Comments Off

By Editor, April 11, 2011

On April 5, the Senate, by a vote of 87 – 12, approved the Comprehensive 1099 Taxpayer Protection and Repayment of Exchange Subsidy Overpayments Act of 2011 (the 1099 Act) retroactively repealing the expanded Form 1099 information reporting rules added by recent legislation. The bill was signed by President Obama on April 14^th.

Repeal of Expanded 1099 Reporting Rules for Businesses

Currently, businesses are required to file a Form 1099-MISC to report payments of $600 or more made to persons who provide nonemployee services to the business. Reporting is not required if the payments are made to a corporation.

Effective for payments made after 2011, the Health Care Act extended this 1099 reporting requirement to include gross payments of $600 or more for the purchase of any type of property. It also did away with the exception for corporations. So, thanks to the Health Care Act, starting in 2012, businesses were going to have to report all payments of $600 or more for the purchase of property and services, even those made to corporations.

Businesses quickly cried foul on this recordkeeping and reporting nightmare in the making—not even the IRS liked this provision. Congress and the President agreed on the need for its repeal. But in true Washington fashion, it took awhile. Finally, the 1099 Act repeals the Health Care Act’s extension of the Form 1099 reporting requirements for payments made to corporations and payments made for the purchase of property.

Bottom Line: The Form 1099 reporting rules for businesses do not change after 2011. Thus, businesses will have to report payments of $600 or more to service providers. However, payments to corporations will not need to be reported, nor will payments for property.

Repeal of Expanded 1099 Reporting Rules for Rental Real Estate

Before 2011, the 1099 reporting requirements applied only to payments made in the course of a trade or business. Payments made in a passive investment activity were not subject to these requirements. For payments made after 2010, the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (SBA) provided that (with a few exceptions not important for this article) any person receiving rental income from real estate (landlords) would be considered to be engaged in a trade or business and, thus, would be subject to the same 1099 reporting requirements that apply to businesses. Accordingly, thanks to SBA, for 2011, landlords would generally be required to file Form 1099-MISC to report payments of $600 or more made to noncorporate service providers (for things like yard care, painting, and accounting). And, for payments after 2011, they would be required to report payments made to corporations and payments made for the purchase of property just like other honest to gosh businesses.

Fortunately, the 1099 Act repeals the SBA extension of the 1099 reporting requirements to landlords who are not otherwise considered to be engaged in a trade or business of renting property. As a result, landlords making payments of $600 or more to a service provider (such as a plumber, painter, or accountant) will not be required to file Form 1099-MISC, unless their rental activities rise to the level of a trade or business.

Bottom Line: The 1099 reporting rules for landlords do not change after 2010.

Comments Off

By Editor, March 4, 2011

Background

The Self-employed Health Insurance Deduction has long been available for the health insurance of the self-employed individual, his or her spouse, and any dependent children. But, there are a number of important taxpayer-friendly developments for 2010, including a surprising change in interpretation by the IRS.

IRC Sec. 162(l)(2) allows self-employed proprietors and partners, and more-than-2% S shareholders treated as partners for fringe benefits, to deduct 100% of their health insurance as a page 1, for-AGI income tax deduction. To be eligible for this deduction, the taxpayer must have a health insurance plan that can be considered as associated with a business activity. Also, the taxpayer must not be eligible to participate in a health insurance plan that is subsidized by any other employer. The deduction is limited to the taxpayer’s self-employment income, or in the case of an S shareholder, the wages subject to payroll taxes.

Nondependent Children under Age 27 Can Now Be Covered

One of the features of the Health Care legislation passed last March provides that effective as of 3/30/10, an employee may receive tax-free treatment for employer-provided health insurance for a child who has not attained age 27 by the end of the year, regardless of whether the child is eligible as a tax return dependent. Prior to this legislation, an employee would have had taxable compensation to the extent an employer paid for health insurance for a nondependent child.

This legislation made a corresponding change to the self-employed health insurance deduction of a self-employed taxpayer. If a self-employed individual pays the health insurance premium for a nondependent child who has not attained the age of 27 by 12/31/10, premiums paid after 3/30/10 are includable in the self-employed health insurance deduction.

Example 1: Phil, a self-employed proprietor, has been claiming the self-employed health insurance deduction for his family. The health policy covers himself, his spouse, and their 20 year-old dependent daughter, a college student. Phil’s older child, Flip, age 25, was recently laid off from his W-2 job in a nearby community and is again living at home. Phil is helping Flip by paying his separate health insurance policy and also covering a few other essential expenses. Beginning 3/30/10, Phil may include Flip’s health insurance premiums in computing the self-employed health insurance deduction on his Form 1040 .

Medicare Part B Premiums Can Count as Part of the Deduction

For several years, the IRS instructions to Form 1040, for the self-employed health insurance deduction line on page 1, have stated at that Medicare Part B premiums could not be treated as part of the deduction. Of course, this guidance was only applicable to someone over age 65 and older enrolled in Medicare who also had self-employment income. But many self-employed taxpayers stay active past age 65.

Surprisingly, the 2010 Form 1040 instructions, at line 29, now state “Medicare B premiums can be used to figure the deduction.”

We have not seen any other IRS guidance explaining this change in position. Earlier guidance on this point was informal: IRS instructions, an IRS Publication, and a 1995 Field Service Advisory memo (FSA 3042, 12/19/95). However, the current Form 1040 instructions can be relied upon, and apparently reflect an updated position of the IRS. Accordingly, the Medicare B premium should be claimed as part of the line 29 self-employed health insurance deduction beginning in 2010.

The Medicare B premium amount, of course, is disclosed on the Form SSA-1099 . For the last several years, the Medicare B premiums assessed by the Social Security Administration have been income-sensitive. For 2010, the annual amount ranges from approximately $1,300 to $4,200. Further, if both spouses are enrolled in Medicare, these amounts will generally be doubled.

Example 2: Ed and Edna, each age 67, both are enrolled in Medicare and receiving social security retirement benefits. Ed is still active as a self-employed partner in the farming partnership with their two sons. While Ed’s share of the partnership K-1 self-employment income is not large, he receives substantial rental income from the partnership for the use of his land, and he and Edna report a substantial AGI in their Form 1040. Their Medicare B premiums withheld from their social security benefits were the maximum in 2010 of $4,243 each. In preparing their Form 1040 for 2010, the IRS instructions indicate that Ed and Edna may claim the Medicare Part B premiums of $8,486 as additional self-employed health insurance.

For 2010 Self-employed Health Insurance

Is Deductible for SE Tax Purposes

In the September Small Business Jobs Act, Congress also adjusted the self-employed health insurance deduction in another manner. The legislation amended IRC Sec. 162(l)(4) to allow the deduction to be claimed both for income tax purposes and self-employment tax purposes in 2010. Previously, of course, the health insurance deduction had only been allowable for the income tax computation.

For 2010, this SE tax break makes the ability to claim post-3/30/10 health insurance for nondependent children (who do not attain age 27 by 12/31/10) more beneficial, and also makes the Medicare B premium deduction of greater value.

Other Implications of Reduced Self-employment Income in 2010

Does the reduction in self-employment income for 2010, because of the one-year deductibility of self-employed health insurance premiums, also affect other calculations driven by self-employment (SE) income? For example, a self-employed taxpayer’s earnings for qualified retirement plan purposes are based on SE income. So, for 2010, must SE income for this purpose be reduced by the health insurance deduction? And, the self-employed health insurance deduction itself is limited to the amount of the taxpayer’s SE income. Do we need to do a dreaded simultaneous equation to determine the health insurance deduction if SE income was low?

Here’s our analysis of these questions:

1. SE Income for Qualified Retirement Plan and IRA Funding. For both qualified plan and IRA purposes, earned income is defined by reference to IRC Sec. 401(c)(2) . In turn, IRC Sec. 401(c)(2) refers to net earnings from self-employment as defined in IRC Sec. 1402(a) . If the story ended here, we would need to reduce self-employed earnings for retirement plan funding in 2010 by the health insurance deduction. But the Committee Report to the legislation enacting the one year cut in SE income for health insurance says that “It is intended that earned income within the meaning of section 401(c)(2) be computed without regard to this deduction for the cost of health insurance.” It goes on to note that a technical correction to the legislation may be needed. As a result, SE income for retirement plan funding in 2010 should not be reduced for the health insurance deduction.

Income Limit for Self-employed Health Insurance Deduction. We won’t bore you with the citations on this one, as it is also addressed directly in the Committee Report of the September legislation. That language states that “earned income for purposes of the limitation applicable to the health insurance deduction is computed without regard to this deduction.” So again, we use SE income without the health insurance deduction as the business net income limit for this health insurance deduction (and no need to remember how to calculate a simultaneous equation!).

Comments Off

By Editor, February 8, 2011

Information reporting required for rental property expense payments. Beginning with payments made in 2011, recipients of rental income from real estate must implement Form 1099 reporting.   Specifically, rental income recipients making payments of $600 or more to a service provider (such as a plumber, painter, or accountant) in the course of earning rental income are required to provide an information return (typically Form 1099-MISC) to IRS and to the service provider.

This means rental property owners should start now to acquire the names, addresses and social security or other taxpayer identification numbers for service providers, so that this information will be available when the time comes to issue the 1099s.

Exceptions. Exceptions are provided for individuals renting their principal residences (including active members of the military), taxpayers whose rental income doesn’t exceed an IRS-determined minimal amount, and those for whom the reporting requirement would create a hardship (under yet to be issued IRS regs).

Also, 1099-MISC reporting is not required for most payments to corporations during 2011, and is not required for credit card payments, if 1099 reporting for such payments is made by the credit card agency.

Increased information return penalties. For information returns required to be filed after December 31, 2010, the tax penalties for failure to timely file information returns are increased. For example, the minimum penalty for each failure due to intentional disregard will be increased from $100 to $250.

Back up withholding.  A payee furnishes social security number and other 1099 reporting data by completing Form W-9.  If a payee fails to provide such information, the rental property owner must implement 28% back up withholding with regard to such payee.

Illustration : A owns a 12-floor commercial building in the downtown area of City X. A rents out units as office or retail space in the building. A hires a plumber in 2011 to make repairs to the building and pays the plumber $2,000 for 2011. A is considered to be in a trade or business and must file an information return showing the $2,000 payment to the plumber.

Comments Off

By Editor, January 6, 2011

Background

Before 2010, there was an often-unavoidable stumbling block for higher-income individuals who wanted to implement the Roth IRA conversion strategy. In those years, conversions were prohibited for folks with Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) in excess of $100,000. For 2010 and beyond, the MAGI restriction is history. The rule that made individuals who use married filing separate status ineligible for Roth IRA conversions is also history for 2010 and beyond. Thanks to the demise of these restrictions, 2010 was “the year of the Roth IRA conversion”. For taxpayers that made the conversion, the story is not over. In fact, 2011 is when the rubber meets the road for 2010 conversions.

2010 Converters Must Decide When Conversion Income Will Be Recognized

2010 converters can spread the taxable income triggered by 2010 conversions evenly over 2011 and 2012 (50% in each year) for federal income tax purposes and thereby defer the tax hit. In fact, this defer-and-spread deal happens automatically unless the taxpayer makes the alternative election to recognize all the conversion income in 2010. [See IRC Sec. 408A(d)(3)(A)(iii) .]

Going with the defer-and-spread deal is not a no-brainer. For example, if you believe you will pay a lower marginal tax rate in 2010, it might make sense to recognize all the conversion income in 2010 by reporting it on that year’s Form 1040. As we just explained, making that choice will require an election with the 2010 return.  As this was written, we did not have any details about how to make the election. We will tell you as soon as we know more.

No general rule of thumb can be offered for whether to recognize the income for 2010, or spread it over 2011 and 2012. Each taxpayer’s situation must be considered individually.

2010 Converters Have until 10/17/11 to Reverse Ill-fated Conversions

Another “safety valve” for Roth IRA conversions is the fact that converters are allowed to change their minds well after doing the deed. Any 2010 converter has until the extended due date for filing his 2010 Form 1040 to recharacterize the converted amount back to traditional IRA status. The extended due date for 2010 returns is 10/17/11 (for calendar-year taxpayers). A recharacterization reverses the earlier conversion and eliminates the related tax liability. The 10/17/11 deadline for reversing 2010 conversions applies whether or not the converter actually extends his 2010 Form 1040. [See IRC Sec. 408A(d)(6) and (7) and Reg. 301.9100-2(b) .]

Example: Fred converted two traditional IRAs into two Roth IRAs in 2010. In 2011, the values of the converted accounts plummet due to poor investment performance. In this bleak scenario, Fred would have to pay income tax on value that later disappeared. Bad idea! Thankfully, he has until 10/17/11 to reverse the 2010 conversions by recharacterizing the two Roth IRAs back to traditional IRA status. After the reversal, it’s as if the ill-fated conversions never happened. So, Fred won’t owe any tax on the now-reversed conversions.

Side Note: Regardless of whether taxpayers are 2010 converters, doing any 2011 conversions early in the year makes some sense because clients will have until 10/15/12 to reverse any ill-fated 2011 conversions. That’s almost two years to see how things go. Of course, if 2010 converters also do 2011 conversions, it puts extra variables in play regarding the best time to recognize income from the 2010 conversions.

Why 2010 Converters Should Extend Their Returns

There are two big reasons for 2010 converters to extend their 2010 returns to 10/17/11.

• First, it creates extra time for converters to decide if they are better served by: (1) going with the defer-and-spread deal that results in spreading the conversion income evenly between 2011 and 2012, or (2) making the election to report all the conversion income in 2010. Converters should have a better handle by next October on how much income they expect to have in 2011 and 2012. We hope and trust that the IRS will provide timely guidance not only on how to make this election, but also allowing it to be made on a timely filed extended return.
• Second, extending their 2010 returns will make it much easier for converters to handle any reversals of 2010 conversions. If the converter’s return is extended, the reversal is reported by simply showing no income from the now-reversed conversion on the original 2010 Form 1040. Simple! If the 2010 return is not extended and a 2010 conversion is reversed after the filing date, an amended 2010 return will have to be filed to report the reversal. Not so simple!

Conclusions

Doing Roth IRA conversions in 2010 made lots of sense for certain taxpayers, but the book is still open because decisions about 2010 conversions must be made in 2011. First and foremost, 2010 converters should consider to extending their returns to create extra time to make those decisions.

Comments Off

By Editor, December 21, 2010

The recently enacted “Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010″ is a sweeping tax package that includes, among many other items, an extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for two years, estate tax relief, a two-year “patch” of the alternative minimum tax (AMT), a two-percentage-point cut in employee-paid payroll taxes and in self-employment tax for 2011, new incentives to invest in machinery and equipment, and a host of retroactively resuscitated and extended tax breaks for individuals and businesses. Here’s a look at the key elements of the package:

• The current income tax rates will be retained for two years (2011 and 2012), with a top rate of 35% on ordinary income and 15% on qualified dividends and long-term capital gains.
• Employees and self-employed workers will receive a reduction of two percentage points in Social Security payroll tax in 2011, bringing the rate down from 6.2% to 4.2% for employees, and from 12.4% to 10.4% for the self-employed.
• A two-year AMT “patch” for 2010 and 2011 will keep the AMT exemption near current levels and allow personal credits to offset AMT. Without the patch, an estimated 21 million additional taxpayers would have owed AMT for 2010.
• Key tax credits for working families that were enacted or expanded in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 will be retained. Specifically, the new law extends the $1,000 child tax credit and maintains its expanded refundability for two years, extends rules expanding the earned income credit for larger families and married couples, and extends the higher education tax credit (the American Opportunity tax credit) and its partial refundability for two years.
• Businesses can write off 100% of their equipment and machinery purchases, effective for property placed in service after September 8, 2010 and through December 31, 2011. For property placed in service in 2012, the new law provides for 50% additional first-year depreciation.
• Many of the “traditional” tax extenders are extended for two years, retroactively to 2010 and through the end of 2011. Among many others, the extended provisions include the election to take an itemized deduction for state and local general sales taxes in lieu of the itemized deduction for state and local income taxes; the $250 above-the-line deduction for certain expenses of elementary and secondary school teachers; and the research credit.
• After a one-year hiatus, the estate tax will be reinstated for 2011 and 2012, with a top rate of 35%. The exemption amount will be $5 million per individual in 2011 and will be indexed to inflation in following years. Estates of people who died in 2010 can choose to follow either 2010′s or 2011′s rules.
• Omitted from the new law: Repeal of a controversial expansion of Form 1099 reporting requirements.
• Also not included: Extension of the Build America Bonds program, which permits state and localities to issue federally-subsidized municipal bonds.

Return of the estate tax in the 2010 Tax Relief Act

The estates of wealthy individuals who died in 2010 didn’t pay any federal estate tax, but that situation is about to change. Under the recently enacted “Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010,” the federal estate tax, which disappeared for 2010, springs back to life in 2011 and is imposed at the top rate of 35% of the estate’s value after the first $5 million.

New law

The new law brings back the estate tax, for 2011 and 2012 anyway. During 2011 and 2012, the top rate will be 35%. For 2011, the exemption amount will be $5 million per individual (indexed for inflation after 2011). At those levels, the vast majority of estates (all but an estimated 3,500 nationwide in 2011) will not be subject to any federal estate tax, and the tax will raise about $11.4 billion for the government. By way of comparison, the 55% tax with a $1 million exemption would have resulted in about 43,540 taxable estates in 2011, and raised about $34.4 billion. Tax historians would also note that except for the temporary repeal of the estate tax in 2010, the estate tax rate has not been less than 45% since 1931.

The new law also gives heirs of decedents dying in 2010 a choice of which estate-tax rules to apply – 2010′s or 2011′s. That’s important because although there is no estate tax in 2010, some inherited assets are subject to higher capital gains tax under the 2010 rules, a situation that actually raises the tax burden for some heirs. Inherited assets under the 2010 rules have a tax basis equal to the price when they were purchased (referred to in tax parlance as “carryover basis”) rather than the price at death. That could lead to a significant tax burden for heirs who sell assets such as stocks that had been held for many years and have greatly appreciated in value. Under the 2011 rules, by contrast, heirs will be allowed to inherit assets with a “stepped-up basis.” While most heirs would choose the 2011 regime ($5 million exemption from both estate and generation-skipping tax and an unlimited step-up in the basis of assets to their current market value), the heirs of superrich decedents could find it more advantageous to elect the 2010 law (limited step-up in the basis of assets and no estate tax). If the executor makes the election to have the 2010 rules apply, the estate tax return’s due date will not be earlier than the date that’s nine months after the new law’s enactment date.

For gifts made after December 31, 2010, the gift tax will be reunified with the estate tax. Under the new law, the estate and gift tax exemptions will be reunified starting in 2011, which means that the $5 million estate tax exemption will also be available for gifts. The law in effect prior to 2010 provided a $3.5 million lifetime exemption for estates, but only $1 million for gifts. The gift tax rate, starting in 2011, will be 35%. The exemption from the generation-skipping tax (GST) – the additional tax on gifts and bequests to grandchildren when their parents are still alive – will also rise to $5 million from the $1 million it would have been without the new law. The GST tax rate for transfers made in 2011 and 2012 will be 35%.

From a planning standpoint, a nice feature of the new law is that it makes it easier to transfer the $5 million exemption to a surviving spouse, so married couples can shield $10 million of their assets from taxes. In the language of tax professionals, the estate tax exemption will be “portable.”

We hope this information is helpful. If you would like more details about the estate tax or any other aspect of the new law, please do not hesitate to call or email anyone here at Wilson Price CPAs and Consultants.

Circular 230 Notice: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.