|
|
Click on the link below to get this month’s Quickbooks Quick tip. Check back monthly for more easy, time-saving tricks.
QuickBooks Tip for March 2011: MAKE A STATEMENT!
QuickBooks Helps You Make a Statement
How do you let customers know they owe you money? Probably by sending invoices. And how’s that working for you? If your customers are all conscientious and pay on time, maybe that’s all you need to do. But perhaps you need to consider doing at least part of your billing by dispatching statements. These forms have their drawbacks. For example, you can’t include sales tax or discounts on them. You can’t group related charges and subtotal them. And your customization options are weaker than in invoices.
For more QuickBooks training tips, contact Schutte & Hilgendorf, CPAs, a full service accounting firm providing Prescott and the greater Yavapai County with excellent tax, accounting, auditing, bookkeeping and QuickBooks consulting services. We can be reached at 928-778-0079.
IRS/DOL Crackdown
If you classify any workers as “independent contractors”—or have plans to do so—2011 is the year to make sure you get that classification correct.
A massive new “Misclassification Initiative” launched by the IRS and U.S. Department of Labor is targeting employers with more audits and closer scrutiny. The IRS estimates that 80% of workers classified as “independent contractors” are actually employees.
As part of the crackdown, the DOL hired 100 new auditors solely to investigate misclassifications. State investigators are also turning up the heat on employers. And all this attention is prompting more independent contractors—and their attorneys—to challenge their classifications in court.
Below is Topic 762 - Independent Contractor vs. Employee provided by irs.gov to help in identifying which classification a worker falls:
To determine whether a worker is an independent contractor or an employee under common law, you must examine the relationship between the worker and the business. All evidence of control and independence in this relationship should be considered. The facts that provide this evidence fall into three categories – Behavioral Control, Financial Control, and the Type of Relationship.
Behavioral Control covers facts that show whether the business has a right to direct or control how the work is done, through instructions, training, or other means.
Financial Control covers facts that show whether the business has a right to direct or control the financial and business aspects of the worker’s job. This includes:
- The extent to which the worker has unreimbursed business expenses
- The extent of the worker’s investment in the facilities used in performing services
- The extent to which the worker makes his or her services available to the relevant market
- How the business pays the worker, and
- The extent to which the worker can realize a profit or incur a loss
Type of Relationship covers facts that show how the parties perceive their relationship. This includes:
- Written contracts describing the relationship the parties intended to create
- The extent to which the worker is available to perform services for other, similar businesses
- Whether the business provides the worker with employee-type benefits, such as insurance, a pension plan, vacation pay, or sick pay
- The permanency of the relationship, and
- The extent to which services performed by the worker are a key aspect of the regular business of the company
For more information, refer to Publication 15-A (PDF), Employer’s Supplemental Tax Guide, or Publication 1779 (PDF), Independent Contractor or Employee. If you want the IRS to determine whether a specific individual is an independent contractor or an employee, file Form SS-8 (PDF), Determination of Worker Status for Purposes of Federal Employment Taxes and Income Tax Withholding.
Contact Schutte & Hilgendorf with your questions related to independent contractor vs. employee. Schutte & Hilgendorf, CPAs, is a full service public accounting firm providing tax planning, preparation, audit, accounting, and QuickBooks consulting to individuals and small business in the Prescott and greater Yavapai County area. Call us at 928-778-0079 or visit www.prescottaccountants.com
The Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs will provide incentive payments to eligible professionals, eligible hospitals and critical access hospitals (CAHs) as they adopt, implement, upgrade or demonstrate meaningful use of certified EHR technology. This program, part of the 2009 Economic Stimulus Act, is a $20 million program, with up to $44,000 available for eligible professionals.
From a tax perspective, this means that eliglible medical professionals receiving these incentives may be taxed on this extra income in the form of bonus Medicare and Medicaid payments.
With bonus and 179 depreciation programs in effect for 2011, you may be able to deduct the entire purchase of hardware and software necessary to implement these mandated programs, thus offsetting the increased taxable income provided by the incentive payments.
Eligible medical professional should act quick! Incentives are only available from 2011 – 2014 and will be phased out completely by 2015 with EHR being mandated!
For more information about the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Program, visit http://www.cms.gov/EHRIncentivePrograms.com
For more information on the tax implications of this incentive program and how to take advantage of tax saving opportunities, contact Schutte & Hilgendorf, CPAs, a prescott accounting firm providing tax planning, preparation, audit, accounting and QuickBooks consulting to the greater Yavapai County area. Phone: 928-778-0079 or website: www.prescottaccountants.com
Written and originally published by the Arizona Department of Revenue,
Changes to Arizona Withholding for Wages Paid After December 31, 2010.
The Department prescribed new withholding tables in early 2010 in accordance with Senate Bill 1185 (Laws 2009, 1st Reg. Session, Chapter 2). The new tables were effective for wages paid after June 30, 2010.
The new withholding tables are based on a percentage of gross taxable wages. “Gross taxable wages” is the amount that meets the federal definition of “wages” contained in IRC § 3401 and that will generally be included in box 1 of the employee’s federal Form W-2 at the end of the calendar year (i.e. gross wages net of pretax deductions, such as the employee’s portion of health insurance premiums).
Each employee subject to Arizona income tax withholding was required to complete a new Arizona Form A-4.
The Department has revised Arizona Form A-4 effective for wages paid after December 31, 2010.
The changes include:
■Providing an additional withholding percentage of 0.8%. Previously available percentages are unchanged.
■Removal of the $15,000 annual compensation threshold. All seven withholding percentage rates are available to all employees, regardless of annual compensation.
■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 previous changes effective July 1, every employee is not required to complete a new Arizona Form A-4. Employees wanting to renew their withholding exemption are required file a new Form A-4 with their employer. Employees wanting to take advantage of the lower withholding percentage must file a new Form A-4 with their employer. Individuals with a current withholding percentage elected on Arizona Form A-4P or Arizona Form A-4V may also file a new form to take advantage of the new withholding percentage.
Withholding percentage options for wages paid after December 31, 2010.
Rates are a percentage of gross taxable wages.
Percentage Rates
0.8%
1.3%
1.8%
2.7%
3.6%
4.2%
5.1%
The 2011 Arizona Form A-4, Arizona Form A-4P, and Arizona Form A-4V are available on the
Department’s website at http://www.azdor.gov/Forms/Withholding.aspx
Arizona Withholding Tax Basics For Arizona purposes, an employer must withhold Arizona income tax from the payment of wages to an employee whose compensation is for services performed in Arizona.
Arizona income tax withholding is a percentage of the employee’s gross taxable wages.
“Gross taxable wages” is the amount that meets the federal definition of “wages” contained in IRC § 3401 and that will be included in box 1 of the employee’s federal Form W-2 at the end of the calendar year (i.e. gross wages net of pretax deductions, such as the employee’s portion of health insurance premiums). Employees may also have their employer withhold an additional amount.
The employee completes Arizona Form A-4, Employee’s Arizona Withholding Percentage Election, to elect an Arizona withholding percentage. Amounts that are considered wages for federal tax purposes are also considered wages for Arizona income tax and withholding purposes.
Amounts that are included in wages and are subject to mandatory federal withholding are subject to mandatory Arizona withholding. Amounts that are excluded from wages and are excluded from mandatory federal withholding are excluded from mandatory Arizona withholding.
An employer must withhold Arizona tax from wages paid for services performed within Arizona regardless of whether the employee is a resident or nonresident of Arizona. However, there are two exceptions to the general mandatory withholding requirements for nonresident employees temporarily performing services for their employer in Arizona. Although a nonresident employee may be exempt from Arizona income tax withholding, the employee may be required to file a nonresident Arizona income tax return if the employee meets the filing requirement.
An employer may not have to withhold Arizona tax from wages paid to a nonresident performing services in Arizona if:
■The employee is physically present in Arizona for less than 60 days in a calendar year for the purpose of performing a service that will benefit the employer; AND
■The employer is an individual, fiduciary, partnership, corporation or limited liability company having property, payroll and sales in Arizona, or of a related entity having more than 50% direct or indirect common ownership.
An explanation of this exemption (including examples) is included in the Employer’s Instructions for the Arizona Form A-4.
If you need more information about the article above, contact Schutte & Hilgendorf, CPAs serving all of Yavapai County with accounting, tax preparation and planning, auditing, bookkeeping, payroll, and QuickBooks consulting.
IR-2011-7, Jan. 20, 2011
WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service plans a Feb. 14 start date for processing tax returns delayed by last month’s tax law changes. The IRS reminded taxpayers affected by the delay they can begin preparing their tax returns immediately because many software providers are ready now to accept these returns.
Beginning Feb. 14, the IRS will start processing both paper and e-filed returns claiming itemized deductions on Schedule A, the higher education tuition and fees deduction on Form 8917 and the educator expenses deduction. Based on filings last year, about nine million tax returns claimed any of these deductions on returns received by the IRS before Feb. 14.
People using e-file for these delayed forms can get a head start because many major software providers have announced they will accept these impacted returns immediately. The software providers will hold onto the returns and then electronically submit them after the IRS systems open on Feb. 14 for the delayed forms.
Taxpayers using commercial software can check with their providers for specific instructions. Those who use a paid tax preparer should check with their preparer, who also may be holding returns until the updates are complete.
Most other returns, including those claiming the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), education tax credits, child tax credit and other popular tax breaks, can be filed as normal, immediately.
The IRS needed the extra time to update its systems to accommodate the tax law changes without disrupting other operations tied to the filing season. The delay followed the Dec. 17 enactment of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, which extended a number of expiring provisions including the state and local sales tax deduction, higher education tuition and fees deduction and educator expenses deduction.
If you need assistance with your tax filings, contact Schutte & Hilgendorf, CPAs, serving all of Yavapai County with accounting and tax services.
Small businesses whose books are audited—by a hired certified public accountant, not the Internal Revenue Service—improve their chances of getting a loan, and at far better terms, than businesses with less scrutinized financial statements, a new study shows.
Yet even as owners continue to struggle with tight credit, few can afford the time, effort or cost of preparing complex financial statements, let alone having them audited, small-business owners, lenders and accountants say.
“Banks love when you have audited financials because they view it as a form of insurance,” says Buzz Rose, a certified public accountant in Pittsburgh. “But audits have become very expensive and to have one done ‘just in case’ would seem to be a waste of time and money.”
But the benefits might outweigh the costs.
Based on data from more than 10,000 closely held companies—about half of which have less than 500 employees—a study by the University of Chicago Booth School of Business found audited businesses save an average of $6,900 for every $1 million in outstanding debt every year as a result of lower interest rates, which were more than half a percentage point below rates paid by nonaudited businesses. For a loan of $3.3 million, the average size of loans analyzed in the study, the savings was about $23,000.
A small-business audit costs anywhere from $5,000 to $75,000, depending on the size of the company, the complexity of its data and other factors—typically double the cost of a financial statement review, the next highest level of CPA-verified assurance after an audit.
An audit provides third-party assurance that a company’s financial statements are correctly prepared and based on verified business data, while a review shows the statements are at least internally consistent with data provided by management.
“There appears to be a very real cost benefit to getting an audit, beyond the obvious value of having your financial statements in order,” says Michael Minnis, a Booth School assistant professor of accounting who led the study. The Booth School study is expected to be published in the Journal of Accounting Research in May.
Similarly, a joint study last year by Michigan State University and Indiana University found small businesses with audited financial statements were “significantly less likely” to be denied credit from banks.
David Leuthold, chief executive of Century Negotiations Inc., a North Huntingdon, Pa., consumer-debt settlement firm, says he started having his books audited annually in 2005 to double-check his own bookkeeping, paying about $8,000 an audit. The move paid off when he applied for a $100,000 line of credit the following year.
“The bank required audited financial statements,” says Mr. Leuthold, whose company made $8 million in revenue last year. Even without audited books, he believes the bank might have approved the loan, though at less favorable terms. “We had what they wanted, so it was definitely worth it,” he says.
Still, for many small businesses seeking a loan, lenders say an audit is costly and unnecessary.
“Audits provide good information. The more concrete information a lender can get, the better,” says Tom Burke, the director of Wells Fargo’s Small Business Administration lending division. But he questioned the necessity of audits for every business.
Mr. Burke says a business with less than $1 million in annual revenue can ask a CPA to prepare a compilation, which is a cheaper, unaudited financial statement based on recorded sales, inventory and other data. Since owners often use these statements to manage daily operations—and they’re prepared by CPAs—lenders have some assurance of the statements’ accuracy in making loan decisions.
“I’d hate to see people taking steps that aren’t necessary, or that they can’t afford,” Mr. Burke says.
Small-business accountant David Wilke, of Carnegie, Pa., says he helps borrowers and lenders negotiate loan terms based on mutually acceptable levels of assurance, ranging from compilations to audits. He says a CPA “adds value by determining what a bank wants and what a business can provide at an early stage,” rather than trying to convince every client to get audited.
Mr. Rose, the accountant in Pittsburgh, says it’s only worth going through an audit—which can require days and even weeks of a manager’s time—when a business owner has a loan in hand that’s contingent on providing audited financial statements.
Audited or not, less than a quarter of businesses with fewer than 500 employees keep financial statements of any kind, according to the Federal Reserve Board’s National Survey of Small Business Finances.
“There’s a lot of criticism that it’s expensive and difficult to prepare and audit your financial statements,” says Teri Yohn, an Indiana University associate professor of accounting who sits on the Financial Accounting Foundation’s blue-ribbon panel on private-company accounting standards. “But there are clearly benefits.”
Schutte & Hilgendorf, PLLC, a Prescott based CPA firm provides audits and reviews to small businesses, government entities, non-profit organizations, and homeowners associations. We also provide tax preparation and planning services, QuickBooks consulting and training and payroll and sales tax services to individuals and small businesses. Contact us for pricing or more information about how we can help you!
How many non-profit boards hire an outside auditor?
Eighty-four percent of the respondents of a recent BoardSource governance survey say that they annually hire an auditor to conduct an external financial audit. Smaller organizations are less likely than large organizations to hire an auditor.
Here are five key ways to maximize the audit process:
Be sure the board is in the audit driver’s seat. The nonprofit board has the responsibility to oversee the audit process. This includes assessing the financial controls, policies, procedures, and condition of the organization and overseeing the external auditor.
Review the auditor’s independence. The board should be certain that the auditor is independent and objective in performing duties.
Choose your auditor carefully. Even with rigorous efforts by professional bodies governing the practice of Certified Public Accountants to improve the quality of audits, not all audits are created equal.
Invest your audit dollars wisely. While it is important to be certain the audit fees are reasonable in light of the quality and value of an audit, focusing too much attention on cost can be detrimental to the health of the audit and ultimately to the organization.
Properly use your audit committee. The audit committee should be the fulcrum of the financial reporting function. Start with an independent audit committee. The committee members should not be members of the nonprofit’s staff. Invite staff members to committee meetings to answer questions and to provide information.
Excerpted from the Maximizing the Audit Process by Dan Busby.
Should you have questions regarding this post or any other accounting or auditing 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 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
|
