Posts Tagged ‘Net Investment Income Tax’

Trusts and material participation: the IRS is just making it up.

Tuesday, April 30th, 2013 by Joe Kristan

20130430-1The Obamacare “Net Investment Income” tax hammers trusts.  The new 3.8% tax affects trusts with taxable income as low as xxx in 2013.  In contrast, it only affects single individuals with Adjusted Gross Income of at least $200,000, and joint filers starting at AGI of $250,000.

“Passive income” is one item subject to the tax.  This means most rental income and business income from pass-through entities, unless the trustee “materially participates” in the business.

The new tax piggybacks off of the old “passive loss” rules for determining whether income is passive.  If a taxpayer has business income or loss, it is passive unless the taxpayer “materially participates” in an activity.   When losses are “passive,” they are only deductible when there is other passive income to offset it, or when the passive business is sold.

So how does a trust participate?  A trust can’t punch a time clock, after all.  The IRS says in newly-released  TAM 201317010 that a trustee’s participation counts as the trust’s participation — and then only if the trustee participates as a trustee.

The TAM involves trusts that own an interest in an S corporation.  The trusts each had a main trustee and a “special trustee” who also happened to be president of the S corporation.  A corporate president normally has no trouble materially participating in corporate business, but the IRS said that wasn’t good enough (my emphasis):

As Special Trustee, A lacked the power to commit Trust A and Trust B to any course of action or control trust property beyond selling or voting the stock of Company X or Company Y. The work performed by A was as an employee of Company Y and not in A‘s role as a fiduciary of Trust A or Trust B and, therefore, does not count for purposes of determining whether Trust A and Trust B materially participated in the trade or business activities of Company X and Company Y under § 469(h).

I think the IRS is wrong here.  They are just making up this requirement that the trustee participate “as a fiduciary.”  If somebody is both a trustee and a corporate employee, how are they to divide the time?  This IRS requirement should be rejected, but it poses a compliance problem until and unless it is overturned.  It creates uncertainty and makes it more difficult for trust businesses to avoid the 3.8% tax.

The TAM also rejects one district court case that allows trustees to count participation of the “employees and agents” as trust participation.  I believe the IRS is correct on that point.

More coverage from Peter Reilly:  Tough IRS Position Means More Trusts Will Get Hit With New ObamaCare 3.8% Tax.    He says “I really have a hard time seeing how you will ever be able to get a trust to be considered to be materially participating in an S
corporation, if this is the logic that is followed.”

A summary of material participation requirements is below the fold.

(more…)

Share

Tax Roundup, April 29, 2013: Getting ready for the Obamacare Investment Income Tax. And a disturbing lack of faith in OVDI.

Monday, April 29th, 2013 by Joe Kristan

20121120-2Laura Saunders, Are You Ready for the New Investment Tax?, (Wall Street Journal, via The TaxProf):

The tax, which took effect Jan. 1, applies to the “net investment income” of married joint filers who have more than $250,000 of income (or $200,000 for singles). Only investment income—such as dividends, interest and capital gains—above the thresholds is taxed. The rate is a flat 3.8% in addition to other taxes owed.

“Affluent investors who ignore this tax will be in for a total shock next April 15,” says David Lifson, a certified public accountant specializing in tax at Crowe Horwath in New York. Such income is typically not subject to withholding, and people won’t be factoring it into their estimated taxes. Lower-bracket taxpayers who receive a windfall large enough to owe the tax will also be in for a surprise.

This tax is shockingly complex, and it will surprise a lot of taxpayers next April.

Related: Tony Nitti,  Overview Of The New 3.8% Investment Income Tax, Part 1

 

Feds sue over Des Moines utility tax (Des Moines Register).  Des Moines lost a long legal battle over its “utility tax” on electric bills.  Now the federal government is after the city:

Federal prosecutors acting on behalf of the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs sued the city of Des Moines and Mid­American Energy Co. on Friday, alleging that the city’s longstanding surcharge on gas and electric customers in Des Moines constitutes an illegal tax when levied against Uncle Sam.

 

Trish McIntire,  W-2Gs and CP2000s:

When a taxpayer wins a jackpot, the casino gives them the W-2G for the win at that time. It’s up to the taxpayer to keep the W-2G safe and bring it into me, or their preparer, when their taxes are done. What happens to the W-2G? It gets shoved into a purse or pocket, thrown in the glove compartment or on the desk at home or thrown in the trash by accident.

Robert D. Flach,  THE MORTGAGE INTEREST DEDUCTION:

I support keeping the deduction for acquisition debt mortgage interest on one’s primary personal residence, and the deduction for real estate taxes on the same primary personal residence, not to encourage home ownership, but as a form of “geographical equalization”.

In other words, he wants to help out people who live in places where houses cost more.  I think that’s misguided, as it also encourages people who live in low-cost locales like Des Moines to build palaces with help from the taxman.

 

Russ Fox,  1700 Miles and a 7% Difference.  Joe Mauer of the Minnesota Twins tries to avoid Minnesota residency for low-tax Florida.  It went about as well as this season will for the Florida Marlins (or the Twins, for that matter).

 

Kay Bell,  Smokers are among the latest federal tax targets.  Transferring nicotine addiction from smokers to government.

Jana Luttenegger,  IRS Announces Furlough Days (Davis Brown Tax Law Blog).

Patrick Temple-West,  Obama talks budget with Republicans, and more (Tax Break)

Paul Neiffer,  Don’t Forget Your Retirement Plan.  “I was talking with a new farm client the other day about his estate plan and what struck me the most was not how much farm land value he had accumulated but rather the amount he had tucked away into his retirement plans.”

Peter Reilly,  Fifth Avenue Inspirational Shopping Not Doing Business. Dang.

 

Phil Hodgen,  Note to Concerned Immigrant:

Get some competent advice about how to handle the past years. If the advice is OVDI, then stand up and walk away, swearing the mightiest oaths that a drunken sailor could swear.

Perhaps the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Initiative has somehow failed to gain the confidence of the tax bar?

Jack Townsend,  More on the GAO Report on IRS Offshore Disclosure Initiatives

 

Trust me, peasant, it’s for your own good.  Former GM Exec Bob Lutz Suggests Higher Gas Taxes Would Help Americans (TaxGrrrl)

The soft bigotry of low expectations.  The Pioneer Press Has Crowned Its Sexiest Accountant(s)  (Going Concern)

 Now he tells us.  Jailed tax cheat’s warning: Just ‘don’t do it’ (TBO.com)

 

 

Share

The 3.8% question: Is your rental property a “trade or business?”

Monday, January 28th, 2013 by Joe Kristan
Flickr image courtesy John Snape under Creative Commons license

Flickr image courtesy John Snape under Creative Commons license

The IRS isn’t saying.

It matters for real estate operators. The proposed regulations on the Obamacare “Net Investment Income Tax” impose the 3.8% levy on rental income, but not for “material participants” in a rental “trade or business.” Tax Analysts reports ($link) that IRS attorney David Kirk weasels out of saying what “trade or business” means:

“On one end of the [section 469(c)(7)] spectrum, you have the real estate pro that owns one-tenth of lower Manhattan and lives, breathes, and dies by occupancy, building up, renting out,” Kirk said, adding that that individual would be considered to be in the trade or business of renting real estate.

Kirk declined to say whether someone on the other end of the spectrum — the real estate broker who not only lists houses but also owns a couple of townhouses or condos — would be considered to be in the trade or business of renting real estate. “I’m not really comfortable coming out and saying what a trade or business is,” he said.

The term “trade or business” has been defined some under Section 108(a)(1)(D), which allows taxpayers to exclude debt cancellation income if the debt was on “trade or business” real property. The IRS discussed the issue in PLR 9840026 (some citations omitted):

The rental of even a single property may constitute a trade or business under various provisions of the Code. However, the ownership and rental of property does not always constitute a trade or business. The issue of whether the rental of property is a trade or business of a taxpayer is ultimately one of fact in which the scope of a taxpayer’s activities, either personally or through agents, in connection with the property, are so extensive as to rise to the stature of a trade or business. Bauer v. United States, 168 F. Supp. 539, 541 (Ct. Cl. 1958); Schwarcz v. Commissioner, 24 T.C. 733 (1955); See Higgins v. Commissioner, 312 U.S. 212 (1941) (management of taxpayer’s own investment portfolio not a business).

In Rev. Rul. 73-522, 1973-2 C.B. 226, the Service held that rental of real property under a “net lease” does not render the lessor engaged in a trade or business with respect to such property for purposes of section 871 of the Code

It was unwise to make “trade or business” status key to this tax; it makes it difficult for taxpayers to know whether it applies and it encourages taxpayers to be agressive. They should just say that if you achieve non-passive treatment as a real estate professional, you don’t pay the tax.

Related: Real Estate Professional Status – Becoming More Important – Very Hard To Prove (Peter Reilly)

Share

Tax Roundup, 1/11/2013: No, they aren’t paying attention. And it only gets harder.

Friday, January 11th, 2013 by Joe Kristan

20130113-3Don’t forgive them, because they have no idea what they’re doing.  Last night I taught a session on the Fiscal Cliff tax law and the Obamacare Net Investment Income tax to Iowa chapters of the Institute of Management Accountants over the Iowa Cable Network.  Using the controls to talk to remote classrooms in Marshalltown, Dubuque, Marion and Cedar Falls was a challenge, but a piece of cake compared to working with the tax law.

When they passed the Net Investment Income Tax as part of Obamacare, there were only two concerns for the guilty congresscritters:

- Did it apply only to “the rich,” as defined that day?  and

- Did it raise enough revenue for them to help them pretend that they weren’t raising the deficit?

Nobody who voted for the bill took the time to ask: “should we really set up an all-new tax, unlike anything we have ever done before, requiring all new regulations and recordkeeping requirements, just to collect 3.8% of something?”  And that’s exactly what they did.

If you have any illusions that they have any clue what they are doing, a look at the new bracket schedule for 2013 for single filers should cure you of that:

If taxable income is:                 The tax would be:
--------------------                  ----------
Not over $8,925                       10% of taxable income
Over $8,925 but not                   $892.50 plus 15% of the
  over $36,250                           excess over $8,925
Over $36,250 but not                  $4,991.25 plus 25% of the
  over $87,850                           excess over $36,250
Over $87,850 but not                  $17,891.25 plus 28% of the
  over $183,250                          excess over $87,850
Over $183,250 but not                 $44,603.25 plus 33% of the
  over $398,350                          excess over $183,250
Over $398,350 but not                 $115,586.25 plus 35% of the
  over $400,000                          excess over $398,350
Over $400,000                         $116,163.75 plus 39.6% of the
                                         excess over $400,000

Notice something funky about that 35% bracket?  It covers only $1,650.  While you have to earn $215,100 to get through the 33% bracket, you skip through 35% to 39.6% with only $1,650 of additional income.  Why?  Because the administration wanted to only tax “the rich,” and they decided for that day that “rich” starts at $400,000 income, if you are single.

The only sure cure is to make congresscritters, the President, and the Cabinet prepare their own returns in a live webcast, with a comment bar for viewers to mock them.  It would serve them right if they had to do it a la Robert Flach, with no computer.

 

TaxGrrrl,  Tax Code Hits Nearly 4 Million Words, Taxpayer Advocate Calls It Too Complicated:

What could you do with six billion hours?

Think hard. That’s the equivalent of 8,758 lifetimes. Yes, lifetimes.

It’s also how much time taxpayers spend every year trying to comply with tax filing requirements. That, according to the 2012 annual report as prepared by the National Taxpayer Advocate Nina E. Olson.

It’s not getting easier, either.

Martin Sullivan, Tax Reform Muddle (Tax.com):

Having agreed to tax increases, Republicans are now more insistent than ever that tax reform must be revenue neutral.

The big change is from Democrats– who have become so adamant on the need for tax increases in addition to the $600 billion raised by the fiscal cliff deal, and who realize additional rate hikes are absolutely impossible–are hell-bent on preserving the most politically feasible loophole closers for raising revenue.

It’s a hopeless game.  The deficit is too big to deal with by “loophole closers.”  Behind the push to raise taxes by closing loopholes is a delusion that you can pay for our incontinent government spending just by hitting “the rich” harder.  But the rich guy can’t cover the check.  Either spending comes down or everyone pays a lot more tax.

 

 

Nick Kasprak,  Chart: Effects of Marriage on Income and Payroll Tax Liability (Tax Policy Blog)

 20130111-2

 

Deborah Jacobs, A Married Couple’s Guide To Estate Planning (Forbes, via the TaxProf)

Paul Neiffer, Section 179 Can Create a Farm Loss (In Certain Cases)

Kay Bell,  Top taxpayer problem? Continuing tax code complexity

Christopher Bergin,  Permanent Insanity: “Only in Washington would you find folks who would brag that they did a good thing by making permanent an unfair and indecipherable tax system that wastes billions of dollars to administer.” (Tax.com)

Norton Francis, What the Fiscal Cliff Deal Means for the States (TaxVox):

The good news for states is that American Tax Relief Act of 2012 will  end much of the uncertainty that has plagued the income tax code in recent years. No longer will states have to guess what will happen to many provisions of the federal revenue code that were set to expire. The bad news is some states will lose revenue they were counting on from
scheduled changes in the federal estate tax that won’t happen.

Trish McIntire, Refund Loans

Patrick Temple-West,  Public goals, private interests in ‘Fix the Debt’ campaign, and more

Jack Townsend,  Bank Leumi Signals Cooperation with U.S. on Offshore Accounts.  Israili bank ready to spill the beans on U.S. taxpayers with accounts there.

A Friday Buzz from Robert D. Flach.

The Critical Question:  Shipping Wars’ Token Hot Chick Is a Former Accountant? (Going Concern)

 

Share

Tax Roundup, 12/6/12: Putting the “net” in investment income. And Bar time! Well, Bar Association school time…

Thursday, December 6th, 2012 by Joe Kristan

I speak this afternoon at the Iowa Bar Association Bloethe Tax SchoolI will be talking about “Affordable Healthcare Act for Pass Through Entities” at 3:40.  The newly-released proposed regulations on the 3.8% net investment income tax and the .9% Medicare tax will star.  If any Tax Update readers are there, please say hello if you get a chance.

 

Putting the “Net” in the net investment income tax.  The Obamacare 3.8% on ”net investment income” for higher income taxpayers has a strange feature that is highlighted in the newly-released proposed regulations. The tax applies the tax to ”Net” investment income to the extent it increases adjusted gross income — not taxable income — over $200,000 for single taxpayers or $250,000 for joint filers.  “Investment Income” for this tax is a new combination of interest, rents, royalties, non-qualified annuities, capital gains and “passive” business income, as from K-1s.

So what does “net” mean? The proposed rules (Proposed Regs. 1.1411-4(f)) say that you reduce income by deductions “allocable” to the investment income. That includes Schedule A deductions for investment expenses, to the extent they exceed the 2% of AGI floor.  It also includes state income taxes “allocable” to passive K-1 income and other ”investment” income (cites removed for clarity):

 In the case of taxes that are deductible… and imposed on both gross income (including net gain)/..and gross income…  the portion of the deduction that is properly allocable… may be determined by taxpayers using any reasonable method. For purposes of the prior sentence, an allocation of the deduction based on the ratio of the amount of a taxpayer’s gross income (subject to the tax) to the amount of the taxpayer’s (total) gross income… is an example of a reasonable method.

So even if a taxpayer gets no benefit from a deduction because of alternative minimum tax, it reduces net investment income.  Nothing in the regulations incorporates AMT.  As long as an itemized deduction is allowed for regular tax, then it reduces investment income.  Taxpayers with AMT liability lose the benefit of their state income tax and miscellaneous deductions for most purposes, but not for this silly tax.

By the same token, if a deduction is disallowed for regular tax — by the 2% floor, the passive loss rules, etc. –it does not reduce net investment income. This makes the GOP proposal for a “cap” on itemized deductions that much worse.

 

Raise rates or limit deductions?  Republican Senator Tom Coburn says that he prefers tax rate increases to the deduction cap proposed by some Republicans.  From The Hill:

“Personally, I know we have to raise revenue; I don’t really care which way we do it,” Coburn said during an appearance on MSNBC. “Actually, I would rather see the rates go up than do it the other way, because it gives us greater chance to reform the tax code and broaden the base in the future.”

While I am a doubter of the “need” to raise revenue — we don’t need to do that if we would spend at not-insane levels — I agree that if you increase taxes, rate increases are the way to go.  It keeps the pain simple and honest.  The deduction cap would be much more disruptive to businesses, as owners of pass-through businesses would lose the deduction for much of their state income tax burden.  It would greatly complicate tax planning and have unpredictable consequences for business owners, charities and the housing market.  It would also be horrible to professional gamblers, whose below-the-line loss deductions would be capped, and to investors with substantial below-the-line investment interest expense.  And all just to pretend there is no tax increase.

Of course I have no faith at all that a GOP compromise on tax rates will lead to serious concessions on spending.  And the spending is the problem.

 

TaxGrrrl,  Key GOP Senator Says Yes To Higher Tax Rates In Compromise

Robert D. Flach is not impressed by our leaders:

The continued unmoveable hard line on ”resolving” the “fiscal cliff” taken by the two sides is a clear indication that the idiots in Washington do not give a tinker’s damn about the American public.

He’s right.  It’s never been about us.  It’s about power.

Andrew Lundeen,   Fiscal Cliff: Capital Gains and Dividend Tax Increases Pose Greatest Threat to Economy (Tax Policy Blog)

Patrick Temple-West,   GOP in a difficult political spot in tax fight, and more (Tax Break)

 

Howard Gleckman,  How to Cut the Charitable Deduction Without Reducing Giving (TaxVox)

David Brunori,  Note to Everyone: Business Should Not Pay Sales Tax: (Tax.com)

Only bad things happen when businesses pay sales tax. First, the businesses paying the tax pass the burden on to their customers in the form of higher prices. But the tax is hidden. People do not know they are paying it. Politicians, and perhaps the New York Times, may like that lack of transparency, but it is awful government policy. Second, the higher priced products purchased by consumers are often subject to tax. This gives rise to a tax on a tax. That is awful tax policy.  Finally, taxation of business inputs artificially keeps sales tax rates low. People think the sales tax rate is lower than it actually is.  None of this is good.

It’s always best to not hide the taxes.

Cara Griffith,   New York Times Article Misses the Mark on San Francisco Tax Exemption (Tax.com)

Kay Bell,   Many companies paying dividends early; Be sure to plan for taxes on the income

Jana Luttenegger,  Last Minute Charitable Gifts.  (Davis Brown Tax Law Blog).  If they cap itemized deductions, many folks will wish they had given more this year.  This post has some good ideas.

Tax Trials,  Tax Court: No Penalties for Son of Boss Participants

Trish McIntire,   Education Credits Form Changes

I’m way ahead of the science.   Science Says You Should Have Multiple Large Monitors(Going Concern). Too much is almost enough.

My bare-bones workstation.

 

News you can use:  Timesheet Wars: Non-Billable Codes Are Orwellian Busywork (Going Concern)

 

 

Share