The IRS has released new proposed rules related to charitable contributions made to get around the $10,000/$5,000 cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions. The proposed regulations:

The IRS has released new proposed rules related to charitable contributions made to get around the $10,000/$5,000 cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions. The proposed regulations:

• incorporate the safe harbor in Notice 2019-12 for individuals who have any portion of a charitable deduction disallowed to the receipt of SALT benefits;
• incorporate the safe harbor in Rev. Proc. 2019-12 for business entities to deduct certain payments made to a charitable organization in exchange for SALT benefits; and
• clarify the application of the quid pro quo principle under Code Sec. 170 to benefits received or expected to be received by the donor from a third party.

SALT Limit

An individual’s itemized deduction of SALT taxes is limited to $10,000 ($5,000 if married filing separately) for tax years beginning after 2017. Some states and local governments have adopted laws that allowed individuals to receive a state tax credit for contributions to certain charitable funds. These laws are aimed at getting around the SALT deduction limit by creating a charitable deduction for federal income tax purposes.

The IRS issued final regulations in June 2019 that provide that the receipt of a SALT credit for a charitable contribution is the receipt of a return benefit (quid pro quo benefit). Thus, the taxpayer must reduce any contribution deduction by the amount of any SALT credit received or expected to receive in return. The regulations contain a de minimis exception if the SALT credit does not exceed 15 percent of the taxpayer’s charitable payment.

A taxpayer is not required to reduce the charitable contribution deduction because of the receipt of SALT deductions. However, the taxpayer must reduce the charitable deduction if it receives or expects to receive SALT deductions in excess of the taxpayer’s payment or the fair market value of property transferred.

Payments by Individuals

A safe harbor was provided in Notice 2019-12 for individuals who have a portion of a charitable deduction disallowed due to the receipt of a SALT credit. Under the safe harbor, any disallowed portion of the charitable contribution deduction may be treated as the payment of SALT taxes for the purposes of deducting taxes under Code Sec. 164.

The new proposed regulations incorporate the safe harbor in Notice 2019-12. The safe harbor is allowed in the tax year the charitable payment is made, but only to the extent that the SALT credit is applied as provided under state or local law to offset the individual’s SALT liability for the current or preceding tax year. Any unused credit may be carried forward as provided under state and local law.

Payments by Business Entities

The IRS also provided a safe harbor in Rev. Proc. 2019-12 that business entities may continue to deduct charitable contributions in exchange a SALT credit. A business entity may deduct the payments as ordinary and necessary business expenses under Code Sec. 162 if made for a business purpose.

The new proposed regulations incorporate the safe harbor in Rev. Proc. 2019-12. If a C corporation or specified pass-through entity makes the charitable payment in exchange for a SALT credit, it may deduct the payment as a business expense to the extent of any SALT credit received or expected to be received. In addition, the new proposal provides that if the charitable payment bears a direct relationship to the taxpayer’s business then it may be deducted as a business expense rather than a charitable contribution regardless of whether the taxpayer receives or expects to receive a SALT credit.

Benefits Received from Third Party

If a taxpayer receives any goods, services, or other benefits from a charitable organization in consideration for a contribution, then the charitable deduction must be reduced by the value of those benefits. If the contribution exceeds the fair market value of the benefits received, then only the excess is a deductible as a charitable contribution.

The new proposed regulations clarify that this quid pro quo principal applies regardless of whether the party providing the goods, services, or other benefits is the charitable organization or not. A taxpayer will be treated under the proposal as receiving goods and services in consideration for the taxpayer’s charitable contribution if, at the time the taxpayer makes the payment or transfer, the taxpayer receives or expects to receive goods or services in return.

Final regulations provide rules on the attribution of ownership of stock or other interests, for determining whether a person is a related person with respect to a controlled foreign corporation (CFC) under the foreign base company sales income rules. The regulations also provide rules to determine whether a CFC receives rents in the active conduct of a trade or business, for determining the exception from foreign personal holding company income.

Final regulations provide rules on the attribution of ownership of stock or other interests, for determining whether a person is a related person with respect to a controlled foreign corporation (CFC) under the foreign base company sales income rules. The regulations also provide rules to determine whether a CFC receives rents in the active conduct of a trade or business, for determining the exception from foreign personal holding company income.

The regulations adopt without change, proposed regulations published on May 20, 2019 ( NPRM REG-125135-15).

Attribution of Ownership

The regulations provide specific rules for applying principles similar to those in the Code Sec. 958(b) constructive ownership rules when determining related person status under the foreign base company sales income rules. The determination of related person status is relevant for many purposes, including whether certain types of income can be characterized as subpart F foreign base company sales or service income.

A person is a related person with respect to a CFC if the person is:

• an individual who controls the CFC,
• an entity that controls or is controlled by the CFC, or
• an entity that is controlled by the same person that controls the CFC.

Rules similar to those for determining stock ownership in Code Sec. 958 apply for purposes of determining whether a person is a related person. The regulations limit the application of the downward attribution rules in Code Sec. 318(a)(3), which apply by reference to the Code Sec. 958 stock ownership rules, and which attribute ownership downward from the owner of an entity to an entity. The downward attribution rules are applied regardless of the size of the ownership interest in a partnership, estate, or trust, but are applied to corporations based on a 50-percent or more ownership interest.

The regulations address concern that application of the downward attribution rules could inappropriately treat entities (including CFCs) that do not have significant relationships with each other as related persons. Accordingly, the regulations provide that the downward attribution rules of Code Sec. 318(a)(3) and Reg. §1.958-2(d) will not apply for purposes of determining related person status under the foreign base company sales income rules.

The change does not preclude a corporation, partnership, trust, or estate from being treated as controlled by the same person or persons that control the CFC under other rules that remain applicable for the related person rules.

Additionally, an anti-abuse rule is provided with respect to the option attribution rule in Code Sec. 318(a)(4). The option attribution rule in Code Sec. 318(a)(4) and Reg. §1.958-2(e) will not be applied to treat a person with an option as owning the stock or an equity interest for purposes of the related person rule if the principal purpose of using the option was to cause a person to be treated as a related person.

The regulations also incorporate a similar rule issued in section 7(d) of Notice 2007-9, 2007-1 CB 401. The rule applies if the principal purpose for the use of an option is to qualify dividends, interest, rents or royalties paid by a foreign corporation for the Code Sec. 954(c)(6) CFC look-through exception from foreign personal holding company income. The rule applies to tax years of CFCs beginning after December 31, 2006, and ending before November 19, 2019, and to tax years of U.S. shareholders in which or with which such tax years end.

Personal Holding Company Income

The regulations modify the foreign personal holding company rules for amounts paid or incurred by a CFC in connection with the CFC’s rental income and the active rents exception. Rents are excluded from foreign personal holding company income if the rents are:

• received from a person other than a related person, and
• from the active conduct of a trade or business.

If rents are from leasing property as a result of marketing activities, there must be a substantial marketing organization in order to meet the active trade or business test. Under a safe harbor, an organization is substantial if active leasing expenses equal or exceed 25 percent of adjusted leasing profit. If the CFC receives rents from property it does not own, the substantiality of the organization is determined net of those rent payments.

The regulations extend the rule to apply to royalties in addition to rents. As a result, the substantiality of the organization is determined under the safe harbor net of the rents or royalties paid or incurred by the lessor CFC, for the right to use the property (or a component part of the property) that generated the rental income.

Applicability Date

The regulations generally apply to tax years of CFCs ending on or after November 19, 2019, and to tax years of U.S. shareholders in which or with which such tax years end. The regulations on the downward attribution rule, and the option anti-abuse rule for use of the option to treat a person as a related person with respect to a CFC, apply to tax years of CFCs ending on or after May 17, 2019, and to tax years of U.S. shareholders in which or with which such tax years end, with respect to amounts received or accrued by a CFC on or after May 17, 2019, to the extent the amounts are received or accrued in advance of the period to which such amounts are attributable with a principal purpose of avoiding application of the rules.

The IRS has issued final and proposed regulations implementing the base erosion and anti-abuse tax (BEAT) under Code Sec. 59A. The BEAT is a minimum tax that certain large corporations must pay on certain payments made to foreign related parties, and was added by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97).

The IRS has issued final and proposed regulations implementing the base erosion and anti-abuse tax (BEAT) under Code Sec. 59A. The BEAT is a minimum tax that certain large corporations must pay on certain payments made to foreign related parties, and was added by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97).

The final regulations adopt proposed rules ( REG-104259-18) published on December 21, 2018 (2018 proposed regulations), with certain modifications. The proposed regulations ( REG-112607-19) (2019 proposed regulations) provide rules under Code Secs. 59A and 6031 regarding certain aspects of the BEAT.

Final Regulations

The 2018 proposed regulations provided guidance related to the mechanics of determining a taxpayer’s BEAT liability, and addressed application of the BEAT to partnerships, banks, registered security dealers, and consolidated groups. The final BEAT regulations retain the basic approach and structure of the 2018 proposed regulations, with certain revisions.

The final regulations continue to be exclude from the denominator of the base erosion percentage Code Sec. 988 losses with respect to transactions with foreign related parties that are excluded from the numerator of the percentage. The final regulations also retain the add-back method for computing modified taxable income and the computation of base erosion minimum tax amount (BEMTA) on a taxpayer-by-taxpayer basis.

Among some of the more significant changes to the proposed rules, the final regulations:

• adopt the "with-or-within" method to determine the gross receipts and the base erosion percentage of an aggregate group;
• disregard transactions between parties if both parties were members of the aggregate group at the time of the transaction;
• exclude the base erosion tax benefits and deductions attributable to the tax year of a member of an aggregate group that begins before January 1, 2018;
• clarify that payments resulting in a reduction to determine gross income are not treated as base erosion payments;
• require that the determination of whether a payment or accrual is a base erosion payment be made under general U.S. federal income tax law;
• clarify the definition of a "base erosion payment," and generally exclude amounts transferred to, or exchanged with, a foreign related party in certain corporate nonrecognition transactions from that definition;
• clarify the rules for determining the portion of U.S. branch interest paid to foreign related parties;
• provide rules for the treatment of an interest expense determined under a U.S. tax treaty;
  include additional detail on the documentation required to satisfy the service cost method (SCM) exception;
• modify the total loss-absorbing capacity (TLAC) exception;
• provide that the additional one percent add-on to the BEAT rate will not apply to a taxpayer that is part of an affiliated group with de minimis banking and securities dealer activities;
• provide that Code Sec. 15 applies only to the change in tax rate set forth in Code Sec. 59A(b)(2) and should not apply to the change in tax rate included in Code Sec. 59A(b)(1)(A) for tax years beginning in calendar year 2018;
• change the Qualified Derivative Payments (QDP) exception;
• clarify the rules regarding how partnerships and their partners are treated for purposes of the BEAT; and
• clarify the anti-abuse rule and certain rules applicable to insurance companies and consolidated groups.

Applicability Dates

The final regulations (other than the reporting requirements for QDPs) apply to tax years ending on or after December 17, 2018. However, taxpayers may apply these final regulations in their entirety for tax years ending before December 17, 2018. Taxpayers may also apply provisions matching Reg. §§1.59A-1 through 1.59A-9 in their entirety for all tax years ending on or before December 6, 2019. Taxpayers choosing to apply the proposed regulations must apply them consistently and cannot selectively choose which particular provisions to apply.

The related Code Sec. 6038A regulations apply to tax years beginning Monday, June 7, 2021. The related consolidated return regulations generally apply to tax years for which the original consolidated return is due (without extensions) after December 6, 2019.

2019 Proposed Regulations

The 2019 proposed regulations provide rules regarding relating to (1) how a taxpayer determines its aggregate group for purposes of determining gross receipts and the base erosion percentage; (2) an election to waive deductions; and (3) application of the BEAT to partnerships.

The 2019 proposed regulations generally apply to tax years beginning on or after the date that the final regulations are filed with the Federal Register. Certain rules, however, have specific applicability dates. In addition, taxpayers may rely on the rules in the proposed regulations in their entirety for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, and before the final regulations are applicable.

Practitioner’s Observations

Arlene Fitzpatrick, a Principal in the National Tax Department of Ernst & Young LLP, told Wolters Kluwer that "there are changes and new proposed rules in the package of final and proposed regulations that are helpful, though not all changes requested through the comment process were made. For example, the rules in the final regulations to exclude, in certain circumstances, from the definition of a base erosion payment amounts transferred to, or exchanged with, a foreign related party pursuant to a specified nonrecognition transaction are welcome. Furthermore, clarifying that a built-in loss recognized on a sale or transfer of property to a foreign related party is not in itself a deduction that causes the payment to be treated as a base erosion payment is helpful. The final regulations however, retain the internal dealings rule whereby a notional payment for purposes of attribution of profits under certain tax treaties may be taken into account for purposes of determining BEAT. Thus, although deductions from internal dealings would not be allowed under the Code or regulations, and only relevant under certain treaties (the regulations do not specify the treaties), the regulations provide such amounts are relevant for purposes of determining BEAT."

The IRS has issued highly anticipated final regulations on the significant changes made to the foreign tax credit rules by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97). The final regulations retain the basic approach and structure of the 2018 proposed regulations ( NPRM REG-105600-18). The final regulations also eliminate deadwood, reflect statutory amendments made prior to TCJA, and update expense allocation rules not updated since 1988.

The IRS has issued highly anticipated final regulations on the significant changes made to the foreign tax credit rules by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97). The final regulations retain the basic approach and structure of the 2018 proposed regulations ( NPRM REG-105600-18). The final regulations also eliminate deadwood, reflect statutory amendments made prior to TCJA, and update expense allocation rules not updated since 1988.

Also adopted are proposed regulations on overall foreign losses, published on June 25, 2012 ( NPRM REG-134935-11), and a U.S. taxpayer’s obligation to notify the IRS of a foreign tax redetermination, published on November 7, 2007 ( NPRM REG-209020-86).

A separate set of 2019 proposed regulations were also issued ( NPRM REG-105495-19).

Final Regulations

The final regulations make extensive changes to the rules on the determination of the foreign tax credit. Many of these changes were required to implement the TCJA, including the items discussed, below.

The final regulations provide details on how income is assigned and expenses are apportioned to the Code Sec. 951A global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI) and foreign branch foreign tax credit separate limitation categories added by TCJA.

The regulations provide that, for purposes of applying the expense allocation and apportionment rules, the portion of gross income related to foreign derived intangible income (FDII) or a GILTI inclusion that is offset by a Code Sec. 250 deduction is treated as exempt income. This means that fewer expenses will be allocated to the GILTI category, resulting in a higher foreign source taxable income, a higher foreign tax credit limitation, and a larger foreign tax credit offset with respect to GILTI income.

The regulations also address how the balance of foreign tax credit carryovers prior to the TCJA are allocated across new and existing separate categories. Under a default rule, foreign tax credit carryovers remain in the general category going forward. A taxpayer can elect to reconstruct the carryover regarding a foreign branch. The final regulations provide a simplified rule under which taxpayers can assign foreign tax credits to the foreign branch category proportionately, according to the ratio of foreign taxes paid or accrued by the taxpayer’s branches to total foreign taxes paid or accrued by the taxpayer in that year.

The regulations modify the proposed rule for determining foreign branch income based on the U.S. tax-adjusted books and records of the foreign branch. The proposed regulations disregarded transfers of intellectual property (IP) between a foreign branch and its owner if the transfer would result in a deemed payment that reallocates income between the foreign branch category and the general branch category. The final regulations limit the rule to transactions that occurred after the date of the proposed regulations and include an exception for transitory ownership.

The regulations provide rules for the treatment of GILTI for purposes of the interest allocation rules. In general, a controlled foreign corporation (CFC) must allocate and apportion its interest expense among groups of income for purposes of determining tested income, subpart F income and other types of net foreign source income. A U.S. taxpayer must characterize the value of its CFC for allocating and apportioning its own interest expense. A CFC allocates and apportions its interest expense using either the modified gross income (MGI) method or the asset method. The U.S. taxpayer uses the same method to characterize the stock of its CFC. The regulations take into account gross tested income from a lower-tier CFC with respect to an upper-tier CFC for allocating the upper-tier CFC’s interest expense when applying the MGI method.

Dividends, interest, rents and royalties (look-through payments) paid to a U.S. shareholder by a CFC were generally allocated to general category income to the extent that they were not treated as passive category income. Because this type of payment made directly by a U.S. shareholder is not included in the GILTI category, the regulations provide that the look-through payments are assigned either to the general category or the foreign branch category. The payments cannot be assigned to the GILTI category.

The final regulations also address certain potentially abusive borrowing arrangements involving loans by U.S. persons to foreign partnerships that artificially increase foreign source income and the foreign tax credit limitation without affecting U.S. taxable income. Under the regulations, the interest income attributable to borrowing through a partnership is allocated across the foreign tax credit separate limitation categories in the same manner as the associated interest expense.

Applicability of Final Regs

The final regulations related to statutory amendments made by the TCJA apply to tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. Regulations that contain both rules that relate to the TCJA and rules that do not relate to the TCJA generally apply to tax years that both (1) begin after December 31, 2017, and (2) end on or after December 4, 2018.

The regulations on the deemed paid credit under Code Sec. 960 apply to tax years that both begin after December 31, 2017, and end on or after December 4, 2018. The final OFL regulations apply to tax years on or after the date the regulations are filed in the Federal Register. The final foreign tax redetermination regulations apply to foreign tax redeterminations occurring in tax years ending on or after the date the regulations are filed in the Federal Register.

Proposed Regulations

Proposed foreign tax credit regulations address changes made by the TCJA, and also respond to issues raised in the 2018 proposed regulations on the foreign tax credit ( NPRM REG-105600-18). The proposed regulations address:

• the allocation and apportionment of deductions under Code Sec. 861 through Code Sec. 865;
• the definition of "financial services income" under Code Sec. 904(d)(2)(D);
• the allocation and apportionment of creditable foreign taxes;
• the interaction of branch loss and dual consolidated loss recapture rules under Code Sec. 904(f) and Code Sec. 904(g);
• the effect of Code Sec. 905(c) foreign tax redeterminations of foreign corporations on the high-tax exception in Code Sec. 954(b)(4) and the required notification and penalty provisions;
• the definition of "personal holding company income" under Code Sec. 954; and
• the application of the foreign tax credit limitation rule to consolidated groups.

Allocation and Apportionment

Under the general rule, a taxpayer may allocate research and experimentation (R&E) expenses to the foreign tax credit separate limitation categories under the sales method or the gross income method. The proposed regulations revise the sales method to provide that R&E expenses are only allocated to income that represents return on intellectual property. When applying these rules, gross intangible income does not include dividends or amounts included under subpart F, GILTI or Code Sec. 1293. As a result, none of a U.S. taxpayer’s R&E expenses are allocated to the GILTI category. The proposed regulations eliminate the gross income method for purposes of allocating R&E expenses.

Stewardship expenses are related and allocable to dividends received or to be received from related corporations. The proposed regulations provide that stewardship expenses are allocated to subpart F and GILTI inclusions, to Code Sec. 78 dividends and all amounts included under the passive foreign investment company (PFIC) provisions.

Under the Code Sec. 818(f) allocation rules that apply to life insurance companies, expenses are generally apportioned ratably across all gross income. Under a new rule, the proposed regulations allocate expenses in a life-nonlife consolidated group solely among items of the insurance company that has reserves (separate entity method).

The final foreign tax credit limitations provide a matching rule for a U.S. partner that makes loans to a foreign partnership. Under the rule, the partner’s gross interest income is apportioned between U.S. and foreign sources in each separate foreign tax credit limitation category based on the partner’s interest expense apportionment ratios. The proposed regulations provide the same rule for loans from partnerships to U.S. partners (upstream partnership loans).

Redeterminations

Portions of the 2007 temporary regulations on foreign tax redeterminations ( T.D. 9362) are reproposed so that taxpayers can provide comments on the rules in light of the changes made by the TCJA. The proposed regulations address foreign tax redeterminations that affect the deemed paid credit under Code Sec. 960; procedural notification rules; and penalties for failure to notify the IRS of a foreign tax redetermination.

The proposed regulations require taxpayers to account for foreign tax redeterminations of foreign subsidiaries on an amended return that reflects the revised foreign taxes deemed paid under Code Sec. 960 and any changes to the taxpayer’s U.S. tax liability. This reflects the repeal of the pooling mechanism to account for redeterminations of foreign taxes.

A transition rule provides that post-2017 redeterminations of pre-2018 foreign income taxes must be made by adjusting the foreign corporation’s taxable income and earnings and profits and post-1986 undistributed earnings and income taxes in the pre-2018 year to which the redetermined foreign taxes relate. The proposed regulations also provide that the foreign tax redetermination rules cover situations in which the foreign tax redetermination affects whether or not the CFC qualifies for the high-tax exceptions under GILTI and subpart F.

Additional Rules

Additional provisions in the proposed regulations:

• modify the definition of a "financial services entity" by adopting a definition of "predominately engaged in the active conduct of a banking, insurance, finance, or similar business" and "income derived in the active conduct of a banking, insurance, finance, or similar business" that is generally consistent with Code Secs. 954(h), 1297(b)(2)(B), and 953(e);
• provide more detailed guidance on the allocation and apportionment of foreign income taxes, and generalize the rules to apply to statutory and residual groupings;
• provide a new ordering rule for overall foreign loss recapture that addresses additional income recognition under the branch loss recapture and dual consolidated loss recapture rules: the amounts are not taken into account for purposes of the ordering rules until Code Sec. 904(f)(3) amounts are determined;
• clarify the rules that apply to jurisdictions that do not impose corporate income tax on CFCs until earnings are distributed. or where foreign tax is contingent on a future distributions, for purposes of the high-tax exception in Code Sec. 954(b)(4);
• apply the principles for allocating and apportioning foreign income taxes for purposes of Code Sec. 965(g); and
• update the Code Sec. 1502 regulations relating to the computation of the consolidated foreign tax credit to reflect changes in the law, and add new rules for the determining the source and separate category of the a consolidated NOL, as well as the portion of a consolidated net operating loss (CNOL) that is apportioned to a separate return year of a member.

Applicability of Proposed Regs

The proposed regulations are generally proposed to apply to tax years that end on or after the date the proposed regulations are filed in the Federal Register, with exceptions. For example, the rules for R&E expenses are proposed to apply to tax years beginning after December 31, 2019. However taxpayers on the sales method for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, and before January 1, 2020, may rely on the proposed regulations if the rules are applied consistently. Thus, a taxpayer on the sales method for its tax year beginning in 2018 may rely on the proposed regulation, but must also apply the sales method (relying on the proposed regulation) for its tax year beginning in 2019.

Practitioner’s Observations

WK: Were you surprised by anything in the final regs?

Martin Milner: The final regulations are generally consistent with the proposed regulations and do not include any major surprises. The changes and clarifications that are in the final regulations are largely helpful. As would be expected, most of the new provisions are in the proposed portion of the package.

WK: With the proposed regs are there areas that you can see may result in pushback? If so why?

Martin Milner: The business community is likely to comment on the proposal to apportion stewardship expenses to dividends, subpart F income and GILTI (including IRC Section 78 gross-ups) because many had hoped that stewardship expenses would not be apportioned to GILTI.

WK: How did you feel about the R&E Expense Apportionment changes?

Martin Milner: The mandatory sales-based apportionment of R&E expenses to all gross intangible income related to the relevant product SIC code will be complicated in practice. However, it is helpful that the proposed rules specifically exclude dividends, subpart F income and GILTI.

The IRS has released guidance that provides that the requirement to report partners’ shares of partnership capital on the tax basis method will not be effective for 2019 partnership tax years, but will first apply to 2020 partnership tax years.

The IRS has released guidance that provides that the requirement to report partners’ shares of partnership capital on the tax basis method will not be effective for 2019 partnership tax years, but will first apply to 2020 partnership tax years.

2019 Reporting

For 2019, partnerships and other persons must report partner capital accounts consistent with the reporting requirements in the 2018 forms and instructions, including the requirement to report negative tax basis capital accounts on a partner-by-partner basis.

Section 704(c) Gain or Loss

As a clarification, the notice also defines the term "partner’s share of net unrecognized Code Sec. 704(c) gain or loss," which must be reported by partnerships and other persons in 2019. Further, the notice exempts publicly traded partnerships from the requirement to report their partners’ shares of net unrecognized Code Sec. 704(c) gain or loss until further notice. Solely for purposes of completing the 2019 Forms 1065, Schedule K-1, Item N, and 8865, Schedule K-1, Item G, the notice defines a partner’s share of "net unrecognized Code Sec. 704(c) gain or loss" as the partner’s share of the net (meaning aggregate or sum) of all unrecognized gains or losses under Code Sec. 704(c) in partnership property, including Code Sec. 704(c) gains and losses arising from revaluations of partnership property.

Section 465 At-Risk Activities

The notice provides that the requirement added by the draft instructions for 2019 for partnerships to report to partners information about separate Code Sec. 465 at-risk activities will not be effective until 2020. The draft of the instructions for the 2019 Form 1065, Schedule K-1, released October 29, 2019, included a new paragraph at page 12, At-Risk Limitations, At-Risk Activity Reporting Requirements, that would expressly require partnerships or other persons that have items of income, loss, or deduction reported on the Schedule K-1 from more than one activity that may be subject to limitation under Code Sec. 465 at the partner level to report certain additional information separately for each activity on an attachment to a partner’s Schedule K-1. The new paragraph would require the partnership to identify the at-risk activity, the items of income, loss, or deduction for the activity, other items of income, loss, or deduction, partnership liabilities, and any other information that relates to the activity, such as distributions and partner loans. This requirement in the draft instructions for the 2019 Form 1065 is in addition to long-standing at-risk reporting requirements included in the instructions to the Form 1065.

Penalty Relief

Taxpayers who follow the provisions of the notice will not be subject to any penalty, including a penalty under Code Sec. 6722 for failure to furnish correct payee statements, under Code Sec. 6698 for failure to file a partnership return that shows required information, and under Code Sec. 6038 for failure to furnish information required on a Schedule K-1 (Form 8865).

The IRS has released final regulations that present guidance on how certain organizations that provide employee benefits must calculate unrelated business taxable income (UBTI) under Code Sec. 512(a).

The IRS has released final regulations that present guidance on how certain organizations that provide employee benefits must calculate unrelated business taxable income (UBTI) under Code Sec. 512(a).

Background

Organizations that are otherwise exempt from tax under Code Sec. 501(a) are subject to tax on their unrelated business taxable income (UBTI) under Code Sec. 511(a). Code Sec. 512(a) defines UBTI of exempt organizations and provides special rules for calculating UBTI for organizations described in Code Sec. 501(c)(7) (social and recreational clubs), voluntary employees’ beneficiary associations (VEBAs) described in Code Sec. 501(c)(9) and supplemental unemployment benefit trusts (SUBs) described in Code Sec. 501(c)(17).

Covered Entity

"Covered entity" describes VEBAs and SUBs subject to the UBTI computation rules under Code Sec. 512(a)(3). A corporation is treated as having exempt function income for a taxable year only if it files a consolidated return with the organization described in Code Sec. 501(c)(7), (9), or (17). These final regulations add a clause to clarify that the term "covered entity" includes a corporation described in Code Sec. 501(c)(2) to the extent provided in Code Sec. 512(a)(3)(C).

Nonrecognition of Gain

If a property used directly in the performance of the exempt function of a covered entity is sold by that covered entity, and other property is subsequently purchased and used by the covered entity directly in the performance of its exempt function—at any point within a four-year period beginning one year before the date of the sale and ending three years after the date of sale—gain, if any, from the sale is recognized only to the extent that the sales price of the old property exceeds the covered entity’s cost of purchasing the other property.

Limitation on Amounts Set Aside for Exempt Purposes

The total amount of investment income earned during the year should be considered when calculating whether an excess exists at the end of the year. Any investment income a covered entity earns during the taxable year is subject to unrelated business income tax (UBIT) to the extent the covered entity’s year-end assets exceed the account limit.

Effective Date

The final regulations apply to tax years beginning on or after December 10, 2019.

The IRS has issued Reg. §20.2010-1(c) to address the effect of the temporary increase in the basic exclusion amount (BEA) used in computing estate and gift taxes. In addition, Reg. §20.2010-1(e)(3) is amended to reflect the increased BEA for years 2018-2025 ($10 million, as adjusted for inflation). Further, the IRS has confirmed that taxpayers taking advantage of the increased BEA in effect from 2018 to 2025 will not be adversely affected after 2025 when the exclusion amount is set to decrease to pre-2018 levels.

The IRS has issued Reg. §20.2010-1(c) to address the effect of the temporary increase in the basic exclusion amount (BEA) used in computing estate and gift taxes. In addition, Reg. §20.2010-1(e)(3) is amended to reflect the increased BEA for years 2018-2025 ($10 million, as adjusted for inflation). Further, the IRS has confirmed that taxpayers taking advantage of the increased BEA in effect from 2018 to 2025 will not be adversely affected after 2025 when the exclusion amount is set to decrease to pre-2018 levels.

The regulations apply to estates of decedents dying on and after November 26, 2019.

Special Rule for Post-2025 Decedents

Reg. §20.2010-1(c) provides a special rule in cases where the portion of the credit against the estate tax that is based on the BEA is less than the sum of the credit amounts attributable to the BEA allowable in computing gift tax payable within the meaning of Code Sec. 2001(b)(2). In that situation, the portion of the credit against the net tentative estate tax that is attributable to the BEA is based upon the greater of those two credit amounts.

Inflation-Adjusted Amounts and DSUE Amount

Because the term "BEA" includes the exclusion amount, as adjusted for inflation, the examples in the regulations reflect hypothetical inflated adjusted BEAs. Reg. §20.2010-1(c)(2)(ii), Example 2, illustrates the application of the special rule based on gifts actually made, and would be inapplicable to a decedent who did not make gifts in excess of the date of death BEA, as adjusted for inflation.

Reg. §20.2010-1(c)(2)(iii) and (iv), Examples 3 and 4, illustrate that if a spouse dies during the increased BEA period, and the deceased spouse’s executor makes the portability election, the surviving spouse’s applicable exclusion amount includes the full amount of the deceased spousal unused exclusion (DSUE) amount based on the deceased spouse’s increased BEA. The DSUE amount is available to reduce the surviving spouse’s transfer tax liability regardless of when transfers are made.

BEA Calculations

The final rules explain how to determine the extent to which a credit allowable in computing gift tax payable is based solely on the BEA. Reg. §20.2010-1(c)(2)(iv), Example 4, addresses the application of the DSUE ordering rule, as well as the computation of the credit based solely on the BEA in a calendar period in which the transfer exhausts the remaining DSUE amount with the result that the BEA is also allowable.

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) has released a report on suitability checks for participation in IRS programs. TIGTA initiated this audit to assess the effectiveness of IRS processes to ensure the suitability of applicants seeking to participate in IRS programs and to follow up on IRS planned corrective actions to address prior TIGTA recommendations.

TIGTA Final Audit Report

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) has released a report on suitability checks for participation in IRS programs. TIGTA initiated this audit to assess the effectiveness of IRS processes to ensure the suitability of applicants seeking to participate in IRS programs and to follow up on IRS planned corrective actions to address prior TIGTA recommendations.

Suitability Checks

The IRS’s suitability checks for applicants to the Acceptance Agent, Enrolled Agent, and e-File Provider Programs generally ensured that only reputable individuals were accepted in the programs during fiscal year 2018. Further, the IRS’s continuous suitability checks also ensured that individuals accepted in the programs prior to the initial suitability checks had not engaged in criminal activity warranting removal from the program. TIGTA also identified that when the Federal Bureau of Investigation reported a criminal history for an applicant, the adjudication process was inconsistent depending on the program to which the individual was applying. Finally, the IRS did not take sufficient actions to address the fraudulent submission of fingerprint cards by some applicants to pass their background investigations.

TIGTA Recommendations

TIGTA recommended that the IRS:

• assess the risk to tax administration of performing inconsistent initial and continuous suitability checks on individuals seeking to participate or enrolled in the e-File Provider, Acceptance Agent, and Enrolled Agent Programs;
• assess the risk of the e-File Provider Program’s use of decision matrices to adjudicate an applicant’s criminal history that are inconsistent with the matrices used by the Acceptance Agent and Enrolled Agent Programs; and
• work with the Federal Bureau of Investigation to identify additional individuals who may have submitted fingerprint cards that match the fingerprints of another individual.

The IRS agreed with all the recommendations.

As the 2013 filing season gets underway, some taxpayers may experience delays in filing returns and others need to revisit their returns because of the passage of the American Taxpayer Relief Act (ATRA) on January 1, 2013.  Late tax legislation always complicates tax planning and filing and 2013 is no exception.  ATRA extended many popular tax incentives for individuals and businesses retroactively to January 1, 2012.  This means that qualified taxpayers may claim them on their 2012 returns filed in 2013.  ATRA also made many changes that take effect in 2013, which will require careful planning as this year unfolds.

As the 2013 filing season gets underway, some taxpayers may experience delays in filing returns and others need to revisit their returns because of the passage of the American Taxpayer Relief Act (ATRA) on January 1, 2013.  Late tax legislation always complicates tax planning and filing and 2013 is no exception.  ATRA extended many popular tax incentives for individuals and businesses retroactively to January 1, 2012.  This means that qualified taxpayers may claim them on their 2012 returns filed in 2013.  ATRA also made many changes that take effect in 2013, which will require careful planning as this year unfolds.

Delayed start to filing season

The most immediate effect of ATRA is a delayed start to the 2013 filing season.  Shortly after passage of ATRA, the IRS announced that the 2013 filing season would begin on January 30, 2013.  That reflected a delay of eight days from the previously anticipated start date of January 22, 2013.  The IRS explained that it needed time to program its processing systems for ATRA.  As of January 30, the IRS was able to accept returns affected by the AMT patch as well as three very popular "tax extenders:" the state and local sales tax deduction, higher education tuition deduction and teachers' classroom expense deduction.

However, some taxpayers will experience a further delay.  A number of tax forms affected by late legislation require more extensive programming and testing of IRS systems. The IRS reported that it aims to begin accepting returns including these forms between late February and into March.  The IRS predicted that a specific date will be announced in the near future. Among the forms that require more extensive programming changes are some commonly used forms, most notably Form 4562 (Depreciation and Amortization). Other forms affected by the delay include Form 5695 (Residential Energy Credits) and Form 3800 (General Business Credit).

The IRS also announced special relief for farmers and fishermen who are affected by the delay.  Normally, farmers and fishermen who choose not to make quarterly estimated tax payments are not subject to a penalty if they file their returns and pay the full amount of tax due by March 1. Under the guidance to be issued, farmers or fishermen who miss the March 1 deadline will not be subject to the penalty if they file and pay by April 15, 2013.

Retroactive and prospective extensions

For individuals, some of the most popular incentives are the three mentioned above (the state and local sales tax deduction, the higher education tuition deduction and the teachers' classroom expense deduction).  Other incentives that were retroactively extended to January 1, 2012 by ATRA, and therefore are available for 2012 returns filed in 2013, include special rules treating mortgage insurance premiums as deductible interest that is qualified residence interest, and special rules for contributions of capital gains real property for conservation purposes. 

Another valuable incentive extended by ATRA is a tax break for energy efficient improvements.  ATRA extended retroactively to January 1, 2012 and through 2013 the Code Sec. 25C energy credit. Energy efficiency improvements include adding insulation, energy-efficient exterior windows and doors and certain roofs. The credit has a lifetime limit; qualifying improvements must be placed into service to the taxpayer's principal residence before January 1, 2014, and there are other restrictions.

ATRA also provided transition relief for individuals wishing to make tax-free transfers of IRA funds to charitable organizations.  For tax year 2012 only, IRA owners could choose to report qualified charitable distributions made in January 2013 as if they occurred in 2012. Additionally, IRA owners who received IRA distributions during December 2012 could contribute, in cash, part or all of the amounts distributed to eligible charities during January 2013 and have them count as 2012 qualified charitable distributions.

For businesses, ATRA extended many temporary incentives.  Among the most commonly claimed are enhanced small business expensing, bonus depreciation, and the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC).  Under ATRA, the Code Sec. 179 small business expensing dollar limit for tax years 2012 and 2013 is $500,000 with a $2 million investment limit (both amounts indexed for inflation).  Bonus depreciation is available at 50 percent through 2013 and the WOTC is also available through 2013.  Many other business-related incentives that had expired at the end of 2011 are available for 2012 and 2013.

Another extended incentive is transit benefits parity. Qualified transportation fringe benefits include transit passes, van pooling, and qualified parking. The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010 provided for parity for the exclusion limitation on transit passes, van pool benefits and qualified parking through 2011. ATRA extended transit benefits parity retroactively to January 1, 2012 and through 2013. In Rev. Proc. 2013-15, the IRS reported that the inflation-adjusted maximum monthly excludable amount for 2013 is $245 for transit passes and van pool benefits and also $245 for qualified parking. The IRS has issued administrative relief for employers that provided transit benefits in 2012 at their pre-ATRA rates.

Changes for 2013 and beyond

ATRA's most far-reaching changes – allowing the Bush-era tax rates to expire after 2012 for individuals with incomes over $400,000 and families with incomes over $450,000 along with increased capital gains and dividend taxes for higher income taxpayers – will be reflected on 2013 returns filed in 2014.  Other important provisions, such as the revived limitation on itemized deductions and the personal exemption phaseout, also will kick-in in 2013 and be reflected on 2013 returns filed in 2014.  Also taking effect in 2013 are an Additional Medicare Tax and a Net Investment Income surtax.  All these changes should be taken into account in planning your 2013 tax strategy.

Please contact our office for more information about the affect of ATRA on the 2013 filing season and tax planning for future years.

The IRS has announced a new optional safe harbor method, effective for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, for individuals to determine the amount of their deductible home office expenses (IR-2013-5, Rev. Proc. 2013-13). Being hailed by many as a long-overdue simplification option, taxpayers may now elect to determine their home office deduction by simply multiplying a prescribed rate by the square footage of the portion of the taxpayer's residence used for business purposes.

The IRS has announced a new optional safe harbor method, effective for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, for individuals to determine the amount of their deductible home office expenses (IR-2013-5, Rev. Proc. 2013-13). Being hailed by many as a long-overdue simplification option, taxpayers may now elect to determine their home office deduction by simply multiplying a prescribed rate by the square footage of the portion of the taxpayer's residence used for business purposes.

The IRS cites that over three million taxpayers in recent tax years have claimed deductions for business use of a home, which normally requires the taxpayer to fill out the 43-line Form 8829. Under the new procedure, a significantly simplified form is used. The new method is expected to reduce paperwork and recordkeeping for small businesses by an estimated 1.6 million hours annually, according to the IRS. The new optional deduction is limited to $1,500 per year, based on $5 per square foot for up to 300 square feet.

The simplified method is not effective for 2012 tax year returns being filed during the current 2013 filing season, but it will become effective for 2013 tax year returns filed in 2014. Taxpayers may want to investigate now whether they could benefit from the election for the 2013 tax year. Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller advised upon announcement of the safe harbor that "The IRS … encourages people to look at this option as they consider tax planning in 2013."  A final decision on the election need not be made until 2014, when 2013 returns are filed.

Basic home office deduction rule

Under Code 280A, which governs the home office deduction rules on the simplified method election, a taxpayer may deduct expenses that are allocable to a portion of the dwelling unit that is exclusively used on a regular basis. This generally means usage as:

• The taxpayer's principal place of business for any trade or business
• A place to meet with the taxpayer's patients, clients, or customers in the normal course of the taxpayer's trade or business, or
• In the case of a separate structure that is not attached to the dwelling unit, in connection with the taxpayer's trade or business.

The new simplified method does not remove the requirement to keep records that prove exclusive use, on a regular basis, for one of the three designated uses listed above. It does help, however, in other ways.

Simplified safe harbor

Using the new simplified safe harbor method, a taxpayer determines the amount of deductible expenses for qualified business use of the home for the tax year by multiplying the allowable square footage by the prescribed rate. The allowable square footage is the portion of a home used in a qualified business use of the home, but not to exceed 300 square feet. The prescribed rate is $5.00 per square foot.

Taxpayers who itemize their returns and use the safe harbor method may also deduct, to the extent allowed by the Tax Code and regs, any expense related to the home that is deductible without regard to whether there is a qualified business use of the home for that tax year, the IRS explained. As a result, they will be able to claim allowable mortgage interest, real estate taxes, and casualty losses on the home as itemized deductions on Schedule A of Form 1040. These deductions do not need to be allocated between personal and business use, as is required under the regular method.

Depreciation

Taxpayers using the safe harbor cannot deduct any depreciation for the portion of the home that is used in a qualified business use of the home for that tax year. For many taxpayers, depreciation is the largest component of the home office deduction under the regular method that must be sacrificed if the new safe harbor method is used.  Depending upon the value of your home and the space devoted to an office at home, using the regular method may prove to be the far better choice than electing the simplified method.

Election

Taxpayers may elect from tax year to tax year whether to use the safe harbor method or actual expense method. Once made, an election for the tax year is irrevocable.  The IRS has provided rules for calculating the depreciation deduction if a taxpayer uses the safe harbor for one year and actual expenses for a subsequent year. The deduction of expenses that are not related to the home, such as wages and supplies, is unaffected and those deductions are still available to those using the new method.

Limitations

The IRS set various limits on the safe harbor, including:

• Taxpayers with more than one qualified business use of the same home for a tax year and who elect the safe harbor must use the safe harbor for each qualified business use of the home.
• Taxpayers with qualified business uses of more than one home for a tax year may use the safe harbor for only one home for that tax year.
• A taxpayer who has a qualified business use of a home and a rental use of the same home cannot use the safe harbor for the rental use.

If you are currently claiming a home office deduction, or if you have considered taking the deduction in the past but were discouraged by all of the paperwork and calculations required, you should consider whether the new, simplified safe harbor method is right for you. Please feel free to contact this office for further details.

Under the new health care law, starting in 2014, "large" employers with more than 50 full-time employees will be subject to stiff monetary penalties if they do not provide affordable and minimum essential health coverage. With less than eleven months before this "play or pay" provision is fully effective, the IRS continues to release critical details on what constitutes an "applicable large employer," "full-time employee," "affordable coverage," and "minimum health coverage."  Most recently, the IRS issued proposed reliance regulations that provide employers with the most comprehensive explanation of their obligations and options to date.

Under the new health care law, starting in 2014, "large" employers with more than 50 full-time employees will be subject to stiff monetary penalties if they do not provide affordable and minimum essential health coverage. With less than eleven months before this "play or pay" provision is fully effective, the IRS continues to release critical details on what constitutes an "applicable large employer," "full-time employee," "affordable coverage," and "minimum health coverage."  Most recently, the IRS issued proposed reliance regulations that provide employers with the most comprehensive explanation of their obligations and options to date.

Background

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) the federal government has made it possible for certain workers who do not otherwise have access to affordable health insurance coverage to obtain a tax credit that would help them pay the costs of their health care premiums. This credit applies to low-income workers whether employed by a small, mid-size or large employer or self-employed.  Under Code Sec. 4980H as added by the PPACA, however, an "applicable large employer" is subject to a shared responsibility payment (an assessable payment) after December 31, 2013 if any of its full-time employees are certified to receive an applicable premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction and either:

• The employer does not offer to its full-time employees and their dependents the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage under an eligible employer-sponsored plan (Code Sec. 4980H(a)); or
• The employer offers its full-time employees and their dependents the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage under an eligible employer-sponsored plan that with respect to a full-time employee who has been certified for the advance payment of an applicable premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction either is unaffordable relative to an employee's household income or does not provide minimum value (Code Sec. 4980H(b)).

The Code Sec. 4980H(b) penalty applies to coverage that is "unaffordable," meaning that the coverage costs more than 9.5 percent of the employee's household income. Since employers may not be able to determine household income, the proposed regs provide three affordability safe harbors: the Form W-2 safe harbor (based on employee wages); the rate of pay safe harbor (based on hourly or monthly pay rates); and the federal poverty line safe harbor, the IRS explained.

The employer cannot be liable under both Code Secs. 4980H(a) and 4980H(b). Furthermore, the penalty cannot exceed the payment amount that would have been imposed under Code Sec. 4980H(a) if the employee had failed to offer coverage to its full-time employees.

Proposed reliance regs

The proposed reliance regs further clarify what employees are considered "full-time employees" for the purpose of the statute. This distinction is important because the number of full-time employees determines who is an applicable large employer, subject to the affordable coverage requirements and, potentially, the per-employee shared responsibility payment. The proposed reliance regs provide additional guidance on who is a full-time employee, and covers gray areas such as the treatment of seasonal employees.

Other guidance under the regs covers whether employers who have only become applicable large employers in the current year are exempt from the shared responsibility payment. (Generally, they are not.) The proposed reliance regulations also provide certain relief to employers who inadvertently miss some employees.

Finally, the proposed reliance regs provide several transition rules. A major rule allows employers with plans on a fiscal year to wait to apply the standards until the first day of the first plan year that begins in 2014. Another rule exempts employers from penalties in 2014 if they must add dependent coverage to their health plans. Other transition rules apply to health plans offered through cafeteria plans and multiemployer plans. In addition, there are many notification responsibilities that will be placed upon the shoulders of all employers regarding access by their employees to health insurance.

If you have questions about the health care requirements for employers, the shared responsibility payment under Code Sec. 4980H, or anything related to the tax provisions of the new health care law, please contact our offices.

Beginning in 2013, the capital gains rates, as amended by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, are as follows for individuals:

Beginning in 2013, the capital gains rates, as amended by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, are as follows for individuals:

• A capital gains rate of 0 percent applies to the adjusted net capital gains if the gain would otherwise be subject to the 10 or 15 percent ordinary income tax rate.
• A capital gains rate of 15 percent applies to adjusted net capital gains if the gain would otherwise be subject to the 25, 28, 33, or 35 percent ordinary income tax rate.
• A capital gains rate of 20 percent applies to adjusted net capital gains if the gain would otherwise be subject to the 39.6 percent ordinary income tax rate beginning after December 31, 2012.

Individuals are subject to the 39.6 percent ordinary income tax rate beginning in 2013 to the extent their taxable income exceeds the applicable threshold amount of $450,000 for married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses, $425,000 for heads of households, $400,000 for single individuals, and $225,000 for married individuals filing separate returns.

Comment:  The only change from 2012 rates is the 20 percent rate, applied as described, above.  Prior to 2013, the highest tax rate on net capital gain was 15 percent.

Comment: Adjusted net capital gain is net capital gain from capital assets held for more than one year other than unrecaptured Code Sec. 1250 gain (25 percent); collectibles gain (28 percent) or gain from qualified small business stock (varying rates).

Examples

Following the rules outlined above, computations for higher-income taxpayers (those whose taxable income together with net capital gains exceed the 39.6 percent tax bracket threshold amounts, which are also the threshold amounts for the 20 percent capital gain rate) are illustrated under three scenarios:

Example 1: Assume in 2013, joint filers with $475K in net capital gain and $200K in ordinary income:

• $200K ordinary income will be taxed under the regular income tax tables, which for 2013 indicate a $43,465.50 tax.
• $475K capital gain is taxed:
  • $250K of $475 net capital gain at 15 percent ($450K threshold less $200K ordinary income) = $37,500
  • The remainder of the net capital gain $225K ($475K less $250K that was taxed at 15 percent) is taxed at 20 percent = $45,000

Total tax liability: $43,465.50 on $200K ordinary income and $82,500 on $475K net capital gain.

Example 2: Assume in 2013, joint filers with $200K in net capital gain and $475K in ordinary income:

• $475K ordinary income will be taxed under the regular income tax tables, which for 2013 indicate a $135,746 tax.
• $200K capital gain is taxed:
  • All of $200K net capital gain at 20 percent ($450K threshold already exceeded by $475K in ordinary income) = $40,000.

Total tax liability: $135,746 on $475K ordinary income and $40,000 on $200K net capital gain.

Example 3: Assume in 2013, joint filers with $50K ordinary income and $425K in net capital gain:

• $50K ordinary income will be taxed under the regular income tax tables, which for 2013 indicate a $4,845
• $425K net capital gain is taxed:
  • $20,700 at zero percent ($70,700, which is the top of the 15 percent bracket less $50K ordinary income) = $0
  • $379,300 at 15 percent ($450,000 less $70,700) = $56,895
  • $25,000 at 20 percent (balance of ordinary income plus capital gain over $450K threshold) = $5,000.

Total tax liability: $4,845 on $50K ordinary income and $40,000 on $200K net capital gain.

An above-the-line deduction is an adjustment to income (deduction) that can be taken regardless of whether the individual taxpayer itemizes deductions. The adjustment reduces the taxpayer's adjusted gross income (AGI). These adjustments are also sometimes called deductions from gross income, as opposed to itemized deductions that are deducted from AGI. An above-the-line deduction is taken out of income "above" the line on the tax form on which adjusted gross income is reported.

An above-the-line deduction is an adjustment to income (deduction) that can be taken regardless of whether the individual taxpayer itemizes deductions. The adjustment reduces the taxpayer's adjusted gross income (AGI). These adjustments are also sometimes called deductions from gross income, as opposed to itemized deductions that are deducted from AGI. An above-the-line deduction is taken out of income "above" the line on the tax form on which adjusted gross income is reported.

Above-the-line deductions are more desirable than itemized deductions because:

• they are more available (for example, they are not phased out or subject to a floor like many itemized deductions);
• they can be claimed even if the taxpayer does not itemize deductions; and
• they lower the taxpayer's AGI, which can allow the taxpayer to qualify for more and/or larger deductions.

The above-the-line deductions include:

• Trade or business expenses
• Net operating loss deduction
• Loss from sales and exchanges
• Depreciation and depletion
• Deductions tied to rents and royalties
• Teacher's classroom expenses
• Jury pay turned over to employer
• Overnight travel expenses of Reserve or National Guard
• Supplemental unemployment compensation repayments
• Business expenses of qualifying performing artists
• Contributions to individual retirement accounts
• Student loan interest deduction
• Tuition and fees deduction
• Health savings account deduction
• Moving expenses
• ½ of self-employment tax
• Health insurance costs of the self-employed
• Contributions to SIMPLE or SEP plans
• Penalty for early withdrawal of funds from a savings account
• Alimony payments
• Legal fees and costs paid in certain actions involving civil rights violations or whistleblower awards
• Domestic production activities deduction

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 February 2013.

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 February 2013.

February 1
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates January 26–29.

February 6
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates January 30–February 1.

February 8
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates February 2–5.

February 11
Employees who work for tips. Employees who received $20 or more in tips during January must report them to their employer using Form 4070.

February 13
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates February 6–8.

February 15
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates February 9–12.

February 21
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates February 13–15.

February 22
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates February 16–19.

February 27
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates February 20–22.

March 1
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates February 23–26.

March 6
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates February 27–March 1.

In what undeniably came down to the wire in the early hours of January 1, 2013, the Senate passed the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which, along with many other provisions, permanently extends the so-called Bush-era tax cuts for individuals making under $400,000 and families making under $450,000 (those above those thresholds now pay at a 39.6 percent rate). The House followed with passage late in the day on January 1; and President Obama signed the bill into law on January 2. Thus, the more than decade-long fight over the fate of the tax cuts, originally enacted under the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA), accelerated under the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA) and extended by Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (2010 Tax Relief Act) comes to an end.

In what undeniably came down to the wire in the early hours of January 1, 2013, the Senate passed the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which, along with many other provisions, permanently extends the so-called Bush-era tax cuts for individuals making under $400,000 and families making under $450,000 (those above those thresholds now pay at a 39.6 percent rate). The House followed with passage late in the day on January 1; and President Obama signed the bill into law on January 2. Thus, the more than decade-long fight over the fate of the tax cuts, originally enacted under the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA), accelerated under the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA) and extended by Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (2010 Tax Relief Act) comes to an end.

Prelude to the Fiscal Cliff

On May 26, 2001, Congress passed the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA). The legislation was hailed as the largest tax cut in 20 years and dramatically changed the landscape of the federal tax code. Two years later, the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA) was signed into law and accelerated many of the tax cuts set in motion under EGTRRA. Originally scheduled to sunset, or expire, after December 31, 2010, Congress extended these popular provisions for another two years in late 2010 with the passage of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010. In 2010, Congress acted before the end of the year to extend the cuts. At the end of 2012, Congress and President Obama engaged in intense negotiations over the “fiscal cliff,” a term that came to combine many federal laws that had a deadline of December 31, 2012, including the Bush-era tax cuts. Congress then passed the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 on New Year’s Day, 2013, effectively averting the fiscal cliff.

What Does This Mean for You?

The new law extends a majority of the Bush-era tax cuts in the same form as they have existed since 2001 or 2003 when initially enacted. However, major exceptions include a rise in rates, including a maximum 20 percent on capital gains and dividends, on higher-income individuals, as described above, and an increase in the estate tax rate from 35 to 40 percent. In addition to a general extension of the tax rates, many other provisions, including some not affected by the sunset of the Bush-era tax cuts, are significantly or permanently extended, including:

• Marriage penalty relief;
• Inflation protection against the alternative minimum tax (AMT);
• Deductions for student loan interest and tuition and fees;
• Enhanced child tax and child and dependent care credits;
• Simplified earned income credit;
• Deductions for primary and secondary school teacher expenses;
• Deductions for state and local sales taxes;
• Research credits;
• Energy-efficiency credits for homes and vehicles; and
• Many more provisions.

Unfortunately, the new law is also significant in what it does not do in one important respect. It does not renew the so-called payroll tax holiday that had been in effect during 2011 and 2012. As a result, employees and self-employed individuals will be paying 2 percent more employment tax on their earnings up to the Social Security wage base (which is up to $113,700 for 2013).

Finally, the American Taxpayer Relief Act also includes extensions of provisions that expired at the end of 2011, but now apply to the 2012 tax year. That means it has immediate effect on the 2013 filing season.

The landscape of federal tax law has changed once again, and with it the need to reassess present tax strategies. Please call this office if you have any questions about the new law or how it impacts you directly.

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

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

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

Spouses

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

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

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

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

Non-spousal inherited IRAs

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

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

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

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

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

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 January 2013.

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 January 2013.

January 3
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates December 26-28.

January 4
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates December 29-January 1.

January 9
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates January 2-4.

January 10
Employees who work for tips. Employees who received $20 or more in tips during December must report them to their employer using Form 4070.

January 11
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates January 5-8.

January 16
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates January 9-11.

January 18
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates January 12-15.

January 24
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates January 16-18.

January 25
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates January 19-22.

January 30
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates January 23-25.

February 1
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates January 26-29.

February 6
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates January 30-February 1.

All eyes are on Washington as the White House and the GOP seek to avoid the so-called “fiscal cliff” before the end of the year.  President Obama and House Republicans are negotiating the fate of the Bush-era tax cuts, mandatory spending cuts and more in the last weeks of 2012 and negotiations are expected to go right up to the end of the year.  At the same time, the IRS has cautioned that the start of the 2013 filing season could be delayed for many taxpayers because of late tax legislation.

All eyes are on Washington as the White House and the GOP seek to avoid the so-called “fiscal cliff” before the end of the year.  President Obama and House Republicans are negotiating the fate of the Bush-era tax cuts, mandatory spending cuts and more in the last weeks of 2012 and negotiations are expected to go right up to the end of the year.  At the same time, the IRS has cautioned that the start of the 2013 filing season could be delayed for many taxpayers because of late tax legislation.

Taxes and spending

Almost immediately after President Obama won re-election, Democrats and Republicans scrambled to stake out their positions over the fiscal cliff.  Unless the White House and the GOP reach an agreement, the Bush-era tax cuts will expire for all taxpayers after 2012 and across-the-board spending cuts will take effect.  Many popular but temporary tax incentives, known as tax extenders, expired after 2011, with many more scheduled to expire after 2012.  The alternative minimum tax (AMT), intended many years ago to apply to wealthy taxpayers, is on track to encroach on more middle income taxpayers because it is not indexed for inflation.  Also, the employee-side payroll tax cut is scheduled to expire after 2012.

Since winning a second term, President Obama has repeated that the Bush-era tax cuts should expire for higher income individuals after 2012.  The top two tax rates would rise to 36 percent and 39.6 percent after 2012. All of the remaining rates would be extended.  Tax rates on capital gains and dividends would also increase for higher income individuals. On the campaign trail, President Obama described higher income taxpayers as individuals with incomes above $200,000 and families with incomes above $250,000. 

President Obama has talked about trimming $4 trillion from the federal budget deficit.  Approximately $1.6 trillion would come from increased taxes on higher income individuals.  To achieve a target of $1.6 trillion in tax revenue, the Bush-era tax cuts could not be extended for higher income individuals.  Other incentives for higher income individuals would likely be curtailed or possibly eliminated under the President’s plan. These include the personal exemption phaseout (PEP) and the Pease limitation on itemized deductions. President Obama may also re-propose his “Buffett Rule,” which, the President has explained, would ensure that individuals making over $1 million a year pay a minimum effective tax rate of at least 30 percent.

The GOP, its majority reduced in the House after the November elections, has offered few details about its plans to avoid the fiscal cliff.  House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has indicated that the GOP may be open to raising revenue by closing tax loopholes and capping certain unspecified deductions for higher income individuals.  Revenue could also be raised by limiting or abolishing business tax deductions and credits.  Among the business tax incentives most often hinted at for elimination are ones for oil and gas producers. President Obama, however, has said that he will not support a deficit reduction plan that relies on closing undefined tax loopholes.

Possible scenarios

Looking ahead, several scenarios may play out before year-end.  President Obama and the GOP could agree on a tax and deficit reduction package that meets or comes close to the President’s targets.  President Obama and the GOP may agree to extend the Bush-era tax cuts and delay the spending cuts for three or six months to give everyone more time to negotiate a long-term deal.  On the other hand, both sides could fail to reach any agreement before year-end and the Bush-era tax cuts would expire as scheduled.  The spending cuts also would kick-in as scheduled.

Filing season

Whenever Congress changes the tax laws, the IRS has to reprogram its return processing systems.  Tax laws passed late in 2012 have the potential to delay the start of the 2013 filing season depending on how long it takes the IRS to reprogram its systems.

IRS officials have told Congress that they are preparing for late tax legislation, especially legislation on the AMT.  In past years, Congress has routinely “patched” the AMT to shield middle income taxpayers from its reach.  The IRS appears to be anticipating that Congress will patch the AMT for 2012.  If Congress does not, the IRS has warned that the start of the 2013 filing season could be delayed for as many as 60 million taxpayers.

The IRS also must reprogram its processing systems for the tax extenders.  These tax law changes generally do not require the level of reprogramming the AMT patch requires.  The IRS has predicted that any year-end extension of the extenders will be manageable.

Please contact our office if you have any questions about the tax and spending negotiations underway in Washington.

As the end of the calendar year approaches, taxpayers ordinarily prefer to minimize current-year income by deferring the inclusion of taxable income to the following year, while accelerating deductions to the current year. However, as many taxpayers are aware, individual income tax rates may increase in 2013, with the potential for dramatic increases for higher-income individuals (if not all individuals).

As the end of the calendar year approaches, taxpayers ordinarily prefer to minimize current-year income by deferring the inclusion of taxable income to the following year, while accelerating deductions to the current year. However, as many taxpayers are aware, individual income tax rates may increase in 2013, with the potential for dramatic increases for higher-income individuals (if not all individuals).

While it is unclear how many taxpayers will see tax increases in 2013, it is certain that rates will not be any lower than they are in 2012. Thus, some, if not all, individuals will have an incentive to accelerate income into 2012.

Annual bonuses for 2012

Employees earning annual bonuses for services performed in 2012 ordinarily would receive the bonus in 2013. And generally the employer would take the deduction in 2013. However, some employees may prefer to receive the bonus in 2012, to take advantage of the lower current tax rates. An employer may want to deduct the bonus in the earlier year, to reduce taxable income. The IRS recently issued Chief Counsel Advice (CCA 201246029) on the treatment of a bonus that illustrates some of the practical obstacles to accelerating bonus income.

A lesson learned

In the CCA, the employer awarded bonuses for the calendar year (the year of service) based on company performance. The total bonus amount accrued for financial accounting purposes at the end of the year. The bonuses were paid early in the following year, after the employer finalized the amounts, provided that the employee still worked for the company.

In Rev. Rul. 2011-29, the IRS determined that the employer can accrue liability, and take a deduction, for bonuses in the earlier year, where the employer can establish the fact of the liability for bonuses paid to a group of employees, even though the recipients’ identities and amounts payable were determined in the following year. In contrast, in the CCA, the IRS concluded that the taxpayer’s liability to pay bonuses was not fixed until the contingency was satisfied – the employee had to be still employed on the date of payment. Therefore, the bonuses were not deductible until the following year, when they were paid.

While the CCA does not discuss it, presumably if the employer paid the bonuses in the year of service (2012), they would be deductible in that same year. The employees would take the bonuses into income in 2012, when tax rates were lower. Furthermore, the income would avoid the new 0.9 percent additional Medicare tax on earned income, which takes effect in 2013.

Important timing exception

In the CCA, the timing was identical for the employer and the employee. Under Code Sec. 404, concerning deferred compensation, the employer may not deduct the bonus until the same time that the employee takes it into income. Under an exception, however,  if the employer pays the bonus in 2013 but within 2 ½ months after the end of 2012, an accrual basis taxpayer can deduct the payment in the current year, even though the employee would not include it in income until it is paid in 2013. This presumes that the bonuses are fixed at the end of 2012 and that the employer does not use a plan like the one described in the CCA.

With 2013 bearing down on us, we hope you have a moment to spare from holiday preparation for some good old-fashioned year-end tax planning. By now you must be familiar with the term “fiscal cliff” and how the expiring provisions, tax rates, and budget appropriations may affect small business, big business, and politics in Washington, DC. However, the looming expiration dates for the Bush-era tax cuts and other tax provisions set to become effective in 2013 may also have consequences for how you save for retirement. This year we have advice for IRA account holders in particular.

With 2013 bearing down on us, we hope you have a moment to spare from holiday preparation for some good old-fashioned year-end tax planning. By now you must be familiar with the term “fiscal cliff” and how the expiring provisions, tax rates, and budget appropriations may affect small business, big business, and politics in Washington, DC. However, the looming expiration dates for the Bush-era tax cuts and other tax provisions set to become effective in 2013 may also have consequences for how you save for retirement. This year we have advice for IRA account holders in particular:

Avoiding increased tax. If you have a traditional individual retirement account (IRA) and you are thinking about converting to a Roth so you can accumulate tax-free earnings, you might want to do it before the year ends. First, if you are in a high-income tax bracket, your taxes are likely to increase if the Bush-tax cuts expire. Converting from a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA creates a taxable event, and you may lose more money to the government by converting in 2013 than you would if you convert before 2012 ends.

Secondly, taxpayers whose projected 2013 adjusted gross income (AGI) will approach $250,000 (or $200,000 for single filers) may want to avoid converting their traditional IRA in 2013. The addition of their IRA assets to their AGI may push them within the income range limits for taxpayers subject to the 3.8 percent tax on net investment income that goes into effect in 2013.

Please note that the converted IRA assets would not themselves be subject to the 3.8 percent surtax. However the surtax would apply to any investment income the taxpayer has. Such investment income would include items such as (but not limited to) dividends, rents, royalties, interest, except municipal-bond interest, capital gains, and income from the sale of a principal residence worth more than the $250,000/$500,000 exclusions.

Undoing a conversion. You might be asking what would happen if you convert to a Roth IRA in 2012 and then Congress extends the current tax rates. In such cases, you would have until October 15, 2013 to undo the transaction. You could put the money back into your traditional IRA as if you had never converted in the first place. In other words, there would be no taxable event.

2010 conversion and deferral. Taxpayers who already converted their traditional IRA to a Roth IRA in 2010 were given a one-time privilege of deferring half of the income from the conversion to 2011 and the other half until 2012. If taxpayers elected to defer their IRA conversion income in this way, the 2012 tax year has arrived. They must report that second half of their conversion income on their 2012 tax returns. If you are a taxpayer who must report income from a previous Roth IRA conversion in 2012, it might not be in your best interest to generate additional income by converting yet another IRA before the year ends.

Contributions. The 2012 year-end will also bring several changes to the rules on IRA contributions, which may affect your planning. In 2013, the limits on maximum annual contributions to an IRA will go up from $5,000 to $5,500 ($6,500 for contributors age of 50 and over, up from $6,000 in 2012). This increase in contribution limits is the first time the IRS has adjusted the limit since 2008.

The adjusted gross income level at which taxpayers must begin to phase-out their contributions will also go up in 2013:

However, tax planners should note that the deadline for making IRA contributions for the 2012 tax year remains unchanged. You still have until your filing date, which is April 15, 2013, to make contributions for 2012.

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 December 2012.

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 December 2012.

December 5
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates November 28–30.

December 7
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates December 1–4.

December 10
Employees who work for tips. Employees who received $20 or more in tips during November must report them to their employer using Form 4070.

December 12
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates December 5–7.

December 14
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates December 8–11.

December 19
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates December 12–14.

December 21
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates December 15–18.

December 27
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates December 19–21.

December 28
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates December 22–25.

January 3
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates December 26–28.

January 4
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates December 29–31.

The fate of many of the tax incentives taxpayers have grown accustomed to over recent years will likely remain up in the air until Congress and the Administration finally face off weeks before year-end 2012. While the results of Election Day will have bearing on the outcome, no crystal ball can predict how the ultimate short-term compromise will unfold. As a result, some year-end tax planning must be deferred and executed ”at the eleventh hour” only after Congress passes and the President signs what will likely result in a stopgap, temporary compromise for 2013. Tax rates for higher-bracket individuals and a long list of “extenders” provisions such as the child tax credit, the enhanced education credits and the optional deduction for state and local sales tax, hang in the balance. Real tax reform for 2014 and beyond, in any event, won’t be hammered out until 2013 is well underway.

The fate of many of the tax incentives taxpayers have grown accustomed to over recent years will likely remain up in the air until Congress and the Administration finally face off weeks before year-end 2012. While the results of Election Day will have bearing on the outcome, no crystal ball can predict how the ultimate short-term compromise will unfold. As a result, some year-end tax planning must be deferred and executed ”at the eleventh hour” only after Congress passes and the President signs what will likely result in a stopgap, temporary compromise for 2013. Tax rates for higher-bracket individuals and a long list of “extenders” provisions such as the child tax credit, the enhanced education credits and the optional deduction for state and local sales tax, hang in the balance. Real tax reform for 2014 and beyond, in any event, won’t be hammered out until 2013 is well underway.

Traditional Planning for Individuals

2012 year-end legislation clearly plays a major role in 2012 year-end tax planning for many taxpayer. Nevertheless, traditional year-end tax planning should not be overlooked in the meantime. In many cases, attention to traditional considerations, now, will prove more important to a majority of taxpayers’ bottom line. Here is a checklist of some traditional year-end planning considerations not to be overlooked:

• Changes in filing status: marriage, divorce, death of a spouse, or a change in head-of-household status during 2012 (or anticipated for 2013) will impact on your tax bracket and bottom line tax liability. Anticipate the additional expense or lower tax bill that a change in filing status may bring.
• Birth of a child, adoption, combined families through re-marriage, and even the ages of children in 2012 and 2013 can matter to year-end tax planning. Dependency exemptions in some instances depend upon the amount of support provided within the tax year. The ability to take advantage of the child tax credit, the child-care credit, the earned income credit, application of the kiddie tax, and the ability to be covered under a parent’s health insurance under the new health care law in part hinges upon how a “child” is defined within certain age limits (varying from under age 13, to under age 17, 19, 24 or 26, depending upon the provision).
• Retirement and semi-retirement is also a major event for tax purposes for which first-year “required minimum distributions” from retirement savings must be calculated and made. Also an important year-end consideration for the newly retired is facing what is typically an entirely new matrix of investment income considerations focused on “smoothing” the amount of income and deductions among several years to achieve maximum tax results.
• Timing the recognition of capital gains and losses is important, in particular to maximize offsetting short-term gains (that are tax at ordinary income rates) with short-term losses. Also especially relevant to 2012 year-end timing of capital gains and losses is the introduction of a 3.8 percent Medicare contributions tax that will be assessed on excess net investment income starting in 2013.
• Projecting available itemized deductions for 2012, then controlling whether a better tax result might take place by deferring or accelerating some of those deductions, is frequently important. Some taxpayers who are close to the amount of their standard deduction amount may want to load deductions into a single year, say 2013, so they have enough to itemize deductions for that year, while still be entitled to the maximum amount of their standard deduction into an adjacent year (2012 in our example). Other taxpayers need to be aware of alternative minimum tax (AMT) exposure in which many deductions become cut back or eliminated.
• Unusual expenses that may generate an atypical deduction or credit, such as emergency medical expenses, moving expenses, or unemployment and job-search expenses, may need special attention. In connection with medical expenses, and particularly relevant to 2012 year-end planning, is the increase in the floor on deductible medical expenses from 7.5 percent adjusted gross income (AGI) in 2012 to 10 percent AGI in 2013 (7.5 percent for those who reach 65 years of age by the close of the tax year).
• Gift giving, both charitable and for estate planning purposes, usually reaches a high point at year end and for good reason. In addition to better knowing what assets remain available for gifting (or what income needs offsetting with a charitable deduction), certain tax benefits cannot be accumulated but must be used or lost each year. For example, the $13,000 annual gift tax exclusion per recipient cannot be carried over and used in addition to the $14,000 gift tax exclusion that will be available in 2013. A gift of $13,000 on December 31, 2012 and a $14,000 gift on January 1, 2013, for example, amount to a $27,000 tax-free gift; while a $27,000 gift all on January 1, 2013 will subject $13,000 of that gift to potential gift tax. A charitable gift can frequently require the same timing finesse, for example, if donors find themselves in a higher tax bracket in a particular year or not being able to otherwise itemize deductions.

Traditional Planning for Businesses

Businesses also face some traditional strategic decisions that often can only be made at year-end:

• Capital purchases that qualify for accelerated depreciation, bonus depreciation or so-called Section 179 expensing should be timed to fall into the current or the upcoming year, as the overall profit and loss of a business dictates. “Placed in service” requirements in addition to timing the purchase of equipment also apply to maximizing tax benefits.
• Determination of whether a business is on the cash or accrual method of accounting for tax purposes is also critical to year-end business strategies. Businesses using the cash basis method of accounting recognize and report income when the business actually or constructively receives cash or its equivalent; for accrual-basis taxpayers, generally the right to receive income, rather than actual receipt, determines the year of inclusion of income.
• Compensation and shareholder or partner distributions from a business, and drawing the often fine line between the two, can make a considerable difference to a business owner’s overall tax liability for the year. Differences often hinge upon whether self-employment tax is paid, or whether a distribution is taxed as ordinary income or at the capital gains rate.
• Determining the difference between ordinary business activities and passive activities before implementing a year-end strategy also just makes good sense. Rental income or losses, and other passive activity gains and losses, must be netted separately from business gains and losses. Year-end timing for one does not necessarily help control your bottom-line tax cost on the other.

Please contact us if you have any questions about how traditional year-end planning might benefit your bottom line. Once Congress acts on year-end tax legislation this year, we also suggest that most taxpayers consider what steps may then be taken before the 2012 tax year closes to mitigate against any unfavorable new tax provisions.