|
|
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.
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.
The newly passed and signed 2010 Tax Act, formally named the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, includes several provisions that will affect taxpayers. Here is the information you need to know now about this legislation.
Major Provisions
The new law
- postpones the sunset of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts;
- reduces the estate tax;
- extends unemployment benefits;
- includes an alternative minimum tax (AMT) patch;
- continues through 2012 the lower capital gains tax rate introduced by the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003; and
- extends for two years the repeal of the itemized deduction phase-out and the personal exemption phase-out.
Provisions That May Affect You
Estate Tax
The Act temporarily reinstates the estate tax, with an estate tax rate of 35% and an estate tax exemption of $5 million (adjusted for inflation after 2011).
Payroll Tax
For 2011, the Act reduces the rate for the Social Security portion of payroll taxes to 10.4% by reducing the employee rate from 6.2% to 4.2%. The employer’s portion remains 6.2%.
Family
The Act extends several expired or expiring provisions affecting families, including the following:
- The increased standard deduction for married taxpayers filing jointly, which is scheduled to expire after 2010, continues for two years.
- The $1,000 child tax credit amount continues for two years instead of reverting to $500.
- The increased starting and ending points for the earned income credit continues for two years.
- The $3,000 amount for the child and dependent care credit, which was scheduled to revert to $2,400 after 2010, continues for two years.
- The American Opportunity Tax Credit continues for two years.
Business
The Act extends the 100% bonus depreciation for business property acquired after September 8, 2010, before January 1, 2012, and placed in service before January 1, 2012 (or before January 1, 2013, in the case of certain property). It also sets the expensing limitation under IRC §179 at $125,000 and the phase-out threshold amount at $500,000 for 2012. The Act then reduces these amounts to $25,000 and $200,000 for tax years beginning after 2012.
The temporary 100% exclusion of gain from the sale of certain small business stock under IRC §1202, enacted by the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, is extended through 2011.
AMT
The Act includes an AMT patch for 2010 and 2011.
- For 2010, the AMT exemption amounts will be $47,450 for unmarried individuals and $72,450 for married individuals filing jointly.
- For 2011, the amounts will be $48,450 and $74,450, respectively.
Needless to say, the 2010 Tax Act is still very new. It is only just being analyzed by professional advisers. The law is potentially subject to modifications by technical correction acts. In addition, provisions of the law may be interpreted by the Treasury Department issuing regulations and by the IRS issuing forms and instructions.
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.
IRS Announces 2011 Standard Mileage Rates
|
|
| WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service today issued the 2011 optional standard mileage rates used to calculate the deductible costs of operating an automobile for business, charitable, medical or moving purposes.
Beginning on Jan. 1, 2011, the standard mileage rates for the use of a car (also vans, pickups or panel trucks) will be:
- 51 cents per mile for business miles driven
- 19 cents per mile driven for medical or moving purposes
- 14 cents per mile driven in service of charitable organizations
A taxpayer may not use the business standard mileage rate for a vehicle after using any depreciation method under the Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System (MACRS) or after claiming a Section 179 deduction for that vehicle.
In addition, the business standard mileage rate cannot be used for more than four vehicles used simultaneously. The IRS is requesting public comments on whether taxpayers should be allowed to use the business standard mileage rate in this circumstance.
Beginning in 2011, a taxpayer may use the business standard mileage rate for vehicles used for hire, such as taxicabs.
Also beginning in 2011, the standard mileage rates are announced in a separate notice, which also provides the amount a taxpayer must use in calculating reductions to basis for depreciation taken under the business standard mileage rate and the maximum standard automobile cost for automobiles under a FAVR allowance. The IRS plans to discontinue publishing the standard mileage rate revenue procedure annually but will publish modifications as required.
Taxpayers always have the option of calculating the actual costs of using their vehicle rather than using the standard mileage rates.
Revenue Procedure 2010-51 and Notice 2010-88 contain additional details regarding the standard mileage rates.
From IRS Announcement IR-2010-119, December 3, 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. |
|
The Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which passed Congress, Senate, and was signed by the President on September 27th, 2010, offers a variety of small business tax breaks, some revenue raisers, expands small business loan programs, strengthens small business preference programs for federal government projects, and provides incentives for exporters.
Small Business Tax Relief
- Section 179 depreciation has been increased to a maximum of $500,000 and the phaseout threshold has been increased to $2 million for 2010 and 2011.
- The first year 50% bonus depreciation has been extended to apply to property acquired and placed in service in 2010.
- Self employed individuals can deduct the cost of health insurance for themselves, spouses, and dependents when calculating self employment tax.
- The exclusion from gross income of gain from the sale or exchange of qualified small business stock acquired after the date of enactment and before January 1, 2011 has been increased to 100%.
- The carryback period for eligible small business credits under IRC § 38 is extended from one to five years. The bill also allows taxpayers to use eligible small business credits to offset both regular and alternative minimum tax liability.
- The deduction for trade or business startup expenses has been increased from $5,000 to $10,000 for tax years beginning in 2010 and 2011.
- The penalty for failure to disclose a reportable transaction has been limited to 75% of the decrease in tax resulting from the transaction.
- Cell phones have been removed from the definition of listed property.
Revenue Raisers
- Recipients of rental income from real estate are now generally subject to the same information reporting requirements as taxpayers engaged in a trade or business. In particular, 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 the IRS and to the service provider. This provision will apply to payments made after Dec. 31, 2010.
- The penalties for failure to file a correct information return has also been increased.
- Rollovers from elective deferral plans are allowed to Roth-designated accounts.
- Participants in government section 457 plans are allowed to treat elective deferrals as Roth contributions, effective for tax years beginning after 2010.
Small Business Loans
- The bill creates a Small Business Lending Fund to address ongoing effects of the financial crisis on small businesses by allowing the Treasury Department to make capital investments in eligible financial institutions to increase credit available for small businesses. Independent community banks may participate in a new $30 billion lending fund on the condition they make loans to small businesses and meet other requirements. Financial institutions (bank and savings and loan holding companies, depository institutions, and community development loan funds) with $10 billion or less in total assets may apply for capital investments of up to 3% of risk-weighted assets.
Small Business Federal Contracts
- Federal agencies are called on to solicit bids from small businesses and federal contracting requirements are amended to encourage small businesses to bid for federal contracts.
- Federal agencies are required to solicit bids from any responsible source, including small business concerns, teams and joint ventures, for multiple award contracts above the substantial bundling threshold of the agency.
Small Business Exports
- The bill contains measures designed to encourage small businesses to become exporters or to increase their export activities. The SBA will create a pilot three-year trade and export promotion program that will make grants to states to carry out export programs that assist eligible small businesses.
(From Journal of Accountancy article Small Business Stimulus Passes Congress, September 23, 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.
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.
Starting in 2010, anyone with a traditional IRA can convert all or part of it to a Roth IRA. Once you have had a Roth IRA for at least five years and after you are age 59 1/2, all withdrawals are tax free.
You will owe income tax on a Roth IRA conversion. If you convert in 2010 you can elect to defer the tax payments to 2011 and 2012. Even with this deferral, you probably will pay income tax much sooner that you would have paid if you had kept the money in a traditional IRA.
REASONS TO CONVERT
ESTATE PLANNING
- You are not required to take any withdrawals from a Roth IRA, no matter how old you are. With traditional IRAs, you generally must take at least required minimum distributions (RMDs) after age 701/2. Therefore, a Roth IRA can be ideal if you have ample wealth from other sources and wish to pass a tax-free account to your heirs.
- Example1:
- Barbara has $1 million in a traditional IRA. She converts the account to a Roth IRA in 2010 and owes $350,000 in income tax, at a 35% rate. Barbara pays that tax bill with non-IRA funds.
- Assume that Barbara lives for 24 more years. She earns 6% per year in her Roth IRA and takes no distributions. Therefore, the account is worth around $4 million at Barbara’s death. If Barbara’s son Phil is the beneficiary of the Roth IRS, he will be subject to an RMD schedule, but all of his withdrawals will be tax free.
TAX TACTICS
- When you convert a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA, you will have to recognize income from the conversion. That income may help you use up tax benefits that otherwise would be used later or not at all. Tax benefits that may expire for lack of income include net operating losses, ordinary losses, and charitable contributions.
- Example 2:
- Nick is a retiree with modest taxable income. A few years ago, he made a large donation to his alma mater. Under the tax code, Nick’s charitable deductions each year are limited to 50% of his income. If Nick doesn’t use all of his deductions within five years after the year of the donation, he will never be able to use them.
- There, Nick converts his traditional IRA to a Roth IRA. This move increases his income, enabling him to use the balance of his charitable deduction. Thus, Nick has converted his tax-deferred traditional IRA to a potentially tax-free Roth IRA while incurring a relatively low tax obligation.
MARKET TIMING
- If your traditional IRA loses value, you will owe less tax on a Roth IRA conversion. Many taxpayers invest IRA money in stocks. Because the broad U.S. stock market is currently below its peak, Roth IRA conversions are relatively inexpensive.
- Example 3:
- Robin Bradley’s traditional IRA was worth $300,000 in late 2007. In her 33% tax bracket, Robin would have paid $99,000 in federal income tax to convert this IRA to a Roth IRA.
- Robin’s traditional IRA is now only worth $210,000. She would owe $69,300 on a Roth IRA conversion, at a 33% tax rate: $29,700 less than a conversion would have cost in 2007. If Robin’s Roth IRA grows back to $300,000, she eventually can withdraw that $90,000 without owing any income tax. Without a Roth conversion, Robin would owe income tax on withdrawals from her traditional IRA, making that $90,000 gain taxable.
RETIREMENT PLANNING
- Some taxpayers believe they will be in a higher tax bracket in retirement than they are now. They may have low taxable income this year, for example, or they may plan to relocate to a high income tax state. In addition, many people fear that future income tax rates will be higher than today’s rates because the federal government will need more money to cover its obligations.
- In such circumstances, you might want to convert all or part of your traditional IRA to a Roth IRA now and pay tax at current rates. Once you meet the five year and age 591/2 tests, you will have a source of tax-free cash no matter what happens to your personal tax rate.
WHY YOU SHOULD NOT CONVERT
- You cannot convert the 2010 RMD amount from the traditional IRA to a Roth.
- The tax liability is too large. It is not advisable to use part of the IRA conversion money to pay the tax due. Does paying the tax deplete too much of your liquid cash assets?
- Is the conversion going to bump you into a higher tax bracket so all your income will be taxed at a higher rate? The amount of Roth transfer is treated as income. If you receive Social Security benefits, their taxability will be affected and some deductions could be reduced that are affected by income limits.
I tried to keep this letter brief, but as you can see there are many things to consider if you are contemplating doing a conversion. There are too many variables to cover in a general article, so it is best to consult your financial advisor or CPA to analysis your particular situation.
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.
The Healthcare reform legislation allows certain small employers and tax-exempt organizations that pay at least half of the cost of health insurance for their employees to claim a tax credit starting this year (2010). The rules for determining eligibility for, and the computation of, the credit are quite complicated.
To qualify for at least a partial credit, an employer must have fewer than the equivalent of 25 full-time employees and pay them average annual wages under $50,000. Because eligibility depends on the number of “full-time equivalent” (FTEs) employees rather than the number of employees, employers that employ a combination of full-time and part-time help may qualify for a credit. Owners of the business and their family members are not counted in calculating the FTEs and the annual wages for qualifying for the credit. For the years 2010-2013, the credit can be as high as 35% of premiums.
As mentioned, the rules are complicated and have many “ifs”, so it is difficult to give a general answer on the amount of credit available for a specific organization. If you are paying health insurance for your employees and think this may affect you, please give Schutte & Hilgendorf a call or send an e-mail to loish@prescottaccountants.com and we will customize the calculations for your specific situation to see how you may benefit.
For tax years beginning after December 31, 2010 and beyond, an employer must disclose on each employee’s W-2 Form the value of the employee’s health insurance coverage sponsored by the employer.
Beginning in 2014 an employer who employs an average of at least 50 full-time employees during the preceding calendar year is required to offer and contribute to their workers’ health insurance or pay a penalty.
The HIRE act of 2010 also extends the $250,000 limit on first-year expensing for purchase of business equipment and machinery in 2010, (Known as Section 179). If the total cost of qualifying purchases in 2010 exceeds $800,000, the $250,000 Section 179 deduction is reduced.
The 50% bonus depreciation in effect in 2009 HAS NOT YET been extended to apply in 2010. The latest news we have received is that it is included in a bill that the Senate is considering, but has not yet passed. We are keeping an eye on the developments and will post new information to our website www.prescottaccountants.com as soon as it is available.
If you have any questions about how to apply this depreciation extension or any other aspect of the 2010 HIRE act, or just need tax planning assistance, please call Schutte & Hilgendorf, CPAs at 928-778-0079. We specialize in accounting, auditing, and tax planning and preparation for individuals and business in the great quad-city area.
|
We Are The Piece That Fits.
Schutte & Hilgendorf PLLC
3140 Stillwater Drive
Prescott, AZ 86305
Phone: 928-778-0079
Fax: 928-778-0261
|