Posts Tagged ‘ACA’

Tax Roundup, 1/28/15: President scurries away from plan to tax college savings. And: more hard-hitting journalism!

Wednesday, January 28th, 2015 by Joe Kristan

csi logoAccounting Today reports: Obama Said to Drop Proposal to Repeal 529 College Tax Break. Good.

This was perhaps the most obnoxious of the proposals in the President’s budget, and that’s saying something. Promoting “free” community college tuition, while punishing those who actually save for college to avoid government loans, is a model of awful incentives and policy.

I can’t let pass this item from the Accounting Today report (my emphasis):

The administration’s quick retreat on the proposal emphasizes the difficulty of changing popular tax breaks, even in ways that lower the overall tax burden.

Yes, hard-hitting journalism in the form of making excuses for the President. It what way does repealing the exclusion for Section 529 plan withdrawals from taxation help “lower the overall tax burden?” The CBO estimates the President’s proposals would increase taxes by over $1 trillion over ten years.

Speaking of hard hitting journalism, we have this from the Des Moines Register today:

bowtie

For those who no longer take the print edition, be assured that this important story is also available to internet readers.

Related: Annette Nellen, President Obama’s 2015 Tax Proposals

 

William Perez, Tips for Green Card Holders and Immigrants Who are Filing a US Tax Return. “Being a resident for tax purposes doesn’t necessarily mean you actually live here full time. As long as you have a green card, for example, you are responsible for reporting and paying tax on your worldwide income.”

Jason Dinesen, Iowa Trust Fund Tax Credit for 2014 Tax Returns. $15 per person this year.

Kay Bell, New IRS Form 1095-A among tax docs that are on their way. ACA adds a new wrinkle to this year’s filings.

Robert D. Flach, OBAMACARE AND 2014 TAX RETURNS

 

1099misc2014TaxGrrrl, Where Are My Tax Forms? Due Dates For Forms W-2, 1099, 1098 & More. Including a reminder that K-1s from S corporations, partnerships and trusts are not due when 1099s and W-2s are.

Leslie Book, Thumbs Up on No Income Even When IRS Serves up 1099 DIV: Ebert v Commissioner (Procedurally Taxing)

Robert Wood, Disagree With An IRS Form 1099? Here’s What To Do. “What happens if the issuer won’t cooperate?”

 

Jim Maule on The Taxation of Egg Donations. “The Court’s conclusion makes sense, and not simply because it reaches the conclusion I advocated for reasons I suggested relying on cases on which I relied.”

Russ Fox, One Good Crime Deserved Another:

Let’s say you’re involved in a 20-year scheme that has successfully evaded millions of dollars in payroll and income taxes for your largest client. However, you’ve only had minor profits from the scheme. So why not embezzle millions of dollars from that client?

Russ offers some pretty good reasons why not.

 

cooportunity logoHank Stern, CoOpportunity assumes room temp (InsureBlog). More on the demise of Iowa’s sole SHOP provider, set up with millions in government grants and loans. Underwriting is hard.

Jack Townsend asks Why the Lenient Sentencing for Offshore Account Tax Crimes. “But, from my perspective, it seems to me that one can fairly question the notion that commission of tax crimes via offshore accounts is any less blameworthy — i.e., punishable — than commission of tax crimes in other contexts.”

 

IMG_1184

Kyle Pomerleau, Richard Borean, Pass-through Businesses Account for More than $1.6 Trillion of Payroll (Tax Policy Blog):

Today, Pass-through businesses pay a significant role in the United States Economy. They account for 95 percent of all businesses, more than 60 percent of all business income, and more than 50 percent of all employment.

These are businesses taxed on owner 1040s. Remember that when politicians want to raise rates on “the rich” even more — they are hammering employers when they do this.

Richard Auxier, Pitching, Defense, and State Tax Policy (TaxVox): “So is Max Scherzer saving money in DC? Yes. Are the District’s tax laws a big reason why he signed with the Nationals? I doubt it.”

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 629

News from the Profession. Jilted Girlfriend Has Totally Had It With Cheap Accountant Boyfriend and His Stupid Spreadsheet (Adrienne Gonzalez, Going Concern).

 

Share

Tax Roundup, 1/27/15: IRS waives late payment penalty for ACA tax credit recapture. And more!

Tuesday, January 27th, 2015 by Joe Kristan

20140413-1Be thankful for small favors. Perhaps millions of taxpayers will face an unhappy surprise this tax season thanks to the Affordable Care Act. The ACA provides a tax credit to help taxpayers up to 400% of the poverty level pay for insurance purchased on an ACA exchange. The credit is computed based on an estimate of the taxpayer’s household income and paid directly to the insurance company; the premium paid by the taxpayer is reduced by the same amount.

At tax time, the policyholder-taxpayers have to compare their actual income to the income they estimated when they bought the policy. If the actual income is higher than what was estimated, they may have to repay thousands of dollars in credits paid to the insurers.

Yesterday the IRS provided some cold consolation (Notice 2015-9) for these folks, for 2014 returns only. If they can’t come up with the cash to pay the tax on April 15, the IRS will waive the penalty for late payment of taxes if the amount is reported on a timely return. They are also waiving penalties for underpayment of estimated tax attributable to the credit.

20121120-2Taxpayers claiming the waiver are just supposed to file the return without the payment for the recaptured excess credit. Then when the IRS sends an underpayment demanding payment with penalties, they are supposed to respond with a letter saying “I am eligible for the relief granted under Notice 2015-9 because I received excess advance payment of the premium tax credit.” That will go over well, I’m sure. They also have pay up by April 15, 2016, with interest.

These waivers don’t cover the separate penalty for failing to carry health insurance — the “individual mandate” — because the IRS can’t assess penalties for not paying it in the first place.

Unfortunately, the IRS has not yet issued a blanket waiver for the much more severe penalties on employers with non-compliant premium reimbursement arrangements (“Section 105 plans“). We’ll see if the IRS wants to tangle with the thousands of 2014 waiver requests they will receive if they don’t issue a blanket waiver, one-at-a-time.

Related:

Tony Nitti, IRS: No Penalties For Late Repayments Of The Premium Tax Credit

Megan McArdle, Reality Check on Obamacare Year Two

Me: The ACA and filing season. Be afraid.

 

Robert D. Flach brings you your fresh Tuesday Buzz, including advice about checking information returns and choosing a preparer.

TaxGrrrl, Credit Cards, The IRS, Form 1099-K And The $19,399 Reporting Hole. “Tucked in the middle of the housing bill was a provision that had absolutely nothing to do with housing: a new requirement that banks and credit card merchants to report payments to the IRS.”

Kay Bell, Don’t become a tax identity theft victim. Good idea.

William Perez, A First Look at TaxACT Free File Edition

Russ Fox, The Form 3115 Conundrum: “This year there’s a conundrum faced by tax professionals: Do we need to file a Form 3115 for every taxpayer who has equipment, depreciation, rental property, inventory, etc.?”

I think we will need many 3115 filings, but I don’t think they are required for everyone. As Russ notes, nobody seems to know for sure.

Robert Wood, How Yahoo’s Alibaba ‘Sale’ Skirts Tax Billions, Buffett-Like.

Peter Reilly, A Free Kent Hovind Might Have Backing For A Bigger Better Dinosaur Theme Park. It really is an amazing world.

 IMG_1178

Stephen Entin, The President Proposes a Second Tax on Estates (Tax Policy Blog):

The step-up in basis is no loophole. The step-up is needed to prevent double or triple taxation of the same assets. Without it, the president’s plan could result in a 68 percent tax rate on capital gains upon death (the inheritance would be taxed at the 40 percent estate tax rate plus the proposed 28 percent tax rate on capital gains).

It’s worse than that, considering inflation and the fact that those assets were purchased with after-tax income in the first place.

Jeremy Scott, Three Early Signs of What to Expect From Congress (Tax Analysts Blog): “It will be unpredictable.”

IMG_1116TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 628 “The pattern begins with blatant denials — bald lies — and stonewalling. … Next in the pattern, when the lies fail, comes the attribution of responsibility to the lowest level of bureaucrat. …”

Martin Sullivan, Is There Now a Window of Opportunity for Tax Reform? (Tax Analysts Blog). Spoiler: “We will have to wait until 2017 for any real progress on tax reform. And by no means is there any guarantee of movement then.”

Howard Gleckman, Is Dynamic Scoring of Tax Bills Ready For Prime Time?

Sebastian Johnson, Sam Brownback’s White Whale. “Little did Kansas voters know that in reelecting Sam Brownback they were actually voting for a vengeful old sea captain obsessed with one issue above all others – eliminating the state’s personal income tax.”

 

Career Corner. Stop Using These Played Out Words in Your LinkedIn Profile Immediately (Adrienne Gonzalez, Going Concern)

 

Share

Tax Roundup, 1/16/15: Insurance reimbursements may trigger $100/day penalty, but at least they’re not on W-2.

Friday, January 16th, 2015 by Joe Kristan

20121120-2Letter to Congressman says insurance reimbursements that trigger $100/day Obamacare penalty still excludible from W-2. 

Small employers have long used “Section 105″ plans to reimburse employee purchases of individual health insurance, in lieu of setting up an employer group health plan. Such reimbursements were excludible from employee W-2 taxable income.

Under the Administration’s interpretation of the Affordable Care Act, such plans trigger a $100 per-day, per-employee penalty starting in 2014. Many employers are just learning that they had disqualified plans last year and are scrambling to comply; fixing a plan within 30 days of compliance may enable such taxpayers to avoid the $36,500 hit for each employee on “reasonable cause” grounds.

One question that has hung over this is whether the employer has to put the reimbursements that trigger the penalties on employee W-2s as income. A letter to an Illinois Congressman reprinted today in Tax Analysts says they don’t. From the letter  (my emphasis and links):

Prior to the ACA, an employer could reimburse employees for the medical expenses of the employee and the employee’s family and exclude those amounts from the employee’s income and wages under section 105(b) of the Code. The ACA has not changed the tax treatment of the reimbursement for employee medical expenses. However, these arrangements, under the ACA, are considered to be group health plans and must satisfy the market reform rules for them.

The guidance that we provided in Notice 2013-54 did not change the tax results described in Revenue Ruling 61-146. This ruling says that under certain conditions if an employer reimburses an employee’s substantiated premiums for individual health insurance policies, the payments are excluded from the employee’s gross income under section 106 of the Code. This exclusion also applies if the employer pays the premiums directly to the insurance company.

W2Note that the exclusion “applies.” That’s present tense, meaning it’s still alive.

Some employers responded to Notice 2013-54 by treating reimbursements as taxable, but subsequent guidance issued in November last year said that didn’t work to make the $100/day penalty go away.

While they scramble to terminate their now horrifyingly expensive Sec. 105 reimbursement arrangements and figure out how to get out of the penalties, employers still have to issue W-2s this month. Now they know they can at least leave the reimbursements off employee W-2s. Given how widespread the problems seems to be, and how terrible the penalties, the IRS ought to just issue a blanket penalty waiver on this for everyone for 2014 if the non-compliance is disclosed.

Why wasn’t this printed as guidance? This letter went to Congressman Lipinski in September. A similar letter went to Kansas Congressman Goodlatte about the same time. Obviously the IRS knew from the Congressional inquiries that guidance was needed, but until Tax Analysts published this guidance, the IRS had never explained how to handle the W-2s. They still haven’t published guidance telling employers how to  “correct” the erroneous plans, as required on the penalty waiver instructions to the penalty reporting form, Form 8929.

 

IMG_0598Yeah, like he’d admit that. From Tax Analysts ($link):

The IRS is not pursuing a “Washington monument” strategy of discontinuing taxpayer services to protest recent congressional budget cuts, Commissioner John Koskinen told reporters at a press conference on January 15.

The Washington monument strategy refers to claims made by some media outlets during the October 2013 government shutdown that various federal agencies seemed to be closing highly visible public services as a protest against the shutdown.

Koskinen denied that any such calculations entered into the IRS’s decision-making regarding service and enforcement constraints that he said were induced by Congress’s $346 million cut (to $10.9 billion) to the IRS budget for fiscal 2015.

I’ll believe that he’s serious when he closes the “voluntary” preparer registration program and stops paying IRS employees to work full-time for the Treasury Employees Union.

James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal doesn’t deny that the IRS needs more money, but doesn’t have much sympathy anyway (WSJ subscription may be required to access original):

It’s all rather comical—but also galling. The IRS’s abuse of power in its harassment of conservative nonprofits aimed in substantial part at suppressing opposition to ObamaCare. That is, the IRS traduced the free-speech rights of citizens in order to preserve a law expanding IRS power and creating more work for IRS agents.

Now the commissioner complains that the IRS has too much work and not enough resources and threatens to make life even more difficult for taxpayers. It’s like the guy who killed his parents and then pleaded for mercy because he was an orphan.

And an unapologetic one.

IMG_0543

Robert D. Flach has your Friday Buzz, with a warning for users of off-the-shelf software.

William Perez, The Penalty for Not Having Health Insurance. Don’t think it’s just $95.

Robert Wood. 3 Reasons Filing Taxes Sucks? Obamacare, Obamacare & Obamacare. I can think of a lot of others, myself, but these are definitely three of them.

Alan Cole, The Employer Mandate Reduces Hours Worked (Tax Policy Blog). Not by tax preparers, it doesn’t.

 

Kay Bell, IRS Free File opens Friday, Jan. 16, for eligible taxpayers, four days ahead of Jan. 20 full tax season start

Russ Fox, If You Do Government Work, It Pays to Treat the Government Well

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 617

Howard Gleckman, What To Make of the Senate Finance Committee’s Tax Reform Workgroups 

 

Keith Fogg, Eskimos and the IRS: A Winter’s Tale (Procedurally Taxing) “This post is not about tax procedure issues in the native American population in Alaska but a recent Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) report concerning frozen credits at the IRS made me think about the number of ways Eskimos have to say snow.”

 

News from the Profession. Ron Baker: You Can Put Lipstick on Billing by the Hour But Don’t Call It Value Pricing (Adrienne Gonzales, Going Concern).

 

Share

Tax Roundup, 1/5/15: Early year-end planning edition. And: too cold for a film credit trial?

Monday, January 5th, 2015 by Joe Kristan

Accounting Today “In the Blogs” visitors: the tax and AMT article is here. You may also be interested in these thoughts on when prepaying tax is unwise, even without AMT.

 

20150105-1Now that you’re done with 2014 year-end tax planning, let’s get started on 2015. Procrastination is as human as liking sugar and shiny things. It’s natural to get serious about anything right at the deadline, whether it’s homework or tax planning.

But it’s often wiser to get started early. That’s especially true when looking at contributions to tax-advantaged savings accounts. You should look to fund these as soon as you can, rather than putting them off to the last minute. The sooner you fund your 2015 IRA, your Health Savings Account, or your Section 529 education savings account, the sooner your funds are earning their return tax-free.

So if you have the funds on hand, here’s a new year’s resolution to keep today — fully fund your tax-advantaged savings accounts. Your limits for 2015:

Contributions can not exceed the amount necessary to provide for the qualified education expenses of the beneficiary. If you contribute to a 529 plan, however, be aware that there may be gift tax consequences if your contributions, plus any other gifts, to a particular beneficiary exceed $14,000 during the year.

Taxpayers filing in Iowa can deduct their contributions to the College Savings Iowa Section 529 plan up to $3,163 per beneficiary, per donor on their Iowa income tax return. A married couple funding plans for their two children can therefore deduct up to $12,652 in 2015 CSI contributions.

 

Enjoying a short Des Moines winter commute.

Too cold for a film tax credit trial? A strange development in the Iowa Film Credit scandal, reported by the Des Moines Register:

A new fraud trial for a Nebraska filmmaker accused of using a fake purchase agreement to get tax credits should be delayed because two elderly witnesses have left Iowa for the winter, according to a prosecutor handling the case.

Yes, it’s cold here. We’re supposed to get a snowstorm today, and it’s supposed to be 1 on Wednesday. For a high temperature. And I can’t say I have a great deal of sympathy for somebody who got millions in tax credit money.

But a criminal trial is serious business, and the film scandal has been going since 2009. The prosecution says the witness is worried that he might fall. I think arrangements can be made to get him safely from the car.

What’s the case about?

Dennis Brouse, 64, has been waiting for a second trial after judges on the Iowa Court of Appeals overturned a felony fraud conviction against him in April. Brouse’s company, Changing Horses Productions, received $9 million in tax credits from Iowa’s scandal-ridden film tax credit program.

Brouse faces a single fraud charge and potentially a prison sentence, stemming from the purchase of a 38-foot camper trailer he bought from Prole couple Wayne and Shirley Weese. Prosecutors say Brouse paid the couple $10,500 in cash for the trailer, but he claimed it cost twice that amount in a statement for tax credits given to the Iowa Film Office.

The state auditor’s report on the Iowa Film Office showed a lot of creative accounting for Changing Horses, including the claim of a $1 million expense for non-cash “sponsorship” considerations. I am guessing that they are going after the trailer case because there are e-mails from the Iowa Department of Revenue blessing the “in-kind” expense concept. I’m pretty sure that there is no such endorsement of doubling expenditures.

 

Roger McEowen, Top 10 Agricultural Law and Taxation Developments of 2014 (ISU-CALT). The impact of Obamacare is #1.

20121120-2Alan Cole rings in the new year with New Year, New Individual Mandate Penalty and New Year, New Employer Mandate (Tax Policy Blog). What new individual mandate penalty?

However, it’s also worth remembering that the penalty will be doubled (or more than doubled) for 2015. 2014’s penalty is $95 or 1% of your household income, whichever is higher. 2015’s penalty is $325 or 2% of your household income, whichever comes higher.

And the employer mandate? It’s the penalty on taxpayers with 100 or more “full-time equivalent” employees. A blog post can’t really do it justice:

The IRS has issued a truly epic 56-question FAQ to help explain the even-more-epic final regulations for the employer shared responsibility provision. In case you are wondering, those final regulations total to over seventy thousand words – similar in size to the novel Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone.

It will get more epic if the Supreme Court rules that the individual tax credit only applies in the 14 states that have established their own ACA exchanges. The employer mandate only applies if an employee has qualified for the credit, and the individual mandate penalty will not apply to taxpayers whose insurance becomes “unaffordable” if the credits go away.

 

Robert Wood, Think Filing Taxes Was Tough Before Obamacare? Just Wait. “This year for the first time, the Affordable Care Act has created a trickier tax season. It is more expensive too, as virtually all Americans filing tax returns will have to consider the law’s impact on them and their taxes.”

Annette Nellen, ACA – Affordability of health insurance and age

William Perez, Directory of tax extensions for each state

Russ Fox, 1099 Time (2015 Version). “It’s time for businesses to send out their annual information returns.”

 

Kay Bell, Cigarettes are a bigger state tax target than booze. I think that explains the hostility of state governments to e-cigs.

Jason Dinesen, 5 Things You Didn’t Know About EAs, #4: The SEE Isn’t a Tax Prep Exam

Peter Reilly, IRS Revokes Exempt Status Of Faux Veterans Groups

 

20150105-2

 

Renu Zaretsky, Cap and Trade Plans, Tax Deadlines, and Rate Drops. The TaxVox headline roundup covers gas taxes, dynamic scoring, and an insane plan in Washington state for a state-only “cap and trade” carbon program.

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 606

News from the Profession: Celebrate the New Year with Accounting Salaries Charted by Company Type, Role, Service Line and More (Adrienne Gonzalez, Going Concern)

 

Share

Tax Roundup, 12/30/14: Is prepaying taxes a good bet even without AMT? And: CoOportunity failure ripples.

Tuesday, December 30th, 2014 by Joe Kristan

I’ll gladly pay you today for part of a hamburger tomorrow. In our zeal to pile deductions into this year’s return, it’s easy to overdo it. If you aren’t subject to alternative minimum tax, you can get a 2014 tax benefit by mailing your estimated 2014 state balance due by tomorrow. But does it really make sense to pay a dollar of tax now to get a 35-cent benefit on April 15? at the 35% bracket, the answer would be yes, but for lower brackets, the numbers don’t work as well.

The chart below shows compares the time value lost by sending $1,000 to the government early to the present value of the tax benefit received, using a 2% discount rate.

Green numbers show a present value benefit for prepaying 12/31/14 vs. the statutory due date indicated.

Green numbers show a present value benefit for prepaying 12/31/14 vs. the statutory due date indicated.

Every situation differs. This table should be used with caution. It does provide some tentative rules of thumb for individuals, assuming you will be in the same bracket in 2014 and 2015, that you itemize, and that AMT does not apply:

– It always makes sense to pay your fourth quarter state estimates in December instead of January.

– If you are an Iowa taxpayer, it makes sense to prepay fourth quarter federal payments at any bracket, but it never makes sense to pay your April 15 balance due in December.

– It only makes sense to prepay your state balance due for April 15 2015 by tomorrow only if you are in at least the 33% bracket, which kicks in for joint filers and $226,850 of taxable income, and for single taxpayers at $$186,350. For Iowa taxes due April 30, it’s about a push, or even a small present value loss.

– It makes sense for taxpayers in the 25% bracket ($73,500 joint, $36,900 single) to prepay their March 1 property tax installments.

– It never makes sense to prepay your September property taxes nine months ahead.

As we discussed yesterday, AMT can make prepayments a much larger blunder, so don’t do anything without running some numbers.

 

cooportunity logoThe failure of Iowa’s federally-funded CoOportunity health care insurance company is drawing national attention. The Wall Street Journal opines in Fannie Med Implodes: “Call it the Solyndra of ObamaCare.”

Meanwhile, Iowans covered by CoOportunity have to deal with the consequences. Des Moines Register, CoOportunity’s crisis could cost members thousands:

Customers who switch out of CoOportunity coverage won’t be able to start their new policies until Feb. 1, because Dec. 15 was the national deadline for obtaining insurance policies that start Jan. 1. In the meantime, many customers would have to start meeting CoOportunity’s annual deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums for 2015. Then, when they switch insurers in February, “they would have to start over, unfortunately,” Commissioner Nick Gerhart said Monday.

If you like your plan…

CoOportunity Health’s troubles could affect whether small Iowa employers can qualify for 2015 tax credits toward workers’ insurance premiums.

Employers with fewer than 25 full-time workers making an average of less than $50,000 are supposed to be eligible for the tax credits, which can amount to 50 percent of the cost of premiums. However, starting in 2015, those credits are to be applied only to policies that are sold on the employer side of the public marketplace, healthcare.gov. In Iowa, CoOportunity was the only carrier selling health policies to Iowa employers on the marketplace. The company has ceased selling new policies because of its financial crunch.

Iowa Insurance Commissioner Nick Gerhart said he’s checking with federal officials to see if there’s another way to let small Iowa employers obtain the tax credit.

The IRS has let taxpayers in some counties without a SHOP provider take the credit. We will see if they grant a similar waiver here.

Related: Hank Stern, SHOP Chop.

 

Robert Wood, 3 Quick Year End Steps Pay Off Big April 15old walnut

Kay Bell, 5 tax-saving moves you can make by Dec. 31

Tony Nitti, The Top Ten Tax Cases (And Rulings) Of 2014: #1-Obamacare Endures Additional Attacks. Aw, poor thing.

Russ Fox, IRS Announces Tax Season to Start on January 20th

Robert D. Flach, THE YEAR IN TAXES 2014. “Once again the year ended with the idiots in Congress waiting until literally the last minute to pass an extension of all of the expired ‘tax extenders’.”

Melanie Migliaccio, 9th Cir. Rejects IRS’s Transferee Status Recharacterization Argument (Tax Litigation Survey)

 

Iowa Public Radio, Rep. Grimm To Resign After Guilty Plea On Tax Charge.

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 600

Alan Cole, Au Revoir to the Millionaire’s Tax (Tax Policy Blog). “The French government will quietly allow its millionaire’s tax to expire.”

20141210-1

 

If you think I’m unsympathetic to Commissioner Koskinen’s pleas of IRS povertycheck out No Fat to Cut at the IRS? So Take a Chainsaw to the Rest of the Beast. (J.D. Tuccille, Reason.com):

Of course, Koskinen framed it in terms of customer service, and friendly media outlets immediately parroted the message that a $346 million cut, bringing the IRS budget down to $10.9 billion, inevitably means longer wait times on the phone for distraught taxpayers seeking answers for their pressing tax questions.

This is an all-hands-on-deck spin on IRS cuts, with National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson (who is theoretically on the victims’ side, despite her government paycheck) recruited to caution that the IRS is “chronically underfunded” with unfortunate implications for taxpayer service and assistance.

Then again, that might not be so horrible an outcome, given that IRS assistance involved giving taxpayers bad advice 22 percent of the time back in 1987, 41 percent of the time in 1989, 22 percent of the time in 2002, and 43 percent of the time in 2003. And no matter the advice dispensed by the tax collectors themselves, taxpayers are on the hook for getting it right.

Via Wikipedia

Via Wikipedia

I can’t help thinking that the cuts to service are an IRS version of the Washington Monument Strategy, where the government responds to budget cuts by closing the most popular and visible tourist attractions. I would find Commissioner Koskinen’s pleas of poverty more convincing if he weren’t spending money on the new “voluntary” preparer program to end-run the Loving decision that shut down the preparer regulation power-grab. It would also be a good signal to put the 200 IRS employees who spend their working days doing union work on the phones instead.

Related: Cromnibus cuts IRS budget, delays extender vote.

 

Career Corner. What If Your Job Title Were Brutally Honest? (Adrienne Gonzalez, Going Concern). I don’t suppose it would be easy to fit “Chronic Blogger Who Does Taxes to Finance It” on a business card.

Share

Tax Roundup, 12/26/14: Bad SHOP-ing day: Iowa SHOP health insurance provider goes into receivership.

Friday, December 26th, 2014 by Joe Kristan

cooportunity logoSmall businesses wanting to provide health insurance coverage for their employees got a lump of coal in their stocking Christmas Eve with the announcement that CoOportunity Health, Inc. was placed in receivership by the Iowa Insurance Division. The Omaha World Herald reports:

CoOportunity Health, the two-year-old Iowa health insurance cooperative set up with federal loans under the Affordable Care Act, is running out of money and may be liquidated, which raises questions for other health insurance cooperatives nationally.

The company’s 120,000 individual and group customers, most of them in Nebraska and the rest in Iowa, are still covered if they signed up before Dec. 15 and should continue paying premiums to keep coverage in effect, said Nick Gerhart, Iowa’s insurance commissioner.

When the insurance division takes over an insurer, their policies remain in force while the insurer is either reorganized, sold or liquidated. But that doesn’t apply to brand-new enrollees. From the Herald:

But he recommended that policyholders switch to other insurance companies during open enrollment, which ends Feb. 15. People who enroll in new health plans by Jan. 15 would have that coverage in place by Feb. 1.

People who signed up for the first time with CoOportunity after Dec. 15 will not have coverage and should find other insurers, he said. CoOportunity, one of 24 health insurance cooperatives set up under the federal health care law, cannot sell or renew policies.

CoOportunity provided coverage on both the individual healthcare.gov marketplace and the “SHOP” marketplace for small businesses. A FAQ (.doc format) from the Iowa Insurance Division on the takeover has this for small businesses looking for coverage:

If I want to remain in the marketplace and change insurance companies, where do I go?

Contact your agent or broker or go to www.Healthcare.gov.

In central Iowa the website isn’t much help. In our coverage area, CoOportunity was the only SHOP provider, as far as I can tell. I have entered sample information in the SHOP marketplace for our 50309 zip code, and I get this result:

shop plans 20141224

This makes life complicated for small businesses that don’t currently have “grandfathered” coverage. The “marketplace reforms” of the ACA have a long list of requirements for qualifying coverage. If you provide coverage that fails to meet these rules, you incur an insane penalty of $100 per day, per employee. You need to make sure your broker knows if you don’t qualify for a grandfathered plan.

This also causes problems for employers wishing to take the 50% tax credit for providing employee coverage, as the credit is only available for plans purchased through the SHOP.

Roth & Company considered a plan offered by CoOportunity at our renewal last fall. It was slightly cheaper than our current plan (for which we had a 30%+ premium increase), but we stuck with our grandfathered plan, thinking the disruption to our employees wasn’t worth the minor savings. Bullet dodged.

More coverage:

Des Moines Register, CoOportunity Health falters, taken over by state.

Bob Vineyard, Another One Bites the Dust (InsureBlog).

20131112

Peter Reilly, Tax Court Rules Wounded Warrior Can Take His Time With The Trash – Merry Christmas. Peter discusses a wonderful Tax Court case from earlier this week that treats a disabled veteran as “materially participating” in maintaining three rental properties as a real estate professional. His handicaps, which make his caretaking a slow process, actually helped him achieve better tax results, as Peter explains.

TaxGrrrl offers A Christmas Day Look At Santa’s Tax Bill.

Kay Bell, Merry Christmas 2014

Paul Neiffer, Merry Christmas – 2014

Jason Dinesen, From the Archives: You Won a Home! Now What? Part 3 of the Series

Jim Maule, Enact Tax Laws But Break Them?:

Even if Representative Michael Grimm eventually gives in to the calls for his resignation or is removed in some way from holding office, his failure to step down as part of the plea is an affront to hard-working Americans who do their best to comply with the tax law.

Heck, it’s even an affront to lazy Americans.

 

buzz20141017Robert Wood, IRS Hid Conservative Targeting Until After 2012 Presidential Election. Smidgen Corrupt?

Stephen Olsen, Summary Opinions. It’s the Procedurally Taxing roundup of recent tax procedure developments.

Many folks are taking today off, but Robert D. Flach is Buzzing away with his usual good stuff from around the tax world.

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 596

 

William McBride, Japan Plans to Cut Corporate Tax Rate, Leaving U.S. Further Behind (Tax Policy Blog):

Japan currently has a corporate tax rate of 37 percent, the second highest in the developed world after the U.S., which has a corporate tax rate of 39.1 percent (federal plus state). With this cut, Japan would be roughly tied with France for the second highest corporate tax rate in developed world, at 34.4 percent.

Iowa has the highest corporate rate in the U.S., which makes us Number 1 in a not-good way.

Howard Gleckman, House GOP Leadership Would Require Dynamic Scoring of Some Tax Bills. Will It Matter?

20141226-1

Scott Sumner, The French experiment: Laffer >>>>>>> Piketty. (Econlog). France imposed a 75% top rate. Mr. Sumner observes:

Even if you are not a devout supply-sider (and I am a moderate supply-sider, who believes tax increases usually lead to more revenue) it would be hard to deny that this particular tax increase cost revenue, after accounting for the impact of French economic growth.

There are people who seriously insist that a 75%-90% top tax rate would be a good thing. France is Exhibit A.

 

The Cavalcade no longer moves on. The Cavalcade of Risk, the long-running roundup of insurance and risk-management posts is ending. It’s guiding light, Hank Stern, posts the final edition, which includes his own contribution Green Mountain State Blues, on the demise of their attempt at single-payer coverage in one state.

 

 

Share

Tax Roundup, 11/20/14: ACA and filing season pessimism revisited.

Thursday, November 20th, 2014 by Joe Kristan

Programming note: The Tax Update will take tomorrow off. I will be in Phoenix tomorrow on a panel on state film tax credits sponsored by the National Conference of State Legislators.  The panel will include, among others, Joseph Henchman of the Tax Foundation. Normal programming resumes Monday.

 

guillotineACA frenzy! Thanks to a kind Twitter mention from Megan McArdle (who you really should follow at @asymmetricinfo), my Tuesday post on ACA and filing-season dread made it to a wider audience than usual, including the readers of Real Clear Politics. A cousin who I normally only see at family weddings and funerals saw it and sent me a note (Hi, Bob!), so I know it really got around.

It has also generated questions in the comments and the Twitterverse that are worth addressing. We’ll start with this from Alan in the comments:

In a few months when people receive their W2’s they will get a real shock when all the employer paid share of the company paid share of health care plan is included in their gross pay and now they must pay taxes on all that extra income.

Obamacare is ugly, but it isn’t that ugly. While many (but not all) employers will disclose the cost of coverage on W-2 box 12 (code DD), it will not be included in W-2 Box 1, “taxable wages.” From IRS.gov, Employer-Provided Health Coverage Informational Reporting Requirements: Questions and Answers:

Q1. Does the cost of an employee’s health care benefits shown on the Form W-2 mean that the benefits are taxable to the employee?

A. No. There is nothing about the reporting requirement that causes or will cause excludable employer-provided health coverage to become taxable. The purpose of the reporting requirement is to provide employees useful and comparable consumer information on the cost of their health care coverage.

20121120-2From Ms. McArdle on Twitter:

Any chance it won’t be that bad?

I suppose that depends on what “that bad” means. Blood seeping from the walls, shape-shifting brain-eaters from Planet Zargon, cats and dogs living together– probably not that bad. But there’s still plenty of bad to go around. The things that worry me:

- Many taxpayers will not have the information handy to determine their health insurance status for all 12-months of 2014. Only those who buy insurance on the exchanges will have Form 1095, the information return on insurance status.  Others are supposed to get information from employers, but they are likely to lose track of it, especially this first year.

- Lacking any matching documents, taxpayers will be tempted to claim coverage where there is none, or maybe wasn’t for part of the year, to avoid penalties. There won’t be an easy way to verify this. Preparers will either have to take taxpayers at their word or send them back for proof (or, inadvertently, to another preparer). It’s always bad when taxpayers feel they should lie to preparers. Yet as the IRS will often have no way to detect false claims of coverage, they will feel like chumps for telling the truth.

- Taxpayers with penalties for non-coverage will be irate when they find they get no refund. As Ms. McArdle wisely put it, “I do not have hard figures on this, but my basic experience in personal finance and tax reporting suggests that approximately zero percent of those affected will be expecting the havoc it will wreak on their tax refund.” Experience shows that the taxpayer’s first instinct is that the preparer screwed up.

- It will be even worse when we have to tell people to repay advance health-care tax credits paid to insurers to lower consumer out-of-pocket costs. This can happen when actual taxable income exceeds the amounts estimated when coverage was obtained on the exchanges. As the taxpayer never “saw the money” — it was paid to the insurer, not to the taxpayer directly — she may not be easily convinced that she has an excess benefit to repay.

20140521-1- Preparers haven’t had to deal with this before. Any new tax provision has a learning curve, and this is a complicated one that will apply to almost everyone. In many cases, preparers will mess up, being human. Getting it right will take extra time that is hard to come by during tax season.

- This doesn’t even touch the problems that many small employers are going to be dealing with as they realize their Section 105 individual coverage premium reimbursement plans, and their cafeteria plans funding premium payments on individual policies obtained by employees, are considered non-compliant under the ACA “market reforms.” At $100 per employee, per day, the penalties could be ruinous. While taxpayers are encouraged to report the penalties on Form 8928 and zero them out with a “reasonable cause” claim, we don’t know yet how generous the IRS will be in granting reasonable cause relief. Figuring out what to do here will be time-consuming and nerve-wracking for taxpayers and preparers, unless the IRS issues a blanket penalty waiver for 2014 (as it should).

On top of all this, we will probably have another late “extender” bill like we had two seasons ago, which made for an awful tax season by itself. Maybe things will go well this season, but so many things seem likely to go wrong that it’s hard to be optimistic.

 

Tony Nitti, The Top Ten Tax Cases (And Rulings) Of 2014: #6-The IRS (Finally) Figures Out The Real Estate Professional Rules. It’s an excellent lesson on the tax rules covering “real estate professionals” and passive losses — and by extension, the 3.8% net investment income tax.

TaxGrrrl, Al Sharpton Denounces Claims He Owes Millions In Taxes To IRS, New York.

Jack Townsend, Another UBS/Wegelin Related Indictment in SDNY

Peter Reilly, Kent Hovind And Creation Science Evangelism – How Not To Run A Ministry. When it gets you imprisoned, you may well be doing it wrong.

Kay Bell, Former GOP VP candidate Paul Ryan to head House tax panel

Jason Dinesen, I Don’t Have Time to Write Grant Proposals or Meet with Donors … But Give Me Money Anyway!  OK, then…

20141120-1

Work proceeds in clearing the ruins of the Younkers department store, which burned in March.

 

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 560.

Cara Griffith, Bad News for State Public Pension Plans (Tax Analysts Blog). “New research has come out revealing the level at which state public pension plans are underfunded, and it’s not good news.”

The denial of reality in administering public pensions is amazing. Public defined benefit plans are a lie. Either the public is being lied to about how much current public services cost, or current employees are being lied to about their retirement benefits. Maybe both.

 

20140910-1Alan Cole, Extenders and the Opportunity for Tax Reform (Tax Policy Blog):

The Examiner characterizes many of the extenders as “repugnant carve-outs.” This is undeniably true, but it is also the case that some – but not all – of the tax extenders are genuinely good policy. Particularly, Bonus Depreciation and Section 179 are important for moving the tax code towards proper treatment of new investment.

In any case, the current system of pretending tax provisions are “temporary” to hide their true cost is dishonest and should end.

Renu Zaretsky, “Dead Reform Walking:” On Fairness, Immigration, and Spending. The TaxVox headline roundup covers developments in the Marketplace Fairness Act, extenders and immigration, among other things.

 

News from the Profession. KPMG Gives the Department of Homeland Security a Clean Audit Opinion Because of Course They Did (Adrienne Gonzalez, Going Concern). “I don’t know about you but I feel safer already.”

 

Share

Tax Roundup, 11/18/14: The ACA and filing season. Be afraid.

Tuesday, November 18th, 2014 by Joe Kristan

20121120-2Megan McArdle, Reality Check on Obamacare Year Two:

Another thing to keep in mind, however: This open enrollment period isn’t the biggest test for Obamacare in the next 12 months.  The biggest test will be what happens on or around April 15th.  That’s the first time all the people who didn’t buy insurance will get hit with the individual mandate penalty, and the ones who thought that it was a nominal $95 fee are in for a nasty shock .  April 15th will also be the first time that people who got too much in subsidies are going to be asked to pay back some of that money.  I do not have hard figures on this, but my basic experience in personal finance and tax reporting suggests that approximately zero percent of those affected will be expecting the havoc it will wreak on their tax refund.  Brace for a wave of taxpayers angrily complaining to congressmen and their local newspapers.  

After completing the first six sessions as a panelist in continuing education for tax preparers around Iowa, I completely agree. Preparers learning about the process of computing the individual mandate penalty and the tax credit adjustments are appalled.

The first question we receive is: how are we going to get people to pay for this? The taxpayers who will have the biggest issues here will be the ones who formerly had the simplest returns and who will not be excited about paying for an extra 1-4 hours of preparer time.  A chart prepared by the ISU Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation to guide preparers through the client interview process for ACA return issues looks like this:

20141118-1

 

Courtesy Iowa State University Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation. Full-size version available to TaxPlace subscribers.

 

But it’s worse than even Ms. McArdle knows. It’s not just individual taxpayers who look to get clobbered by this. Based on what I’ve seen at our sessions, dozens or hundreds of Iowa small businesses are starting to figure out that they have had non-compliant health insurance plans so far in 2014 as a result of the ACA “market reforms.”  Non-compliance carries a penalty of $100 per day, per employee. At $36,500 per employee per year, it doesn’t take too much of this to bankrupt a small business. And it’s not as though these employers are doing something abusive; they have just continued funding employee insurance the way they always had, but in ways the “Departments” that run Obamacare no longer like. Or they just might have done all the right things, except for properly notifying employees of their coverage options in writing. Trivial violations, crushing penalties.

While there is a provision to have the penalty waived for reasonable cause, that’s not very comforting in a state where the IRS is willing to loot a restaurant’s bank account without any indication of wrongdoing.  In addition to dealing with a parade of irate individuals with sticker shock from their return fees, let alone their new taxes and penalties, preparers also have to tell noncompliant business-owning clients that they suddenly have a potentially devastating tax liability.

If taxpayers are upset after tax season as practitioners are before it, Obamacare will be about as popular as Ebola by April 15.

 

 

Today in Red Oak.Kay Bell, IRS offers tax relief in certain Ebola situations

Robert D. Flach discusses TAX EFFICIENT INVESTING

Leslie Book, Living With Your Decisions: Delinquent Mortgage Debt (Procedurally Taxing). “Courts and IRS put the kibosh on deductions when the new loan comes from the same lender as the old delinquent loan; the theory in those cases is that the taxpayer has not really gone out of pocket and that there is just a shuffling of papers.”

 

Martin Sullivan, Why the Upcoming Battle Over Expiring Tax Provisions Matters — A Lot (Tax Analysts Blog). “Extenders legislation is not just about the fate of a grab bag of miscellaneous tax provisions this year. If Republicans can get expensive expiring provisions permanently extended, the chances for enactment of tax reform will be significantly improved.”

Steve Warnhoff, New CBO Report: Yes, the Rich Are Paying “a Bit” More (Tax Justice Blog). How much more, Steve?  “New CBO study shows that ‘the rich’ don’t just pay their ‘fair share,’ they pay almost everybody’s share.” (Via Instapundit):

20141118-2

 

Kyle Pomerleau, CBO: Overall Federal Taxing and Spending is Progressive (Tax Policy Blog)

 

Donald Marron, Spin Alert: DOE Loans Are Losing Money, Not Making Profits (TaxVox). Of course they are losing money. If they were profitable, they wouldn’t need the feds to make the loans.

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 558

 

News from the Profession. You’re Not Really as Busy as You Claim (Adrienne Gonzalez, Going Concern)

 

Share

Tax Roundup, 11/10/14: DOL nixes many employer health reimbursement setups. And: Sheldon!

Monday, November 10th, 2014 by Joe Kristan

Good morning from beautiful, if frigid, Sheldon, Iowa, where I am on the Day 1 panel of the Iowa State University Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation Farm and Urban Tax School. A good crowd has braved the brisk north winds and forecasts of snow — so now it’s up to us to make them glad they did.

20141110-1

 

Elections are over I. Branstad says Iowa road funding a top priority, raising fuel tax on the table (Omaha.com)

Elections are over II. FAQs about Affordable Care Act Implementation (Part XXII) The Department of Labor has issued new guidance on small-employer plan arrangements. The guidance, issued just after the election, puts strict limits on the ability of employers to bypass group plan rules by reimbursing premiums or using Health Reimbursement Arrangements under Section 105. As plans doing that have been marketed to small employers in Iowa and elsewhere, this could be an expensive development for employers; violating these rules carries a $100 per day penalty for each affected employee.

The FAQ discusses premium reimbursement arrangements: (my emphasis):

My employer offers employees cash to reimburse the purchase of an individual market policy. Does this arrangement comply with the market reforms?

No. If the employer uses an arrangement that provides cash reimbursement for the purchase of an individual market policy, the employer’s payment arrangement is part of a plan, fund, or other arrangement established or maintained for the purpose of providing medical care to employees, without regard to whether the employer treats the money as pre-tax or post-tax to the employee. Therefore, the arrangement is group health plan coverage within the meaning of Code section 9832(a), Employee Retirement Income Securi20121120-2ty Act (ERISA) section 733(a) and PHS Act section 2791(a), and is subject to the market reform provisions of the Affordable Care Act applicable to group health plans. Such employer health care arrangements cannot be integrated with individual market policies to satisfy the market reforms and, therefore, will violate PHS Act sections 2711 and 2713, among other provisions, which can trigger penalties such as excise taxes under section 4980D of the Code. Under the Departments’ prior published guidance, the cash arrangement fails to comply with the market reforms because the cash payment cannot be integrated with an individual market policy.(6)

This means that employers cannot have employees submit their insurance bills for reimbursement; doing so is considered a disqualified group insurance plan. The closest the employer can do is give an employee a raise without restriction, giving the employee the option of buying insurance.

The FAQ pretty much embalms Sec. 105 plans as substitutes for group plans.

A vendor markets a product to employers claiming that employers can cancel their group policies, set up a Code section 105 reimbursement plan that works with health insurance brokers or agents to help employees select individual insurance policies, and allow eligible employees to access the premium tax credits for Marketplace coverage. Is this permissible?

No. The Departments have been informed that some vendors are marketing such products. However, these arrangements are problematic for several reasons. First, the arrangements described in this Q3 are themselves group health plans and, therefore, employees participating in such arrangements are ineligible for premium tax credits (or cost-sharing reductions) for Marketplace coverage. The mere fact that the employer does not get involved with an employee’s individual selection or purchase of an individual health insurance policy does not prevent the arrangement from being a group health plan. DOL guidance indicates that the existence of a group health plan is based on many facts and circumstances, including the employer’s involvement in the overall scheme and the absence of an unfettered right by the employee to receive the employer contributions in cash.(12)

DOL LogoSecond, as explained in DOL Technical Release 2013-03, IRS Notice 2013-54, and the two IRS FAQs addressing employer health care arrangements referenced earlier, such arrangements are subject to the market reform provisions of the Affordable Care Act, including the PHS Act section 2711 prohibition on annual limits and the PHS Act 2713 requirement to provide certain preventive services without cost sharing. Such employer health care arrangements cannot be integrated with individual market policies to satisfy the market reforms and, therefore, will violate PHS Act sections 2711 and 2713, among other provisions, which can trigger penalties such as excise taxes under section 4980D of the Code.

It is difficult to determine the policy reasons behind this. As best I can tell, it seems to be that the DOL wants employees to be covered either under traditional group plans set up under the small business exchanges, or on individual plans purchased through the regular exchanges. Whatever the policy justification, it’s bad news for any employers using such arrangements, as the rules are already in effect for 2014.

Paul Neiffer has more at DOL Plays Hardball (Don’t Shoot the Messenger)!

If you are dealing with any vendor offering Section 105 plans that are attempting to make payment of health insurance premiums for more than one employee deductible by the employer and exempt from payroll taxes, be extremely careful.  As you can see from this Q #3, the DOL takes a dim view of these arrangements.

One last area of concern that was not addressed by the DOL is what happens with S corporation shareholders who have health insurance premiums reimbursed.  Under the self-employed health insurance deduction rules, there is a requirement for reimbursement; under the DOL Q&A, these reimbursements may run afoul of the ACA requirements.  If we get further clarity on this, we will let you know.

I understand this as restricting S corporation 2% owners to group plans, without a reimbursement option, but I suspect clarification is forthcoming.

Additional coverage from ISU-CALT: Updated! Heal.th Reimbursement Plans Not Compliant with ACA Could Mean Exorbitant Penalties.

 

20131111-1

Sheldon scene, 2013. It’s slightly less cold this year.

William Perez, What You Need to Know about Reporting Payments Using Form 1099-MISC

Kay Bell, IRS taxpayer service outlook, short- and long-term, is bleak

Robert Everett JohnsonIRS Seizure of Assets Using Anti-Structuring Laws (Procedurally Taxing). It is a guest post by an attorney for the heroic Institute for Justice, which is defending the Arnolds Park, Iowa resturaunteur whose cash was stolen by the IRS.

TaxGrrrl, IRS Warns Taxpayers To Be Diligent As Identity Thieves Add New Twist To Phone Scam.

Russ Fox, Since the Dead Vote, Why Can’t They Get Tax Exemptions? “Cook County has begun to make sure that seniors are truly alive when taking the exemption.”

 

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 550. Todays links hit heavily on the failure of the agency to even look for the missing Lois Lerner e-mails in its servers or backup tapes. Yet Commissioner Koskinen just doesn’t understand why Republican appropriators don’t want to entrust him with a bigger budget.

Career Corner. Gentlemen, If Your Firm Offers Paternity Leave, Take All Of It (Caleb Newquist, Going Concern). Yes, it gives you lots of time to interview for that new job you’ll be needing.

 

Share

Tax Roundup, 10/1/14: Another court says Obamacare tax credits limited to state exchanges. Also: the Iowa Tollway.

Wednesday, October 1st, 2014 by Joe Kristan

oklahoma logoState means state. A U.S. District Court in Oklahoma has joined the D.C. District in holding that the tax credit subsidies for health insurance are limited to the 14 states that have established a health insurance exchange under the ACA. Other states let the feds set up exchanges.  Michael Cannon reports:

Noting that Obama administration wants to issue Exchange subsidies in states with federal Exchanges even though the PPACA (quoting Halbig) “unambiguously restricts the [Exchange] subsidy to insurance purchased on Exchanges ‘established by the State,’” Judge White argues that the government’s interpretation (quoting the Tenth Circuit in Sundance Assocs., Inc., v. Reno) “leads us down a path toward Alice’s Wonderland, where up is down and down is up, and words mean anything.” As evidence, White quotes the concurring opinion in King: “‘[E]stablished by the State’ indeed means established by the state – except when it does not[.]”

The D.C. District decision was upheld by a D.C. Circuit appeals panel, but has been vacated pending a rehearing by the full panel of judges.  The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has sided with the government, holding that the subsidies apply to all exchanges.  The issue is almost certainly going to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Both the ACA employer mandate and individual mandate penalties depend on how the decision comes out.  The employer mandate only applies if an employee gets a tax credit subsidy, so the Oklahoma rule would exempt employers in 36 states from the mandate. The tax credits are also key for determining whether insurance is “affordable” in computing individual penalties for not buying insurance; if the credits are unavailable, penalties would go away for millions of taxpayers in the 36 states using federal exchanges.

Related:

Whither Halbig and the ACA.

Obamacare tax credits get a reprieve.

Cite: Pruitt v Burwell. DC-OK, No. CIV-11-30-RAW

Peter Reilly, Court Rules Oklahoma ObamaCare Not OK

 

 

20120703-2Many economists say highway tolls are a sound way to finance road improvements. While Iowa has no official tollways, our state troopers are taking matters into their own hands, according to a report in today’s Des Moines Register:

 Two California poker players are refusing to fold in a legal battle against the state, claiming Iowa State Patrol troopers unlawfully seized their $100,020 gambling bankroll.

Troopers with the State Patrol’s criminal interdiction team — which works to catch drug traffickers and other criminals along interstates — used unfair procedures that target out-of-state drivers and cast suspicion on nonthreatening motorists, according to a lawsuit filed this week in federal district court on behalf of professional gamblers William “Bart” Davis and John Newmer­zhycky.

The men were traveling in a rented car from a poker event in Illinois with their bankroll.  They were pulled over on a pretext of not signalling a lane change — a pretext seemingly debunked by the patrol car dash cam recording — and ended up having their $100,000 seized.  They were also charged with having “drug paraphernalia.”

The state has returned $90,000, but the state has kept $7 million in seized funds from other out-of-state motorists, often without bothering to file charges.  A state spokesman defends the indefensible practice, which hits hardest people who are least likely to be able to afford to take the state to court, by saying it hurts criminals. You could probably catch some criminals and raise some cash by stopping and frisking everyone leaving the Harkin Steak Fry too, but that would hardly justify doing so.

Dallas County Sheriff took the practice a little too far; he was convicted of stashing seized funds in his garage (in a case where no charges were filed against the motorists whose cash was confiscated). Even when the troopers don’t help themselves to the cash, civil forfeiture without conviction of a crime is a corrupt and lawless practice that is overdue for reform.

Related: Steven Dunn, Nothing Civil About Asset Forfeiture

Update: From Jacob Sullum (Reason.com), Iowa Troopers Steal $100,000 in Poker Winnings From Two Players Driving Through the State

 

20121022-1William Perez, What You Need to Know About the Penalty for Not Having Health Insurance

TaxGrrrl continues her excellent “back to school” series with Back To School 2014: Educational Assistance Benefits

Kay Bell, Tax evasion charges are never fashionable. But tax cheating never seems to go out of style.

Jason Dinesen, Letting My Hair Grow Back: DIY is Not Always Better. Doing your own hair can be a bad idea; this also often applies to tax returns.

Or expatriations: There is no DIY green card abandonment (Phil Hodgen). 

 

Howard Gleckman, The Public Wants Clear Rules About Campaign Giving Through Tax-Exempts. Is It Possible? Yes, just the other day waiting in line at Hy-Vee, I heard a lady flipping through the People magazine say “Yes, they really need to do something about 501(c)(4) abuse.” She then apparated without even replacing the magazine.

 

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 510

Sebastian Johnson, State Rundown 9/30: The Gas Tax Cometh? (Tax Justice Blog). Better than taking cash from random travelers, anyway.

Joseph Henchman, State Inflation-Indexing of Gasoline Taxes

News from the Profession. Prospective Intern Wants to Know if Firm Will Let Him Go on Vacation During Internship (Adrienne Gonzalez, Going Concern).

 

Share

Tax Roundup, 8/6/14: Telemarketing isn’t an airplane. And: inversion hysteria, always in style.

Wednesday, August 6th, 2014 by Joe Kristan

20120529-2Is your airplane any of your business?  The Tax Court yesterday dealt with a problem that will arise a lot as taxpayers struggle with the new 3.8% Obamacare Net Investment Income Tax: what “activities” can be considered to be part of a single business?

The issue comes up because “passive” activities are subject to the tax, while non-passive activities are exempt.  It is especially important when S corporations are involved because their K-1 income is also exempt from the 2,9 Medicare tax and the .9% Obamacare Medicare surtax.  The status of activities as “non-passive” usually depends on the amount of time spent working in the activity; if you can combine activities they are less likely to be passive.

Tax Court Judge Buch outlines yesterday’s case:

 Mr. Williams is an aviation buff who owns a business that is unrelated to aviation. He purchased an airplane that he made available for rent, used for personal purposes, and used in his other business. On the Williams’ joint tax returns, they offset losses related to the ownership of the airplane against their income from the other business. Respondent disallowed those offsets… 

Passive losses cannot offset non-passive income under the 1986 passive loss rules; they carry forward to offset future income until the activity is sold.  Mr. Williams reported the airplane expenses as part of his business of training telemarketers.  The court reviews the rules on combining activities (footnotes omitted; my emphasis):

Section 1.469-4(c), Income Tax Regs., sets rules for determining what constitutes a single “activity”. That regulation provides: “One or more trade or business activities or rental activities may be treated as a single activity if the activities constitute an appropriate economic unit for the measurement of gain or loss for purposes of section 469.” Whether activities constitute an “appropriate economic unit” depends on the facts and circumstances, giving the following five factors the greatest weight:

(i) Similarities and differences in types of trades or businesses;

(ii) The extent of common control;

(iii) The extent of common ownership;

(iv) Geographic location; and

(v) Interdependencies between or among the activities (for example, the extent to which the activities purchase or sell goods between or among themselves, involve products or services that are normally provided together, have the same customers, have the same employees, or are accounted for with a single set of books and records.)

The judge said the airplane wasn’t part of the same “economic unit” as Mr. Williams’ other business, called WPP:

The fact that there was no meaningful interdependence between the ownership of the airplane and the business of WPP is evidenced in part by the fact that Mr. Williams would rent another airplane for travel because he could earn more from renting WPP’s airplane to other pilots or pilot trainees than he would pay if he or WPP rented another airplane for a trip. Further, most of the airplane’s use and income came from renting the airplane outside WPP, which had no effect on the business of WPP. Likewise, there is no indication that the airplane activity depended on WPP; it was only an occasional user of the airplane. There is no evidence that WPP and the airplane activity had any of the same customers or that the two activities were integrated in any meaningful way.

When the airplane activity was separated his other business, Mr. Williams was unable to muster enough hours to reach “material participation,” making the airplane losses passive and non-deductible.

What does this mean in planning for the NIIT?  Taxpayers get to revisit their activity groupings for 2013 and 2014 returns.  Taxpayers with multiple businesses will want to ponder what things they can realistically combine.  Just because you own both businesses doesn’t mean the tax law will consider them an “appropriate economic unit.”

Cite: Williams, T.C. Memo 2014-158

 

20140805-3Paul Neiffer, IRS Provides Two Optional Methods for SE Health Insurance Deduction.

Jack Townsend, Whistleblower Award for FBAR Penalties?

Jason Dinesen, Kudos to NAEA for Promoting EAs.  Not to sound dumb, but isn’t that what the National Association of Enrolled Agents is supposed to do?

Russ Fox, The IRS Apparently Thinks They Won the Loving Case.  “In Loving v. IRS, the IRS was permanently enjoined from the Registered Tax Return Preparer designation. One would think that the IRS would realize this and remove the designation from forms.”

Keith Fogg, How Bankruptcy Can Create a Pyrrhic Victory out of a Tax Court Win (Procedurally Taxing)

 

Peter Reilly, FAIR Tax Abolishes IRS – Then What?  I have long thought the fair tax was half-baked gimmick, deceptively marketed.  If you want to move to a consumption tax, move to a real consumption tax.

Adam Michel, What is the Consumed Income Tax?  (Tax Policy Blog)

 

 

Allison Christians, Regulating Return Preparers: A Global Problem for the IRS:

The problem of regulating all foreigners in service of U.S. citizenship taxation plagues FATCA in the details, and it will plague the project of tax return preparer regulation as well. It won’t be easily solved unless Congress can accept that the universally practiced norm of residency-based taxation is really the only viable option in a globalized world. If not, as the world adjusts to the ongoing expansion of U.S. regulatory power through more — and more complex — financial regulation, everyone will have to accept that virtually every tax move Congress makes has global implications.

Via the TaxProf.

Just what the world needs: more IRS.

 

nra-blue-eagleDavid Brunori, Keep the Inversion Hysteria Out of the States (Tax Analysts Blog).  “A company’s decision to invert is no different from an individual’s decision to live in a state without an income tax or to buy a house rather than rent to take advantage of a tax break.”  But, but, what about your loyalty oath?  You must hate America!  Or, worse, Iowa!

Scott Hodge, More Perspective on Inversions: Not a Threat to the Tax Base but the Face of U.S. Uncompetiveness (Tax Policy Blog)

Bob McIntyre, Statement: Despite Walgreens’ Decision, Emergency Action Is Still Needed to Stop Corporate Inversions (Tax Justice Blog, where inversion hysteria is always in style).

Eric Toder, How Political Gridlock Encourages Tax Avoidance (TaxVox)

 

Joseph Thorndike, The Origination Clause? Let It Go (Tax Analysts Blog).  Since the courts allow the Senate to strip any house bill of its text and replace it with revenue provisions, it’s pretty much dead already.  And that’s a shame.

 

Your legislators at work: 

Chicago lawmaker pleads to misdemeanor; faced 17 felonies. ““I’m sorry I underestimated my taxes.”

Fattah Jr. released on bail following U.S. indictment on theft, fraud and tax-evasion charges.  The son of a Congresscritter has tax issues? The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

 

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 454

Career Corner.  Career Limiting Moves: A Beginner’s Guide (Leona May, Going Concern).

 

Share

Tax Roundup, 7/29/14: Whither Halbig and the ACA. And lots more!

Tuesday, July 29th, 2014 by Joe Kristan

20121120-2The Big Tax News while I was on vacation was the Halbig decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.  The decision holds invalid the IRS decision allowing tax credit subsidies for policies purchased on federal insurance exchanges.  The impact of the decision was offset by a Fourth Circuit decision the same day coming to the opposite conclusion, but it is still a big deal, especially in light of some subsequent events.

The D.C. circuit has national implications because every taxpayer can come under its jurisdiction by litigating through the Court of Federal Claims.  An alert reader corrects me:

Your post today contains an error.  The  D.C. circuit is not the same as the federal circuit.  The court of federal claims is appealable to the federal circuit. The district court for the D.C. circuit is appealable to the D.C. circuit.  Halbig is a big deal in any event because the dc circuit instructed the district court to vacate the rule.  Vacated means that there is no rule anywhere.  In any event, SCOTUS will make the final call here.

As long as that decision stands — and the IRS will certainly ask the 15-member court to reconsider Halbig, decided by a three-member panel — it threatens not only the tax credits for the 37 states without their own exchanges, but it also invalidates the employer mandate tax in those states and takes much of the bite out of the individual mandate.  The South Carolina Policy Council explains why (my emphasis):

The subsidies are also important for their function as triggers of both the individual and employer mandate portions of the ACA. The ACA imposes a $2,000 per employee penalty for companies with more than 50 employees who do not offer “adequate health insurance” to their workers. This penalty is triggered when an employee accepts an IRS subsidy on a plan purchased through an exchange. If individuals in the 36 states without a state-run exchange are ineligible for subsidies, there will be no trigger to set off the employer mandate.

An absence of subsidies would also allow many people to avoid the ACA’s individual mandate, which requires citizens to maintain health insurance covering certain minimum benefits or pay a fine. This is because the ACA exempts citizens from the individual mandate whose out-of-pocket costs for health insurance exceed 8 percent of their household income. If IRS subsidies are removed, insurance plans offered on exchanges would exceed this cost threshold for many people – thereby providing them an exemption from the mandate.

Flickr image courtesy Tim under Creative Commons license

Flickr image courtesy Tim under Creative Commons license

This would devastate the already shaky economics of Obamacare.

The key ruling in Halbig is its finding that statutory language allowing tax credits through exchanges “established by a State” doesn’t cover the federal exchanges that are used in the 36 states without exchanges.   Critics of Halbig say that Congress couldn’t have been that stupid.  For example, Jonathan Gruber, an architect of the ACA, says“Literally every single person involved in the crafting of this law has said that it`s a typo, that they had no intention of excluding the federal states.”

That assertion has been challenged by a number of observers, notes Megan McArdle.  She cites a January 2012 speech by one Jonathan Gruber, an architect of the ACA:

Only about 10 states have really moved forward aggressively on setting up their exchanges. A number of states have even turned down millions of dollars in federal government grants as a statement of some sort — they don’t support health care reform.

Now, I guess I’m enough of a believer in democracy to think that when the voters in states see that by not setting up an exchange the politicians of a state are costing state residents hundreds and millions and billions of dollars, that they’ll eventually throw the guys out. But I don’t know that for sure. And that is really the ultimate threat, is, will people understand that, gee, if your governor doesn’t set up an exchange, you’re losing hundreds of millions of dollars of tax credits to be delivered to your citizens. [emphasis added] 

The 2012 Jonathan Gruber repeated the story that only state-established exchanges qualify for credits in other forums.   It’s remarkable that two ACA architects named Jonathan Gruber have such divergent views of what the bill does.  It’s even more remarkable that they are the same guy.  This seems like strong support for the D.C. Circuit’s approach.

supreme courtIf the ACA were just another tax bill, it would be pretty easy to predict that the Supreme Court would go with the D.C. Circuit’s approach, based on prior rulings involving statutes that reached results the IRS didn’t care for.  In the Gitlitz case, which arguably provided an unintended windfall for S corporation shareholders when the S corporation incurred non-taxable debt forgiveness income, the Supreme Court said in an 8-1 decision (footnotes and citations omitted, emphasis added):

Second, courts have discussed the policy concern that, if shareholders were permitted to pass through the discharge of indebtedness before reducing any tax attributes, the shareholders would wrongly experience a “double windfall”: They would be exempted from paying taxes on the full amount of the discharge of indebtedness, and they would be able to increase basis and deduct their previously suspended losses.  Because the Code’s plain text permits the taxpayers here to receive these benefits, we need not address this policy concern.

In other words, if Congress doesn’t like what it has done, it’s up to Congress to fix it, not the IRS.  Congress did just that with the Gitlitz result within a year of the decision.

Of course, the ACA isn’t typical tax legislation.  Chief Justice Roberts tied himself in knots to find a way to uphold Obamacare in 2012.  Politics makes it unlikely that the Gitlitz approach will be followed by the left side of the Supreme Court, and who knows how Justice Roberts will rule.  But it does appear at least possible that Halbig will be upheld.

What should taxpayers do?  My thought is to assume the mandates remain in effect and pay tax (or reduce your withholding) accordingly.  Then be prepared to file a refund claim if Halbig is upheld by the Supreme Court.  Plan for the worst and hope for the best.

At least one thoughtful commentator says that ultimately if Halbig is upheld, holdout states will fall into line and establish exchanges.  For the reasons laid out here, I don’t think that will happen, and Congress will be forced to clean up its mess.

 

Paul Neiffer, ACA Subsidies: One Court Strikes Down, Another Upholds

Kristy Maitre, IRS Releases Additional ACA Revenue Procedures and Draft Forms  (ISU-CALT)

 

20140729-2Jason Dinesen, Don’t Be “That” Business Owner.  “I see too many with preconceived notions of what they can “get by with.” I’ve seen and read about too many people whose life got turned upside-down when they ended up NOT “getting by with it” after all.”

Russ Fox,  2:42.  “That’s how long I spent on hold on the IRS Practitioner Priority Service (PPS) yesterday–two hours, forty-two minutes.”   It’s a good thing Practitioners are a “Priority,” or who knows how long he’d have been on hold.

Phil Hodgen, Green card holders, treaty elections, and exit tax

Stephen Olsen, Ct. of Fed. Claims Holds Merger Results in “Same Taxpayer” for Net Zero Interest Rate (Procedurally Taxing)

Peter Reilly wonders if it is Time To Let Kent Hovind Go Home?  Peter thinks the former owner of a theme park based on the idea that hominids and dinosaurs co-existed may have suffered enough for his tax misdeeds.

Robert D. Flach brings the fresh Tuesday Buzz!

Well, these things are never tidi.  Spanish Court Moving Forward With Messi Tax Evasion Case  (TaxGrrrl)

 

taxanalystslogoDavid Brunori, Who Wants to Tax a Millionaire? Lots of People (Tax Analysts Blog).  This is full fo good observations about the unwisdom of states soaking the “rich.”  Highlights include:

States do not (and should not) do a lot of redistributing to the very poor.

When states jack up taxes on the “rich,” the money doesn’t exactly go to people sleeping under bridges, as David explains (my emphasis):

I have written about this before.  I noted that “the real beneficiaries of most government spending, certainly at the state level, never come up. No one ever says that we need higher taxes because my friends in the construction business want new contracts. No one ever says that they want new taxes to expand bloated public employee union bureaucracies. Yes, crony capitalism and union bosses drive most calls for higher taxes.” My right-wing friends often criticize liberals calling for higher marginal taxes as delusional. But they know exactly what they’re doing. Often they want higher taxes just so they can give money to their friends.

The money taken from “the rich” goes to the well-connected.  Iowa’s highest-in-the-nation system fleeces those without pull to pay rich subsidies to well-connected politicians and corporations.  Better to throw out the crony subsidies and lower rates for the rest of us — like The Tax Update’s Quick and Dirty Tax Reform Plan would do.

 

Elaine Maag, The “Helping Working Families Afford Child Care Act” Would Help, but Doesn’t Solve the Timing Mismatch (TaxVox).  “Making the CDCTC refundable and increasing allowable expenses is a huge step in improving child care assistance for low-income families.”

 

20140729-1Joseph Thorndike, The Corporate Income Tax Will Never Be ‘Fixed.’ And That’s OK. (Tax Analysts Blog):

Again, I think the corporate income tax is on the way out. But that’s a long-term problem. It doesn’t mean we should throw in the towel right away. The corporate tax may, as McArdle suggests, be an “insane, unwinnable chess game” pitting lawyers against tax collectors. But for the time being, the game is still worth the candle.

I think Megan McArdle has the better case, that the corporation income tax needs to go away, one way or the other.   I like the idea of doing so via a corporation dividends-paid deduction, combined with an excise tax on dividends for otherwise-exempt stockholders, as a way to get there.

Scott Hodge, More on Inversions and the Effective Tax Rates of Foreign-Owned Firms.   “The administration may want to think twice about taking unilateral action without considering the consequences.”

Clint Stretch, Dreams of Tax Reform (Tax Analysts Blog).  Patsy Cline is invoked.

 

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 446

 

Greg Kyte, Clarifying Sex and Auditor Independence After the EY and Ventas Affair (Going Concern).  Can an auditor be “independent” while sleeping with a CFO?  Well, auditors are supposed to have hearts of stone…

 

Share

Tax Roundup, 5/30/15: Antidumping edition. And: permanent bonus depreciation advances.

Friday, May 30th, 2014 by Joe Kristan

20121120-2Iowa Public Radio, Can Employers Dump Workers On Health Exchanges? Yes, For A Price:

The latest tweak from the Internal Revenue Service essentially prohibits employers from giving workers tax-free subsidies to buy policies in the online public marketplaces created by the health law. The New York Times first reported the rule.

But the headline on the story, “I.R.S. Bars Employers From Dumping Workers Into Health Exchanges,” overstates the case. Nothing stops employers from canceling company plans and leaving workers to buy individual policies sold through the exchanges — as long as the companies pay the relevant taxes and penalties, said Christopher Condeluci, a Venable lawyer specializing in benefits and taxes. Those would vary according to a company’s size and circumstances.

The ACA requires employers with more than 50 “full-time equivalent” employees to provide “adequate” coverage.  The IRS says that subsidizing employees to use the ACA exchanges doesn’t work.  This, of course, is the same IRS that arbitrarily and unlawfully just waived the requirement in the first place through 2014, and for those with under 100 employees through 2015.  Some laws are more equal than others.

It’s fascinating that the Administration refers to the practice of sending employees to buy policies on the exchanges as “dumping.”  The exchanges are a centerpiece of Obamacare, touted as an important step in making affordable coverage available for everyone.  Suddenly they are a “dump.”  Obamacare fines individuals for not patronizing that very dump.

 

20130422-2Permanent bonus depreciation advances in House.  Tax Analysts reports  ($link, my emphasis)):

Camp said the extenders the committee considered had been renewed enough times that most of them have been or soon will have been extended for at least 10 years, the budget window period. “If we’ve extended something for 10 years, let’s call it what it is, [and] that’s permanent policy,” he said. “We shouldn’t have to raise taxes other places in the economy to keep current tax law.”

The costliest bill the committee approved was H.R. 4718, introduced by Ways and Means Committee member Patrick J. Tiberi, R-Ohio. That bill would permanently extend bonus depreciation, allowing businesses to immediately deduct 50 percent of qualified purchased property. The bill, passed on a 23-11 vote, would expand the definition of qualified property to include owner-occupied retail stores. It would lift restrictions to allow for more unused corporate alternative minimum tax credits, which businesses can claim in lieu of bonus depreciation, to be used for capital investment.

Expiring provisions are a lie.  Any extension of an “expiring” provision should be counted as permenent under budget rules, as they pretty much are.

Related: Dave Camp’s Great Bonus Depreciation Flip-Flop (Howard Gleckman, TaxVox);  Negative GDP Growth Illustrates the Need for Bonus Depreciation (Alan Cole, Tax Policy Blog)

 

Wind turbineOne of these is not like the other.  The Des Moines Register coverage of last night’s Iowa GOP Senate Primary debate has something I never expected to see in a story about a candidate for statewide office:

Whitaker stands out because he doesn’t support the Renewable Fuel Standard, or any tax breaks for any energy source. “If we don’t believe in mandates for health care, we shouldn’t believe in mandates as it relates to energy,” he said.

All other candidates in both parties genuflect to the Renewables Subsidy idol.  In Iowa, ethanol apostasy is rare; more typical is the GOP governor who is all about picking winners and losers, when the winners are an influential local constituency.

Related: Governor’s press conference praises construction of newest great pyramids.

 

The IRS needs to regulate these people to stamp out fraud.  “Tammy Dickinson, United States Attorney for the Western District of Missouri, announced today that six former employees of the Internal Revenue Service have pleaded guilty to receiving unemployment benefits while they worked at the agency.” (Department of Justice press release)

Robert D. Flach serves up your Friday Buzz.  “Who would have guessed that I would agree with a group of CPAs?”

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 386

 

20140516-1

 

 

And now they’ve proved it.  A Minneapolis husband and wife who ran a website called imarriedanidiot.com were convicted last week on federal tax charges.” (TwinCities.com)

Across the road, of course.  Where are all the Chickens?  (Paul Neiffer)

News from the Profession.  This Big 4 Firm Just Ruined Selfies for Everyone (Going Concern)

Share

Tax Roundup, 5/19/14: The Roth dilemma. And: risks in enlisting the bookkeeper in your tax crimes.

Monday, May 19th, 2014 by Joe Kristan

IRAIs it better to get a tax benefit now and pay taxes later on retirement income, or vice-versa?  Bloomberg econobogger Megan McArdle ponders the question in To Roth, or Not to Roth:

In theory, the calculation is easy: Figure out whether your tax rate is likely to be higher now or in the future. If you’re young, the answer is likely to be “future”; if you’re in your peak earnings years, you’re probably looking at a lower tax rate when you’re retired.

But while the theory is simple, in practice, things are considerably more complicated. Personal finance is less about math than psychology . . . and tax policy, in this case. What will the tax rate on your income be when you retire — higher or lower than your current tax rate?

“Roth” IRAs and 401(k)s offer no current tax reduction, but if the account is left untapped long enough, there is never an income tax on the earnings.  It’s not always a tough choice.  Many young people face a marginal income tax rate of zero.  To the extent a low-earning young taxpayer benefits from a 401(k) plan or saves in an IRA, you might as well go with a Roth version, as there is little or no current benefit anyway.

As you climb the income ladder, it quickly becomes a more difficult decision.  When my company first had a Roth option, I opted in for a year.  Then it occurred to me that I was making a bet on much higher tax rates in the future at much lower income levels.  That seemed like a losing bet (but see this) and I switched back to the traditional 401(k) with current tax savings.

Megan also notes a real, if hard to quantify, problem with betting on future benefits (my emphasis):

We’re running some substantial deficits, and we’ve made some big promises to retirees. Those obligations will have to be paid for somehow, and by “somehow,” I mean “With higher taxes on someone.” What are the chances that you’ll be that someone? Pretty high, if you save a lot for retirement.

That makes a Roth sound like a pretty good bet. But unfortunately, the same logic that suggests higher income taxes in the future also suggests that a hungry-eyed Congress might settle on all those fat tax-free retirement accounts as a way to balance the books. What Congress giveth, Congress can taketh away. Can you really count on that income being tax-free when it’s finally time to collect it?

If you think no politician would be so brazen, just remember:  “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.

 

20121120-2Good thing the ACA solved the problem of the uninsured.  Report: 230,000 Iowans still lack health care coverage (Des Moines Register).  Good thing we destroyed the health insurance industry and imposed a whole series of punitive and complicated taxes.

 

Russ Fox, Deadlines for Us, But Not for Them (Part 2), “Later this week it will be seven months since my reply was received. Another nine-week hold has been put on collection activities as the IRS admits that there is correspondence waiting to be reviewed. If we go nine more weeks it will be over nine months since I responded.”

Another reason for a sauce-for-the-gander rule, applying the same rules to the IRS that they apply to us.

Robert D. Flach has a similar state-level example from New Jersey in THE DFBs!

We are told (highlight is mine) -
“New Jersey wrongly notified about 2,000 taxpayers that they underpaid their 2013 taxes, but the state won’t notify them about the error unless the taxpayer asks, possibly causing taxpayers to send the state money that wasn’t owed.”

Tar and feathers.

 

20140507-1Peter Reilly, Real Estate Dealer Or Investor – Can’t Switch At Drop Of Hat.  ” One of the more challenging questions in income taxation of real estate transactions is whether a taxpayer is a dealer or an investor.”  Investors get capital gains, dealers don’t.

TaxGrrrl, Tax Extenders Bill Stalled In Senate.  The latest move in the dance to the inevitable last-minute re-extension of the perpetually-expiring tax breaks.

 

Jack Townsend, Booker Variances are More Common in Tax Crimes. Why? And Do They Disproportionately Benefit the Rich?   He discusses variations from federal sentencing guidelines, including the shockingly-light sentence given Beanie Babies tycoon Ty Warner.

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 375

William McBride, Top 10 things to Know about Investment and Tax Policy.  (Tax Policy Blog).

Number 2: “Investment in the U.S. has yet to fully recover from the recession and remains near a record low.”

Number 10: “Of the ways to change tax policy to improve investment, expensing generally provides the greatest “bang-for-the-buck” because it applies strictly to new investment.”

 

Renu Zaretsky, Tax Mistakes, Collections, and Breaks.  Today’s TaxVox headline roundup covers a proposal to revive the use of private collectors in federal tax collection and “Affordable Care Act subsidy mistakes now could mean huge tax confusion later.”

Annette Nellen asks What’s missing from Camp’s tax reform proposal?  She has suggestions.

 

20120517-1The new Cavalcade of Risk is up at Waterwayfinancialgroup.com.  The venerable roundup of insurance and risk-management posts includes Hank Stern on the possible perils of ride share. There is risk in letting other people use your car, as anyone who has seen Animal House knows, and those risks may not be covered under your car policy.

 

 

News from the Profession.  Another EY Associate Taking a Stab at Reality TV (Going Concern)

Honor among fraudsters.  Owners of a nostalgia-themed restaurant chain in Pennsylvania and New Jersey went up the river on tax charges last year.  Now comes word that the inside accountant who (allegedly) helped them cheat on taxes also (allegedly) helped himself.  From Philly.com:

An indictment unsealed today charges 58-year-old William J. Frio, of Springfield Township, with conspiracy, filing false returns, loan fraud, and aggravated structuring of financial transactions.

Prosecutors say Frio, who has been providing accounting services to Nifty Fifty’s since 1986, conspired with the popular chain’s owners in a scheme that used skimmed cash to help themselves and associates avoid paying taxes.

He also allegedly used his role as Nifty Fifty’s accountant to embezzle hundreds of thousands of dollars from the organization.

Aside from the obvious risk of going to jail, there are other complications that arise when businesses cheat on their taxes.  Unless your business is tiny, you need some help from your accounting staff.  When your bookkeeper is willing to defraud the government, don’t be shocked if he isn’t perfectly honest with you.

 

Share

Tax Court decision cuts 3.8% Obamacare Net Investment Income Tax for many trusts.

Friday, March 28th, 2014 by Joe Kristan

20120511-2The Tax Court reduced 2013 income taxes for a lot of trusts yesterday.  The court ruled that trustees can “materially participate” in rental real estate activities, and by extension in other activities.  If a taxpayer “materially participates” in an activity, it is not subject to the Obamacare 3.8% “Net investment Income Tax” on that activity’s income.

This is a big deal for trusts because they are subject to this tax at a very low income level — starting at $11,950 in 2013.  The IRS has said that it considers it nearly impossible for trusts to materially participate.  Yesterday’s decision flatly rejects the IRS approach.

The IRS had stated its position in a ruling involving an “Electing Small Business Trust,” which is a type of trust that can hold interests in S corporations — and which tend to get hit hard by the NII tax.  The IRS said that a president of the corporation who was also a trustee of the ESBT was participating in the business not “as trustee,” but as a corporation employee — and therefore the trust didn’t materially participate.  The Tax Court disagreed with IRS thinking yesterday:

The IRS argues that because Paul V. Aragona and Frank S. Aragona had minority ownership interests in all of the entities through which the trust operated real-estate holding and real-estate development projects and because they had minority interests in some of the entities through which the trust operated its rental real-estate business, some of these two trustees’ efforts in managing the jointly held entities are attributable to their personal portions of the businesses, not the trust’s portion. Despite two of the trustees’ holding ownership interests, we are convinced that the trust materially participated in the trust’s real-estate operations. First, Frank S. and Paul V. Aragona’s combined ownership interest in each entity was not a majority interest — for no entity did their combined ownership interest exceed 50%. Second, Frank S. and Paul V. Aragona’s combined ownership interest in each entity was never greater than the trust’s ownership interest. Third, Frank S. and Paul V. Aragona’s interests as owners were generally compatible with the trust’s goals — they and the trust wanted the jointly held enterprises to succeed. Fourth, Frank S. and Paul V. Aragona were involved in managing the day-to-day operations of the trust’s various real-estate businesses.

That would seem to put to rest the IRS “as trustees” catch-22.

The Tax Court decision doesn’t make the NII go away for all trusts.  Trusts with only “investment” income, like interest and dividends, are not helped by this decision.  Also, the decision by its terms only covers situations in which the trustee is materially participating in the trust activity; “We need not and do not decide whether the activities of the trust’s non-trustee employees should be disregarded.”  In this respect the Tax Court doesn’t go as far as a Texas U.S. District Court did it the Mattie Carter Trust case, which counted participation of trust employees in determining whether the trust materially participated in an activity.

Still, even with limitations, the case is a big taxpayer win.  It will especially help ESBTs avoid tax on operating income from S corporations when a trustee is also a corporation employee.  Also, while the case doesn’t say that non-trustee employees can give trusts material participation, it doesn’t rule it out, either.  That means bold trusts with employees that manage trust operations may be able to avoid the 3.8% tax, should the Tax Court adopt the Mattie Carter Trust approach.  Future litigation will have to settle the issue.  The IRS is also likely to appeal this case.

An aside: The IRS asserted its usual outrageously-routine 20% “accuracy-related” penalty — and it lost on its underlying argument.  In a just tax system, the IRS would have to write a check to the taxpayer for the amount of the asserted penalties whenever this happens.   The IRS assertion of penalties is far too routine, and should be reserved for cases in which the taxpayer is actually taking a flaky position, or doesn’t bother to substantiate deductions.  When it asserts a penalty and the taxpayer actually wins on the merits, the IRS loses nothing under current law.  Tax Analysts hosted a seminar yesterday on a Taxpayer Bill of Rights.  Any bill worthy of the name would have a “sauce for the gander” rule that would make the IRS — and even IRS employees — as liable as taxpayers are for flaky positions.

Cite:  Frank Aragona Trust et al. v. Commissioner; 142 T.C. No. 9

Related: Self-rental, business sales benefit from new Net Investment Income Tax regulations.

Also: Paul Neiffer, Taxpayer Victory in Frank Aragona Trust Case, on the implications for farm interests held in trust.

A summary of “material participation” rules is below the fold.

(more…)

Share

Tax Roundup, 3/20/14: An optional mandate? And: baseball-tax convergence!

Thursday, March 20th, 2014 by Joe Kristan


20121120-2
Is the Obamacare individual mandate penalty now optional?  
 A couple of weeks ago the Wall Street Journal editorial page published ObamaCare’s Secret Mandate Exemption; HHS quietly repeals the individual purchase rule for two more years.  That’s a pretty bold statement, especially because the Administration has adamantly rejected calls for a delay in the individual mandate, after having delayed the business mandate twice.  If there is no mandate, Obamacare will likely lead to huge losses for insurers (to be subsidized by taxpayers), who need the forced patronage of the healthy to cover the sick that they can no longer exclude or charge risk-adjusted premiums.  Did they really do that and not tell anyone?

Here’s what WSJ says happened:

But amid the post-rollout political backlash, last week the agency created a new category: Now all you need to do is fill out a form attesting that your plan was cancelled and that you “believe that the plan options available in the [ObamaCare] Marketplace in your area are more expensive than your cancelled health insurance policy” or “you consider other available policies unaffordable.”

This lax standard—no formula or hard test beyond a person’s belief—at least ostensibly requires proof such as an insurer termination notice. But people can also qualify for hardships for the unspecified nonreason that “you experienced another hardship in obtaining health insurance,” which only requires “documentation if possible.” And yet another waiver is available to those who say they are merely unable to afford coverage, regardless of their prior insurance. In a word, these shifting legal benchmarks offer an exemption to everyone who conceivably wants one.

Did this really happen? The IRS has just issued Tax Tip 2014-04, The Individual Shared Responsibility Payment – An Overview.  It says:

You may be exempt from the requirement to maintain qualified coverage if you:

  • Have no affordable coverage options because the minimum amount you must pay for the annual premiums is more than eight percent of your household income,

  • Have a gap in coverage for less than three consecutive months, or

  • Qualify for an exemption for one of several other reasons, including having a hardship that prevents you from obtaining coverage, or belonging to a group explicitly exempt from the requirement.

So what kind of “hardship” would that involve?  The list of eligible hardships at Healthcare.gov provides a long list of qualifying hardships, including “You recently experienced the death of a close family member.”  I’m sure you can come up with one, but if that doesn’t work, try “You experienced another hardship in obtaining health insurance.”  Like, “Healthcare.gov” crashed, for example?  It’s your word against — whose?

So how do you claim “hardship?”  The first way is “You can claim these exemptions when you fill out your 2014 federal tax return, which is due in April 2015.”   

So somebody fills out the form and finds out the government wants hundreds of dollars in penalties for not buying insurance.  I bet they’ll come up with either a loss in the family or a hardship in a hurry.  There will be tens of thousands of these.  The IRS can’t possibly police this.

It appears the Wall Street Journal is on to something.  Considering the high cost of policies on the exchanges, a struggling young single really would incur hardship buying mandated coverage.  And if you feel it’s a hardship, they are practically inviting you to opt out.  It’s hard to see this ending well.

This also poses ethical issues for practitioners, which I’ll address another time.

 

IRS Bars Appraisers from Valuing Facade Easements for Federal Tax Purposes for Five Years (IRS Press Release):

The appraisers prepared reports valuing facade easements donated over several tax years. On behalf of each donating taxpayer, an appraiser completed Part III, Declaration of Appraiser, of Form 8283, Noncash Charitable Contributions, certifying that the appraiser did not fraudulently or falsely overstate the value of such facade easement. In valuing the facade easements, the appraisers applied a flat percentage diminution, generally 15 percent, to the fair market values of the underlying properties prior to the easement’s donation.

There’s a lot of interesting things here.  For example, they never mention the name of the appraiser group.  It would seem like that would be useful information to taxpayers.  Sometimes people who seem to be barred from a line of work apparently neglect to mention that to prospective clients.

It also shows that you can’t count on a too-good-to-be-true result just because a lot of other people have gotten it.  They just might not have been caught yet.  You can be sure the IRS is working its way down the appraisal group’s client list.

 

Principal Park, as seen from my office window.

Principal Park, as seen from my office window.

Baseball-Tax Convergence.  Over at Cubs Fan site Bleacher Nation, Proprietor Brett yesterday posted The Chicago Cubs Financial Story: the Payroll, the Debt, and the Syncing of Baseball and Business Plans.  A lawyer by training, Brett digs deep into the leverage partnership deal where the Ricketts family bought the Cubs in a way structured to defer taxes to the Tribune Company:

In a leveraged partnership, a “seller” partners with a “buyer” to form a new entity, which takes on the assets and distributes cash to the “seller.” In its formation, the partnership takes on a great deal of debt, which is guaranteed by the seller. Doing so allows the “seller” to receive the cash distribution, and defer the taxes associated with the sale of the asset. 

At least that’s the idea. Brett notes that the IRS doesn’t have to agree, and that they didn’t when the Trib tried a similar trick when it sold Newsday.  After tax season, and after I wander down to Principal Park for the noon I-Cubs game on April 16, I’ll try to explain this.

 

Tony Nitti, What Are The Penalties For Failing To File Your Tax Return On Time? .  A lot more than failing to pay.  It’s worth getting that extension in, even if you can’t pay right now.

Kay Bell, Missing your 2010 tax refund? Claim deadline is 4-15-2014

William Perez, Tax Reform Act of 2014, Part 1, Tax Rates

Russ Fox, IRS Releases New Forms W-8BEN and W-8ECI.  Important if you find you are doing business with an offshore payee.

Iowa Public Radio, State Tax Laws ‘A Mess’ For Same-Sex Couples And Employers.  That’s where specialists like Jason Dinesen can really help.

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 315

Bloomberg, Buffett Cuts Tax Bill, Tells Others Not to Complain.  He’s tired of hearing you complain about subsidizing him, peasant. (Via TaxProf)

Chris Sanchirico, As American as Apple Inc. (TaxVox).  A complaint that Apple doesn’t voluntarily increase its own taxes.

ThinkAdvisor offers 8 Tax Evaders Who Should’ve Known Better — public servants biting the hand that feeds them.

 

Scott Drenkard, Richard Borean, Cigarette Smuggling Across the States (Tax Policy Blog) “Smuggled cigarettes make up substantial portions of cigarette consumption in many states, and greater than 25 percent of consumption in twelve states.”

 

20140320-1

Almost one in five Iowa smokes are smuggled.

 

Cara Griffith, City of Tacoma Considers Contingent-Fee Auditors (Tax Analysts Bl0g) It’s a bad idea, but it’s hard to see where it’s any different from red-light cameras, where the camera companies collect a bounty of their own.

TaxGrrrl, 10 Tips For Making The Most Of March Madness  My strategy is to ignore it.

 

The Critical Question. Can the IRS Tell a Good Story? (Susan Morse, Procedurally Taxing)

 

 

20130419-1You lied to the IRS all these years, but you’re telling me the truth?  Sometimes business owners get away with tax evasion for years.  Then they try to sell their business.

A Henderson, Nevada auto body shop owner decided it was time to cash out.  KTNV reports:

Robert E. D’Errico, 64, was sentenced Wednesday morning to six-months in federal prison for tax evasion.

According to the plea agreement, D’Errico owned Sunset Collision Center in Henderson. In 2009, he began listing the business for sale on small business listing sites and with small business brokers. D’Errico stated in his listings that, “Seller states that his discretionary take-home cash is $150,000 per year and has receipts to prove it.”

When contacted by a potential buyer, D’Errico re-iterated, “Seller’s discretionary cash take home beyond stated net income is approx. $150,000 avg. per year and is verifiable with receipts.”

During a meeting with a potential buyer, D’Errico stated he stopped accepting checks and was taking cash deductibles from customers, as well as selling excess inventory for cash. 

Either the “potential buyer” ratted him out, or he was an IRS secret shopper.  The IRS got a search warrant, found the real ledgers, and things got ugly.  

Tax returns are sometimes the only financial statements a small business has.  Buyers naturally want to see them, and it can be awkward trying to convince a buyer that they aren’t the “real” financial statements.  But it can get a lot more awkward than that.

 

Share

Tax Roundup, 3/3/2014: For whom does the AMT toll this year? And Lois Lerner: will she or won’t she?

Monday, March 3rd, 2014 by Joe Kristan

Laura Saunders, Beware the Stealth Tax; How to minimize the damage of the alternative minimum tax:

…the AMT now applies to eight times as many taxpayers as it did 20 years ago, and common AMT “triggers” often are less esoteric than in the past. “They can be as simple as having three or more children, taking a large capital gain, or—especially—deducting state and local taxes,” says Dave Kautter, managing director at American University’s Kogod Tax Center, who studies the AMT.

20140303-1

That’s pretty much what I see in our practice.  AMT is rare for taxpayers with income under $100,000, and usually occurs in large families.  It can be impossible to avoid AMT in the $200,000 – $500,000 income range, especially in a state with an income tax.  Above $500,000, it typically involves large capital gains.  Both AMT and regular tax have the same 20% tax on capital gains, and the AMT doesn’t let you deduct the related state income taxes, so the AMT will kick in.

 

Lois Lerner, ex-IRS, ex-FEC

Lois Lerner, ex-IRS, ex-FEC

Ann Althouse,  Who put “acute political pressure” on Lois Lerner “to crack down on conservative-leaning organizations,” and why did Lerner need a “plan” to avoid “a per se political project”?:

I think it must mean that it was a political project and they were hard at work figuring out how to make it not look like what she knew it was. That’s a smoking gun.

Phony scandal.  Nothing to see here…

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 298

WSJ, No Change: Former IRS Official to Take the Fifth.  “A lawyer for former Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner said Sunday that she will decline to testify about IRS targeting of grass-roots conservative groups, contradicting a top GOP lawmaker.”  Presumably because there’s not a smidgen of wrongdoing.

 

TaxProf, Mulligan: ObamaCare’s Multiple Taxes Are Shackling the Job Market.  The TaxProf quotes from the University of Chicago’s Casey Mulligan: 

Once we consider that the new law has an employer penalty, too, the labor market will be receiving three blows from the new law: the implicit employment tax, the employer penalty and the implicit income tax. Regardless of how few economists acknowledge the new employment tax, it should be no surprise when the labor market cannot grow under such conditions.20140106-1

It’s funny how the same people can argue for high tobacco taxes to curb smoking insist that employment taxes won’t curb hiring.

 

Jason Dinesen,  Accounting for the 0.9% Medicare Surtax on Iowa Tax Returns

Kay Bell, Delayed Tax Refunds, TC 570 And An Important Distinction .  Don’t jump to conclusions about your delayed refunds.

William Perez, Resources for Filing Corporate Taxes for 2013.  “March 17th, 2014, is the due date for filing corporate tax returns.”

 Kay Bell, 5 ways to maximize tax-deductible business entertainment

Russ Fox, Former Chairman of Woodland Park, NJ Democratic Committee Bribes His Way to ClubFed

Jack Townsend, IRS CI Is Looking at Renunciations of Citizenship Just in Case .  Looking to take one last shot at the fleeing jaywalkers.

 

Jim Maule, Find Some money, Pay Some Tax:20131017-2

Every now and then we read of someone finding something valuable. This time, it’s a California couple who found a stash of gold coins on their property. According to this story, the couple found eight cans containing 1,400 coins, valued at approximately $10 million.

The joy of the moment is tempered, of course, by the existence of income taxes, both federal and state. Must the couple pay tax? Yes. The value of the coins is included in the couple’s gross income. It is ordinary income. The law is settled. 

Easy come, easy go…

 

Martin Sullivan, The Beginning of the End of Tax Reform (Tax Analysts Blog):

Enactment of the research credit in 1981 was the antithesis of simplification. It has a highly complex incremental structure and, even more problematic, it assigns tax directors and IRS agents the impossible task of distinguishing research from ordinary business expense. The Camp draft retains the credit and eliminates expensing. The opposite approach would be more sensible.

The research credit study industry is full of former Congressional staffers who like things the way they are.

William McBride, Scott Hodge, Top Line Assessment of Camp’s Tax Reform: Increases Progressivity and Taxes on Business and Investment (Tax Policy Blog):

In general, Camp simplifies and lowers tax rates for many taxpayers and businesses, but does so through a net tax increase on businesses and taxpayers earning over $200,000. As a result, the plan makes the individual tax code even more progressive, it increases the amount of redistribution from high-income taxpayers to other taxpayers, and it worsens the current bias against saving and investment—all of which will be a drag on long-run economic growth.

It looks more and more like the Camp plan was a false move.

William Gale, Dave Camp’s pitch to overhaul U.S. taxes: An impossible dream? (TaxVox)

 

It’s getting real in New Jersey, according to the London Daily Mail online:   ‘Ready to plead guilty': Teresa and Joe Giudice set to reach plea deal on 41 charges of fraud and tax evasion.  If they were cheating on taxes, becoming national celebrities could have been a bad move.

 

 

Share

Tax Roundup, 2/21/14: Last-day out edition. And: another Iowa top-ten finish!

Friday, February 21st, 2014 by Joe Kristan

Today’s the last day of this season’s only extended road trip, so here are a few items to travel with.

Another top-ten finish for Iowa.  In “How High are Capital Gains Tax Rates in Your State?” Kyle Pomerleau and Richard Borean at Tax Policy Blog rank state burdens on capital gains.  Iowa’s 29.6% combined federal and state capital gain rate is ninth (California’s 33% is the worst).

20140221-1

Like so many things about Iowa taxes, it’s complicated.  Some taxpayers — those who meet both a ten-year holding period and ten-year material participation test — can sell some assets (but not stock or partnership interests) and have a zero Iowa capital gain rate.  Those who aren’t so blessed by the legislature get socked.

 

TaxGrrrl is back after the Forbes hack attack with IRS Reveals Dirty Dozen Scams For 2014.  Identity theft tops the list.  Take common-sense steps to protect yourself.  Never send your Social Security Number or similar tax information in an unencrypted email, for example.  If you need to get documents with confidential information to your preparer electronically, use a secure file transfer site.

Cara Griffith ponders What Triggers a Sales and Use Tax Audit? at Tax Analysts Blog.

Christopher Bergin says Progressivity Does Not Equal Equality (Tax Analysts Blog).  “I still support a progressive tax system, just not as a method of addressing income inequality.”

There’s no evidence that an income tax system with rates short of ridiculous can affect “equality,” however you want to measure it.  In fact, the fretted-over rise in inequality has coincided with a shift in taxes to “the rich.”

Top 1 pays more than bottom 90

If you seriously tried to use the tax system to level income differences, the best you would get would be achievement of inequality by means of mass poverty.

 

Howard Gleckman, How 19 Million Uninsured Tax Filers Could Get ACA Coverage.  (TaxVox).  He pushes the awful idea of dumping responsibility for enrolling people in the misbegotten Obamacare system on tax preparers.  It’s as bad an idea as giving responsibility for administering the healthcare  system to the IRS.  Preparers have more than enough complexity and difficulty to deal with as it is.

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 288

Tony Nitti, Kevin Durant Calls Foul On Tax Preparer Over Improper Deductions.  Funny, he didn’t seem to mind them when he signed the returns.  It never pays for preparers to curry favor with clients by using bogus deductions.  The same client who happily cashes the big refund check will throw you to the wolves in a heartbeat.

Kay Bell, Offshore account owners more likely to confess Swiss holdings

 

20140221-2Tax Justice Blog, Bipartisan Rush to Win Gold Medal in Tax Gimmickry: “A lot of gimmicky bills are proposed each Congressional session, but few are quite as ridiculous as the proposal by a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House and Senate to create a new federal income tax break for the cash bonuses received by U.S. Olympic medalists.”

I have to disagree.  Many proposals are every bit as ridiculous, unfortunately, including a lot that have been enacted.

 

Share

Tax Roundup, 2/11/14: Employer mandate “shared responsibility” delayed for some. And: fresh scam!

Tuesday, February 11th, 2014 by Joe Kristan

20121120-2It’s such a disaster, we’re only going to force some employers to do it right now. The IRS has issued final regulations on the employer health insurance mandate that delay their impact on companies with 50-100 employees until 2016.  The “shared responsibility provisions” — such a creepy name — will still apply to employers with 100 “full-time equivalent” employees in 2015.  The Wall Street Journal reports:

 Under the original 2010 health law, employers with the equivalent of at least 50 full-time workers had to offer coverage or pay a penalty starting at $2,000 a worker beginning in 2014. Last year, the administration delayed the requirement for the first time by moving it to 2015.

The new rules for companies with 50 to 99 workers would cover about 2% of all U.S. businesses, which include 7% of workers, or 7.9 million people, according to 2011 Census figures compiled by the Small Business Administration. The rules for companies with 100 or more workers affect another 2% of businesses, which employ more than 74 million people.

You’ll look in vain in either Sec. 4980H, the “shared responsibility” tax code section, or Sec. 1513 of the Affordable Care Act, which enacted 4980H, for anything that says the provision can take effect later than 2014.  Once again the administration is making it up as it goes in a tacit admission that Obamacare is a half-baked mess.  I hope somebody with 100 employees sues the IRS on equal-protection grounds to enjoin this politically-motivated selective enforcement.   To me it’s another clue that the individual mandate will also be delayed, and ultimately abandoned.

Paul Neiffer, Some ACA Relief for Employers with 50 to 99 Employees

Jason Dinesen, The Affordable Care Act and Small Businesses   

Martin Sullivan, Forget Obamacare for a Minute. Here’s Some Good News About Health Policy (Tax Analysts Blog).  

 

Via Wikipedia

Via Wikipedia

New filing season, same old scams.  Our area IRS Taxpayer Liason says this email is circulating:

Dear Applicant,

An Income Tax repayment is a refund of tax that you’ve overpaid.
Internal Revenue Service  ( IRS ) has received new information about your taxable
income you’ve overpaid too much tax through your job or pension in previous years.

There was a mistake with your tax, which an error occurred on your tax return,
and therefore your income reduced. Your employer also used the wrong tax code.

You are eligible to receive a refund of $2670.48 USD as your recent tax refund.
IRS will send you a repayment. You’ll get the repayment either by cheque in the post or by bank transfer.

Please click here to get your tax refund on your Visa or Mastercard now.

Note : Your refund can be delayed for a variety of reasons. For example submitting
invalid records or applying after the deadline.

Best Wishes,

IRS Tax Refund Service Team
Internal Revenue Service.

Of course it is a scam.  Some obvious clues: a real IRS notice doesn’t have to tell you that it’s dealing in “USD.”  We say “checks” in the US; you get “cheques” in Canada, the UK, or other old Commonwealth countries.  IRS doesn’t do refunds on credit cards.  And, of course, the most important clue:  the IRS will never initiate contact you with an e-mail or phone call.  If an email says it’s from the IRS, it’s not.

 

TaxGrrrl, Understanding Your Tax Forms: The W-2   

 

haroldHooray for Hollywood!  Movie Producer Peter Hoffman Charged With Film Tax Credit Fraud.  It involves Louisiana, which continues its co-dependent relationship with Hollywood with film tax subsidies.  Iowa, sadder but wiser, now prefers producer room and board subsidies to Film Tax Credits.

 

Howard Gleckman, Incoming Senate Finance Chair Wyden Outlines His Tax Agenda (TaxVox):

Speaking in Los Angeles to a conference sponsored jointly by the USC Gould School of Law and the Tax Policy Center, Wyden framed his tax agenda around several key issues:

Narrow the gap between taxation of investment income and ordinary income.

Significantly increase the standard deduction.

Simplify and enhance the refundable Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit.

Revise savings incentives by creating a new investment account for all Americans at birth, shift savings subsidies from high-income taxpayers to low- and moderate-income households, and consolidate and simplify the current tangle of existing tax-preferred savings incentives.

Enhance job training.

Restore Build America Bonds—a short-lived idea that partially replaced tax-exempt state and local bonds with direct federal subsidies. He’d also seek ways to encourage business to funnel overseas earnings into domestic infrastructure investment.

It’s a disappointing agenda from somebody considered a thoughtful center-left voice on tax policy.   Any tax on investment income is best understood as a double-tax, and I don’t think by “narrowing the gap” he means lowering ordinary inocme rates.  His second, third and fourth points are fine, but the “Enhance job training” and “Build America Bond” proposals are just political pinatas to be broken open by insiders.  If you want to see what jobs training dollars really accomplish, I refer you to Iowa’s own CIETC.

 

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 278

checkboxJeremy Scott, Check the Box for Tax Avoidance (Tax Analysts Blog).  

The check-the-box rules allowed multinationals to create entities that were treated one way in a foreign jurisdiction and another by the United States. These entities, so-called hybrids, are at the core of companies like Apple’s tax strategies, and they have been used to bring about obscenely low effective tax rates (2.3 percent on $700 billion in foreign earnings, according to the Obama administration).

I think any corporate above zero is obscenely high.

 

Kyle Pomerleau, Proposal to Exempt Olympians’ Prize Money from Taxation: Good Politics, Wrong Solution (Tax Policy Blog)

Kay Bell, IRS takes a bite out of U.S. Olympic medalists’ winnings

 

Keith Fogg, Holding People Hostage for the Payment of Tax – Writ Ne Exeat Republica (Procedurally Taxing). No, he’s not talking about tax season.

 

News from the Profession: PwC Will Probably Be the First Accounting Firm to Replace Interns With Robots.  (Going Concern).  Makes sense, as they were the first to do so with partners.

Share

Tax Roundup, 2/5/14: Tax Credits do it all! And: advice from a champion.

Wednesday, February 5th, 2014 by Joe Kristan
The income tax, the Ultimate Swiss Army Knife of public policy.  Flickr Image courtesy redjar under Creative Commons license.

The income tax, the Ultimate Swiss Army Knife of public policy. Flickr Image courtesy redjar under Creative Commons license.

Tax Credits! Is there nothing they can’t do?  Bill offering tax credits to rehab abandoned public buildings advances (Jason Noble, Des Moines Register):

House Study Bill 540 adds abandoned public buildings to the list of properties eligible for tax breaks under the state’s Redevelopment Tax Credits program, meaning businesses or nonprofits could obtain state aid for such projects as they currently can on renovations of industrial or commercial properties.

It’s an idea that Gov. Terry Branstad highlighted in his Condition of the State Address last month, and appears to have bipartisan support.

This is a back-door appropriation to help out school districts and local governments, but running it through tax return hides it from those pesky taxpayers who foot the bill.  As with Congress, the Iowa General Assembly sees the tax law as the Swiss Army Knife of public policy.

 

20121120-2Arnold Kling exposes the vastness of the Right Wing Conspiracy:

The Congressional Budget Office, a Koch-funded organization known to be affiliated with the Tea Party, writes,

CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor—given the new taxes and other incentives they will face and the financial benefits some will receive.

A conspiracy so vast…

 

James Schneider, guest-posting at Econlog, discusses why we pay our taxes in  The Sucker Tax:

Imagine a state of anarchy (a lack of government not a house full of boys). An evil genius announces that he will impose a sucker tax. Everyone will be taxed ten dollars, and the proceeds will be redistributed back to all the citizens in equal shares without reference to who paid the tax. In a certain sense, this tax maximizes unfairness. It serves no other purpose than to punish people in direct proportion to how much of the tax they paid. To make tax compliers feel even more ridiculous, the evil genius announces that he will make no effort to punish “tax cheats.” A fair outcome of the game requires that there be no suckers. This will occur if everyone evades the tax. However, it will also occur if everyone pays the tax. Under this scenario, you probably wouldn’t pay the tax (even if you believed in fairness) because you would assume that no one else was going to pay the tax.

Now imagine that the evil genius announces that unless everyone pays the tax one person will be punished.

Read the whole thing.  I especially like this: “Compliance does not mean consent.”

 

20121220-3TaxGrrrl, Baby, It’s Cold Outside: Surviving The Winter With Some Tax Help From Uncle Sam

Paul Neiffer considers One Possible Section 179 Strategy. A reader asks Paul, “Should I wait to buy section 179 property until the date 179 property is raised from $25,000 to whatever?”  He has a way for farmers to plan around the uncertainty.

William Perez, Filing Form 1040A May Help Parents Qualify for the Simplified Needs Test.  For college financial aid.

Jason Dinesen asks, Why Doesn’t the IRS Push the EA Designation?:

The IRS already oversees the EA program. There’s no new infrastructure to put in place. No new exams to create. The infrastructure and exams already exist.

Yet throughout the IRS’s ill-fated attempts at creating the “Registered Tax Return Preparer” designation, the IRS rarely mentioned the EA program, except as a side note of “CPAs, EAs and attorneys are exempt from the RTRP testing.”

I think it’s because it would be inconvenient to their efforts to regulate all preparers.

 

Lois Lerner, ex-IRS, ex-FEC

Lois Lerner, ex-IRS, ex-FEC

Peter ReillyThe Dog That Did Not Bark – IRS Issues Adverse 501(c)(4) Rulings To Deafening Silence:

An interesting question about the whole scandal narrative is how it would look if it turned out that many of the groups that the IRS “targeted”  were in fact inappropriately claiming 501(c)(4) status.  Tea Party Patriots Inc, for example, spends a lot of energy talking about how all those intrusive questions were harassment, but what if it turns that, in fact, all those phone calls that TPP Inc made telling people that November 2012 was the last chance to stop Obamacare from turning the country into a cradle to grave welfare state could be viewed as political? 

I think Peter is missing the point.  The issue isn’t whether every right-wing group qualified under the standards historically used for 501(c)(4) outfits.  It’s whether the rules were selectively enforced against right-side applicants —  as seems to be the case.   After all, it wouldn’t be OK to examine 1040s of only Republicans even if it turned out some of them were tax cheats.

 

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 272

 

David Brunori, Casino Taxes for Horses or Children? (Tax Analysts Blog):

Horse racing has been a dying sport since Nathan Detroit bet on a horse named Paul Revere in Guys and Dolls. In Pennsylvania, the schools are broke. So naturally, when governments need money, they turn to a moribund pastime to pay the bills. 

For the children!

 

William McBride, New CBO Projections Understate the Average Corporate Tax Rate. “Particularly, the CBO is using as their corporate tax base measure domestic economic profits from the BEA, which includes both C and S corporations, even though S corporations are pass-through entities not subject to the corporate tax.”  Well, that’s just nuts.

Tax Justice Blog, Gas Tax Remains High on Many States’ Agendas for 2014

 

Joseph Thorndike, Debt Limit Debates Are Good for Theater, Not For Policy Reform. (Tax Analysts Blog)

Jack Townsesnd, TRAC Posts Statistics on Criminal Tax Enforcement Related to IRS Referrals   “[A] surge in IRS criminal investigations referred under Obama has fueled an increase in the number of cases prosecuted.”

 

Answering the Critical Question: What Kids Peeing in the Pool Can Teach Us About Tax Compliance (Leslie Book, Procedurally Taxing)

News from the Profession: McGladrey Interns Are Busy Learning Their Colleagues Are Boring, How to Use an Ice Cream Truck (Going Concern)

 

Nice Work, Champ.  It’s funny how hard it can be for some people to heed their own good advice.  Take this North Carolina man:

Prosecutors said Larry Hill, who coined himself “the people’s champ” for his efforts to keep local children out of trouble, didn’t live by his own message and that his case represented “disturbing hypocrisy.”

In a YouTube clip posted in November 2012, Hill says, “I want all my young people to think before you act. Trouble is too easy to get into, and once you get into trouble, you’ll be all by yourself.”

Federal Judge Earl Britt sentenced Hill to 100 months in prison for conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government and 18 months for filing false tax returns.

If it’s any comfort, Mr. Hill will have plenty of company where he’s going.  But he will have to get used to a more spartan existence:

The judge agreed to the lower sentence of 100 months but said Hill deserved the “most severe punishment to reflect the seriousness of the offense,” pointing out that Hill used much of the money to buy himself expensive jewelry and cars, including a Maserati. The judge also noted that Hill was on supervised release from an insurance fraud prison term when he committed the tax fraud.

That doesn’t make his advice any less sound:

He should follow it sometime.  Russ Fox has more on Mr. Hill.

 

Share