Well, that’s reassuring. Tax Analysts reports ($link) that David Kirk, an IRS official involved in drafting the final rules on the 3.8% Obamacare “Net Investment Income Tax” that took effect January 1, says the rules are still “in flux” with filing season only two months away:
As for additional NII tax guidance, Kirk said the final regs will contain “overflow valves, breakers” that will allow the IRS to issue subregulatory guidance to address problems that arise, given that opening a new regulatory project “is a very painful and long process.”
“We’re just going to have to roll this out. We’re going to see how these rules work . . . and there’s always fine-tuning,” Kirk said.
They’ve had over three years to do this, and now “we’re going to see how these rules work”? Sounds like another recent Obamacare roll-out. It makes me really excited about the upcoming filing season.
Roberton Williams, How Big is the Penalty if You Don’t Get Health Insurance? (TaxVox)
The basic penalty is $95 in 2014—if you’re unmarried with no dependents and your income is less than $19,500. If your income is higher, you’ll owe more: 1 percent of the amount by which your income exceeds the sum of a single person’s personal exemption and standard deduction in the federal income tax. That’s $10,000 in 2013. But be warned: Income equals adjusted gross income (AGI—that number on the last line on page 1 of your tax return) plus any tax-exempt interest and excluded income earned abroad. If you make $30,000, your penalty will be $200.
Still with me? Good, because it is about to get more confusing.
If you like the penalty you have, you can keep the penalty you have. Until next year, anyway.
Christopher Bergin, ACA + IRS = Perfect Storm (Tax Analysts Blog)
And what lies ahead? The perfect storm: The IRS and the ACA brought together by a hapless Congress that tasked the nation’s tax collector with administering portions of our new healthcare system.
I can see a day coming when a taxpayer gets a letter from her insurance provider canceling her healthcare coverage and then a letter from the IRS informing her that she owes additional taxes under the ACA. Apparently our government thinks that two nightmare bureaucracies must be better for us than one.
You think this is about “us,” friend?
Ron Isley is a lot better at music than he is at taxes. He has served time on federal tax charges, and yesterday he lost a Tax Court bid to get his back taxes reduced under an “offer of compromise” he agreed to, but which the IRS rejected before it became final. The ruling turns on a lot of technicalities involving the rules for accepting compromises in criminal tax cases.
The Tax Court decision wasn’t a total loss, in that they are allowing Mr. Isley to argue against tax levies and to pursue a compromise of his 2009 and 2010 taxes.
Cite: Isley, 141 TC No. 11.
Prior coverage here.
Jason Dinesen, Life After DOMA: Watch Your Withholding
Annette Nellen, Many tax questions on same-sex federal tax filings
William Perez, The Additional Medicare Tax, Part 4
Tony Nitti, On Eve Of Twitter IPO, Misguided Senators (Again) Attack Tax Deduction For Stock Option Compensation Exercising stock options convert corporation income taxed at 35% to individual income taxed at 40.5%, plus payroll taxes. And yet the congresscritters act like this is some kind of loophole.
Russ Fox congratulates The Real Winners of the 2013 World Series of Poker. It’s not the guys with the cards in their hands.
Now there’s a business plan! BlackBerry Pins Recovery Hopes On Rumored $1 Billion In Tax Refunds (TaxGrrrl)
Wouldn’t you? Colorado Voters Reject $1 Billion Income Tax Increase (Elizabeth Malm, Tax Policy Blog).
But other taxes… Coloradans agree to a high tax to get high (Kay Bell)
Tax Justice Blog, Tax Policy Roundup for the 2013 Election
Phil Hodgen’s Exit Tax Book, Chapter 8 – Taxation of Nongrantor Trust Interests
The Critical Question. Is There One ‘Right’ Apportionment Formula? (Cara Griffith, Tax Analysts Blog):
It could almost be a case in which one state adopted it on the grounds that it would create jobs and increase investment in the state. Then other states followed suit, not because single-sales-factor apportionment produced more accurate results, but because it was perceived as making a state’s tax laws more competitive or business friendly. But while single-sales-factor apportionment may benefit some businesses, it is far from being universally beneficial for taxpayers. In the end, if state officials are truly concerned with making their state more attractive to businesses, perhaps they should consider retaining — or returning to — the three-factor apportionment method and focus on a less burdensome corporate tax system overall.
Iowa was the first state to adopt single-factor apportionment. It applies to the highest tax rate in the nation, helping make Iowa’s corporation tax both onerous and useless. A repeal of the corporation income tax would be the best way of making the corporation tax “less burdensome.”
Because they may one day make money? Why Twitter May Have to Pay Income Taxes One Day (Victor Fleisher, via The TaxProf)
Tags: TaxProf, Kay Bell, Russ Fox, Ron Isley, William Perez, Christopher Bergin, TaxGrrrl, Obamacare, Roberton Williams, Anthony Nitti, The Critical Question, Net Investment Income Tax, Elizabeth Malm, Tax Justice Blog, Victor Fleisher, David Kirk, Annette Nellen