Many more tax-exempts can file e-Postcard instead of Form 990 for 2010 under new rule

Many more tax-exempts can file e-Postcard instead of Form 990 for 2010 under new rule

Rev Proc 2011-15, 2011- IRB, IR 2011-3

In a Revenue Procedure, IRS has raised the annual gross receipts threshold at which tax-exempt organizations (other than private foundations and Code Sec. 509(a)(3) supporting organizations) must file Form 990, Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax, from $25,000 to $50,000, for tax years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2010. Thus, under this new rule, most tax-exempt organizations whose gross annual receipts are normally $50,000 or less can file the simpler Form 990-N (Electronic Notification e-Postcard).

Background on tax-exempts’ filing requirements. Under Code Sec. 6033(a), most tax-exempt organizations, other than churches, must file with IRS an annual Form 990, Form 990-EZ (Short Form Return or Organization Exempt From Income Tax), or Form 990-PF (Return of Private Foundation or Section 4947(a)(1) Nonexempt Charitable Trust Treated as a Private Foundation). Under the discretionary authority in Code Sec. 6033(a)(3)(B), IRS provided that exempt organizations, other than a private foundation, whose annual gross receipts aren’t normally in excess $25,000 do not have to file Form 990, but instead can file the simpler Form 990-N, the e-Postcard which only requests eight items of information items. (Rev Proc 83-23, 1983-1 CB 687) IRS provides similar exceptions for tax-exempt foreign (Rev Proc 94-17, 1994-1 CB 579) and possession organizations (Rev Proc 2003-21, 2003-1 CB 448).

Form 990-series information returns are due on the 15th day of the fifth month after an organization’s fiscal year ends.

RIA observation: Non-church exempt organizations that fail to file for three consecutive years automatically lose their tax-exempt status. In an effort to help them keep their status, IRS offered a one-time, two-part filing relief program in July of 2010 to bring small organizations back into compliance, see Federal Taxes Weekly Alert 07/29/2010.

New simpler reporting rule. Rev Proc 2011-15, Sec. 3.01, provides that a exempt organization (other than a private foundation or a Code Sec. 509(a)(3) supporting organization) that normally has annual gross receipts of not more than $50,000 (as described in Rev Proc 2011-15, Sec. 4) isn’t required to file an annual return under Code Sec. 6033(a) , i.e., Form 990. Rev Proc 2011-15, Sec. 4, provides that the annual gross receipts of an organization are normally not more than $50,000 if:

·       in the case of an organization that has been in existence for one year or less, its gross receipts, including amounts pledged by donors, are $75,000 or less during its first tax year;

·       in the case of an organization that has been in existence for more than one year, but less than three years, its average annual gross receipts for its first two tax years are $60,000 or less; and,

·       in the case of an organization that has been in existence for three years or more, its average annual gross receipts for the immediately preceding three tax years, including the tax year for which the return is filed, are $50,000 or less.

In addition, Rev Proc 2011-15, Sec. 3.02, provides that a tax-exempt foreign organization or a U.S. possession organization (other than a private foundation or a Code Sec. 509(a)(3) supporting organization) isn’t required to file an annual return under Code Sec. 6033(a) if:

(1)     it normally doesn’t receive more than $50,000 in annual gross receipts from sources within the U.S.; and

(2)     it has no significant activity (including lobbying and political activity and the operation of a trade or business, but excluding investment activity) in the U.S.

If at any time an organization ceases to meet the conditions set out in Rev Proc 2011-15, it must file an annual return on Form 990 for the year in which it first ceased to qualify for relief under Rev Proc 2011-15 and for all later years in which the organization doesn’t qualify. (Rev Proc 2011-15, Sec. 3.04)

Tax-exempt organizations exempted from filing an annual return under Rev Proc 2011-15 must submit a Form 990-N e-Postcard annually in electronic format. By submitting an e-Postcard, an organization acknowledges that it isn’t required to file a return because its annual gross receipts are normally not more than $50,000. (Rev Proc 2011-15, Sec. 3.03) Further, Rev Proc 2011-15 doesn’t affect an organization’s obligation under the Code to file any tax or information return other than Form 990. For example, if an organization earns sufficient gross unrelated business income, it is still required to file of Form 990-T, Exempt Organizations Business Income Tax Return. (Rev Proc 2011-15, Sec. 5)

Rev Proc 2011-15, Sec. 1, provides that it doesn’t apply to organizations exempt from income tax under Code Sec. 527 (i.e., political organizations).

RIA Research References: For tax-exempt organization’s annual return Form 990, see FTC 2d/FIN ¶ S-2801; United States Tax Reporter ¶ 60,334; TaxDesk ¶ 688,001.

Source:  Federal Tax Updates on Checkpoint Newsstand tab 1/14/2011 

Should you have questions regarding this post or any other tax needs, contact us at Schutte & Hilgendorf, PLLC, Prescott accountants serving the greater Yavapai County with tax, accounting, auditing, and QuickBooks consulting expertise.

Share

IRS may recharacterize dividend payments to S shareholder-employee as wages

IRS may recharacterize dividend payments to S shareholder-employee as wages
Watson, P.C. v. U.S., (DC IA 12/23/10) 107 AFTR 2d ¶2011-305
A district court has concluded that an S corporation shareholder-employee’s $24,000 salary in 2002 and 2003 was unreasonably low, and allowed IRS to reclassify as salary over $67,000 in dividend payments to the officer during each of those years. The corporation will also owe employment taxes on the reclassified dividend payments.
RIA observation: This is a long standing compliance issue with IRS, which feels that many service professionals try to minimize Medicare and Social Security taxes by routing what would otherwise be self-employment income through an S corporation and then paying themselves a nominal salary. Since the amount of compensation that an S corporation pays its employee-shareholder is within the employee-shareholder’s discretion, he may have an incentive to claim less than a reasonable salary and take from the S corporation other payments (e.g., dividends) that aren’t subject to employment taxes.
RIA observation: In 2010, the House but not the Senate passed legislation that included a crackdown on service professionals who try to minimize Medicare and Social Security taxes by routing their self-employment income through an S corporation and then paying themselves a nominal salary (see Federal Taxes Weekly Alert 06/03/2010).
Facts. David E. Watson had a bachelor’s degree in business administration and a specialization in accounting. He owned a professional corporation (PC) called DEWPC that, since its inception, had elected to be taxed as an S corporation. Watson was its sole shareholder, employee, director, and officer, and was the only person to whom DEWPC distributed money during the years at issue. His $24,000 annual salary was documented in the corporate minutes. In selecting his salary, he did not look at what comparable businesses paid for similar services. For both years at issue, Watson received dividend distributions from DEWPC that totaled over $175,000 annually.
On Feb. 5, 2007, IRS assessed $48,519 in taxes, penalties, and interest against DEWPC for the eight calendar quarters of 2002 and 2003. It made these assessments after it determined that portions of the dividend distributions from DEWPC to Watson should have been characterized as wages paid to Watson that were subject to employment taxes. DEWPC later paid $4,063.93 toward these assessments and then filed a claim for refund of the payments. IRS denied the claim and DEWPC sued in district court.
Background. Employers are liable for FICA (Social Security) taxes on wages paid to their employees. (Code Sec. 3111) Fact Sheet 2008-25, August 2008 warns S corporations not to attempt to avoid paying employment taxes by having their officers treat their compensation as cash distributions, payments of personal expenses, and/or loans rather than as wages. Fact Sheet 2008-25, August 2008 lists these factors that courts have considered in determining reasonable compensation:
•       training and experience;
•       duties and responsibilities;
•       time and effort devoted to the business;
•       dividend history;
•       payments to non-shareholder employees;
•       timing and manner of paying bonuses to key people;
•       what comparable businesses pay for similar services;
•       compensation agreements; and
•       use of a formula to determine compensation.
DEWPC argued that IRS did not have the authority to recharacterize any of the dividend payments as compensation. DEWPC cited three federal court cases to support its argument.
Court’s ruling. The district court found that DEWPC’s position was undermined by IRS revenue rulings and case law. For example, in Rev Rul 74-44, 1974-1 CB 287, IRS concluded that dividends received by an S corporation’s two sole shareholders were wages for which the corporation was liable for FICA, FUTA and income tax withholding. In Joseph Radtke v. U.S., (DC WI 4/11/89) 63 AFTR 2d 89-1469, aff’d, (CA 7 2/23/90) 65 AFTR 2d 90-1155, a district court determined that certain funds designated as dividends were actually compensation for which an S corporation owed employment taxes. The district court was not persuaded by the rulings that DEWPC cited because in those rulings, the taxpayer was attempting to recharacterize funds, whereas in DEPW’s case, it was the government that was attempting to recharacterize the funds.
The district court said that the proper tax treatment of funds disbursed by an S corporation to its employees or shareholders turns on an analysis of whether the payments were remuneration for services performed. After reviewing the facts, the court concluded that DEWPC structured Watson’s salary and dividend payments in an effort to avoid federal employment taxes, with full knowledge that the dividends paid to Watson were actually “remuneration for services performed.” The court believed that a reasonable person in Watson’s role as DEWPC’s sole shareholder, officer, and employee would be expected to earn far more than a $24,000 salary for his services. The court pointed out that Watson was an exceedingly qualified accountant, with both bachelor’s and advanced degrees, working as one of the primary earners in a reputable firm that had over $2 million in gross revenues in 2002 and nearly $3 million in 2003.
As a result of the ruling, DEWPC will owe employment taxes, penalties, and interest on the 2002 and 2003 dividend distributions to Watson that were reclassified as salary.
RIA Research References: For S corporation dividends as wages subject to withholding, see FTC 2d/FIN ¶ H-4329; TaxDesk ¶ 532,002.
Source:  Federal Tax Updates on Checkpoint Newsstand tab 1/13/2011

Should you have questions regarding this post or any other tax needs, contact us at Schutte & Hilgendorf, PLLC, Prescott accountants serving the greater Yavapai County with tax, accounting, auditing, and QuickBooks consulting expertise.

Share

2011 Arizona A-4 Withholding Forms

Arizona Department of Revenue has revised Arizona Form A-4 effective for wages paid after December 31, 2010. The changes include:

1) Providing an additional withholding percentage of 0.8%. Previously available percentages are unchanged.

2) Removing the $15,000 annual compensation threshold. All seven withholding percentage rates are available to all employees, regardless of annual compensation.

3) Relaxing the exemption requirements. The employee only has to expect that there will be no Arizona tax liability in the current taxable year (instead of not having a liability in the prior year and not expecting one in the current year). However, this withholding exemption election will need to be renewed annually, similar to federal requirements.

Unlike the changes that took effect on July 1, not every employee is required to complete a new Arizona Form A-4. Individuals with a current withholding percentage elected on Arizona Form A-4P or Arizona Form A-4V may file a new form to take advantage of the new withholding percentage. However, employees wanting to renew their withholding exemption or those wanting to take advantage of the lower withholding percentage are required to file a new Form A-4 with their employer.

Click here to download a new 2011 Arizona A-4.

Changes to Arizona Withholding for Wages Paid After December 31, 2010, Arizona Department of Revenue, December 7, 2010.

Should you have questions regarding this post or any other tax needs, contact us at Schutte & Hilgendorf, PLLC, Prescott accountants serving the greater Yavapai County with tax, accounting, auditing, and QuickBooks consulting expertise.

Share

Guidance explains that over-the-counter drug costs will no longer be reimbursable

Notice 2010-59, 2010-39 IRB; Rev Rul 2010-23, 2010-39 IRB; IR 2010-95; IRS’s OTC FAQs

In Notice 2010-59, IRS has provided guidance on new Code Sec. 106(f) added by Sec. 9003 of the Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148, 3/23/2010), which, effective Jan. 1, 2011, provides that unless prescribed or insulin, the cost of over-the-counter medicines cannot be reimbursed from flexible spending arrangements (FSA), health reimbursement arrangements (HRA), Health Savings Accounts (HSA) and Archer Medical Savings Accounts (Archer MSA). IRS has also issued a Revenue Ruling, Information Release, and Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on this provision.

Background.
Under Code Sec. 213, expenses for medical care, not compensated for by insurance or otherwise, may be claimed as an itemized deduction to the extent they exceed 7.5% of adjusted gross income (AGI). (For tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2012, medical expenses will be deductible to the extent they exceed 10% of AGI.) Medical care generally is defined broadly as amounts paid for diagnoses, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease, or for the purpose of affecting any structure of the body. However, any amount paid during a tax year for medicine or drugs is explicitly deductible as a medical expense only if it is a prescribed drug or is insulin. Thus, any amount paid for non-prescription medicine is not deductible as a medical expense, including any medicine recommended by a physician.
 
However, the general definition of medical care without the explicit limitation on medicine applies for the exclusion for employer-provided health coverage and medical care. Thus, under an HRA or under a health FSA, amounts paid for prescription and over-the-counter medicine are treated as medical expenses, and reimbursements for these amounts are excludible from gross income. Similar rules apply for a HSA and Archer MSA.

The Affordable Care Act provides that the definition of medical expense for purposes of employer-provided health coverage, including HRAs, health FSAs), HSAs, and Archer MSAs, is conformed to the definition for purposes of the itemized deduction for medical expenses, except that a prescribed drug is determined without regard to whether it is available without a prescription. The changed definition for HSAs and Archer MSAs applies for amounts paid with respect to tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2010. The changed definition for health FSAs and HRAs applies for expenses incurred with respect to tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2010. (Code Sec. 106(f), Code Sec. 220(d)(2)(A), and Code Sec. 223(d)(2)(A), as amended by Affordable Care Act Sec. 9003) Thus, under the provision, the cost of over-the-counter medicines can’t be reimbursed with excludible income through a health FSA, HRA, HSA, or Archer MSA, unless the medicine is insulin or prescribed by a doctor.

New guidance.
Notice 2010-59 explains that under Code Sec. 106(f), Code Sec. 220(d)(2)(A), and Code Sec. 223(d)(2)(A), an individual may be reimbursed for over-the counter medicines or drugs, so long as the individual obtains a prescription for the medicines or drugs. A prescription means a written or electronic order for a medicine or drug that meets the legal requirements of a prescription in the state in which the medical expense is incurred and that is issued by an individual who is legally authorized to issue a prescription in that state. The rules in Code Sec. 106(f), Code Sec. 220(d)(2)(A), and Code Sec. 223(d)(2)(A) do not apply to items that aren’t medicines or drugs, including equipment such as crutches, supplies such as bandages, and diagnostic devices such as blood sugar test kits. These items may qualify as medical care if they otherwise meet the definition of medical care in Code Sec. 213(d)(1).

Effective date.
Notice 2010-59 provides that for expenses incurred after Dec. 31, 2010, payments or reimbursements for medicines or drugs from an employer-provided accident and health plan, including a health FSA or an HRA, are restricted to prescribed drugs, insulin, and over-the-counter drugs that are prescribed. This effective date applies regardless of whether the plan year for the employer’s plan is a fiscal or calendar year or whether there is no plan year (or other coverage period in the case of an HRA), and regardless of any applicable grace period for a health FSA (as provided in Prop Reg § 1.125-1(e)). Tax-free distributions for qualified medical expenses from an HSA or Archer MSA for medicines or drugs purchased after Dec. 31, 2010, are restricted to prescribed drugs, insulin, and over-the-counter medicines or drugs that are prescribed.

Thus, expenses incurred for over-the-counter medicines or drugs purchased without a prescription before Jan. 1, 2011 may be reimbursed tax-free at any time by an employer-provided plan, including an FSA or HRA, pursuant to the terms of the employer’s plan. This new law change doesn’t affect HSA or Archer MSA distributions for medicines or drugs made before Jan. 1, 2011, nor does it affect distributions made after Dec. 31, 2010, for medicines or drugs purchased on or before that date.

Debit cards.
Current health FSA or HRA debit card systems are not capable of substantiating Code Sec. 106(f) compliance with respect to over-the-counter medicines or drugs because the systems are incapable of recognizing and substantiating that the medicines or drugs were prescribed. Accordingly, except as provided below, for expenses incurred on and after Jan. 1, 2011, health FSA and HRA debit cards may not be used to purchase over-the-counter medicines or drugs.
Notice 2010-59 provides that to facilitate the significant changes to existing systems to reflect Code Sec. 106(f) ‘s change, IRS will not challenge the use of health FSA and HRA debit cards for expenses incurred through Jan. 15, 2011 if the use of the debit cards complies with the existing guidance. But, on and after Jan. 16, 2011, over-the-counter medicine or drug purchases at all providers and merchants (whether or not they have an inventory information approval system (IIAS)) must be substantiated before reimbursement may be made.

Substantiation can be done by submitting the prescription (or a copy of the prescription or other documentation that a prescription has been issued) for the over-the-counter medicine or drug, and other information from an independent third party that satisfies the requirements under Prop Reg § 1.125-6(b)(3)(i). For example, a customer receipt issued by a pharmacy which identifies the name of the purchaser (or the name of the person for whom the prescription applies), the date and amount of the purchase and an Rx number satisfies the substantiation requirements for over-the-counter medicines or drugs, as does a receipt without an Rx number accompanied by a copy of the related prescription.

Under Notice 2007-2, health FSA and HRA debit cards may be used at a pharmacy that does not have an IIAS if 90% of the store’s gross receipts during the prior tax year consists of items which qualify as expenses for medical care under Code Sec. 213(d). Until further guidance is issued, debit cards may be used at a pharmacy that satisfies the 90% test in Notice 2007-2, 2007-1 CB 254 , to purchase over-the-counter medicines or drugs that have been prescribed, if substantiation is properly submitted, in accordance with the terms of the plan, including the prescription (or a copy of the prescription or other documentation that a prescription has been issued) and other information from an independent third party that satisfies the requirements under Prop Reg § 1.125-6(b)(3)(i) . Solely for the purpose of determining whether a pharmacy meets this 90-percent test, sales of over-the-counter medicines and drugs at the pharmacy may continue to be taken into account after Dec. 31, 2010.

Cafeteria plans.
Notice 2010-59 provides that, notwithstanding the rule against retroactive amendments to cafeteria plans, an amendment to conform a cafeteria plan to the requirements set out in Notice 2010-59 that is adopted no later than June 30, 2011, may be made effective retroactively for expenses incurred after Dec. 31, 2010 (or after Jan. 15, 2011 for health FSA and HRA debit card purchases).

Effect on other documents.
Notice 2010-59 provides that IRS intends to amend Reg. § 1.105-1, Reg. § 1.105-2, Reg. § 1.106-1, Reg. § 1.125-1 and Reg. § 1.125-5 to provide for the new definition of medical expenses. Taxpayers may rely on Notice 2010-59 until the amended regs are issued. In addition, Rev Rul 2010-23 obsoletes Rev Rul 2003-102, 2003-2 CB 559 , which provides that reimbursements by an employer of amounts expended for medicines or drugs available without a prescription are excludable from gross income Code Sec. 105(b).

IR 2010-95 can be viewed on the IRS website at http://www.irs.gov/irs/article/0,,id=227301,00.html.
The text of IRS’s OTC (Over-The-Counter) FAQs can be viewed on the IRS website at http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=227308,00.html.
RIA Research References: For expenditures that qualify as medical care expenses, see FTC 2d/FIN ¶ K-2100; United States Tax Reporter ¶ 2134.04; TaxDesk ¶ 346,003.

Source:  Federal Tax Updates on Checkpoint Newsstand tab 9/7/2010 (as provided by kipp.mitchell@thomsonreuter.com)

Contact Schutte & Hilgendorf, PLLC with questions related to over-the-counter medicines and their tax treatment or with any other tax and accounting questions.  Schutte & Hilgendorf is a CPA firm in Prescott, Arizona offering tax, accounting, auditing, and consulting services to individuals and business in the greater Yavapai county.

Share

Arizona Working Poor Tax Credit Qualifying Organization List for 2010

Charitable Tax Credit

An individual income tax credit is available for contributions that provide assistance to the working poor. Below, you will find a link for recent changes in the law that impacts both taxpayers and charitable organizations.  For a publication to assist taxpayers, a current list of Qualifying Charitable Organizations, and forms and instructions for a Charitable Organization to be added to the list. 

For a list of current Qualifying Charitable Organizations click on the following link: Working Poor_Certified Orgs_2010. A list of Umbrella Organizations is found at the very end on the last page of the list.

Provided by the Arizona Department of Revenue web page http://www.azdor.gov/TaxCredits/CharitableTaxCredit.aspx as of 3/26/10

Share