of not covering every possible nuance of interpretation.

At the same time, however, other experts are asking for more detail, at least in the way of clarification. For example, the IRS has stated that passive activity for NII Tax purposes should be applied within a narrower scope than the passive activity loss rules under Code 469.  Those Code Sec. 469 rules restrict "passive losses" from reducing income that is not "passive income."  Experts want the IRS to explain exactly what they mean by a "narrower scope."

Self-Rental Activities/Grouping

The self-rental recharacterization rule under Code Sec. 469 affects taxpayers who rent property to a trade or business in which they materially participate. Concern has been expressed over the possibility of interpreting net investment income under Code Sec. 1411 to include rental income from a self-rental activity grouped with a trade or business activity in which the taxpayer materially participates.

The material participation and trade or business requirements should be tested on the grouped activity as a whole rather than on a component basis, one expert in particular stressed at the hearing. If that test is passed, he argued, the trade or business income and rental income from the grouped activity should be excluded from the reach of the NII Tax. For example, the owners of self-rental properties should not have that rent considered as separate from their overall business activity and subject to the net investment tax simply because properties are held in a separate LLC to avoid tort liability.

Regrouping deadline

The proposed regulations permit businesses subject to the NII Tax to elect to regroup their activities for passive-loss purposes in 2013 or 2014. This regrouping election allows taxpayers with a fresh start to accommodate the new NII surtax. Without permitting regroupings, taxpayers would be bound by their original grouping decisions, some of which may have been made as many as 20 years ago, only for purpose of Code Sec. 469 passive loss rules and not the NII Tax. Some small business representatives are also concerned that, because of the complexity of the rules, the final regulations should extend the deadline for a regrouping election through 2015.

Application of the net investment income tax is particularly difficult to get a handle on in a variety of situations.  Unfortunately, however, at 3.8 percent, it is costly enough not to be ignored. 

If you have any questions about how the NII Tax may apply to your business, rental operations, or overall investment strategy, please do not hesitate to call our office.

When starting a business or changing an existing one there are several types of business entities to choose from, each of which offers its own advantages and disadvantages. Depending on the size of your business, one form may be more suitable than another. For example, a software firm consisting of one principal founder and several part time contractors and employees would be more suited to a sole proprietorship than a corporate or partnership form. But where there are multiple business members, the decision can become more complicated. One form of business that has become increasingly popular is called a limited liability company, or LLC.

When starting a business or changing an existing one there are several types of business entities to choose from, each of which offers its own advantages and disadvantages. Depending on the size of your business, one form may be more suitable than another. For example, a software firm consisting of one principal founder and several part time contractors and employees would be more suited to a sole proprietorship than a corporate or partnership form. But where there are multiple business members, the decision can become more complicated. One form of business that has become increasingly popular is called a limited liability company, or LLC.

The LLC combines several favorable characteristics of a traditional partnership, in which all members are entitled to participate in the management and operation of the business, with those of a corporation, in which the owners, directors, and shareholders are generally shielded from liability for the corporation's debts. The means that in an LLC, just as in a corporation, the personal assets of the business owners' would generally be protected if the business failed, lost a lawsuit, or faced some other catastrophe. Members are only liable to the extent of their capital contribution to the business. In addition, members can fully participate in the management of the business without endangering their limited liability status.

When filing season begins, the profits (or losses) from the LLC pass through to its members, who pay tax on any income when filing their individual returns. In other words, income from the LLC is taxed at the individual tax rates. Income from corporations, on the other hand is taxed twice, once at the corporate entity level and again when distributed to shareholders. Because of this, more tax savings often results if a business formed as an LLC rather than a corporation.

Taxpayers should note, however, that Congress recently increased the top marginal individual income tax rate to 39.6 percent, has placed a .09 percent additional Medicare tax on wages over $200,000 (single taxpayers), and has imposed a 3.8 percent net investment income tax on higher-income taxpayers. At the same time, there is strong talk among members of both political parties of lowering the corporate rate from the current 35 percent to something around 28 or 25 percent to make the United States more competitive with foreign nations. If this happens, many highly profitable LLC businesses may need to rethink their situation and consider switching to a corporate form.

Forming an LLC involves many requirements, but the benefits can be substantial. Please call our offices if you have any questions.

Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) are popular retirement savings vehicles that enable taxpayers to build their nest egg slowly over the years and enjoy tax benefits as well. But what happens to that nest egg when the IRA owner passes away?

Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) are popular retirement savings vehicles that enable taxpayers to build their nest egg slowly over the years and enjoy tax benefits as well. But what happens to that nest egg when the IRA owner passes away?

The answer to that question depends on who inherits the IRA. Surviving spouses are subject to different rules than other beneficiaries. And if there are multiple beneficiaries (for example if the owner left the IRA assets to several children), the rules can be complicated. But here are the basics:

Spouses

Upon the IRA owner's death, his (or her) surviving spouse may elect to treat the IRA account as his or her own. That means that the surviving spouse could name a beneficiary for the assets, continue to contribute to the IRA, and would also avoid having to take distributions. This might be a good option for surviving spouses who are not yet near retirement age and who wish to avoid the extra 10-percent tax on early distributions from an IRA.

A surviving spouse may also rollover the IRA funds into another plan, such as a qualified employer plan, qualified employee annuity plan (section 403(a) plan), or other deferred compensation plan and take distributions as a beneficiary. Distributions would be determined by the required minimum distribution (RMD) rules based on the surviving spouse's life expectancy.

In the alternative, a spouse could disclaim up to 100 percent of the IRA assets. Some surviving spouses might choose this latter option so that their children could inherit the IRA assets and/or to avoid extra taxable income.

Finally, the surviving spouse could take all of the IRA assets out in one lump-sum. However, lump-sum withdrawals (even from a Roth IRA) can subject a spouse to federal taxes if he or she does not carefully check and meet the requirements.

Non-spousal inherited IRAs

Different rules apply to an individual beneficiary, who is not a surviving spouse. First of all, the beneficiary may not elect to treat the IRA has his or her own. That means the beneficiary cannot continue to make contributions.

The beneficiary may, however, elect to take out the assets in a lump-sum cash distribution. However, this may subject the beneficiary to federal taxes that could take away a significant portion of the assets. Conversely, beneficiaries may also disclaim all or part of the assets in the IRA for up to nine months after the IRA owner's death.

The beneficiary may also take distributions from the account based on the beneficiary's age. If the beneficiary is older than the IRA owner, then the beneficiary may take distributions based on the IRA owner's age.

If there are multiple beneficiaries, the distribution amounts are based on the oldest beneficiary's age. Or, in the alternative, multiple beneficiaries can split the inherited IRA into separate accounts, and the RMD rules will apply separately to each separate account.

The rules applying to inherited IRAs can be straightforward or can get complicated quickly, as you can see. If you have just inherited an IRA and need guidance on what to do next, let us know. Likewise, if you are an IRA owner looking to secure your savings for your loved ones in the future, you can save them time and trouble by designating your beneficiary or beneficiaries now. Please contact our office with any questions.

Exempt organizations

Charitable organizations often are organized as tax-exempt entities. To be tax-exempt under Code Sec. 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes in Code Sec. 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization; that is, it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates. Churches that meet the requirements of Code Sec. 501(c)(3) are automatically considered tax exempt and are not required to apply for and obtain recognition of tax-exempt status from the IRS.

Tax-exempt organizations must file annual reports with the IRS. If an organization fails to file the required reports for three consecutive years, its tax-exempt status is automatically revoked. Recently, the tax-exempt status of more than 200,000 organizations was automatically revoked. Most of these organizations are very small ones and the IRS believes that they likely did not know about the requirement to file or risk loss of tax-exempt status.  The IRS has put special procedures in place to help these small organizations regain their tax-exempt status.

Contributions

Contributions to qualified charities are tax-deductible. They key word here is qualified. The organization must be recognized by the IRS as a legitimate charity.

The IRS maintains a list of organizations eligible to receive tax-deductible charitable contributions. The list is known as Publication 78, Cumulative List of Organizations described in Section 170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.  Similar information is available on an IRS Business Master File (BMF) extract.

In certain cases, the IRS will allow deductions for contributions to organizations that have lost their exempt status but are listed in or covered by Publication 78 or the BMF extract.  Additionally, private foundations and sponsoring organizations of donor-advised funds generally may rely on an organization's foundation status (or supporting organization type) set forth in Publication 78 or the BMF extract for grant-making purposes.

Generally, the donor must be unaware of the change in status of the organization. If the donor had knowledge of the organization’s revocation of exempt status, knew that revocation was imminent or was responsible for the loss of status, the IRS will disallow any purported deduction.

Churches

As mentioned earlier, churches are not required to apply for tax-exempt status. This means that taxpayers may claim a charitable deduction for donations to a church that meets the Code Sec. 501(c)(3) requirements even though the church has neither sought nor received IRS recognition that it is tax-exempt.

Foreign charities

Contributions to foreign charities may be deductible under an income tax treaty. For example, taxpayers may be able to deduct contributions to certain Canadian charitable organizations covered under an income tax treaty with Canada.  Before donating to a foreign charity, please contact our office and we can determine if the contribution meets the IRS requirements for deductibility.

The rules governing charities, tax-exempt organizations and contributions are complex. Please contact our office if you have any questions.

Under the current depreciation system (generally applicable to tangible property placed in service after 1986), depreciation is calculated using an applicable method, period, and convention. To compute the deduction for the year the property is placed in service and the year the property is disposed of or retired, the tax code uses averaging conventions to establish deemed placed-in-service and retirement dates. Depreciation is allowed for the portion of the tax year that the property is placed in service under the applicable convention.

Under the tax code, the applicable convention generally is the half-year convention, although other conventions (mid-month or mid-quarter) may also apply. The half-year convention applies to all depreciable property other than residential rental property and nonresidential real property, unless the mid-quarter convention applies. (The mid-month convention applies to residential rental property, nonresidential real property, and certain railroad property.) The mid-quarter convention is used in place of the half-year convention if more than 40 percent of the cost of property (other than real property) is placed in service in the last quarter of the tax year.

The convention applies to the first year and the last year of depreciation. Property that is placed in service after the beginning of the tax year is entitled to six months of depreciation. The property is also entitled to six months of depreciation in the year of disposal or in the year that the useful life expires (as if the property were sold at the mid-point of the tax year). The averaging convention must be followed consistently for an asset account.  

Depreciation under the half-year convention is calculated by treating all property as if it were placed in service on the first day of the second half of the tax year (July 1 for a calendar year taxpayer), the midpoint of the tax year. Similarly, property that is retired during the year is treated as retired on the first day of the second half of the tax year. The amount of depreciation in a tax year when the half-year convention applies is one-half the amount that would be allowed by taking depreciation for the full tax year.

Example.  A calendar year taxpayer purchases a machine on January 1 and begins to use it on February 1, The applicable convention determines the placed-in-service date and the calculation of depreciation.  Under the half-year convention, the machine is deemed to be placed in service on July 1, even though it was actually placed in service on February 1. The taxpayer can take six months of depreciation for the period July 1 to December 31 of the first year. If property previously placed in service were retired on February 1 (and the property had not been fully depreciated), the property would be treated as disposed of on June 30, and the taxpayer could take six months of depreciation.

With school almost out for the summer, parents who work are starting to look for activities for their children to keep them occupied and supervised. The possibilities include sending a child to day camp or overnight camp. Parents faced with figuring out how to afford the price tag of these activities may wonder whether some or part of these costs may be tax deductible. At least two possible tax breaks should be considered: the dependent care credit in most cases, and the deduction for medical expenses in certain special situations.

Dependent care credit. To qualify for the dependent care credit, expenses must be employment-related. The child also must be under age 13 unless he or she is disabled.

The child care expenses must enable the parent to work or to look for employment. The IRS has indicated that the costs of sending a child to overnight camp are not employment-related. However, the costs of sending a child to day camp are treated like day-care costs and will qualify as employment-related expenses (even if the camp features educational activities). At the same time, the costs of sending a child to summer school or to a tutor are not employment-related and cannot be deducted even though they also watch over your child while you are at work..

In some situations, the IRS requires that expenses be allocated between child care and other, nonqualified services. However, the full cost of day camp generally qualifies for the dependent care credit, without an allocation being required. If the parent works part-time, camp costs may only be claimed for the days worked. However, if the camp requires that the child be enrolled for the entire week, then the full cost qualifies.

Example. Tom works Monday through Wednesday and sends his child to day camp for the entire week. The camp charges $50 per day and children do not have to enroll for an entire week. Tom can only claim $150 in expenses. However, if the camp requires that the child be enrolled for the entire week, Tom can claim $250 in expenses.

Amount of Credit. The maximum amount of employment-related expenses to which the child care credit may be applied is $3,000 if one qualifying individual is involved or $6,000 if two or more qualifying individuals are involved. If you earn over a certain amount, the credit may be reduced. The credit amount is equal to the amount of qualified expenses times the applicable percentage, as determined by the taxpayer's adjusted gross income (AGI). Taxpayers with an AGI of $15,000 or less use the highest applicable percentage of 35 percent. For taxpayers with an AGI over $15,000, the credit is reduced by one percentage point for each $2,000 of AGI (or fraction thereof) over $15,000 The minimum applicable percentage of 20 percent is used by taxpayers with an AGI greater than $43,000. Bottom line: those with higher incomes are entitled to a maximum child care credit for one qualifying dependent is $1,050 and $2,100 for two or more qualifying dependents.

Dependent care costs also may be reimbursed by a flexible spending account (FSAs) under an employer-sponsored arrangement. FSAs allow pre-tax dollars to fund the account up to specified maximum. Each FSA may limit what it covers so check with your employer before assuming the day camp or similar child care is on its list of reimbursable expenses.

Medical expenses. The cost of camp generally is not deductible as a medical expense. The cost of providing general care to a healthy child is a nondeductible personal expense.

Example. The child's mother works; the child's father is ill and cannot take care of the child. The cost of sending the child to summer camp is not deductible as a medical expense; however, the costs may still qualify for the dependent care credit.

However, camps specifically run for handicapped children and operated to assist the child may come under the umbrella of medical expenses. The degree of assistance is usually determinative in these situations.

Dependency exemption. In any case, the cost of sending a child to camp can be treated as support, for claiming a dependency exemption. For a parent to claim a dependency exemption, the child cannot provide more than half of its own support. The parent must provide some support but does not necessarily have to provide over half of the child's support. If the child is treated as a qualifying relative (because he or she is too old to be a qualifying child), the parent must still provide over half of the child's support.

The rules on the deductibility of camp costs are somewhat complicated, especially in borderline situations. Please check with this office if you have any questions.

As gasoline prices have climbed in 2011, many taxpayers who use a vehicle for business purposes are looking for the IRS to make a mid-year adjustment to the standard mileage rate. In the meantime, taxpayers should review the benefits of using the actual expense method to calculate their deduction. The actual expense method, while requiring careful recordkeeping, may help offset the cost of high gas prices if the IRS does not make a mid-year change to the standard mileage rate. Even if it does, you might still find yourself better off using the actual expense method, especially if your vehicle also qualifies for bonus depreciation.

Two methods

Taxpayers can calculate the amount of a deductible vehicle expense using one of two methods:

• Standard mileage rate
• Actual expense method

Under the standard mileage rate, taxpayers calculate the amount of the allowable deduction by multiplying all business miles driven during the year by the standard mileage rate. One of the chief attractions of the standard mileage rate is its ease of use. Taxpayers do not have to substantiate expense amounts; however, they must substantiate business purpose and other items. There are also limitations on use of the business standard mileage rate.

The standard mileage rate for 2011 for business use of a car (van, pickup or panel truck) is 51 cents-per-mile. The IRS calculates the standard mileage rate on an annual study of the fixed and variable costs of operating an automobile. The IRS set the standard mileage rate for 2011 in late 2010 when gasoline prices were lower than today. It is a flat amount, whether or not your vehicle is fuel efficient, operates on premium grade fuel, is brand new or ten years old, or is subject to high repair bills.

During past spikes in gasoline prices, the IRS has made a mid-year change to the standard mileage rate for business use of a vehicle. In 2008, the IRS increased the business standard mileage rate from 50.5 cents-per-mile to 58.5 cents-per-mile for last six months of 2008 because of high gasoline prices. The IRS made a similar mid-year adjustment in 2005 when it increased the business standard mileage rate after Hurricane Katrina.

At this time, it is unclear if the IRS will make a similar mid-year adjustment in 2011. IRS officials generally have declined to make any predictions. If the IRS does make a mid-year change, it will likely do so in late June, so the higher rate can apply to the last six months of 2011.

Actual expense method

Rather than rely on a mid-year adjustment from the IRS, which might not come, it's a good idea to compare the actual vehicle costs versus the business standard mileage rate. Taxpayers who use the actual expense method must keep track of all costs related to the vehicle during the year. The cost of operating a vehicle includes these expenses:

• Gasoline
• Repair and maintenance costs
• Cleaning
• Tires
• Depreciation
• Lease payments (if the taxpayer leases the vehicle)
• Interest on a vehicle loan
• Insurance
• Personal property taxes on the vehicle

"Doing the math" this year in weighing whether to take the actual expense method not only should factor in the cost of gasoline but also what depreciation or expensing deductions you will be gaining by using the actual expense method. Enhanced bonus depreciation and enhanced "section 179" expensing for 2011 can increase your deduction for a newly-purchased vehicle in its first year tremendously if the actual expense method is elected.

Certain other costs are deductible whether you take the actual expense method or the standard mileage rate. This group includes parking charges, garage fees and tolls. Expenses incurred for the personal use of your vehicle are generally not deductible. An allocation must be made when the vehicle is used partly for personal purposes

Switching methods

Once actual depreciation in excess of straight-line has been claimed on a vehicle, the standard mileage rate cannot be used for the vehicle in any future year. Absent that prohibition (which usually is triggered if depreciation is taken), a business can switch between the standard mileage rate and actual expense methods from year to year. Businesses that switch methods now cannot make change methods effective in mid-year; you must apply one method retroactively from January 1.

Recordkeeping

The actual expense method requires taxpayers to substantiate every expense. This recordkeeping requirement can be challenging. For example, taxpayers who fill-up often at the gas pump need to keep a record of every purchase. The same is true for tune-ups and other maintenance and repair activity. One way to simplify recordkeeping is to charge all vehicle related expenses to one credit card.

The IRS's streamlined offer-in-compromise (OIC) program is intended to speed up the processing of OICs for qualified taxpayers. Having started in 2010, the streamlined OIC program is relatively new. The IRS recently issued instructions to its examiners, urging them to process streamlined OICs as expeditiously as possible. One recent survey estimates that one in 15 taxpayers is now in arrears on tax payments to the IRS to at least some degree.  Because of continuing fallout from the economic downturn, however, the IRS has tried to speed up its compromise process to the advantage of both hard-pressed taxpayers and its collection numbers.

OIC program

The IRS OIC program on its face can appear very attractive to taxpayers with unpaid liabilities. An OIC is an agreement between a taxpayer and the IRS that settles the taxpayer's tax liabilities for less than the full amount owed. Keep in mind that taxpayers do not automatically qualify for an OIC. The IRS has cautioned that, absent special circumstances, if you have the ability to fully pay your tax liability in a lump sum or via an installment agreement, an OIC will not be accepted.

The IRS may accept an offer in compromise based on three grounds:

• Doubt as to collectibility
• Doubt as to liability
• Effective tax administration

The decision whether to accept or reject an OIC is entirely within the discretion of the IRS. Sometimes, but very rarely, an OIC will be deemed accepted because the IRS failed to reject it within 24 months of receiving the offer.

Streamlined OICs

The low acceptance rate of OICs has some lawmakers in Congress and taxpayer groups upset. One of the most vocal critics has been National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson who has urged the IRS to bring more taxpayers into the OIC program. Partly in response to this criticism, the IRS launched the streamlined OIC in 2010. The streamlined OIC program is intended to cut through much of the red tape that surrounds OICs. The IRS promised, among other things, to process streamlined OICs more quickly.

In February 2011, the IRS announced some changes to streamlined OICs. Streamlined OICs may be offered to taxpayers with total household incomes of $100,000 or less and who have a total tax liability of less than $50,000. Taxpayers who do not meet these requirements may apply for a traditional OIC.

Procedures

The streamlined procedures do not necessarily mean that the IRS will accept more OICs; merely that it will process the offers it receives more quickly. Since the streamlined OIC program is relatively new, the IRS has not yet reported how many streamlined offers it has accepted.

Before accepting or rejecting a streamlined OIC, IRS examiners must verify that the information provided by the taxpayer is correct. The IRS instructed examiners reviewing streamlined OICs to verify taxpayer information through internal research. Examiners will verify ownership of items such as real estate, motor vehicles and other property.

Examiners also will be able to communicate directly with taxpayers or their representatives. The IRS instructed examiners to contact taxpayers or their representatives by telephone whenever possible; rather than sending written notices. Three phone attempts should be made over two business days to contact the taxpayer or his/her representative. If the examiner reaches the taxpayer's voicemail, the examiners should request a call-back within two business days.

The streamlined OIC program is not for everyone. Indeed, the acceptance rate for all OICs (just about 13,000 in fiscal year (FY) 2010) means that relatively few taxpayers will make an offer that the IRS will accept. Nonetheless, the OIC program is one tool that may be used by taxpayers with unpaid liabilities. If you have any questions about the IRS's streamlined OIC or traditional OIC, please contact our office.

As a result of recent changes in the law, many brokerage customers will begin seeing something new when they gaze upon their 1099-B forms early next year.  In the past, of course, brokers were required to report to their clients, and the IRS, those amounts reflecting the gross proceeds of any securities sales taking place during the preceding calendar year.

In keeping with a broader move toward greater information reporting requirements, however, new tax legislation now makes it incumbent upon brokers to provide their clients, and the IRS, with their adjusted basis in the lots of securities they purchase after certain dates, as well. While an onerous new requirement for the brokerage houses, this development ought to simplify the lives of many ordinary taxpayers by relieving them of the often difficult matter of calculating their stock bases.

When calculating gain, or loss, on the sale of stock, all taxpayers must employ a very simple formula. By the terms of this calculus, gain equals amount realized (how much was received in the sale) less adjusted basis (generally, how much was paid to acquire the securities plus commissions). By requiring brokers to provide their clients with both variables in the formula, Congress has lifted a heavy load from the shoulders of many.

FIFO

The new requirements also specify that, if a customer sells some amount of shares less than her entire holding in a given stock, the broker must report the customer's adjusted basis using the "first in, first out" method, unless the broker receives instructions from the customer directing otherwise. The difference in tax consequences can be significant.

Example.  On January 16, 2011, Laura buys 100 shares of Big Co. common stock for $100 a share. After the purchase, Big Co. stock goes on a tear, quickly rising in price to $200 a share, on April 11, 2011. Believing the best is still ahead for Big Co., Laura buys another 100 shares of Big Co. common on that date, at that price. However, rather than continuing its meteoric rise, the price of Big Co. stock rapidly plummets to $150, on May 8, 2011. At this point, Laura, tired of seeing her money evaporate, sells 100 of her Big Co. shares.

Since Laura paid $100 a share for the first lot of Big Co. stock that she purchased (first in), her basis in those shares is $100 per share (plus any brokerage commissions). Her basis in the second lot, however, is $200 per share (plus any commissions). Unless Laura directs her broker to use an alternate method, the broker will use the first in stock basis of $100 per share in its reporting of this first out sale. Laura, accordingly, will be required to report a short-term capital gain of $50 per share (less brokerage commissions). Had she instructed her broker to use the "last in, first out" method, she would, instead, see a short-term capital loss of $50 per share (plus commissions).

Dividend Reinvestment Plans

As their name would suggest, dividend reinvestment plans (DRPs) allow investors the opportunity to reinvest all, or a portion, of any dividends received back into additional shares, or fractions of shares, of the paying corporation. While offering investors many advantages, one historical drawback to DRPs has been their tendency to obligate participants to keep track of their cost bases for many small purchases of stock, and maintain records of these purchases, sometimes over the course of many years. Going forward, however taxpayers will be able to average the basis of stock held in a DRP acquired on or after January 1, 2011.

Applicability

The types of securities covered by the legislation include virtually every conceivable financial instrument subject to a basis calculation, including stock in a corporation, which become "covered" securities when acquired after a certain date. In the case of corporate stock, for example, the applicability date is January 1, 2011, unless the stock is in a mutual fund or is acquired in connection with a dividend reinvestment program (DRP), in which case the applicable date is January 1, 2012. The applicable date for all other securities is January 1, 2013.

Short Sales

In the past, brokers reported the gross proceeds of short sales in the year in which the short position was opened. The amendments, however, require that brokers report short sales for the year in which the short sale is closed.

The Complex World of Stock Basis

There are, quite literally, as many ways to calculate one's basis in stock as there are ways to acquire that stock. Many of these calculations can be nuanced and very complex. For any questions concerning the new broker-reporting requirements, or stock basis, in general, please contact our office.

Many more retirees and others wanting guarantee income are looking into annuities, especially given the recent experience of the economic downturn. While the basic concept of an annuity is fairly simple, complex rules usually apply to the taxation of amounts received under certain annuity and life insurance contracts.

Amounts received as an annuity are included in gross income to the extent that they exceed the exclusion ratio, which is determined by taking the original investment in the contract, deducting the value of any refund features, and dividing the result by the expected yield on the contract as of the annuity starting date. In general, the expected return is the product of a single payment and the anticipated number of payments to be received, i.e., the total amount the annuitant(s) can expect to receive. In the case of a life annuity, the number of payments is computed based on actuarial tables.

If the annuity payments are to continue as long as the annuitant remains alive, the anticipated number of payments is based on the annuitant's (or annuitants') life expectancy at the birthday nearest the annuity starting date. The IRS provides a variety of actuarial tables, within unisex tables generally applicable to all contracts entered into after June 1986. The expected return multiples found in the actuarial tables may require adjustment if the contract specifies quarterly, semiannual or annual payments or if the interval between payments exceeds the interval between the annuity starting date and the first payment.

In connection with annuity calculations, one recent tax law change in particular is worth noting. Under the Creating Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, enacted on September 27, 2010, if amounts are received as an annuity for a period of 10 years or more or on the lives of one or more individuals under any portion of an annuity, endowment, or life insurance contract, then that portion of the contract will now be treated as a separate contract for tax purposes. As result, a portion of such an annuity, endowment, or life insurance contract may be annuitized, while the balance is not annuitized. The allowance of partial annuitization applies to amounts received in tax years beginning after December 31, 2010.

If you need help in "crunching the numbers" on an annuity, or if you'd like advice on what annuity options might best fit your needs, please do not hesitate to contact our office.

Most people are familiar with tax withholding, which most commonly takes place when an employer deducts and withholds income and other taxes from an employee's wages. However, many taxpayers are unaware that the IRS also requires payors to withhold income tax from certain reportable payments, such as interest and dividends, when a payee's taxpayer identification number (TIN) is missing or incorrect. This is known as "backup withholding."

Backup Withholding in General

A payor must deduct, withhold, and pay over to the IRS a backup withholding tax on any reportable payments that are not otherwise subject to withholding if:

• the payee fails to furnish a TIN to the payor in the manner required;
• the IRS or a broker notifies the payor that the TIN provided by the payee is incorrect;
• the IRS notifies the payor that the payee failed to report or underreported the prior year's interest or dividends; or
• the payee fails to certify on Form W-9, Request for Taxpayer Identification Number and Certification, that he or she is not subject to withholding for previous underreporting of interest or dividend payments.

The backup withholding rate is equal to the fourth lowest income tax rate under the income tax rate brackets for unmarried individuals, which is currently 28 percent.

Only reportable payments are subject to backup withholding. Backup withholding is not required if the payee is a tax-exempt, governmental, or international organization. Similarly, payments of interest made to foreign persons are generally not subject to information reporting; therefore, these payees are not subject to backup withholding. Additionally, a payor is not required to backup withhold on reportable payments for which there is documentary evidence, under the rules on interest payments, that the payee is a foreign person, unless the payor has actual knowledge that the payee is a U.S. person. Furthermore, backup withholding is not required on payments for which a 30 percent amount was withheld by another payor under the rules on foreign withholding.

Reportable Payments

Reportable payments generally include the following types of payments of more than $10:

• Interest;
• Dividends;
• Patronage dividends (payments from farmers' cooperatives) paid in money;
• Payments of $600 or more made in the course of a trade or business;
• Payments for a nonemployee's services provided in the course of a trade or business;
• Gross proceeds from transactions reported by a broker or barter exchange;
• Cash payments from certain fishing boat operators to crew members that represent a share of the proceeds of the catch; and
• Royalties.

Reportable payments also include payments made after December 31, 2011, in settlement of payment card transactions.

Failure to Furnish TIN

Payees receiving reportable payments through interest, dividend, patronage dividend, or brokerage accounts must provide their TIN to the payor in writing and certify under penalties of perjury that the TIN is correct. Payees receiving other reportable payments must still provide their TIN to the payor, but they may do so orally or in writing, and they are not required to certify under penalties of perjury that the TIN is correct.

A payee who does not provide a correct taxpayer identification number (TIN) to the payer is subject to backup withholding. A person is treated as failing to provide a correct TIN if the TIN provided does not contain the proper number of digits --nine --or if the number is otherwise obviously incorrect, for example, because it contains a letter as one of its digits.

The IRS compares TINs provided by taxpayers with records of the Social Security Administration to check for discrepancies and notifies the bank or the payer of any problem accounts. The IRS has requested banks and other payers to notify their customers of these discrepancies so that correct TINs can be provided and the need for backup withholding avoided.

Information reporting continues to expand as Congress seeks to close the tax gap: the estimated $350 billion difference between what taxpayers owe and what they pay. Despite the recent rollback of expanded information reporting for business payments and rental property expense payments, the trend is for more - not less - information reporting of various transactions to the IRS.

Transactions

A large number of transactions are required to be reported to the IRS on an information return. The most common transaction is the payment of wages to employees. Every year, tens of millions of Forms W-2 are issued to employees. A copy of every Form W-2 is also provided to the IRS. Besides wages, information reporting touches many other transactions. For example, certain agricultural payments are reported on Form 1099-G, certain dividends are reported on Form 1099-DIV, certain IRA distributions are reported on Form 1099-R, certain gambling winnings are reported on Form W-2G, and so on. The IRS receives more than two billion information returns every year.

Valuable to IRS

Information reporting is valuable to the IRS because the agency can match the information reported by the employer, seller or other taxpayer with the information reported by the employee, purchaser or other taxpayer. When information does not match, this raises a red flag at the IRS. Let's look at an example:

Silvio borrowed funds to pay for college. Silvio's lender agreed to forgive a percentage of the debt if Silvio agreed to direct debit of his monthly repayments. This forgiveness of debt was reported by the lender to Silvio and the IRS. However, when Silvio filed his federal income tax return, he forgot, in good faith, to report the forgiveness of debt. The IRS was aware of the transaction because the lender filed an information return with the IRS.

Expansion

In recent years, Congress has enacted new information reporting requirements. Among the new requirements are ones for reporting the cost of employer-provided health insurance to employees, broker reporting of certain stock transactions and payment card reporting (all discussed below).

Employer-provided health insurance. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act requires employers to advise employees of the cost of employer-provided health insurance. This information will be provided to employees on Form W-2.

This reporting requirement is optional for all employers in 2011, the IRS has explained. There is additional relief for small employers. Employers filing fewer than 250 W-2 forms with the IRS are not required to report this information for 2011and 2012. The IRS may extend this relief beyond 2012. Our office will keep you posted of developments.

Reporting of employer-provided health insurance is for informational purposes only, the IRS has explained. It is intended to show employees the value of their health care benefits so they can be more informed consumers.

Broker reporting. Reporting is required for most stock purchased in 2011 and all stock purchased in 2012 and later years, the IRS has explained. The IRS has expanded Form 1099-B to include the cost or other basis of stock and mutual fund shares sold or exchanged during the year. Stock brokers and mutual fund companies will use this form to make these expanded year-end reports. The expanded form will also be used to report whether gain or loss realized on these transactions is long-term (held more than one year) or short-term (held one year or less), a key factor affecting the tax treatment of gain or loss.

Payment card reporting. Various payment card transactions after 2010 must be reported to the IRS. This reporting does not affect individuals using a credit or debit card to make a purchase, the IRS has explained. Reporting will be made by the payment settlement entities, such as banks. Payment settlement entities are required to report payments made to merchants for goods and services in settlement of payment card and third-party payment network transactions.

Roll back

In 2010, Congress expanded information reporting but this time there was a backlash. The PPACA required businesses and certain other taxpayers to file an information return when they make annual purchases aggregating $600 or more to a single vendor (other than a tax-exempt vendor) for payments made after December 31, 2011. The PPACA also repealed the long-standing reporting exception for payments made to corporations. The Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 required information reporting by landlords of certain rental property expense payments of $600 or more to a service provider made after December 31, 2011.

Many businesses, especially small businesses, warned that compliance would be costly. After several failed attempts, Congress passed legislation in April 2011 (H.R. 4, the Comprehensive 1099 Taxpayer Protection Act) to repeal both expanded business information reporting and rental property expense reporting.

The future

In April 2011, IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman described his vision for tax collection in the future in a speech in Washington, D.C. Information reporting is at the center of Shulman's vision.

Shulman explained that the IRS would get all information returns from third parties before taxpayers filed their returns. Taxpayers or their professional return preparers would then access that information, online, and download it into their returns. Taxpayers would then add any self-reported and supplemental information to their returns, and file their returns with the IRS. The IRS would embed this core third-party information into its pre-screening filters, and would immediately reject any return that did not match up with its records.

Shulman acknowledged that this system would take time and resources to develop. But the trend is in favor of more, not less, information reporting.

Taxpayers that place new business assets other than real property in service through 2012 may claim a "bonus" depreciation deduction. Although the bonus depreciation deduction is generally equal to 50 percent of the cost of qualified property, the rate has been increased by recent legislation to 100 percent for new business assets acquired after September 8, 2010 and placed in service before January 1, 2012. Thus, the entire cost of such 100 percent rate property is deducted in a single tax year rather than over the three- to 20-year depreciation period that is normally assigned to the property based on its type or the business activity in which it is used.

Every business should consider taking advantage of 100 percent bonus depreciation while it is available this year. Ironically, the benefits of 100 percent bonus depreciation are so favorable that some of the regular tax rules standing guard under normal circumstances to prevent abuses are being unintentionally triggered. The IRS has now come to the rescue with a few clarifications, elections and workarounds, in the form of Rev. Proc. 2011-26.

The most important clarifications/elections provide:

--A taxpayer is deemed to acquire qualified property when it pays or incurs the cost of the property.

--Bonus depreciation may be claimed at the 100 percent rate even though a pre-September 9, 2010 binding acquisition contract was in effect provided the contract was not in effect before January 1, 2008.

--Qualified property that a taxpayer manufactures, constructs, or produces is considered acquired by the taxpayer when the taxpayer begins constructing, manufacturing, or producing that property.

--A taxpayer may elect to claim 100 percent bonus depreciation on a component of a larger property if the component is acquired after September 8, 2010 even though manufacture, construction, or production of the larger property began before September 9, 2010.

--A taxpayer may elect the 50 percent rate in place of the 100 percent rate but only in a tax year that includes September 9, 2010.

Election Procedures for 2009/2010 FY Taxpayers

Special procedures that mainly affect fiscal-year (FY) 2009-2010 taxpayers who filed returns prior to the reinstatement of bonus depreciation for the 2010 calendar year explain how to claim or not claim the bonus deduction on property placed in service in 2010.

"Safe Harbor" Enhances Bonus Depreciation for Cars

The guidance also provides an important benefit to taxpayers who purchase a new automobile in 2010 or 2011 that is eligible for the 100 percent bonus rate but which is subject to annual depreciation caps because the vehicle has a gross vehicle weight rating of 6000 pounds or less. The benefit comes in the form of a "safe harbor method of accounting," which allows a taxpayer to claim depreciation deductions in each year of the vehicle's depreciation period.

If this safe harbor method of accounting is not adopted, a taxpayer may only claim a depreciation deduction in the tax year that the vehicle is purchased and that deduction is limited to the amount of the first-year depreciation cap ($11,060 for cars and $11,160 for trucks and vans placed in service in 2010).

If the safe harbor method is adopted, a taxpayer may claim the amount of the first-year depreciation cap in the year the vehicle is purchased plus additional amounts in each of the next five tax years of the vehicle's regular depreciation period.

In most cases, the amount of depreciation allowed in each year of a vehicle's recovery period under the safe harbor method is the same amount that could have been claimed if the 50 percent bonus rate applied.

A limited liability company (LLC) is a business entity created under state law. Every state and the District of Columbia have LLC statutes that govern the formation and operation of LLCs.

The main advantage of an LLC is that in general its members are not personally liable for the debts of the business. Members of LLCs enjoy similar protections from personal liability for business obligations as shareholders in a corporation or limited partners in a limited partnership. Unlike the limited partnership form, which requires that there must be at least one general partner who is personally liable for all the debts of the business, no such requirement exists in an LLC.

A second significant advantage is the flexibility of an LLC to choose its federal tax treatment. Under IRS's "check-the-box rules, an LLC can be taxed as a partnership, C corporation or S corporation for federal income tax purposes. A single-member LLC may elect to be disregarded for federal income tax purposes or taxed as an association (corporation).

LLCs are typically used for entrepreneurial enterprises with small numbers of active participants, family and other closely held businesses, real estate investments, joint ventures, and investment partnerships. However, almost any business that is not contemplating an initial public offering (IPO) in the near future might consider using an LLC as its entity of choice.

Deciding to convert an LLC to a corporation later generally has no federal tax consequences. This is rarely the case when converting a corporation to an LLC. Therefore, when in doubt between forming an LLC or a corporation at the time a business in starting up, it is often wise to opt to form an LLC. As always, exceptions apply. Another alternative from the tax side of planning is electing "S Corporation" tax status under the Internal Revenue Code.

A business with a significant amount of receivables should evaluate whether some of them may be written off as business bad debts. A business taxpayer may deduct business bad debts if the receivable becomes partially or completely worthless during the tax year.

In general, most business taxpayers must use the specific charge-off method to account for bad debts. The deduction in any case is limited to the taxpayer's adjusted basis in the receivable.

The deduction allowed for bad debts is an ordinary deduction, which can serve to offset regular business income dollar for dollar. If the taxpayer holds a security, which is a capital asset, and the security becomes worthless during the tax year, the tax law only allows a deduction for a capital loss. However, notes receivable obtained in the ordinary course of business are not capital assets. Therefore, if such notes become partially or completely worthless during the tax year, the taxpayer may claim an ordinary deduction for bad debts.

For a taxpayer to sustain a bad debt deduction, the debt must be bona fide. The IRS looks carefully at a bad debt of a family member.

To be entitled to a business debt write off, the taxpayer must also make a reasonable attempt to collect the debt. However, in a nod to reality, the IRS does not request the taxpayer to turn the debt over to a collection agency or file a lawsuit in an attempt to collect the debt if doing so has little probability of success.

Deadlines for claiming a write off for any past business bad debt must be watched. Taxpayers have until the later of (1) seven years from the date they timely filed their tax return or (2) two years from the time they paid the tax, to claim a refund for a deduction for a wholly worthless debt not deducted on the original return.

Estimated tax is used to pay tax on income that is not subject to withholding or if not enough tax is being withheld from a person's salary, pension or other income. Income not subject to withholding can include dividends, capital gains, prizes, awards, interest, self-employment income, and alimony, among other income items. Generally, individuals who do not pay at least 90 percent of their tax through withholding must estimate their income tax liability and make equal quarterly payments of the "required annual payment" liability during the year.

Estimated tax is used to pay tax on income that is not subject to withholding or if not enough tax is being withheld from a person's salary, pension or other income. Income not subject to withholding can include dividends, capital gains, prizes, awards, interest, self-employment income, and alimony, among other income items. Generally, individuals who do not pay at least 90 percent of their tax through withholding must estimate their income tax liability and make equal quarterly payments of the "required annual payment" liability during the year.

Basic rules

The "basic" rules governing estimated tax payments are not always synonymous with "straightforward" rules. The following addresses some basic rules regarding estimated tax payments by corporations and individuals:

Corporations. For calendar-year corporations, estimated tax installments are due on April 15, June 15, September 15, and December 15. If any due date falls on a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, the payment is due on the first following business day. To avoid a penalty, each installment must equal at least 25 percent of the lesser of:

• 100 percent of the tax shown on the corporation's current year's tax return (or of the actual tax, if no return is filed); or
• 100 percent of the tax shown on the corporation's return for the preceding tax year, provided a positive tax liability was shown and the preceding tax year consisted of 12 months.

A lower installment amount may be paid if it is shown that use of an annualized income method, or for corporations with seasonal incomes, an adjusted seasonal method, would result in a lower required installment.

Individuals. For individuals (including sole proprietors, partners, self-employeds, and/or S corporation shareholders who expect to owe tax of more than $1,000), quarterly estimated tax payments are due on April 15, June 15, September 15, and January 15. Individuals who do not pay at least 90 percent of their tax through withholding generally are required to estimate their income tax liability and make equal quarterly payments of the "required annual payment" liability during the year. The required annual payment is generally the lesser of:

• 90 percent of the tax ultimately shown on your return for the 2015 tax year, or 90 percent of the tax due for the year if no return is filed;
• 100 percent of the tax shown on your return for the preceding (2014) tax year if that year was not for a short period of less than 12 months; or
• The annualized income installment.

For higher-income taxpayers whose adjusted gross income (AGI) shown on your 2014 tax return exceeds $150,000 (or $75,000 for a married individual filing separately in 2015), the required annual payment is the lesser of 90 percent of the tax for the current year, or 110 percent of the tax shown on the return for the preceding tax year.

Adjusting estimated tax payments

If you expect an uneven income stream for 2015, your required estimated tax payments may not necessarily be the same for each remaining period, requiring adjustment. The need for, and the extent of, adjustments to your estimated tax payments should be assessed at the end of each installment payment period.

For example, a change in your or your business's income, deductions, credits, and exemptions may make it necessary to refigure estimated tax payments for the remainder of the year. Likewise for individuals, changes in your exemptions, deductions, and credits may require a change in estimated tax payments. To avoid either a penalty from the IRS or overpaying the IRS interest-free, you may want to increase or decrease the amount of your remaining estimated tax payments.

Refiguring tax payments due

There are some general steps you can take to reconfigure your estimated tax payments. To change your estimated tax payments, refigure your total estimated tax payments due. Then, figure the payment due for each remaining payment period. However, be careful: if an estimated tax payment for a previous period is less than one-fourth of your amended estimated tax, you may be subject to a penalty when you file your return.

If you would like further information about changing your estimated tax payments, please contact our office.

In-plan Roth IRA rollovers are a relatively new creation, and as a result many individuals are not aware of the rules. The Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 made it possible for participants in 401(k) plans and 403(b) plans to roll over eligible distributions made after September 27, 2010 from such accounts, or other non-Roth accounts, into a designated Roth IRA in the same plan. Beginning in 2011, this option became available to 457(b) governmental plans as well. These "in-plan" rollovers and the rules for making them, which may be tricky, are discussed below.

In-plan Roth IRA rollovers are a relatively new creation, and as a result many individuals are not aware of the rules. The Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 made it possible for participants in 401(k) plans and 403(b) plans to roll over eligible distributions made after September 27, 2010 from such accounts, or other non-Roth accounts, into a designated Roth IRA in the same plan. Beginning in 2011, this option became available to 457(b) governmental plans as well. These "in-plan" rollovers and the rules for making them, which may be tricky, are discussed below.

Designated Roth account

401(k) plans and 403(b) plans that have designated Roth accounts may offer in-plan Roth rollovers for eligible rollover distributions. Beginning in 2011, the option became available to 457(b) governmental plans, allowing the plan to adopt an amendment to include designated Roth accounts to then offer in-plan Roth rollovers.

In order to make an in-plan Roth IRA rollover from a non-Roth account to the plan, the plan must have a designated Roth account option. Thus, if a 401(k) plan does not have a Roth 401(k) contribution program in place at the time the rollover contribution is made, the rollover generally cannot be made (however, a plan can be amended to allow new in-service distributions from the plan's non-Roth accounts conditioned on the participant rolling over the distribution in an in-plan Roth direct rollover). Not only may plan participants make an in-plan rollover, but a participant's surviving spouse, beneficiaries and alternate payees who are current or former spouses are also eligible.

Eligible amounts

To be eligible for an in-plan rollover, the amount to be rolled over must be eligible for distribution to you under the terms of the plan and must be otherwise eligible for rollover (i.e. an eligible rollover distribution). Generally, any vested amount that is held in 401(k) plans or 403(b) plans (or 457(b) plans) is eligible for an in-plan Roth rollover. Moreover, the distribution must satisfy the general distribution requirements that otherwise apply.

Direct rollover or 60-day rollover

An in-plan Roth rollover may be accomplished two ways: either through a direct rollover (wherein the plan's administrator directly transfers funds from the non-Roth account to the participant's designated Roth account) or through a 60-day rollover. With an in-plan Roth direct rollover, the plan trustee transfers an eligible rollover distribution from a participant's non-Roth account to the participant's designated Roth account in the same plan. With an-plan Roth 60-day rollover, the participant deposits an eligible rollover distribution within 60 days of receiving it from a non-Roth account into a designated Roth account in the same plan.

If you opt for the 60-day rollover option, the amounts rolled over are subject to 20 percent mandatory withholding.

Taxation

Taxpayers generally include the taxable amount (fair market value minus your basis in the distribution) of an in-plan Roth rollover in gross income for the tax year in which the rollover is received.

If you have questions about making an in-plan Roth IRA rollover, please contact our office.

Often, timing is everything or so the adage goes. From medicine to sports and cooking, timing can make all the difference in the outcome. What about with taxes? What are your chances of being audited? Does timing play a factor in raising or decreasing your risk of being audited by the IRS? For example, does the time when you file your income tax return affect the IRS's decision to audit you? Some individuals think filing early will decrease their risk of an audit, while others file at the very-last minute, believing this will reduce their chance of being audited. And some taxpayers don't think timing matters at all.

Often, timing is everything or so the adage goes. From medicine to sports and cooking, timing can make all the difference in the outcome. What about with taxes? What are your chances of being audited? Does timing play a factor in raising or decreasing your risk of being audited by the IRS? For example, does the time when you file your income tax return affect the IRS's decision to audit you? Some individuals think filing early will decrease their risk of an audit, while others file at the very-last minute, believing this will reduce their chance of being audited. And some taxpayers don't think timing matters at all.

What your return says is key

If it's not the time of filing, what really increases your audit potential? The information on your return, your income bracket and profession--not when you file--are the most significant factors that increase your chances of being audited. The higher your income the more attractive your return becomes to the IRS. And if you're self-employed and/or work in a profession that generates mostly cash income, you are also more likely to draw IRS attention.

Further, you may pique the IRS's interest and trigger an audit if:

• You claim a large amount of itemized deductions or an unusually large amount of deductions or losses in relation to your income;
• You have questionable business deductions;
• You are a higher-income taxpayer;
• You claim tax shelter investment losses;
• Information on your return doesn't match up with information on your 1099 or W-2 forms received from your employer or investment house;
• You have a history of being audited;
• You are a partner or shareholder of a corporation that is being audited;
• You are self-employed or you are a business or profession currently on the IRS's "hit list" for being targeted for audit, such as Schedule C (Form 1040) filers);
• You are primarily a cash-income earner (i.e. you work in a profession that is traditionally a cash-income business)
• You claim the earned income tax credit;
• You report rental property losses; or
• An informant has contacted the IRS asserting you haven't complied with the tax laws.

DIF score

Most audits are generated by a computer program that creates a DIF score (Discriminate Information Function) for your return. The DIF score is used by the IRS to select returns with the highest likelihood of generating additional taxes, interest and penalties for collection by the IRS. It is computed by comparing certain tax items such as income, expenses and deductions reported on your return with national DIF averages for taxpayers in similar tax brackets.

E-filed returns.  There is a perception that e-filed returns have a higher audit risk, but there is no proof to support it. All data on hand-written returns end up in a computer file at the IRS anyway; through a combination of a scanning and a hand input procedure that takes place soon after the return is received by the Service Center. Computer cross-matching of tax return data against information returns (W-2s, 1099s, etc.) takes place no matter when or how you file.

Early or late returns. Some individuals believe that since the pool of filed returns is small at the beginning of the filing season, they have a greater chance of being audited. There is no evidence that filing your tax return early increases your risk of being audited. In fact, if you expect a refund from the IRS you should file early so that you receive your refund sooner. Additionally, there is no evidence of an increased risk of audit if you file late on a valid extension. The statute of limitations on audits is generally three years, measured from the due date of the return (April 18 for individuals this year, but typically April 15) whether filed on that date or earlier, or from the date received by the IRS if filed after April 18.

Amended returns. Since all amended returns are visually inspected, there may be a higher risk of being examined. Therefore, weigh the risk carefully before filing an amended return. Amended returns are usually associated with the original return. The Service Center can decide to accept the claim or, if not, send the claim and the original return to the field for examination.

In exchange for voluntary disclosure of unreported foreign assets, the IRS is offering taxpayers a second opportunity for reduced penalties. A special offshore voluntary disclosure initiative was announced on February 8, 2011. The initiative is temporary and runs through August 31, 2011.

In exchange for voluntary disclosure of unreported foreign assets, the IRS is offering taxpayers a second opportunity for reduced penalties. A special offshore voluntary disclosure initiative was announced on February 8, 2011. The initiative is temporary and runs through August 31, 2011.

Offshore accounts

The IRS knows that Americans have undisclosed assets in foreign financial institutions. In some cases, taxpayers may not be aware that federal law requires disclosure of offshore accounts above a certain monetary threshold. In other cases, taxpayers know they must report their offshore assets but choose not to make disclosures.

The U.S. and the IRS are working on several fronts to discover unreported offshore assets. The U.S. is negotiating with so-called tax haven jurisdictions for more transparency in their banking and tax laws. These are countries that traditionally have had tough bank secrecy laws. The U.S. has had some success in this area, most notably in getting one of Switzerland's largest banks to agree to share account information with the IRS. Many experts predict that the U.S. will persuade banks in other countries to share account information with the IRS.

In 2010, Congress passed the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act. The new law requires taxpayers with foreign assets exceeding an aggregate value of $50,000 to report them on information returns. This requirement is in addition to the current filing requirement for Form TD F 90-22.1, Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR), which applies when the aggregate value of foreign accounts exceeds $10,000. The IRS is expected to release guidance on the HIRE Act's foreign account reporting rules in 2011.

The IRS has also used a carrot and stick approach to encourage taxpayers to come forward. In 2009, the IRS launched an offshore voluntary disclosure program. According to the IRS more than 15,000 taxpayers participated in the 2009 program. The IRS reported that the 2009 program uncovered undisclosed accounts in more than 60 countries.

2011 initiative

The 2011 voluntary disclosure initiative, like the 2009 program, offers a reduced penalty framework in exchange for voluntary disclosure. In the 2009 program, taxpayers faced up to a 20 percent penalty covering up to a six-year period. The penalty framework for 2011 is higher (at 25 percent for most taxpayers), meaning that taxpayers who did not participate in the 2009 voluntary disclosure program will not be rewarded for waiting.

For the 2011 initiative, the penalty framework requires taxpayers to pay a penalty of 25 percent of the amount in the foreign bank accounts in the year with the highest aggregate account balance covering the 2003 to 2010 time period. Participants also must pay back-taxes and interest for up to eight years as well as pay accuracy-related and/or delinquency penalties. Taxpayers participating in the initiative must file all the necessary paperwork and make all required payments with the IRS before August 31, 2011.

Reduced penalties

Some taxpayers may be eligible for a 12.5 or 5 percent penalty under the 2011 initiative. The 12.5 percent penalty applies to taxpayers whose offshore accounts or assets did not surpass $75,000 in any calendar year covered by the 2011 initiative. The five percent penalty generally applies to taxpayers who did not open the foreign account and who met other very specific criteria covered by the 2011 initiative. Individuals who are foreign residents and who were unaware they were U.S. citizens may also qualify for the five percent penalty.

How to participate

The first step is to talk to a tax professional. The program is not just for individuals. Entities such as partnerships and trusts can also request to participate. However, certain taxpayers are ineligible. They include taxpayers under examination (whether or not the examination relates to undisclosed foreign assets) and taxpayers under criminal investigation.

The IRS encourages taxpayers to file a pre-clearance request. The IRS will then notify the taxpayer if the taxpayer has been cleared to make a voluntary disclosure. Pre-clearance, however, does not guarantee acceptance into the program, the IRS cautioned. After pre-clearance, taxpayers submit a voluntary disclosure letter. The IRS will review the letter and notify the taxpayer if the taxpayer has been accepted into the initiative. If accepted, the IRS requires the taxpayer to submit an extensive voluntary disclosure package.

If you have any questions about the IRS voluntary offshore disclosure program, please contact our office.

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) enacted in March 2010, small employers may be eligible to claim a tax credit of 35 percent of qualified health insurance premium costs paid by a taxable employer (25 percent for tax-exempt employers). The credit is designed to encourage small employers to offer health-insurance to their employees.

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) enacted in March 2010, small employers may be eligible to claim a tax credit of 35 percent of qualified health insurance premium costs paid by a taxable employer (25 percent for tax-exempt employers). The credit is designed to encourage small employers to offer health-insurance to their employees.

Employees and wages

An employer can claim the maximum 35 percent credit if it has no more than 10 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees receiving average annual wages of $25,000 or less. The credit is phased out as the number of FTEs increases to 25 and as average annual wages increase to $50,000.  An employer with 25 or more employees, or paying average annual wages of $50,000 or more per employee, will not receive a credit.

In counting FTEs, the employer should not include owners and family members.  Seasonal employees are not counted unless they work at least 120 days during the year. In determining average annual wages, employers must count all wages, bonuses, commissions or other compensation, including sick leave and vacation leave.

Applicable years

The credit took effect in 2010.  It did not expire at the end of 2010 but can be claimed from year to year.  The credit applies at the 35/25 percent levels for four years, through 2013. After 2013, the maximum credit increases to 50 percent for for-profit employers and 35 percent for tax-exempt employers, but only for two years. Thus, the credit can be claimed every year for the six years from 2010 and 2015.  The credit is recalculated every year based on the total health insurance premiums paid. Only non-elective employer premiums are counted; salary reduction contributions paid through a cafeteria plan or other arrangement are not counted.

Premiums

An employer must pay at least 50 percent of the premium cost of health insurance coverage, and must pay the same uniform percentage of costs for each employee who obtains health insurance through the employer. A transition rule for 2010 treats an employer as satisfying the uniformity rule as long as the employer pays at least 50 percent of the coverage costs of each employee, based on the cost of employee-only (single) coverage, even if the employer does not pay the same percentage of costs for each employee.

The premiums must be paid for qualified health insurance, such as a hospital or medical service plan or health maintenance organization. It includes coverage for dental, vision, long-term care, nursing home care, and coverage for a specified disease or illness.  Coverage does not accident insurance, disability income insurance, and workers' compensation.

Claiming the credit

The credit is determined on Form 8941, Credit for Small Employer Health Insurance Premiums. For-profit employers report the amount of the credit on Form 3800, General Business Credit, and attach the forms to their income tax return. As a general business credit, any unused credit (in excess of taxable income) can be carried back one year (except for a credit arising in 2010, the first year) or carried forward 20 years.  For-profit employers deduct the credit from the premiums paid for health insurance, when computing the deduction for health insurance premiums.

Tax-exempt employers report the credit on Form 990-T, Exempt Organization Business Income Tax Return, regardless of whether the organization is subject to tax on unrelated business income. The credit is refundable for tax-exempt employers, provided it does not exceed the employer’s income tax withholding and Medicare taxes. The credit is not refundable if the employer does not claim the credit on Form 990-T.

The tax rules surrounding the dependency exemption deduction on a federal income tax return can be complicated, with many requirements involving who qualifies for the deduction and who qualifies to take the deduction. The deduction can be a very beneficial tax break for taxpayers who qualify to claim dependent children or other qualifying dependent family members on their return. Therefore, it is important to understand the nuances of claiming dependents on your tax return, as the April 18 tax filing deadline is just around the corner.

The tax rules surrounding the dependency exemption deduction on a federal income tax return can be complicated, with many requirements involving who qualifies for the deduction and who qualifies to take the deduction. The deduction can be a very beneficial tax break for taxpayers who qualify to claim dependent children or other qualifying dependent family members on their return. Therefore, it is important to understand the nuances of claiming dependents on your tax return, as the April 18 tax filing deadline is just around the corner.

Dependency deduction

You are allowed one dependency exemption deduction for each person you claim as a qualifying dependent on your federal income tax return. The deduction amount for the 2010 tax year is $3,650. If someone else may claim you as a dependent on their return, however, then you cannot claim a personal exemption (also $3,650) for yourself on your return. Additionally, your standard deduction will be limited.

Only one taxpayer may claim the dependency exemption per qualifying dependent in a tax year. Therefore, you and your spouse (or former spouse in a divorce situation) cannot both claim an exemption for the same dependent, such as your son or daughter, when you are filing separate returns.

Who qualifies as a dependent?

The term "dependent" includes a qualifying child or a qualifying relative. There are a number of tests to determine who qualifies as a dependent child or relative, and who may claim the deduction. These include age, relationship, residency, return filing status, and financial support tests.

The rules regarding who is a qualifying child (not a qualifying relative, which is discussed below), and for whom you may claim a dependency deduction on your 2010 return, generally are as follows:

-- The child is a U.S. citizen, or national, or a resident of the U.S., Canada, or Mexico;

-- The child is your child (including adopted or step-children), grandchildren, great-grandchildren, brothers, sisters (including step-brothers, and -sisters), half-siblings, nieces, and nephews;

 -- The child has lived with you a majority of nights during the year, whether or not he or she is related to you;

 -- The child receives less than $3,650 of gross income (unless the dependent is your child and either (1) is under age 19, (2) is a full-time student under age 24 before the end of the year), or (3) any age if permanently and totally disabled;

 -- The child receives more than one-half of his or her support from you; and

 -- The child does not file a joint tax return (unless solely to obtain a tax refund).

Qualifying relatives

The rules for claiming a qualifying relative as a dependent on your income tax return are slightly different from the rules for claiming a dependent child. Certain tests must also be met, including a gross income and support test, and a relationship test, among others. Generally, to claim a "qualifying relative" as your dependent:

-- The individual cannot be your qualifying child or the qualifying child of any other taxpayer; -- The individual's gross income for the year is less than $3,650; -- You provide more than one-half of the individual's total support for the year; -- The individual either (1) lives with you all year as a member of your household or (2) does not live with you but is your brother or sister (include step and half-siblings), mother or father, grandparent or other direct ancestor, stepparent, niece, nephew, aunt, or uncle, or inlaws. Foster parents are excluded.

Although age is a factor when claiming a qualifying child, a qualifying relative can be any age.

Special rules for divorced and separated parents

Certain rules apply when parents are divorced or separated and want to claim the dependency exemption. Under these rules, generally the "custodial" parent may claim the dependency deduction. The custodial parent is generally the parent with whom the child resides for the greater number of nights during the year.

However, if certain conditions are met, the noncustodial parent may claim the dependency exemption. The noncustodial parent can generally claim the deduction if:

-- The custodial parent gives up the tax deduction by signing a written release (on Form 8332 or a similar statement) that he or she will not claim the child as a dependent on his or her tax return. The noncustodial parent must attach the statement to his or her tax return; or

-- There is a multiple support agreement (Form 2120, Multiple Support Declaration) in effect signed by the other parent agreeing not to claim the dependency deduction for the year.

Have you already mailed (on paper or electronically) your Form 1040 for the 2010 tax year but only now noticed you made an error when preparing the return? If you need to correct a mistake on your federal income tax return that you’ve already filed with the IRS, it’s not too late to correct the mistake by filing an amended return, Form 1040X, Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. The IRS considers an amended return filed on or before the due date of a return to be the taxpayer’s return for the period.

How Do I? Correct a mistake on a tax return I’ve already filed?

Have you already mailed (on paper or electronically) your Form 1040 for the 2010 tax year but only now noticed you made an error when preparing the return? If you need to correct a mistake on your federal income tax return that you’ve already filed with the IRS, it’s not too late to correct the mistake by filing an amended return, Form 1040X, Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. The IRS considers an amended return filed on or before the due date of a return to be the taxpayer’s return for the period.

Correcting a mistake

Taxpayers cannot file more than one original tax return per tax year. If you have already filed an original Form 1040 with the IRS, but want to correct an error on the return (such as claiming a deduction or credit you discovered you were entitled to, or removing a credit or deduction you are not qualified to take, changing your filing status, or income, for example) file and amended return, Form 1040X, on or before April 18, 2011 (the filing deadline for this tax season). If the return is filed on or before the deadline for filing, the IRS considers the amended return to be your return for the tax period. If you file an amended return reporting income taxes due after April 18, however, you may be subject to the assessment of interest and penalties.

Example. You filed your 2010 individual income tax return, Form 1040, on February 1, 2011. But in late February you discovered that you made a mistake on your return. You can file an amended return on or before April 18, 2011 (in most other tax years, it is April 15, but due to the Emancipation Day holiday celebrated in Washington, D.C., the deadline for filing returns this year has been moved to April 18). The last return filed on or before April 18 (your amended return) will be your official tax return. Thus, the last filed return you send before the filing deadline (April 18) is the one that counts as the original return for IRS purposes.

Amended returns after April 18

If you discover the error on your return after April 18 has passed, you still file an amended return, Form 1040X, to correct your previously filed return. Certain tax elections once made on the original return, however, are irrevocable.  Also, any tax not paid with the original return accrues interest.  However, as long as a mistake is corrected on an amended return before the original return is audited, penalties are generally waived.

Taxpayers may elect to deduct state and local general sales and use taxes in lieu of deducting state and local income taxes for 2010 and 2011. Before Congress passed the 2010 Tax Relief Act (Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010), the sales tax deduction was not available for the 2010 tax year. However, the 2010 Tax Relief Act retroactively extends the sales tax deduction for 2010 and also makes it available for the 2011 tax year.

Thus, all individual taxpayers who itemize their tax deductions for 2010 and 2011 on Schedule A, Form 1040, have a choice between deducting state and local income taxes (as has always been the case for itemized deductions) or deducting state and local general sales taxes as an itemized deduction instead. The state and local sales tax deduction is particularly beneficial for those taxpayers who live in states without state income taxes (Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Texas, Tennessee, Washington state, and Wyoming), and thus don't benefit from the state income tax deduction.

Planning Note. The extension of the deduction for state and local general sales taxes does not impact states such as California, Illinois, and Oregon that have decoupled from the deduction, or states such as Connecticut, Michigan, or West Virginia that do not allow federal itemized deductions.

Comment. It is important to remember for taxpayers who are claiming itemized deductions on Schedule A for the 2010 tax year (thus affecting deductions for state sales tax) that due to the late passage of the 2010 Tax Relief Act, the IRS will not be able to process returns of those whose filings are delayed (Schedule A filers, among others) until February 14, 2011.

Methods for calculating the deduction

The right decision is usually made simply by determining which deduction is higher for you (if you live in a state that provides for the state income tax deduction.)

If you elect to deduct state and local sales taxes in lieu of deducting state and local income taxes, you can chose between two methods of computation:

• The actual expense method; or
• The IRS's optional state sales tax tables method.

Actual expense method

Under the actual expense method, you must keep the actual sales receipts that show the sales tax paid. This may be somewhat more difficult for 2010 since the 2010 Tax Relief Act was not passed until December 2010, long after some taxpayers may have thrown most of their old sales slips for ordinary expenses into the trash. Nevertheless, collecting receipts, especially for major purchases, may prove enough to make use of the "actual expense method" instead of the IRS tables.

Some further complications. Qualifying state and local sales taxes allowed under the actual expense method include only sales taxes set at the general sales tax rate, with exceptions for food, clothing, medical supplies, and motor vehicles.

Optional state sales tax tables method

Under this method, you don't have to keep your receipts (although keeping some receipts from motor vehicle and other specified purchases may be advantageous (see below)).

The IRS optional state sales tax tables are supposed to reflect the average state sales tax deduction paid by the average resident of your state, based on both income level and number of exemptions. Income levels on the tables for each state run from $0 to "$200,000 or more;" exemption columns go from 1 to "more than 5."

Income for purposes of the IRS tables includes adjusted gross income, plus certain non-taxable income that increases your purchasing power. The later amounts include tax-exempt interest, veterans' and Social Security benefits, nontaxable IRA withdrawals and the like. Since the higher the income level, the higher the table deduction amount, it is to your advantage (although it is not required) to include these in this computation.

The local sales tax computation. The IRS tables do not reflect local sales taxes. The IRS does not publish the appropriate local sales tax rates. You have to find it. Taxpayers compute their combined state and local sales tax deduction amount by:

1. (a) Dividing the local general sales tax rate by the state general sales tax rate; (b) Multiplying that figure by the amount of state general sales taxes in the IRS tables; and
2. Adding the amount of local general sales taxes (1) to the amount of state general sales taxes in the tables.

Moving during the year

The IRS Optional State Sales Tax Tables cover most states and the District of Columbia. Your legal state of residence for the year determines which table to use.

If you lived in more than one state during 2010, you must multiply the table amount for each state you lived in by a fraction, equal to the number of days you lived in each state, divided by 365. Prorating local sales taxes is also required if you moved from one locality to another in the same state.

Figuring out the new sales tax itemized deduction takes several steps. Nevertheless, the tax savings available may make it well worth your while to "do the math." You should consult your tax advisor with questions since deduction planning can be more complicated than many think.