The House has approved two tax bills that are part of Republicans’ three-pronged "Tax Reform 2.0" package. The two measures, approved by the House on September 27, focus on retirement savings and business innovation.

The House has approved two tax bills that are part of Republicans’ three-pronged "Tax Reform 2.0" package. The two measures, approved by the House on September 27, focus on retirement savings and business innovation.

The most controversial bill of the package, which would make permanent tax reform’s individual and small business tax cuts enacted last December, was approved by the House on September 28 (see the following story in this Issue). At this time, the Senate is neither expected to vote on the Tax Reform package before midterm elections in November nor approve the Tax Reform 2.0 package in its entirety.

Tax Reform 2.0
The Tax Reform 2.0 package was approved by the House Way and Means Committee on September 13. The following three bills are included in the package:

• Protecting Family and Small Business Tax Cuts Act of 2018 (HR 6760);
• Family Savings Act of 2018 (HR 6757); and
• American Innovation Act of 2018 (HR 6756).

The House approved HR 6757 on September 27 by a 240-to-177 vote. HR 6756 was approved minutes later by a 260-to-156 vote.

Savings Accounts
HR 6757 proposes an expansion of certain savings incentives. Among other things, the bill would eliminate the age limit on individual retirement account (IRA) contributions. Additionally, it would create a Universal Savings Account (USA) to which individuals could contribute up to $2,500 annually. Withdrawals from USA accounts would be tax free. Tax-advantaged funds in USA accounts could be used for purposes other than retirement. Also, the bill would expand Code Sec. 529 plans to permit use for expenses related to trade schools, home schooling, and up to $10,000 in total distributions for student loan repayment.

Business Innovation
HR 6756 would improve the tax treatment of certain start-up business expenses. The bill would allow new businesses to write off up to $20,000 of start-up and organization expenditures. Additionally, HR 6756 would allow for a change in start-up ownership without triggering limits on certain tax benefits.

Democratic Criticism
Democrats remain united in their opposition of Republicans’ Tax Reform 2.0 efforts. The lack of Democratic support makes the package’s success in the Senate, at least in current form, highly unlikely.

At least 60 Democratic votes would be needed for approval. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has said that the Senate will not take up any bills in the package until the requisite votes are accounted for.

Specifically, Democrats criticize HR 6760 for extending TCJA provisions, a law that Democrats claim primarily benefits wealthy individuals and corporations. However, some Democratic support is expected in the Senate on the business innovation bill, HR 6756. There is talk on Capitol Hill that the bill could be approved by Congress in the lame duck session toward the end of the year.

White House
The Trump administration announced its support of the Tax Reform 2.0 package in a September 26 Statement of Administration Policy. The White House praised HR 6760 for "preventing a tax increase on millions of middle-income families and small businesses after 2025." Additionally, the Trump administration praised HR 6757, saying it would "assist start-up companies and entrepreneurs by allowing them to write off more costs associated with starting their new business and by allowing them to raise capital and expand without losing their previously accrued tax benefits."

The House has approved a tax bill that would make permanent tax reform’s individual and small business tax cuts enacted last December. The controversial bill is part of Republican’s three-bill "Tax Reform 2.0" package, two of which cleared the House on September 27 (see the previous story in this Issue).

The House has approved a tax bill that would make permanent tax reform’s individual and small business tax cuts enacted last December. The controversial bill is part of Republican’s three-bill "Tax Reform 2.0" package, two of which cleared the House on September 27 (see the previous story in this Issue).

Individual, Small Business Tax Cuts
The House approved the Protecting Family and Small Business Tax Cuts Act of 2018 (HR 6760) on September 28 by a 220-to-191 vote. The bill would make permanent certain individual and small business tax cuts enacted under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97).

HR 6760 would make permanent certain TCJA individual tax cuts that are set to expire after 2025. These TCJA provisions were made temporary to comply with certain Senate budget rules applicable to the reconciliation process requiring only a simply GOP majority. Notably, these provisions include, among others:

• lower individual tax rates;
• a larger standard deduction;
• a $10,000 annual cap on the state and local tax (SALT) deduction; and
• a 20 percent deduction of business income for certain passthrough entities.

HR 6760 would reduce federal revenue by $631 billion over the next decade, according to a cost estimate by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), (JCX-79-18). However, House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Tex., highlighted the JCT’s findings particular to the bill’s macroeconomic effects. "Tax Reform 2.0 will permanently provide over $140 billion in annual tax relief for middle-class families, boost American GDP and investment, and create 1.1 million new jobs," Brady said in a statement, citing to the JCT report.

Democratic Support
Although the TCJA did not receive one Democratic vote, HR 6760, which extends many of the TCJA’s individual provisions, received three Democratic votes. Ten Republicans voted against the bill, all of whom hail from high-tax states and oppose the $10,000 annual cap on the SALT deduction.

Over 40 Democrats voted for the Family Savings Act of 2018 (HR 6757) and the American Innovation Act of 2018 (HR 6756), which focus on enhancing savings accounts and start-up business tax breaks. All three bills are now headed to the Senate, where the package is not expected to be considered before midterm elections in November. Additionally, the entire package is not expected to be approved by the Senate. However, it is considered likely on Capitol Hill that HR 6757, which promotes retirement and family savings, could be approved by the Senate in the lame-duck session.

"It’s encouraging to receive 44 Democratic votes in support of elements of Tax Reform 2.0," Brady said in a September 28 statement. "I’m confident that working with the Senate we can advance bipartisan bills to the President’s desk," he added.

Democratic Criticism
Although the Tax Reform 2.0 package did receive some Democratic support in the House, Democrats in both the House and Senate remain largely opposed to Republican efforts to extend the TCJA’s individual and small business tax cuts. Many Democrats have criticized the TCJA for primarily benefiting wealthy individuals and corporations.

"The Republicans’ tax 2.0 legislation is another reckless tax cut for the wealthy that leaves behind average, hardworking families," Ways and Means Committee ranking member, Richard Neal, D-Mass., said on the House floor just prior to the HR 6760 vote. "In less than a year, House Republicans have handed out trillions of tax cuts for the wealthy and big corporations," Neal added in a September 28 statement released after the 2.0 package cleared the chamber.

Meanwhile, House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., praised the Tax Reform 2.0 package for propelling economic growth and helping middle income taxpayers. "On top of making lower rates for individuals and small businesses permanent, these bills create new savings options for families to plan for education and retirement,"Ryan said in a September 28 statement.

Looking Ahead
House lawmakers left Washington, D.C. on September 28 to begin campaigning ahead of midterm elections in November. The Senate is not expected to take up the Tax Reform 2.0 package, if at all, until later this fall.

As for whether any of the three bills will become law this year, Brady remains optimistic. "We had 41 Democratic votes in support of retirement savings and that innovation for start-ups. I think that has a very good chance, with bipartisan support of getting to the President’s desk this year," Brady said in a September 28 televised interview. "The [individual tax cuts] permanency bill, that’s separate, will go to the Senate after today. [Senate Majority] Leader Mitch McConnell, has made it clear – when he sees a path for 60 votes, he’ll bring it forward."

Stakeholders are urging the IRS to clarify its guidance on tax reform’s new passthrough deduction. The IRS held an October 16 public hearing on proposed rules for the new Code Sec. 199Apassthrough deduction at its headquarters in Washington D.C. The IRS released the proposed regulations, REG-107892-18, on August 8.

Stakeholders are urging the IRS to clarify its guidance on tax reform’s new passthrough deduction. The IRS held an October 16 public hearing on proposed rules for the new Code Sec. 199Apassthrough deduction at its headquarters in Washington D.C. The IRS released the proposed regulations, REG-107892-18, on August 8.

Over 20 stakeholders and practitioners spoke at the hearing. Additionally, over 300 comments on the proposed rules have been submitted to Treasury and the IRS.

Passthrough Deduction
The new 20-percent deduction of qualified business income for passthrough entities, subject to certain limitations, was enacted as part of tax reform legislation last December. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97) created the new Code Sec. 199A passthrough deduction for noncorporate taxpayers, effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. The deduction is scheduled to sunset in 2026.

Rental Real Estate
Several speakers at the hearing asked the IRS for guidance clarifying whether rental real estate activities are eligible for the deduction. Additionally, Troy Lewis, testifying on behalf of the American Institute of Certified Professional Accountants (AICPA), asked the IRS for guidance on specific circumstances in which rental real estate activities would not produce qualified trade or business income pursuant to the adopted Code Sec. 162 standard.

"Without further guidance clarifying when the rental of real estate would fail to rise to the level of a section 162 trade or business, unnecessary ambiguity exists that will likely create a divergence in practice," the AICPA said in its written comments. "Taxpayers are thus left to pursue their own interpretation of the rules under section 199A and the IRS will likely face greater complexity of administration."

Likewise, the Council for Electronic Revenue Communication Advancement (CERCA) submitted comments highlighting the uncertainty as to whether and when a rental property is generally considered a qualifying trade or business for purposes of the Code Sec. 199A deduction. Notably, CERCA referenced the preamble to the regulations that indicates taxpayers should look to existing case law to determine whether rental activities meet the Code Sec. 162 standard. However, existing case law does not consistently apply a set of factors that taxpayers could reliably apply as rules, according to CERCA.

Determining that all rental real estate is a trade or business for purposes of the deduction would significantly simplify the deduction, Iona Harrison said, testifying on behalf of the National Association of Realtors. Making such a determination would also simplify IRS administration, she added.

SSTB
Several speakers and a number of comment letters requested that the IRS clarify its definition of a specified service trade or business (SSTB). The SSTB limitation is one of the most controversial provisions of the deduction. SSTBs are considered a "trade or business involving the performance of services in the fields of health, law, accounting, actuarial science, performing arts, consulting, athletics, financial services, investing and investment management, trading, dealing in certain assets or any trade or business where the principal asset is the reputation or skill of one or more of its employees," according to the IRS.

To that end, Major League Baseball (MLB) has pitched its assertion to the IRS that professional sports clubs are neither "personal services corporations" nor provide "services," as defined in Code Sec. 1202(e)(3)(A). The Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, which governs the 30 MLB clubs, has asserted in written comments that the business of a professional sports club is not an SSTB under Code Sec. 199A. Thus, "its owners should be allowed the full 199A deduction," Commissioner Robert D. Manfred, Jr. wrote in submitted comments.

Questions Remain
The October 16 public hearing served more as an opportunity for stakeholders to highlight issues rather than a forum for the IRS to provide answers. Treasury and the IRS are expected to consider hearing testimony and written comments when finalizing the rules. The regulations are expected to be finalized before the 2019 tax filing season.

Top Senate tax writers have introduced a bipartisan bill to prevent duplicative taxation on digital goods and services. The bill aims to establish a framework across multiple jurisdictions for taxation of digital goods and services, including electronic music, literature, and mobile apps, among other things.

Top Senate tax writers have introduced a bipartisan bill to prevent duplicative taxation on digital goods and services. The bill aims to establish a framework across multiple jurisdictions for taxation of digital goods and services, including electronic music, literature, and mobile apps, among other things.

The Digital Goods and Services Tax Fairness Act (Sen. 3581) was reintroduced on October 11 by Senate Finance Committee (SFC) ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and SFC member John Thune, R-S.D. A similar measure was previously introduced in 2015 by Thune and Wyden in the 114th Congress. A companion bill is expected to be reintroduced in the House.

Digital Marketplace
While the digital marketplace continues to evolve, federal law addressing taxation of digital goods and services "lags" behind, according to a joint press release issued by Thune and Wyden. "As a result, some consumers can be taxed multiple times on a single digitally delivered product or service by different tax jurisdictions," Thune said. "Our bipartisan legislation simply prevents this duplicative and discriminatory taxation, which will help ensure today’s digital economy isn’t held back unnecessarily and can continue to offer opportunities to entrepreneurs and consumers alike," Thune added.

"Preventing unfair taxes on music, books and other important goods and services benefits consumers and innovators alike," Wyden said. "This bipartisan legislation solves a 21st century tax riddle by establishing a comprehensive set of rules for states to follow."

The IRS has released Draft Instructions for the 2018 Form 1040. Additionally, the IRS has cautioned taxpayers that the draft instructions are subject to change. The IRS released a draft of the 2018 Form 1040 and six accompanying schedules last June.

The IRS has released Draft Instructions for the 2018 Form 1040. Additionally, the IRS has cautioned taxpayers that the draft instructions are subject to change. The IRS released a draft of the 2018 Form 1040 and six accompanying schedules last June.

Generally, the IRS does not release draft forms but has done so in this case as a "courtesy," the instructions state. "Do not rely on draft forms, instructions, and publications for filing,"the IRS wrote. Further, drafts of instructions and publications generally undergo some changes before being finalized, the IRS noted.

2018 Form 1040
Starting with the 2019 tax filing season, many taxpayers will be able to file federal income taxes on a new postcard-sized Form 1040. The IRS planned to finalize the new base 2018 Form 1040 this summer, an IRS spokesperson previously told Wolters Kluwer. "This early release is part of our standard process to invite stakeholder input into draft forms before finalizing them," the IRS spokesperson told Wolters Kluwer after the official release of the draft 2018 Form 1040.

Shorter Form, Six Schedules
The new, two-sided Form 1040 is intended to replace and consolidate current Forms 1040, 1040A and 1040EZ. "This new approach will simplify the 1040 so that all 150 million taxpayers can use the same form," the IRS said.

The shortened form reflects many of the changes to the tax code enacted under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97). Some of these changes include the higher standard deduction and the elimination of certain deductions and personal exemptions. The new form now has 23 lines, decreased from 79. However, there are now six separate schedules that some taxpayers who continue to itemize will need to include with their return.

The IRS’s new Commissioner was officially sworn in on October 1 by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. IRS Commissioner Charles "Chuck" P. Rettig will lead the implementation of tax reform enacted last December under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97).

The IRS’s new Commissioner was officially sworn in on October 1 by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. IRS Commissioner Charles "Chuck" P. Rettig will lead the implementation of tax reform enacted last December under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97).

New IRS Commissioner
"I am honored, privileged and most humbled by the opportunity to serve with you as Commissioner," Rettig said in an internal IRS message obtained by Wolters Kluwer on October 2. "The foundation of my becoming Commissioner is a deep appreciation for the IRS, its workforce and our country."

The Senate confirmed Rettig’s nomination for IRS Commissioner by a 64-to-33 bipartisan vote. The Senate Finance Committee advanced Rettig’s nomination in July. President Donald Trump announced his nomination of Rettig last February.

IRS Priorities Moving Forward
Rettig outlined several IRS priorities in his message to IRS employees. Those priorities include, among others, implementing tax reform, balancing taxpayer service with tax enforcement, and deterring tax fraud.

"I know the Service has many challenges…I also know we must continue rebuilding trust with taxpayers while implementing the once-in-a-generation tax reform bill passed by Congress in December," Rettig said. "We must work on our IT modernization efforts," he added.

Additionally, while the IRS has been working toward moving more taxpayer services online, notably, Rettig emphasized the importance of providing personalized service to taxpayers. "Providing high-quality, personalized service is a critical component in helping taxpayers understand and comply with their filing and reporting obligations,"Rettig wrote.

Rettig’s term as the 49th IRS Commissioner is scheduled to expire on November 12, 2022. John Koskinen’s term as IRS Commissioner ended in November 2017. David Kautter, Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy at Treasury, has been serving as acting IRS Commissioner in the interim.

The Senate Small Business Committee held an October 3 hearing on expanding opportunities for small businesses through the tax code. Senate lawmakers examined tax reform’s effect on small businesses and discussed witnesses’ proposals to address ambiguity in the new tax code.

The Senate Small Business Committee held an October 3 hearing on expanding opportunities for small businesses through the tax code. Senate lawmakers examined tax reform’s effect on small businesses and discussed witnesses’ proposals to address ambiguity in the new tax code.

Various provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) were discussed among lawmakers and witnesses. Specifically, Opportunity Zones under the TCJA were of particular focus.

Opportunity Zones
The TCJA created certain tax benefits for long-term business investment in Qualified Opportunity Zones, which generally include economically distressed communities. Although the TCJA did not receive a single Democratic vote, the Opportunity Zones program was generally based on a bipartisan bill sponsored by Sens. Tim Scott, R-S.C., and Cory Booker, D-N.J.

The TCJA’s Opportunity Zones program established tax incentives to spur business investment in these low-income communities to produce economic growth. Investor tax benefits include:

• a temporary tax deferral for capital gains reinvested in a qualified opportunity fund;
• the elimination of up to 15 percent of the tax on the capital gain that is invested in the qualified opportunity fund; and
• the potential for a permanent exclusion of tax when exiting a qualified opportunity fund investment.

"Opportunity Zones are the most innovative and ambitious federal attempt to encourage long-term private investment in low-income communities in at least a generation," John Lettieri, president and CEO of Economic Innovation Group, testified. However, "investors have yet to receive the formal guidance or regulatory clarity needed to inform their decision-making," he added.

Clarity/Reporting Metrics
Witnesses told lawmakers that definitional clarity and proper reporting metrics for the Opportunity Zone program are needed. Lettieri noted that Treasury has broad authority in determining Congressional intent for defining key terms pertaining to Qualified Opportunity Zone business and investment. "These rules must be designed with practical considerations and basic market flexibility in mind. If too narrow in scope or impractical in nature, the rules would undermine the very purpose for which this incentive was created," Lettieri testified.

Additionally, John Arensmeyer, founder and CEO of Small Business Majority, stressed the importance of measuring the program’s success. Those metrics should include evaluating success "based on the number of jobs created, where those jobs are located, employee wages and the number of businesses created, particularly businesses formed by women or people of color," Arensmeyer told lawmakers.

Treasury
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin recently expressed his support for Opportunity Zones. "I couldn't be more excited about the opportunity zones," Mnuchin said in an interview last week. "I think there's going to be over $100 billion dollars in private capital that will be invested in opportunity zones," he added.

Comment. The Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) is currently reviewing proposed IRS regulations on "Capital Gains Invested in Opportunity Zones."Generally, OIRA has 45 days to review proposed regulations but may expedite the process to 10 days for rules applicable to tax reform. According to the OIRA website, the proposed rule was submitted to OIRA on September 12, and the status of review is pending.

Your 2011 tax return has been filed, or you have properly filed for an extension. In either case, now it’s time to start thinking about important post-filing season activities to save you tax in 2012 and beyond.  A few loose ends may pay dividends if you take care of them sooner instead of later.

Successful filing season

The IRS reported that the 2012 filing season moved along without significant problems. The IRS continued to upgrade its return processing programs and systems.  Early in the filing season, some filers experienced a short delay in receiving refunds but the delay was quickly resolved.  The IRS reported just before the end of the filing season that it had processed nearly 100 million returns and issued 75 million refunds. 

Extensions

Individuals are eligible for an automatic six-month extension until October 15 to file a return. To get the extension, taxpayers must estimate their tax liability and pay any amount due.  When a taxpayer properly files for an extension, he or she avoids the late-filing penalty, generally five percent per month based on the unpaid balance, which applies to returns filed after the April 17 deadline. Any payment made with an extension request will reduce or eliminate interest and late-payment penalties that apply to payments made after April 17. The current interest rate is three percent per year, compounded daily, and the late-payment penalty is normally 0.5 percent per month.

Installment agreements

Installment agreements generally can be set up quickly with the IRS and help to spread out payments to make them more manageable.  In 2012, the IRS increased the threshold for a streamlined installment agreement from $25,000 to $50,000. Installment agreements however, come with some costs.  The IRS charges a fee to set up an installment agreement.  If you cannot pay the full amount within 120 days, the fee for setting up an agreement is:

• $52 for a direct debit agreement;
• $105 for a standard agreement or payroll deduction agreement; or
• $43 for qualified lower income taxpayers.

It’s important to make your scheduled payments timely and in full. The IRS expects you to pay the minimum amount agreed on; you can always pay more if you are able.  If your installment agreement goes into default, the IRS can charge a reinstatement fee.

An installment agreement does not reduce the amount of the taxes, interest, or penalties owed, and penalties and interest will continue to accrue. In determining the amount of the penalty for failure to pay tax, the penalty is reduced from 0.5 percent per month to 0.25 percent per month during any month that an installment agreement for the unpaid tax is in effect.

You must specify the amount you can pay and the day of the month (1st-28th) on which you wish to make your payment each month. The IRS expects to receive your payment on the date you select. The IRS will respond to your request, usually within 30 days, to advise you as to whether your request has been approved or denied, or if more information is needed.

Amended returns

Taxpayers can file an amended return if they find an error, uncover unreported income or discover an item that will generate a deduction. Amended returns are filed on Use Form 1040X, Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, to correct a previously filed Form 1040, Form 1040A, Form 1040EZ, Form 1040NR, or Form 1040NR-EZ. If you are filing to claim an additional refund, wait until you have received your original refund. If you owe additional tax for a tax year for which the filing date has not passed, file Form 1040X and pay the tax by the filing date for that year to avoid penalties and interest. 

Generally, to claim a refund, Form 1040X must be filed within 3 years from the date of your original return or within two years from the date you paid the tax, whichever is later. Returns filed before the due date (without regard to extensions) are considered filed on the due date. Taxpayers must file a separate Form 1040X for each year they are amending.

Targeted penalty relief

This year – for the first time – the IRS offered penalty relief to qualified individuals who were unable to pay their taxes by the April 17 deadline. Unemployed filers and self-employed individuals whose business income dropped substantially can apply for a six-month extension of time to pay, the IRS explained. Eligible taxpayers will not be charged a late-payment penalty if they pay any tax, penalty and interest due by October 15, 2012. Taxpayers qualify if they were unemployed for any 30-day period between January 1, 2011 and April 17, 2012. Self-employed people qualify if their business income declined 25 percent or more in 2011, due to the economy.  However, income limits apply, which excluded many taxpayers from the program.

Records

The IRS advises that taxpayers maintain tax records for three years.  In many cases, especially for individuals with complex returns, records should be kept longer. Our office maintains taxpayer records with the utmost care and confidentiality.

We encourage you to contact us if you have any questions about the end of the 2011 filing season and how your 2011 return can provide a roadmap to tax savings in 2012.

After three days of oral arguments in March, the Supreme Court is deciding the fate of the Pension Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) and its companion law, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (HCERA).  Not only do the new laws impact health care, they contain numerous tax provisions, many of which have yet to take effect.  The Supreme Court may uphold the laws, strike them down in whole or in part, or decide that the case is premature.  The Supreme Court is expected to render its decision in June.  In the meantime, a quick checklist of the tax provisions in the two laws reveals how extensively they impact individuals, businesses and taxpayers of all types.

Challenges

Congress passed, and President Obama signed, the PPACA and HCERA in 2010.  Almost immediately, several states and taxpayers challenged the laws in court.  The lawsuits generally argued that Congress had exceeded its authority by requiring individuals to obtain health insurance.

The cases made their way from federal district courts to the various federal courts of appeal, which reached different conclusions.  One circuit court invalidated the individual mandate; two circuit courts upheld the individual mandate and another circuit court dismissed the challenge on procedural grounds.

Supreme Court grants review

On November 14, 2011, the United States Supreme Court agreed to review the Eleventh Circuit Court’s decision in Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  The Supreme Court stated it would examine four issues: (1) the Constitutionality of the individual mandate; (2) whether the individual mandate is severable from the PPACA; (3) whether the challenge to the individual mandate is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act^; and (4) whether PPACA’s expansion of Medicaid exceeded Congress's authority. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case on March 26-28 in Washington, D.C. 

Individual mandate and penalty

The individual mandate generally requires individuals to maintain minimum essential coverage for themselves and their dependents after 2013. Individuals will be required to pay a penalty for each month of noncompliance, unless they are exempt (such as individuals covered by Medicaid and Medicare).  The PPACA also provides tax incentives to help individuals obtain minimum essential coverage.  Beginning in 2014, individuals with incomes within certain federal poverty thresholds may qualify for a refundable health insurance premium assistance tax credit.  The PPACA also provides for advance payment of the credit.

In Florida v. HHS, the Eleventh Circuit struck down the individual health insurance mandate but did not declare the entire PPACA unconstitutional.  In contrast, the Sixth Circuit held that the individual mandate was a valid exercise of Congress’ power to regulate commerce (Thomas More Law Center v. Obama).  The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also upheld the individual mandate (Mead v. Holder).  The Supreme Court could find the entire PPACA unconstitutional or could find that the individual mandate is severable, thereby preserving other parts of the statute, including various tax provisions.

Tax provisions

While much attention has focused on the individual mandate, the Supreme Court may also decide the fate of many tax provisions in the PPACA and the HCERA. Among the tax provisions potentially affected by the Supreme Court’s decision are:

• Code Sec. 45R small employer health insurance tax credit;

• 3.8 percent Medicare contribution tax on unearned income for higher income taxpayers after 2012;

• Additional 0.9 percent Medicare tax on wages and self-employment income of higher income taxpayers after 2012;

• Increased itemized deduction for unreimbursed medical expenses after 2012;

• Prohibition on over-the-counter medicines being eligible for health flexible spending arrangement (FSA), health reimbursement arrangement (HRA), health savings account (HSA), and Archer Medical Savings Account (MSA) dollars.

• Additional tax on distributions from HSAs and Archer MSAs not used for qualified medical expenses;

• Excise tax on high-dollar health plans after 2017;

• Tax credit for therapeutic discovery projects;

• Annual fees on manufacturers and importers of branded prescription drugs;

• Reporting of employer-provided health coverage on Form W-2;

• Codification of the economic substance doctrine.

Anti-Injunction Act

The Supreme Court could decide that the challenge to the PPACA is premature.  Under the Anti-Injunction Act, a taxpayer must wait to oppose a tax until after it is collected.  The PPACA’s individual mandate and its related penalty do not take effect until 2014.  The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the penalty amounted to a tax and taxpayers could not challenge the tax until it took effect (Liberty University v. Geithner).

If you have any questions about the tax provisions in the health care reform laws, please contact our office. We will be following developments as they ensue after the Supreme Court issues its decision in June.

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

Testimony

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

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

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

JCT report

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

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

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

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

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

As an individual or business, it is your responsibility to be aware of and to meet your tax filing/reporting deadlines. This calendar summarizes important tax reporting and filing data for individuals, businesses and other taxpayers for the month of May 2012.

May 2

Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates April 25–27.

May 4

Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates April 28–May 1.

May 9

Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates May 2–4.

May 10

Employees who work for tips. Employees who received $20 or more in tips during April must report them to their employer using Form 4070.

May 11

Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates May 5–8.

May 16

Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates May 9–11.

May 18

Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates May 12–15.

May 23

Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates May 16–18.

May 25

Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates May 19–22.

May 31

Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates May 23–25.

June 1

Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates May 26–29.

The just-released 2011 IRS Data Book provides statistical information on IRS examinations, collections and other activities for the most recent fiscal year ended in 2011. The 2011 Data Book statistics, when compared to the 2010 version, shows, among other things, a notable increase in the odds of being audited within several high-income categories.

Individual audits

Individual taxpayers collectively were audited at a 1.1% rate over the FY 2011 period, based on 1,564,690 audited returns out of the 140,837,499 returns that were filed. While this rate is about the same as in 2010, variations occurred within the income ranges. An uptick was particularly noticeable in the upper brackets (see statistics, below).

Both correspondence and field audits were counted within the statistics. Correspondence audits accounted for 75% of all audits for FY 2011 (down from 77.1% in FY 2010), while audits conducted face-to-face by revenue agents were only 25% of the total, albeit representing an increase from the 21.7% level in FY 2010. Business returns and higher-income individuals are more likely to experience an audit by a revenue agent; while correspondence audits are generally single-issue audits, a revenue agent is likely to explore other issues "while he or she is there."

Examination coverage: individuals

The following audit statistics taken from the FY 2011 Data Book (and contrasted with FY 2010 Data Book stats) show an increase in the audit rate especially in proportion to adjusted gross income (AGI) level:

• No AGI: 3.42% (3.19% in 2010)
• Under $25K: 1.22% (1.18% in 2010)
• $25K-$50K: 0.73% (0.73% in 2010)
• $50K-$75K: 0.83% (0.78% in 2010)
• $75K-$100K: 0.82% (0.64% in 2010)
• $100K-$200K: 1.00% (0.71% in 2010)
• $200K-$500K: 2.66% (1.92% in 2010)
• $500K-$1M: 5.38% (3.37% in 2010)
• $1M-$5M: 11.80% (6.67% in 2010)
• $5M-$10M: 20.75% (11.55% in 2010)
• $10M and over: 29.93% (18.38% in 2010)

Examination coverage: business returns

For individual income tax returns that include business income (other than farm returns), the 2011 audit rate statistics based upon business income (total gross receipts) reveals the IRS's recognition that audits of small business returns yield proportionately higher deficiency amounts:

• Gross receipts under $25K: 1.3% (1.2% in 2010)
• Gross receipts $25K to $100K: 2.9% (2.5% in 2010)
• Gross receipts $100K to $200K: 4.3% (4.7% in 2010)
• Gross receipts over $200K: 3.8% (3.3% in 2010)

The difference in audit rates between returns with and without business income, as measured by total positive income of at least $200K and under $1M provide further evidence of the IRS's tendency toward auditing business returns: 3.6% for returns with business income versus 3.2% without in FY 2011 (2.9% versus 2.5% in FY 2010).

Corporate/other returns

The audit rates for corporations are consistent with the deficiency experience that the IRS has had examining corporations of varying sizes. Some selected audit rates include:

• For small corporations showing total assets of $250K to $1M, the audit rate for FY 2011 was 1.6% (1.4% in 2010); $1M to $5 million, the rate was 1.9% (1.7% in 2010), and for $5M to $10M, the rate was 2.6% (3% in 2010).
• For larger corporations showing total assets of $10M-$50M, the audit rate was 13.3% (13.4% in 2010) in contrast to those at the top end with total assets from $5B to $20B (50.5% (45.3% in 2010)).
• For S corporations and partnerships, the overall audit rate was 0.4% (same as in 2010), in contrast to an overall 1.5% rate for corporations (1.4% in 2010).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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