Archive for the ‘Asset Protection Planning’ Category
Monday, August 9th, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin
A new Tax Court decision illustrates the need for closely held corporations to be wary of constructive dividends when dealing with their owners. In RVJ Cezar Corporation et al, TC Memo 2010 –173 a closely held construction company’s transfer of a home to its shareholders resulted in dividend/capital gain income to them, and taxable gain to the corporation. What’s more, both the shareholders and the corporation were held liable for accuracy related penalties.
Background. A dividend is a distribution of property from a corporation to its shareholders out of the corporation’s earnings and profits. (IRC Section 316(a)) The amount of the distribution equals the fair market value of the distributed property on the distribution date. (IRC Sections 301(b)(1) and (3)) For dividends received before 2011, qualified dividend income is taxed at the same rates as long-term capital gain. (IRC Section 1(h)(11)) After 2010, unless Congress changes the rules, dividend income will be taxed as ordinary income. The amount of a distribution that exceeds earnings and profits, and is therefore not a dividend, is taxable capital gain to the recipient. (IRC Section 301(c)(3)) Under long-established case law, dividends may be formally declared or they may be constructive. A constructive dividend arises when a corporation confers a benefit on a shareholder by distributing available earnings and profits without expectation of repayment.
A corporation that distributes appreciated property to a shareholder recognizes gain as if the property were sold to the shareholder at its fair market value. (IRC Section 311(b)(1)) Gain is recognized to the extent that the property’s fair market value exceeds the corporation’s adjusted basis in the property.
Taxpayers are liable for an accuracy-related penalty for any portion of an underpayment of income tax attributable to negligence or disregard of rules and regulations, unless they establish that there was reasonable cause for the underpayment and that they acted in good faith. (IRC Section 6662(a), IRC Section 6662(b)(1), IRC Section 6664(c)(1)) Under IRC Section 6662(b), an accuracy related applies for a substantial understatement of income tax, i.e., the amount of the understatement exceeds the greater of 10% of the tax required to be shown on the return, or $10,000.
Facts. Mr and Mrs. Cezar were the sole shareholders of RVJ Cezar Corporation, which built “spec” houses that it sold to the public. They paid $500 for their stock. Mr. Cezar, a general contractor, was the sole employee of the corporation. In 2001, Cezar Corp paid $150,000 for a lot, financing part of the purchase price with a mortgage, and spent $502,000 building an amenity-rich home approximately twice the size of its usual spec homes. Cezar Corp was listed as the sole owner of the spec home on the blueprints, permit, and notice of completion. Some of the construction materials were paid with a credit card issued in both Mr. Cezar’s name and Cezar Corp, and the Cezars were unable to document most of the labor costs of building the home.
The home was finished in 2004 and was offered for sale, but there were no takers. That year, Cezar Corp transferred the lot and improvements to the Cezars by quitclaim deed; they assumed the outstanding mortgage of $57,227. At the time of the transfer the lot and improvements had a total fair market value of $920,000. The transfer of ownership report filed with the Assessor’s Office did not indicate that the property interest transferred to the Cezars was a partial interest. The Cezars did not report the receipt of the lot or the improvements on their return for 2004, nor did the corporation report the distribution of the lot and the improvements on its return for 2004.
On audit, IRS determined that the distribution of the lot and the improvements was a constructive dividend from the corporation. It determined that the Cezars received a qualified dividend up to the amount of the corporation’s earnings and profits, and treated the balance of the distribution, less their $500 initial capital contribution, as long-term capital gain. IRS also determined that both the Cezars and their corporation were liable for the accuracy related penalty.
Tax Court sides with IRS. The Cezars conceded that they received the lot as a constructive dividend from the corporation. However, they argued that the improvements were not a constructive dividend because they owned the improvements by having paid for the construction materials and having done all the work to construct the improvements. The Tax Court agreed with IRS’s assessment that improvements are built on land that one owns or else there would be an agreement identifying the rights and responsibilities of the parties. The Cezars failed to show that there was an agreement between them and the corporation that would have allowed them to construct a home on the corporation’s property. Their ownership argument also was directly contradicted by Mr. Cezar’s statements during the audit that the lot and the improvements were both corporate assets. Moreover, there was no credible evidence to support the Cezars’ claim that they owned the improvements by paying the construction costs and personally completing the labor. The only records the Cezars produced to establish that they paid the construction costs were insufficient. Furthermore, the corporation was the sole owner of the lot as well as the improvements from the start of construction until the distribution to the Cezars. The corporation received property tax bills for both the lot and the improvements and did not protest that it had been billed for improvements that it did not own. The Tax Court also find it compelling that the corporation, which was in the business of building and selling homes, offered the lot and the improvements for sale without obtaining any transfer of interest from the Cezars. No prospective buyer would buy only the improvements and not the lot or vice versa. The Tax Court also noted that no other spec home that the corporation sold before or since was owned by the Cezars individually. Rather, all the homes and lots were owned and offered for sale by the corporation.
As a result, the Tax Court found that the Cezars did not establish that they owned the improvements, and sustained IRS’s determination that the Cezars must include the distribution of the lot and the improvements in gross income as a constructive dividend from the corporation. The Tax Court also found that treatment of the home as a constructive dividend to the Cezars caused the corporation to recognize taxable income to the extent that the fair market value of the lot and improvement exceeded its adjusted basis.
The Tax Court also hit the Cezars with an accuracy related penalty for the underpayment of income tax attributable to negligence or disregard of rules and regulations. It also hit Cezar Corp with an accuracy related penalty for substantial understatement of its income tax.
With proper planning, this tax and the penalties could have been avoided. The tax attorneys at McLaughlin & Quinn, LLC regularly provide planning for taxpayers in situations such as the one faced by the Cezars. For more information, contact F. Moore McLaughlin, IV, Esq., CPA by e-mail at MMcLaughlin@McLaughlinQuinn.com or by phone at 401-421-5115 ext. 212.
Tags: accuracy related penalties, asset protection, Asset Protection Planning, business tax, capital gain, Capital gains tax, constructive dividend, corporate tax, income tax, internal revenue code, Internal Revenue Service, IRS, IRS and state tax collections, mclaughlin & quinn, Moore McLaughlin, RVJ Cezar Corporation, tax, U.S. Tax Court, United States Tax Court, US Tax Court
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, IRS and state tax collections, Tax Current Events and News, Tax planning
Saturday, July 17th, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin
President Obama and the Democrat leaders flat out denied that their mandate for Americans to buy health insurance was actually a new tax. In recently filed court briefs, President Obama has finally admitted that his new plan is actually a tax on the American people. Very interesting reading. Click here for a NY Times article.
Stay tuned for word about more and even larger tax increases. The tax attorneys at McLaughlin & Quinn, LLC will be working even harder to help you preserve your hard-earned dollars. Call founding partner, F. Moore McLaughlin, IV, CPA, Esq. for more information at 401-421-5115 ext. 212 or reach him by e-mail at MMcLaughlin@McLaughlinQuinn.com.
Tags: asset protection, Asset Protection Planning, income tax, internal revenue code, Internal Revenue Service, IRS, mclaughlin & quinn, Moore McLaughlin, President Obama, Providence, Rhode Island, Tax planning, Thomas P. Quinn
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Current Events, Estate Planning, IRS and state tax collections, Tax Current Events and News, Tax planning
Tuesday, July 6th, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin
Massachusetts
On June 30, 2010, Governor Deval Patrick signed the 2011 budget act (H4800), which includes credit transparency provisions, extends the historic rehabilitation tax credit, and provides administrative provisions to facilitate collection. The bill takes effect July 1, 2010, unless otherwise stated.
Credit transparency. Effective January 1, 2011, the head of the administrative agency of each tax credit program must submit, on or before May 15 each year, a report to the Commissioner on each tax credit program authorized for the previous calendar year. Tax credits required to be disclosed include the historic preservation tax credit, dairy farm tax credit, USFDA user fees credit, film tax credit, life sciences investment tax credit, low-income housing tax credit, medical device tax credit, refundable research credit, credit under the economic development incentive program, and any transferable or refundable credits under the corporate and personal income tax laws established after January 1, 2011. The report will contain: (1) the identity of each taxpayer receiving an authorized tax credit and from which tax credit program the credit was received; (2) the amount of the authorized tax credit awarded and issued for each taxpayer and each project, if applicable; and (3) the date that the authorized tax credit was awarded and issued for each taxpayer and each project. The report will be a public record. The report will cover only credits awarded or claimed after January 1, 2011. For purposes of the report, the taxpayer is the initial recipient of an authorized tax credit.
Historic rehabilitation tax credit. The historic rehabilitation tax credit is extended for a 12-year period up to December 31, 2017. Under current law the Commissioner, in consultation with the Massachusetts Historical Commission, is authorize to annually grant a historic rehabilitation tax credit in an amount not to exceed $50 million per year to qualified taxpayers for the 6-year period beginning January 1, 2006, and ending December 31, 2011.
Determination of partner’s distributive share. The budget act also includes a provision clarifying how a partner’s distributive share of an item of income, loss, deduction or credit from a partnership is determined. It provides that a partner’s distributive share is determined in accordance with the partner’s interest in the partnership, determined by taking into account all facts and circumstances, such as, if the allocation to a partner under the agreement of income, gain, loss, deduction or credit had no substantial economic effect or the partnership agreement does not provide as to the partnership’s distributive share of income, gain, loss, deduction or credit. It also provides that the determination of a partner’s distributive share must take into account rules and principles developed under the Internal Revenue Code and any regulations promulgated thereunder, and adjusted as required or appropriate to properly reflect income and other tax items for Massachusetts tax purposes.
Pass-through entity provision. The budget act includes provisions involving unified audit procedures for pass-through entities. It requires members or indirect owners of a pass-through entity to report items of income, expense or credit derived from the pass-through entity in a manner consistent with reporting of the pass-through entity, except to the extent that a taxpayer, member or indirect owner makes a declaration of inconsistency with its original return. The Commissioner is mandated to establish by regulation unified audit procedures.
Penalty provisions. The budget act amends the additional tax liability provision in cases when the federal government determines a difference from the amount previously reported in the taxable income of a person or the federal credit to which such person may be entitled or in cases when the tax due any other state, U.S. territory or the Dominion of Canada or any of its provinces, on account of any item of Massachusetts gross income of a Massachusetts resident, is finally determined by that jurisdiction to be less than the tax previously reported, and such tax was the basis for a credit claimed by the Massachusetts resident. It provides that failure to report such difference under both circumstances is subject to a penalty of 10% of the additional tax found due. Prior law provided that the penalty is $100 or 10% of the additional tax found due, whichever sum is smaller. A new provision provides that a person who fails to pay to the Commissioner any cigarette excise required to be paid will be personally and individually liable. “Person” includes, but not limited to, an officer or employee of a corporation or a member or employee of a partnership or limited liability company who, as such officer, employee or member, is under a duty to pay over the cigarette excise tax.
Installment and deferred payment sales. The budget act also provides a new provision requiring interest to be paid on some deferred tax liabilities generated from the use of installment sales applicable for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2010 with respect to installment obligations as of the close of the tax year.
Sales tax provision. The budget act repeals the sales tax provision making it unlawful for any vendor to advertise or hold out or state to the public or any customer that the vendor will assume or absorb the tax or that it will not be added to the selling price of the property or services sold or, if added, it will be refunded.
For more information on these new provisions, contact tax attorney and CPA Moore McLaughlin at MMcLaughlin@McLaughlinQuinn.com or by phone at 401-421-5115 ext. 212.
Tags: business tax, collection, corporate tax, credit transparency, Deval Patrick, Governor Deval Patrick, historic rehabilitation tax credit, income tax, internal revenue code, Internal Revenue Service, IRS, IRS and state tax collections, levy, lien, Massachusetts Historical Commission, mclaughlin & quinn, Moore McLaughlin, Providence, Thomas P. Quinn
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Current Events, Financial workout, IRS and state tax collections, Tax Current Events and News, Tax planning
Sunday, June 27th, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin
LegalZoom, one of the most prominent sellers of do-it-yourself wills and other estate planning documents, is the target of a class action lawsuit in California charging that the company engages in deceptive business practices and is practicing law without a license.
The lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on May 27, 2010, by Katherine Webster, who is the niece of the late Anthony J. Ferrantino and the executor of Mr. Ferrantino’s estate.
Knowing that he had only a few months to live, Mr. Ferrantino asked Ms. Webster in July 2007 to help him use LegalZoom to execute a will and living trust. Based on LegalZoom’s advertising, Ms. Webster says she believed that the documents they created would be legally binding and that if they encountered any problems, the company’s customer service department would resolve them.
But after the living trust documents were created and signed, Ms. Webster could not transfer any of her uncle’s assets into the trust because the financial institutions that held his money refused to accept the LegalZoom documents as valid. Ms. Webster tried to get help from LegalZoom, with no success. The trust was still not funded when Mr. Ferrantino died in November 2007.
Ms. Webster was forced to hire an estate planning attorney, who petitioned the court to allow the post-death funding of the trust. The attorney then had to convince the banks to transfer the funds — a more difficult task following Mr. Ferrantino’s death. The attorney also discovered that the will LegalZoom created for Mr. Ferrantino had not been properly witnessed. All this cost Mr. Ferrantino’s estate thousands of dollars.
The lawsuit claims that Ms. Webster and others like her relied on misleading statements by LegalZoom, including that LegalZoom carefully reviews customer documents, that it guarantees its customers 100 percent satisfaction with its services, that its documents are the same quality as those prepared by an attorney, and that the documents are effective and dependable.
“Nowhere in the [company's] manual do defendants explain that using LegalZoom is not the same as using an attorney and that its documents are only ‘customized’ to the extent that the LegalZoom computer program inputs your name and identifying information, but not tailored to your specific circumstances,” the lawsuit states, adding that “the customer service representatives are not lawyers and cannot by law provide legal advice.”
Ms. Webster is suing not only on her behalf but on behalf of anyone in California who paid LegalZoom for a living trust, will, living will, advance health care directive or power of attorney. The lawsuit estimates this class embraces more than 3,000 individuals.
“LegalZoom’s business is based on nurturing the false sense of security that people do not need to hire a traditional attorney,” says San Francisco attorney Robert Arns, one of the attorneys who filed the lawsuit. “The complaint points out that LegalZoom advertises that you don’t need a real attorney because its work is legally binding and reliable. That’s misleading. Improperly prepared estate planning documents are a ticking time bomb that can result in improper tax consequences and other items that could cost the estate and heirs huge sums.”
“LegalZoom preys on people when they’re at their most vulnerable, when they are of advanced age or poor health and need a will or a living trust,” adds San Francisco elder abuse attorney Kathryn Stebner, Ms. Webster’s lead counsel.
One of the defendants named in the suit is LegalZoom co-founder Robert Shapiro, who appears on the LegalZoom Web page and TV ads and who is best-known for being one of O.J. Simpsons attorneys.
This is not the first suit against LegalZoom. In December 2009, a Missouri man who paid LegalZoom to prepare his will sued the company for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law (Janson v. LegalZoom). The lawsuit is also seeking class action status. LegalZoom is trying to have the case removed from Missouri state court to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
Estate Planning attorney, Jill E. Sugarman, has encountered documents adopted from an on-line document preparation service. “In many instances, the documents themselves are not flawed, but the client has either used the wrong form and has left out important provisions,” says Jill.
If you are truly concerned about your estate planning needs and want to ensure that the documents you use are legally binding and appropriate for your particular needs, contact Jill E. Sugarman, Esq. at JSugarman@McLaughlinQuinn.com or by phone at 401-421-5115.
Tags: asset protection, Asset Protection Planning, durable power of attorney, elder law, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning, Jill E. Sugarman, Jill Sugarman, LegalZoom, Long-term care, long-term care insurance, mclaughlin & quinn, Medicaid, Medicaid planning, Moore McLaughlin, Providence, Rhode Island, Tax planning
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Current Events, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning
Sunday, June 6th, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin
McLaughlin & Quinn, LLC estate planning and elder law attorney Jill E. Sugarman reminds us that a power of attorney is a very important estate planning tool, but in fact there are several different kinds of powers of attorney that can be used for different purposes. Before executing this crucial document, it is important to understand what your options are.
A power of attorney allows a person you appoint — your “attorney-in-fact” or agent — to act in your place for financial or other purposes when and if you ever become incapacitated or if you can’t act on your own behalf. There are four main types of powers of attorney.
- Limited. A limited power of attorney gives someone else the power to act in your stead for a very limited purpose. For example, a limited power of attorney could give someone the right to sign a deed to property for you on a day when you are out of town. It usually ends at a time specified in the document.
- General. A general power of attorney is comprehensive and gives your attorney-in-fact all the powers and rights that you have yourself. For example, a general power of attorney may give your attorney-in-fact the right to sign documents for you, pay your bills, and conduct financial transactions on your behalf. You could use a general power of attorney if you were not incapacitated, but still needed someone to help you with financial matters. A general power of attorney ends on your death or incapacitation unless you rescind it before then.
- Durable. A durable power of attorney can be general or limited in scope, but it remains in effect after you become incapacitated. Without a durable power of attorney, if you become incapacitated, no one can represent you unless a court appoints a conservator or guardian. A durable power of attorney will remain in effect until your death unless you rescind it while you are not incapacitated.
- Springing. Like a durable power of attorney, a springing power of attorney can allow your attorney-in-fact to act for you if you become incapacitated, but it does not become effective until you are incapacitated. If you are using a springing power of attorney, it is very important that the standard for determining incapacity and triggering the power of attorney be clearly laid out in the document itself.
Regardless of what type of power of attorney you use, it is important to think carefully about who will be your attorney-in-fact. Your attorney-in-fact will have a lot of control over your finances, and it is crucial that you trust him or her completely.
While many pre-packaged do-it-yourself power of attorney forms are available, it is a good idea to have an experiences estate planning or elder law attorney draft the form specifically for you. There are many issues to consider and one size does not fit all. For more information, please contact Jill E. Sugarman, Esq. at 401-421-5115 ext 215 or by e-mail at JSugarman@McLaughlinQuinn.com to learn more.
Tags: asset protection, Asset Protection Planning, assisted living facilities, durable power of attorney, elder law, elderlaw, Estate Planning, Jill E. Sugarman, Jill Sugarman, Massachusetts, mclaughlin & quinn, nursing homes, Providence, Rhode Island
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning
Sunday, June 6th, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin
McLaughlin & Quinn, LLC attorney Jill E. Sugarman notes that although your life insurance policy may pass to your heirs income tax-free, it can affect your estate tax. If you are the owner of the insurance policy, it will become a part of your taxable estate when you die. While the federal estate tax is currently zero, the exemption will be $1 million and the rate will increase to 55 percent on January 1, 2011, if Congress fails to act in the interim. And Rhode Island, Massachusetts and other state estate taxes are still in effect now. You should make sure your life insurance policy won’t have an impact on your estate’s tax liability.
If your spouse is the beneficiary of your policy, then there is nothing to worry about. Spouses can transfer assets to each other tax-free. But if the beneficiary is anyone else (including your children), the policy will be a part of your estate for tax purposes. For example, suppose you buy a $200,000 life insurance policy and name your son as the beneficiary. When you die, the life insurance policy will be included in your taxable estate. If the total amount of your taxable estate exceeds the estate tax exemption, then your policy will be taxed.
In order to avoid having your life insurance policy taxed, you can either transfer the policy to someone else or put the policy into a trust. Once you transfer a policy to a trust or to someone else, you will no longer own the policy, which means you won’t be able to change the beneficiary or exert control over it. In addition, the transfer may be subject to gift tax if the cash value of your policy (the amount you would get for your policy if you cashed it in) is more than $13,000. If you decide to transfer a life insurance policy, do it right away. If you die within three years of transferring the policy, the policy will still be included in your estate.
If you transfer a life insurance policy to a person, you need to make sure it is someone you trust not to cash in the policy. For example, if your spouse owns the policy and you get divorced, there will be no way for you to get it back. A better option may be to transfer the life insurance policy to a life insurance trust. With a life insurance trust, the trust owns the policy and is the beneficiary. You can then dictate who the beneficiary of the trust will be. For a life insurance trust to exclude your policy from estate taxes, it must be irrevocable and you cannot act as trustee.
If you want to transfer a current life insurance policy to someone else or set up a trust to purchase a policy, please contact Jill E. Sugarman, Esq. at 401-421-5115 ext 215 or by e-mail at JSugarman@McLaughlinQuinn.com.
Tags: asset protection, Asset Protection Planning, elder law, elderlaw, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning, Estate tax, Jill E. Sugarman, Jill Sugarman, life insurance, life insurance trust, Massachusetts, mclaughlin & quinn, Medicaid, Medicaid planning, Moore McLaughlin, nursing homes, Providence, Rhode Island, seniors
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Current Events, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning
Sunday, February 14th, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin
Many financially distressed borrowers may have had some or all of their debts cancelled or forgiven by their lender last year. As tax time approaches, these individuals may not realize that they may have to report the canceled debt as income on their 2009 tax returns. McLaughlin & Quinn, LLC partners Moore McLaughlin, Esq., CPA and Thomas P. Quinn, Esq. are apprising existing and prospective clients of how discharged debts can trigger income unless one of numerous exceptions or exclusions applies. Note that even if there is not an exception or exclusion in a given case, the taxable amount can be reduced if the amount reported from the lender can be shown to be incorrect.
In these troubled economic times, many financially distressed borrowers may have had some or all of their debt cancelled or forgiven by their lender last year. While such relief was no doubt welcome to people who received it, what they may not have realized is that debt forgiveness may have tax consequences. Specifically, debt forgiven in 2009 may have to be included as income on your 2009 return. However, not all canceled debts trigger taxable income. And, even if there is no exception or exclusion in a particular case, that may not be the last word. The tax bite may be reduced or eliminated if you can show that the amount reported by the lender is incorrect.
General rule. The tax laws specifically include income from the discharge of indebtedness in gross income. However, there are several exceptions to this rule. In addition, there are numerous exclusions from gross income for certain types of forgiven debts.
Exceptions. If the cancellation of debt by a private lender, such as a relative or friend, is intended as a gift, there is no income. Likewise, a debt cancelled by a private lender’s Last Will and Testament triggers no income to the borrower.
There is also an exception for certain student loans. For example, doctors, nurses, and teachers agreeing to serve in rural or low income areas in exchange for cancellation of their student loans will not have income from the cancellation if they meet certain conditions.
Also keep in mind that there is no income from cancellation of deductible debt. For example, if a lender cancels home mortgage interest that could have been claimed as an itemized deduction on Schedule A of Form 1040, there is no tax problem to contend with.
Price adjustment. There is no income if an individual purchases property and the seller later reduces the price. The purchaser’s basis (yardstick for measuring gain or loss on a later sale) in the property, however, is reduced by the amount of the purchase price adjustment.
Exclusions. In addition to the above exceptions, there are exclusions from the general rule for reporting canceled debt as income for:
- discharge of debt through bankruptcy,
- discharge of debt of an insolvent taxpayer,
- discharge of qualified farm debt,
- discharge of qualified real property business debt, and
- discharge of qualified principal residence debt.
These exclusions are quite complicated and a detailed discussion of them is beyond the scope of this post. However, it is worth pointing out that the qualified principal residence debt exclusion applies where individuals restructure their acquisition debt on a principal residence, lose their principal residence in a foreclosure, or sell a principal residence in a short sale (where the sales proceeds are insufficient to pay off the mortgage and the lender cancels the balance). Also, the exclusions require certain tax attributes to be reduced and must be reported to the IRS on its Form 982.
Repurchased business debt. Income from certain repurchased business debt can be stretched out over several years. Although all of the deferred debt discharge income will eventually be recognized, you benefit from the deferral of tax to later years.
Form 1099-C, Cancellation of Debt. A taxpayer should receive a Form 1099-C from a federal government agency, financial institution, or credit union that forgives a debt of $600 or more. The amount of the canceled debt is shown in box 2. Any forgiven interest included in the amount of canceled debt in box 2 will also be shown in box 3. As noted above, if the interest would otherwise be deductible, it does not have to be included in income.
An individual who does not agree with the amount shown on Form 1099-C should contact the lender in writing and request it to issue a corrected Form 1099-C showing the proper amount of canceled debt. Even if the lender refuses to issue a corrected report, there still may be recourse if you have adequate documentation to show that the lender incorrectly reported the amount canceled.
If you had a debt forgiven last year, we can determine how it may affect your 2009 taxes, make sure you gain maximum advantage from any exception or exclusion that may apply, and guide you through various choices that may be available to you, depending on the specific circumstances of your situation. We also may be able to help you to resolve any discrepancy concerning the amount reported by the lender.
Contact Moore McLaughlin, Esq, CPA by e-mail at mmclaughlin@mclaughlinquinn.com or Thomas P. Quinn, Esq. by e-mail at tquinn@mclaughlinquinn.com, or either of them by phone at 401-421-5115.
Tags: asset protection, Asset Protection Planning, Bankruptcy, business tax, cancel debt, cancellation of indebtedness income, COD income, collection, debt cancellation, deed in lieu of foreclosure, foreclosure, foregive debt, income tax, internal revenue code, Internal Revenue Service, IRS, IRS and state tax collections, mclaughlin & quinn, Moore McLaughlin, Providence, real estate, Rhode Island, Rhode Island bankruptcy, Tax planning, Thomas P. Quinn
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Bankruptcy, Financial workout, IRS and state tax collections, Tax Current Events and News, Tax planning
Sunday, January 31st, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin
As McLaughlin & Quinn, LLC has posted previously, the estate tax expired on January 1, 2010. It remains to be seen whether Congress will reinstate it before it returns in 2011, but the fact that there is currently no estate tax can have unintended consequences for spouses. Standard language found in many estate plans could leave spouses with nothing. It is important to check with an elder law or estate planning attorney such as McLaughlin & Quinn’s Jill E. Sugarman, Esq. to make sure your estate plan does what you want it to do.
In previous years, estates could pass a certain amount of assets tax free (up to $3.5 million in 2009). In addition, spouses can receive an unlimited amount tax free. To take advantage of these rules, estate plans often contain a “bypass trust” (or “credit shelter trust”) and a will with language in it that is designed to allow estates to pass without any estate tax. For example, the will may state: “I leave to my trustees the maximum amount that can pass free of estate tax and leave the residual to my spouse.” Because there is currently no estate tax, individuals who die in 2010 with this language in their estate plan would wind up leaving nothing to their spouses.
While most states allow spouses to claim a portion of the estate (usually one-third), even if they don’t receive anything under a will, this can be a time-consuming and expensive process. To ensure your spouse is covered, you should talk to an attorney.
To learn more about this, contact Jill E. Sugarman, Esq. by e-mail at jsugarman@mclaughlinquinn.com or by phone at 401-421-5115.
Tags: 2010, assisted living facilities, elder law, elderlaw, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning, Jill E. Sugarman, Jill Sugarman, long-term care insurance, mclaughlin & quinn, Medicaid, Medicaid planning, Providence, Rhode Island, spouse, Tax planning, veterans
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Current Events, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning, Tax Current Events and News, Tax planning
Sunday, December 20th, 2009 by Moore McLaughlin
With the estate tax set to expire in two weeks, it appears that Senate Democrats will be unable to persuade Republicans to extend the current law for even a couple of months until a more permanent solution can be devised. This means that there will be no estate tax during 2010. Although Congress may well reinstate the tax retroactively in 2010, it’s entirely possible that it won’t. If that happens, a few thousand very wealthy families will have reason to celebrate, while tens of thousands of taxpayers of more modest means could face significant tax bills following the death of a loved one — as well as great confusion for executors.
Congress has had nine years to prevent this from happening but hasn’t been able to. Under the provisions of a Bush-era tax-cut bill enacted in 2001, the value of estates exempt from the tax has been gradually raised over the past eight years while the tax rate on estates has been reduced, so that in 2009 only an individual estate worth $3.5 million or more is taxed, at a rate of 45 percent. For the year 2010, according to the 2001 law, the estate tax disappears entirely, only to be restored in 2011 at a rate of 55 percent on estates of $1 million or more, which is where things stood before the 2001 change.
Loss of Step-Up Means Step Down for Many Taxpayers
The catch for taxpayers of more modest means, however, is that for 2010 the estate tax is replaced with a 15 percent capital gains tax on inherited assets that are later sold. Normally someone inheriting propery at an individual’s death gets a “step-up in basis” in the property. That is, the value of the property for determining capital gains tax due is calculated at the time it is inherited, not when it was originally bought.
But the law eliminating the estate tax in 2010 also largely does away with the basis step-up rules. This means that those inheriting estates will have to pay capital gains taxes on any assets sold based on the original price paid for the asset, after an exemption for the first $1.3 million in capital gains (plus $3 million for assets transferred to a surviving spouse).
Let’s say your father dies and leaves you a home worth $1.5 million and a $500,000 portfolio of stocks purchased at various times over the past 40 years. If you decided to sell any of these assets, you’d normally pay little or no capital gains tax on the sales. The new provisions mean that you have to calculate capital gains based on the value of the home and the stocks when your father bought them, not when you inherited them. That could be very expensive, not to mention time-consuming in trying to ascertain the original price your father paid for everything.
“If we do not extend our estate tax law, all taxpayers, all heirs will be subject to massive, massive confusion in trying to determine the value of their underlying asset,” Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) said on the Senate floor.
The chief tax counsel for the House Ways and Means Committee estimates that while extending the current estate tax law would affect about 6,000 estates, 71,400 estates could face new capital gains taxes if the estate tax disappears. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “at least 62,500 of these are estates that would not owe any estate tax if the 2009 rules were continued and that thus would be adversely affected by estate tax repeal. Farm and business estates would constitute a disproportionately large share of this group.” Small farms and businesses are the groups whose interests opponents of the estate tax have claimed they are defending.
The House passed a bill in early December permanently extending the 2009 estate tax rules, which will bring in an estimated $25 billion this year by imposing the 45 percent rate on estates over $3.5 million (or $7 million for a couple). The Senate’s Democratic leadership wanted to pass a similar bill and put it on President Obama’s desk before the estate tax expired at the end of the year, but they have been blocked by united Senate Republicans who prefer a lower tax rate of 35 percent and a higher exclusion amount of $5 million ($10 million for couples).
“Republicans who claim to have accomplished something by blocking an extension need to explain why raising taxes on the middle class while lowering them for the very rich is something to be proud of,” the Los Angeles Times editorialized.
The Perils of Going Retroactive
Sen. Baucus has pledged to try to restore the estate tax retroactively in 2010. This would undo the capital gains increase, but it could also create fertile ground for lawsuits by those whose family members die between January 1, 2010, and the date when any retroactive law is enacted.
“I can guarantee this: if they succeed in getting retroactive in hiking the death tax from zero to 45 percent, there are going to be lawsuits,” said Dick Patten, president of the American Family Business Foundation, which opposes the estate tax. “Its going to be messy, its going to be noisy.” (For an excellent discussion by Forbes.com of the mess that a lapse in the estate tax could create, click here .”Beneficiaries will deal with uncertainty for years,” warns one tax expert.)
In a 1994 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution’s ban on the enactment of ex-post facto laws doesn’t apply to tax legislation, provided the retroactive application is “supported by a legitimate legislative purpose furthered by rational means”. United States v. Carlton, 512 U.S. 26 (1994). Since most estates don’t file tax returns until about nine months after someone dies, if Congress can come to an agreement quickly in 2010 the problems caused by a retroactive law may be limited. But Bloomberg.com notes that “The pressure to reach agreement may breathe new life into” into the Republicans’ “compromise proposal” of a 35 percent tax on couples’ estates worth more than $10 million.
For more information on how the estate tax laws will affect you, contact F. Moore McLaughlin, Esq. at 401-421-5115 x212 or by e-mail at mmclaughlin@mclaughlinquinn.com or Jill E. Sugarman, Esq. at 401-421-5115 or by e-mail at jsugarman@mclaughlinquinn.com.
Tags: assisted living facilities, elder law, elderlaw, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning, Estate tax, estate tax planning, internal revenue code, IRS, Jill E. Sugarman, Jill Sugarman, Long-term care, long-term care insurance, mclaughlin & quinn, Medicaid, Medicaid planning, Moore McLaughlin, nursing homes, Providence, Rhode Island, seniors, Tax planning
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Current Events, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning, Tax Current Events and News, Tax planning
Saturday, December 12th, 2009 by Moore McLaughlin
A durable power of attorney (POA) allows the person creating the document, called the “principal,” to name a trusted agent who can act on his behalf in almost any situation. But because of the risk of abuse, many banks will scrutinize a POA carefully before allowing the agent to act on the principal’s behalf, and often a bank will refuse to honor a POA. In a recent Florida case, Bank of America rebuffed an agent’s request that funds be withdrawn from the principal’s account. The agent fought back in court and just won a $64,000 judgment against the bank.
Clarence Smith, Sr., named his son, Clarence Smith, Jr., as his agent under a POA. When his father no longer wanted to manage his own finances, he asked Clarence Jr. to step in as his agent. Clarence Jr. reviewed his father’s account activity and became suspicious about some withdrawals from a bank account that Clarence Sr. owned jointly with a friend from his retirement community.
Acting as his father’s agent under the POA, Clarence Jr., asked Bank of America to transfer $65,000 from the account into a new account that listed only his father as the owner. Before doing so, Bank of America contacted the other person named on the account. When she told the bank that she did not want the funds withdrawn and also accused Clarence Jr. of stealing his father’s money, Bank of America refused to honor Clarence Jr.’s request. The other account owner then withdrew all of the funds from the account and placed them into her own account, effectively preventing Clarence Sr. from accessing his own money. Clarence Sr. died several weeks later.
Clarence Jr. sued Bank of America under a Florida law that imposes penalties on financial institutions that refuse to honor reasonable requests from agents named in properly executed POAs. In November 2009, after a week-long trial, a Florida jury returned a verdict against the bank and awarded $64,142 to Clarence Sr.’s estate. The jury found that Bank of America had not acted reasonably when it rejected Clarence Jr.’s request, even though the joint owner of the bank account had not agreed to the release of the funds.
Bank of America plans to appeal. “We believe that neither the facts nor the law support the verdict,” said spokeswoman Shirley Norton.
While this case clearly illustrates the conflicts that can arise through the use of a POA, it also raises the issue of the proper use of joint bank accounts in estate planning. Under most state laws, when two or more people own “joint” bank accounts, each of them has the right to the entire account, no matter whose money is actually in the account. While joint accounts can often be useful, sometimes, as in this case, joint owners or their agents can disagree about the use of funds in the accounts. When that happens, the party who makes it to the bank first often wins. A qualified elder law attorney, such as Jill E. Sugarman, Esq. of McLaughlin & Quinn, LLC, can explain the pros and cons of joint ownership, can draft an effective POA, and can assist family members when disputes arise.
For more information about durable powers of attorney and joint accounts, contact Jill E. Sugarman, Esq. at 401-421-5115 or by e-mail at jsugarman@mclaughlinquinn.com.
Tags: asset protection, Asset Protection Planning, assisted living facilities, durable power of attorney, elder law, elderlaw, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning, health care power of attorney, Jill E. Sugarman, Jill Sugarman, joint account, joint bank account, mclaughlin & quinn, Medicaid, Medicaid planning, Moore McLaughlin, nursing homes, power of attorney, Providence, Rhode Island, seniors, veterans
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Current Events, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning