Morris, Paris & Associates

Just hours before government funding was set to expire, President Trump on March 23 signed the bipartisan Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, averting a government shutdown. The $1.3 trillion fiscal year 2018 omnibus spending package, which provides funding for the government and federal agencies through September 30, contains several tax provisions and increased IRS funding.

The House approved the spending bill by a 256-to-167 vote on March 22. The Senate cleared the measure by a 65-to-32 vote.

Grain Glitch
The so-called "grain glitch" addressed within the omnibus package aims to fix an unintended consequence in the "pass-through" income deduction. The deduction is provided in new Code Sec. 199A, which was enacted last December as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97).

Before the fix, grain and other agricultural products sold to cooperatives received a tax advantage because those sales were deductible from a farmer’s gross sales. Sales to companies other than cooperatives were deductible only from net business income. The inadvertent advantage had been given to cooperatives as part of a drafting error, according to several Republican lawmakers.

The appropriations bill repeals the provision in Code Sec. 199A that allowed farmers to deduct 20 percent of their gross sales to cooperatives. As modified, the deduction is now limited to 20 percent of farmers’ net income, excluding capital gains. "This legislation restores the competitive balance in the agricultural marketplace by leveling the tax burden on independent and cooperative farming businesses," Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., said in a March 22 statement. The bill also modifies the deduction that is allowed to agricultural or horticultural cooperatives.

Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
Although Democrats have previously expressed an unwillingness to help Republicans correct issues within the new tax law, the parties agreed to the grain glitch fix in exchange for an expansion of the low-income house tax credit. The expansion is also included in the spending bill.

"This is the first increase in over a decade," Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wa., said on March 22. "Nearly $3 billion is a good start towards tackling the housing crisis in our cities and rural communities," she added. Cantwell spearheaded the efforts among Democrats for the credit’s expansion.

Technical Corrections
Numerous other technical corrections to previous tax bills spanning from 2004-2016 were included in the spending bill, none of which specifically address the TCJA. Included among the fixes are technical corrections to the partnership audit rules.

IRS Funding
The legislation provides the IRS with $11.43 billion in funding, close to $196 million more than currently enacted levels. $320 million is allocated specifically for implementation of the TCJA. The Trump administration had requested $397 million for implementation of the new tax law. According to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, the increased resources would provide an update to antiquated telephone systems and technology.

White House
President Trump rattled Capitol Hill on March 23 when he announced just hours before government funding was set to expire that he may not sign the government spending bill. Although Mick Mulvaney, Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) said on March 22 that the President would sign the omnibus package, President Trump took to Twitter on March 23 to suggest otherwise. "I am considering a veto of the omnibus spending bill…," Trump said in a tweet.

While Trump did, in fact, wind up signing the spending bill, which tops 2,200 pages, he told reporters at the White House that he was "unhappy" to do so. Trump criticized the $1.3 trillion omnibus package for being the second largest in history. "I say to Congress, I will never sign another bill like this again. I’m not going to do it again. Nobody read it. It’s only hours old," Trump said.

Close

The American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) has renewed its call for immediate guidance on new Code Sec. 199A. The AICPA highlighted questions about qualified business income (QBI) of pass-through income under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97). "Taxpayers and practitioners need clarity regarding QBI in order to comply with their 2018 tax obligations," the AICPA said in a February 21 letter to the Service.

New Deduction
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act created Code Sec. 199A. The deduction is temporary and begins this year.

Generally, qualified taxpayers may deduct up to 20 percent of domestic QBI from a partnership, S corporation or sole proprietorship. Congress put in place a limitation based on wages paid, or on wages paid plus a capital element, among other requirements. Certain service trades or businesses generally may not take advantage of the deduction but there are exceptions.

Almost immediately after passage of the new tax law, the AICPA and other tax professional groups urged on the IRS to move quickly on guidance. Recently, the National Society of Accountants (NSA) reported that the IRS would issue guidance on Code Sec. 199A this summer.

Immediate Concern
The AICPA identified several areas of immediate concern. They are:

Definition of Code Sec. 199A qualified business income.
Aggregation method for calculation of QBI of pass-through businesses.
Deductible amount of QBI for a pass-through entity with business in net loss.
Qualification of wages paid by an employee leasing company.
Application of Code Sec. 199A to an owner of a fiscal year pass-through entity ending in 2018.
Availability of deduction for Electing Small Business Trusts (ESBTs).

Services
The AICPA asked the IRS to describe what activities are included in the definition of a services trade or business. "The guidance should clarify that the definition of the term ‘accounting services’ includes any services associated with the determination of tax liabilities including preparation, tax planning, cost segregation services, services rendered with respect to tax credits and deductions, and similar consultative services,"the AICPA told the Service.

Close

A top House tax writer has confirmed that House Republicans and the Trump administration are working on a second phase of tax reform this year. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Tex., said in an interview that the Trump administration and House Republicans "think more can be done."

A Ways and Means spokesperson told Wolters Kluwer on March 15 that "there are opportunities in making individual tax cuts permanent, increasing innovation, [and] encouraging household savings."Confirmation that House GOP tax writers are mulling additional tax changes to the tax code comes just days after President Trump announced that he and House Republicans are very serious about working on a “phase-two” of tax reform. Trump quipped that Brady is the "king of tax cuts."

Individual Tax Cuts
Among expected changes, in particular, the temporary individual tax cuts enacted under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) could be made permanent, a Ways and Means spokesperson told Wolters Kluwer. For budgetary reasons, the cuts to individual tax rates and benefits were not made permanent under the new law. "While the tax cuts for families were long-term, they are not yet permanent, so we’re going to address issues like that," Brady said.

Criticism
Democratic lawmakers remain largely united in their criticisms of the TCJA. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., criticized the new tax law in a March 15 news conference for "giving 83 percent of the benefits to the top 1 percent, ultimately raising taxes for 86 million middle-class families while contending that it's a middle-class tax cut."

To that end, across the U.S. Capitol, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer has said Democrats would be reluctant to work with Republicans in making any fixes to the new tax law unless Republicans would be willing to address Democrats’ concerns with the law, as well. "We don't have much of an inclination, unless they want to open up other parts of the tax bill that we think need changes, to just help them clean up the mess they made," Schumer said.

Looking Forward
"Mainstream optimism is at record levels, our economy is really gaining momentum and booming in a big way," Brady said. "We’re always looking to improve the tax code," he said, adding that lawmakers are currently considering new ideas for tax reform. "We think there are some good ones." Lawmakers will not combine additional tax reform measures with technical corrections to the existing TCJA, according to Brady, emphasizing that any significant changes to come will be new ideas.

Close

The House Ways and Means Tax Policy Subcommittee held a March 14 hearing in which lawmakers and stakeholders examined the future of various temporary tax extenders post-tax reform. Over 30 tax breaks, which included energy and fuel credits, among others, were retroactively extended for the 2017 tax year in the Bipartisan Budget Act ( P.L. 115-123) enacted in February.

Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers have varying views on specific temporary tax provisions, but in general, seem to have largely been in agreement that year-end tax extenders are not good policy. New to the discussion, however, is whether such provisions are worthwhile now that business tax rates have been lowered along with full and immediate expensing under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97).

New Path Forward
The Ways and Means Committee is "charting a new path forward on temporary tax provisions,"Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Tex., said in his opening statement. "Temporary measures are rarely good tax policy."

According to Brady, numerous tax extenders only exist because of the previously outdated tax code and high tax rates. But now that tax reform has been enacted, these temporary tax breaks may serve less of a purpose. "Starting now, we’re going to apply a rigorous test to these temporary provisions,"Brady said.

To that end, Tax Policy Subcommittee Chairman Vern Buchanan, R-Fla., said that any temporary tax provision determined as no longer necessary post-tax reform should be eliminated. And, as for those that continue to serve an important role and enhance tax reform, permanence should be considered.

Tax Policy Subcommittee ranking member Lloyd Doggett, D-Tex., also weighing in on the issue, said that any temporary tax provisions that will remain need to be paid for moving forward. Additionally, Doggett criticized Republicans for not holding enough hearings on the TCJA, as well as the specific tax extenders currently under review. Doing so, he added, would enable needed discussion on relevancy as well as pay-fors.

Panels
Witnesses at the hearing were grouped into four panels, three of which consisted of several representatives from various industries including fuel, energy, and real estate. The other included witnesses from several think tanks and research organizations.

Generally, industry stakeholders argued that many of these temporary tax breaks remain important, even after tax reform. Buchanan, however, repeatedly asked witnesses why additional incentives were needed after tax cuts and full expensing were provided through tax reform under the TCJA. Several Republican lawmakers, including Buchanan, stated that tax provisions only add to the uncertainty of the tax system.

Several industry witnesses argued, in essence, that not all tax extenders are created equally and should thus be evaluated individually. Barry Grooms, testifying on behalf of the National Association of Realtors, told lawmakers that the tax exclusion for forgiven mortgage debt is unique and should be made a permanent part of our tax law. "Since it was first added to the Internal Revenue Code in 2007, this provision has provided much-needed financial relief for millions of distressed households,"Grooms testified. This exclusion makes the tax system fairer, Grooms added, stating that it provides assistance to families experiencing hardships.

Policy
Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, told lawmakers that tax extenders are generally poor policy and that most should be allowed to sunset. According to MacGuineas, not only do tax extenders add to the federal deficit, the temporary nature of tax extenders makes it difficult for businesses and individuals to plan and invest. "To be sure, there are sometimes legitimate reasons for temporary tax policy – to respond to a natural disaster or economic downturn, to test effectiveness, or to provide transition relief – but most of the tax extenders are temporary simply to hide their budgetary cost," MacGuineas testifed.

Likewise, David Burton, senior fellow in economic policy at The Heritage Foundation, spoke to the costliness of tax extenders. Burton testified that 13 energy tax extenders are unwarranted. "At roughly $53 billion over ten years, the revenue lost from these provisions is substantial," Burton included in his written testimony. Additionally, Burton told lawmakers that tax extenders make the tax system less fair.

Seth Hanlon, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, criticized Congress for not addressing tax extenders in the TCJA. Furthermore, Hanlon told lawmakers that tax extenders not only make the tax code more unstable and add to the federal deficit, but also complicate the IRS’s job during filing season.

"Congress should have ended the gimmicky routine on tax extenders long ago, and certainly should have done so in legislation that was billed as a once-in-a-generation tax reform," Hanlon testified. "But, better late than never."

Close

The IRS has released Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) to address a taxpayer’s filing obligations and payment requirements with respect to the Code Sec. 965 transition tax, enacted as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Creation Act ( P.L. 115-97). The instructions in the FAQs are for filing 2017 returns with an amount of Code Sec. 965 tax. Failure to follow the FAQs could result in difficulties in processing the returns. Taxpayers who are required to file electronically are asked to wait until April 2, 2018, to file returns so that the IRS can make system changes.

In general, Code Sec. 965 imposes a one-time tax on the untaxed post-1986 foreign earnings of foreign subsidiaries of U.S. shareholders by deeming the earnings to be repatriated. The foreign earnings held in the form of cash and cash equivalents are taxed at a 15.5 percent rate, and remaining earnings are taxed at an 8 percent rate. The taxpayer may elect to pay the tax in installments over eight years.

Amounts must be reported by a U.S. shareholders of deferred foreign income corporation (DFIC) or by a direct or indirect partner in a domestic partnership, a shareholder in an S corporation, or a beneficiary of another passthrough entity that is a U.S. shareholder of a DFIC.

The Appendix to Q&A 2 contains a table that describes, separately for individuals and entities, how items should be reported on the 2017 tax return. For example, an individual reports the Code Sec. 965(a) amount on Form 1040, Line 21, with the notation SEC 965 on the dotted line to the left of the Line.

A person with income under Code Sec. 965 is required to include with its return an IRC 965 Transition Tax Statement, signed under penalties of perjury, and in the case of an electronically filed return, in pdf format with the filename 965 tax. A Model statement is provided. Adequate records must be kept supporting the Code Sec. 965 inclusion amount, the deduction under Code Sec. 965(c), the net tax liability under Code Sec. 965, and any other underlying calculations of these amounts.

The FAQs provide details on how to make the multiple Code Sec. 965 elections, including the election to pay the tax in installments over eight years. For each election, a statement must be attached to the return and signed under the penalties of perjury, and in the case of an electronically filed return, in pdf format.

Form 5471 must also be filed with the 2017 return of a U.S. shareholder of a specified foreign corporation, regardless of whether the specified foreign corporation is a controlled foreign corporation. A statement containing information about the Code Sec. 965(a) inclusion must be attached to the Schedule K-1s of domestic partnerships, S corporations, or other passthrough entities.

Tax must be paid in two separate payments. One payment will reflect the tax owed, without Code Sec. 965. The second payment is the Code Sec. 965 payment. Both payments must be made by the due date of the applicable return (without extensions). Additional details for paying the tax are provided in the FAQs.

Persons who have already filed a 2017 tax return should consider filing an amended return based on the information in these FAQs and Appendices.

Close

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed an individual’s conviction for obstructing tax law administration. The government failed to show that the individual knew that a "proceeding" was pending when he engaged in the obstructive conduct.

Background
The individual owned and operated a freight service that transported items to and from the United States and Canada. The government charged the individual with violating the "omnibus clause" of Code Sec. 7212(a), which imposes criminal liability on anyone who "in any other way corruptly … obstructs or impedes, or endeavors to obstruct or impede, the due administration of" the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26).

The government alleged that the individual obstructed tax administration because he: (1) failed to maintain corporate books and records; (2) failed to provide his accountant with complete and accurate tax information; (3) destroyed business records; (4) was hiding income; and (5) was paying employees with cash. At trial, the jury was instructed that it must unanimously find that he corruptly engaged in one of the practices listed. However, the jury was not instructed that it had to find that the individual knew he was under investigation and intended to interfere with that investigation. Subsequently, the jury convicted the individual on all counts. Then, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction.

Tax Law Administration
The Supreme Court reversed and remanded. According to the Court, the verbs "obstruct" and "impede" require an object. Therefore, the taxpayer must hinder a particular person or thing. Moreover, the omnibus clause serves as a "catchall" for the obstructive conduct, not as a catchall for every violation that interferes with tax law administration.

Nothing in the statute’s history suggested that Congress intended the omnibus clause to apply to the entire Internal Revenue Code, including the routine processing of tax returns, tax payments and tax refunds. Further, if the omnibus clause applied to all tax law administration, many tax misdemeanors might turn into felonies and make specific criminal provisions in the Code redundant. Accordingly, the phrase "due administration of" the tax code referred only to some acts, not everything the IRS does.

Overly Broad Interpretation
A broad interpretation of the omnibus clause would also risk the lack of fair warning. Interpreted broadly, the provision could apply to a person who paid a babysitter in cash without withholding taxes, left a large cash tip in a restaurant, failed to keep donation receipts, or failed to provide every record to their accountant. Such individuals may know they are violating an IRS rule. However, they would not think they could be prosecuted for obstruction. Further, if Congress intended that outcome, it should have made that clear in the statute.

Government’s Argument
Further, the Court rejected the government’s argument that the need to show the obstructive conduct was corrupt cured any overbreath problem. However, a taxpayer who "willfully" violates the tax code intends someone to obtain an unlawful advantage. Moreover, relying upon prosecutorial discretion to narrow an otherwise overbroad statute puts too much power in the hands of the prosecutor, and risks undermining public confidence in the criminal justice system. Therefore, to secure a conviction under the omnibus clause, the government was required to show that there was a nexus between the individual’s conduct and an investigation, audit or other targeted administrative action.

Reversing and remanding a CA-2 decision 2016-2 ustc ¶50,453.

Close

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.

Close

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.

Close

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.”

Close

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.

Close

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).

Close

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.

Close