Posts Tagged ‘business tax’

Massachusetts DOR Issues Guidelines on 2010 Sales Tax Holiday

Monday, August 9th, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin

The Massachusetts Department of Revenue provided guidelines on the 2010 sales tax holiday for August 14 and 15, 2010, during which most purchases made by individuals for personal use will not be subject to Massachusetts sales or use taxes. During these two days, nonbusiness retail sales of tangible personal property costing $2,500 or less are exempt from sales and use taxes subject to certain exclusions. All motor vehicles, motorboats, meals, telecommunications services, gas, steam, tobacco products, and any single item costing over $2,500 do not qualify for the sales tax holiday exemption and remain subject to tax. ( Massachusetts Technical Information Release 10-10, 08/05/2010 .)

Qualifying purchases. The sales tax exemption applies to sales of tangible personal property for personal use only. Purchases exempt from sales tax are also exempt from use tax. Therefore, eligible items of tangible personal property purchased on the Massachusetts sales tax holiday from out-of-state retailers for use in Massachusetts are exempt from Massachusetts use tax. Alcoholic beverages sold for off-premises consumption by liquor or package stores qualify for the 2010 sales tax holiday.

Nonexempt sales. The sales tax holiday does not apply to sales of motorboats, meals, telecommunications services, gas, steam, electricity, tobacco products, any single item costing in excess of $2,500, and all sales of motor vehicles. Layaway sales do not qualify for the exemption even if the last required payment or payments necessary to complete the transaction are made on August 14 or 15, 2010. Sales of the excluded items remain taxable.

Specific rules. The Department provided specific rules to be applied by retailers in administering the Massachusetts sales tax holiday exemption.

Threshold: Generally, sales or use tax is due on the entire sales price of a single item worth more than $2,500. The sales price is not reduced by the threshold amount. However, since there is no sales tax on any article of clothing worth less than $175, only the increment of the sales price of the article of clothing over $175 is subject to tax.

Multiple items on one invoice: Separate invoices do not have to be prepared when a customer purchases multiple items during the sales tax holiday. As long as each item is priced $2,500 or less, there is no upper limit on the tax-free amount each customer may purchase.

Bundled transactions: When several items are offered for sale at a single price, the entire package is exempt if the sales price of the package is $2,500 or less. Items that are priced separately and are to be sold separately qualify for the sales tax holiday exemption if the price of each item is $2,500 or less.

Coupons and discounts: If a store coupon or discount reduces the sales price of an article, the discounted sales price determines whether the sales price is within the sales tax holiday threshold. If the purchaser bought both an eligible property and a taxable property and the coupon or discount applies to the total amount paid by the purchaser, the seller allocates the discount on a pro rata basis to each article sold.

Exchanges: In case of an even exchange, no tax is due even if the exchange is made after the sales tax holiday.

Special orders: Special order items are eligible for the sales tax holiday exemption provided they are ordered and paid in full on the sales tax holiday weekend and the cost of each item is $2,500 or less even if the items are delivered at a later date. A prior special order purchase with a deposit made before August 14, 2010 will not qualify for the sales tax holiday exemption even if the customer pays the entire remaining balance due on August 14 or 15, 2010.

Rain checks: Eligible property bought with the use of a rain check during the sales tax holiday weekend qualifies for the exemption regardless of when the rain check was issued. Issuance of a rain check during the sales tax holiday weekend will not qualify otherwise eligible property for the sales tax holiday exemption if the property is actually purchased after the sales tax holiday.

Rentals: Generally, rentals for 30 days or less of eligible tangible personal property are eligible for the sales tax holiday even if the rental period covers days before or after the holiday provided payment in full is made during the sales tax holiday weekend.

Rebates: A rebate is generally treated as a cash discount and is excluded from the sales price. So, the discounted sales price determines whether the sales price is within the sales tax holiday threshold, and tax must be charged on the full purchase price if it is over $2,500. If the customer receives a rebate after the sale by mailing a coupon to the manufacturer, the full purchase price of the property determines whether the sales price is within the sales tax holiday price threshold and tax must be charged on the full purchase price if it is over $2,500. If the customer receives a cash discount from the vendor upon the purchase of tangible property and a manufacturer’s rebate after the sale, only the cash discount given by the vendor is excluded from the sales price for purposes of the sales tax holiday exemption.

Internet sales: An eligible property ordered over the Internet is exempt if it is ordered and paid for on August 14 or 15, 2010, Eastern Daylight Time, even if the property is delivered after the sales tax holiday period.

Splitting items normally sold together: Articles normally sold as a single unit cannot be priced separately and sold as individual items in order to qualify for the sales tax holiday exemption.

Returns: Under the law, sales tax may only be refunded if returns are made within 90 days of the sale. During the 90-day period after August 14 or 15, 2010, a retailer may not credit a retail customer who returns an item that could have qualified for the sales tax holiday exemption, unless the customer provides a receipt or invoice showing the tax was paid or the seller’s records show that tax was paid.

Erroneously collected taxes: Customers who were erroneously charged sales tax for an exempt purchase may obtain a tax refund from the vendor. The vendor that has remitted erroneously collected tax to the Department may file an abatement application within three years with satisfactory evidence that the vendor credited or refunded the tax to the purchaser.

Responsibilities of retailers. All Massachusetts businesses normally making taxable sales of tangible personal property on August 14 and 15, 2010 and out-of-state retailers registered to collect Massachusetts sales and use taxes must participate in the sales tax holiday. Any sales or use tax erroneously collected by a retailer during the sales tax holiday must be remitted to the Department. Retailers must keep normal business records showing the date of sale, items purchased and selling price. Purchasers paying for tangible personal property with business credit cards or checks must be charged tax on the items purchased. Normal business records showing the date of sale, items purchased, and selling price must be kept by the retailer/vendor. However, a separate certification of nonbusiness use from the purchaser will not be required for the 2010 Sales Tax Holiday regardless of the amount of the otherwise qualifying purchase.

Penalties. Retailers that back-date sales occurring after August 15, 2010 or that forward-date sales that occurred before August 14, 2010 in order to make them appear to qualify for the sales tax holiday may be subject to the tax evasion penalties of Mass. Gen. L. § 73 , including a felony conviction, a fine of not more than $100,000 or $500,000 in the case of a corporation, or by imprisonment for not more than five years, or both, and may also be required to pay the costs of prosecution.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Current Events, IRS and state tax collections, Tax Current Events and News, Tax planning

Transfer of home to closely held shareholders was constructive dividend—penalties imposed

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.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, IRS and state tax collections, Tax Current Events and News, Tax planning

Massachusetts Enacts 2011 Budget Act

Tuesday, July 6th, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin
Massachusetts

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.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Current Events, Financial workout, IRS and state tax collections, Tax Current Events and News, Tax planning

Rhode Island Governor Approves Significant Personal Income Tax Reform Measure

Friday, June 11th, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin

Rhode Island FlagOn June 9, 2010, Governor Donald Carcieri signed legislation bringing significant reform to the personal income tax system beginning with the 2011 calendar year. The legislation reduces the highest marginal income tax bracket from 9.9% to 5.99%, and reduces the number of income tax brackets from five to three. The legislation eliminates the option to itemize deductions, increases the amounts of the standard deduction, reduces the amount of the personal exemption, and limits the types of credits that may be taken. Finally, the alternative flat tax is eliminated. (L. 2010, H8196A/S2921A, effective 01/01/2011.)

Tax rates. The tax rates have been revised, providing three taxable income brackets for married individuals filing jointly, qualifying widows, head of households, unmarried individuals, married individuals filing separately and bankruptcy estates, effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2010: $0-$55,000, 3.75%; $55,000-$125,000, 4.75%; and over $125,000, 5.99%. Previously, there were five brackets with rates ranging from 3.75% to 9.9%, and the income brackets differed depending on the filing status. In addition, the revised tax rates provide three taxable income brackets for an estate or trust: $0-$2,230, 3.75%; $2,230-$7,022, 4.75%; and over $7,022, 5.99%. Previously, the rates for an estate or trust were based on five taxable income brackets: $0-2,150, 3.75%; $2,150-$5,000, 7%; $5,000-7,650, 7.75%; $7,650-10,450, 9%; and over $10,450, 9.9%.

Deductions. The legislation eliminates the option to itemize deductions and increases the amounts of the standard deduction based on the filing status as follows: single, $7,500; married filing jointly, $15,000; married filing separately, $7,500; and head of household, $11,250. Previously, the amounts of the standard deductions based on the filing status were as follows: single, $5,700; married filing jointly, $9,550; married filing separately, $4,750; and head of household, $8,400. In addition, the standard deduction is phased out for taxpayers whose adjusted gross income exceed $175,000 such that the standard deduction is reduced by 20 percentage points for each $5,000 by which the taxpayer’s adjusted gross income for the taxable year exceeds $175,000.

Personal exemption. For purposes of computing the personal exemption, the legislation reduces the exemption amount from $3,650 to $3,500. In addition, the personal exemption is phased out for taxpayers whose adjusted gross incomes exceed $175,000 such that the personal exemption is reduced by 20 percentage points for each $5,000 by which the taxpayer’s adjusted gross income for the taxable year exceeds $175,000.

Credits. The legislation limits the types of credits that may be taken against personal income tax to the following: earned income credit; property relief credit; lead paint credit; credit for income taxes of other states; historic structures tax credit; motion picture productions tax credit; child and dependent care credit; tax credits for scholarships to scholarship organizations; and credit for tax withheld. For purposes of the property tax relief credit against personal income tax, the calculation of “income” does not include any deductions for rental losses, business losses, capital losses, exclusion for foreign income, and any losses received from pass-through entities.

Alternative flat tax. The alternative flat tax option is eliminated for tax years 2011 and thereafter.

For more information about these changes, contact Moore McLaughlin, Esq. at 401-421-5115 ext 212 or by e-mail at MMcLaughlin@McLaughlinQuinn.com.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Current Events, Tax Current Events and News, Tax planning

Final regulations clarify and strengthen partnership Code Sec. 704(c) anti-abuse rule

Wednesday, June 9th, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin

The IRS has issued final regulations providing that the Code §704(c) anti-abuse rule takes into account the tax liabilities of both the partners in a partnership and certain direct and indirect owners of the partners. The regulations, which apply to tax years beginning after June 9, 2010, also provide that a Code §704(c) allocation method cannot be used to achieve tax results inconsistent with the intent of subchapter K of the Code.Internal Revenue Service

Background. Code §704(c) requires partnerships to allocate income, gain, loss, and deductions for property contributed by a partner so as to take into account variations between the property’s adjusted tax basis and its fair market value at the time of contribution. The allocations must be made using a reasonable method that’s consistent with Code §704 ‘s purpose. Reg. §1.704-3 provides three allocation methods: the traditional method, the traditional method with curative allocations, and the remedial method.

Under the anti-abuse rule of Reg. §1.704-3(a)(10) (as in effect before amendment by T.D. 9485, 06/08/2010), an allocation method (or combination of methods) is not reasonable if the contribution of property (or event that results in reverse Code Sec. 704(c) allocations) and the corresponding allocation of tax items for the property are made with a view to shifting the tax consequences of built-in gain or loss among the partners in a manner that substantially reduces the present value (PV) of the partners’ aggregate tax liability.

Under the anti-abuse rule of Reg. §1.701-2(b), if a partnership is formed or availed of in connection with a transaction a principal purpose of which is to reduce substantially the PV of the partners’ federal tax liability in a manner inconsistent with the intent of subchapter K, IRS may recast the transaction as appropriate to achieve tax results that are consistent with the intent of subchapter K. Thus, IRS may disregard: (a) purported partnerships, in whole or part, so that partnership assets are treated as owned by the partner; (b) one or more contributions; or (c) one or more purported partners.

In 2003, the Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation issued “The Report of Investigation of Enron Corporation and Related Entities Regarding Federal Tax and Compensation Issues, and Policy Recommendations,” (JCS-3-03, February 2003) (Enron Report). Although the Enron Report noted that the anti-abuse rule of Reg. §1.704-3(a)(10) (as in effect before amendment by T.D. 9485, 06/08/2010 ), was an effective tool, it recommended strengthening the reg for partnership allocations for property contributed to a partnership, especially for partners that are members of the same consolidated group, to ensure that the allocation rules are not used to obtain unwarranted tax benefits.

The final regs address the recommendation in the Enron Report by clarifying certain aspects of the anti-abuse rule.

Final regulations. The regulations amend the anti-abuse rule of Reg. § 1.704-3(a)(10) to provide that the tax effect of an allocation method (or combination of methods) on both direct and indirect partners is considered. (Reg. § 1.704-3(a)(10)(i)) An indirect partner is any direct or indirect owner of a partnership, S corporation, or controlled foreign corporation (CFC, as defined in Code §957(a) or Code §953(c)), or direct or indirect beneficiary of a trust or estate, that is a partner in the partnership, and any consolidated group of which the partner in the partnership is a member (under Reg. §1.1502-1(h)). However, a CFC owner is treated as an indirect partner only for allocation of items that: (1) enter into the computation of a U.S. shareholder’s inclusion under Code §951(a) for the CFC; (2) enter into any person’s income attributable to a U.S. shareholder’s inclusion under Code §951(a) for the CFC; or (3) would enter into these computation if the items were allocated to the CFC. (Reg. §1.704-3(a)(10)(ii))

The final regs also provide that the principles of Code §704(c), together with the allocation methods in Reg. §1.704-3(b) (the traditional method, the traditional method with curative allocations, and the remedial method) only apply to contributions of property to the partnership. Further, in determining if a purported contribution of property to a partnership should be recast to avoid results that are inconsistent with subchapter K, one factor that might be relevant is the use of the remedial method in which allocations of remedial items of income, gain, loss or deduction are made to one partner and allocations of offsetting remedial items are made to a related partner. (Reg. §1.704-3(a)(1))

For more information on these Final Regulations or other partnership tax matters, contact Moore McLaughlin, Esq. at 401-421-5115 ext 212 or by e-mail at MMcLaughlin@McLaughlinQuinn.com.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Tax Current Events and News, Tax planning

Tax consequences of debt discharge income

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.Cancellation of debt

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.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Bankruptcy, Financial workout, IRS and state tax collections, Tax Current Events and News, Tax planning

Many business tax law changes go into effect in 2010

Thursday, January 7th, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin

Many important tax changes go into effect in 2010.  These non-indexing changes result from various laws that were enacted and regulations and other guidance issued over the past few years. This post reviews the non-indexing tax law changes for 2010 for businesses.

Deduction for domestic production activities increases. For tax years beginning after 2009, the IRC §199 deduction for domestic production activities increases. Taxpayers will be able to claim a deduction generally equal to 9% (up from 6% for tax years beginning in 2007-2009) of the lesser of: (1) the taxpayer’s “qualified production activities income” (QPAI) for the tax year or (2) taxable income (modified adjusted gross income, for individual taxpayers) without regard to this deduction, for the tax year. (IRC §199(a); Reg. §1.199-1(a)).  The deduction is further limited to 50% of the W-2 wages of the employer for the tax year.

Smaller employers may establish combined plans. For plan years beginning after 2009, employers with 500 or fewer employees may establish a combined defined benefit-401(k) plan (a “DB(k) plan”). In general, the defined benefit rules apply to the defined benefit portion of the plan and the defined contribution rules apply to the defined contribution portion of the plan. The 401(k) component must have automatic enrollment and must meet minimum matching contribution requirements. (IRC §414(x)(2))

Nonspouse beneficiary rollover option mandatory for qualified plans. Under §108(f) of the Worker, Retiree, and Employer Recovery Act of 2008 (WRERA, P.L. 110-458), qualified retirement plans must offer nonspouse beneficiaries the opportunity to roll over an inherited plan account balance to an IRA set up to receive the rollover on the nonspouse beneficiary’s behalf, effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 2009. For earlier plan years, plans could, but were not required to, offer nonspouse beneficiaries this rollover option.

Increased penalty for failure to file partnership or S corporation returns. Civil penalties apply for failure to file a partnership and S corporation returns. The penalty is a statutory dollar amount times the number of partners or shareholders for each month (or fraction of a month) that the failure continues, up to a maximum of 12 months. The base amount on which a penalty is computed for a failure with respect to filing either a partnership or S corporation return for a tax year beginning after December 31, 2009, increases from $89 to $195 per partner or shareholder. (IRC §6698(b)(1) and IRC §6699(b)(1))

Electronic filing changes go into effect. Beginning in 2010, IRS will allow the electronic filing of Schedule R (Form 941), Allocation Schedule for Aggregate Form 941 Filers, using the Employment Tax e-file System. Schedule R is a new form that must be completed by consolidated Form 941 filers, beginning with the first quarter 2010 Form 941. Form 2678, Employer/Payer Appointment of Agent, must be mailed to the applicable address listed on the instructions for the agent to be eligible to file Schedule R. After receiving IRS approval, the agent must file one Form 941 return for each tax period, using the agent’s own employer identification number (EIN), regardless of the number of employers for whom the agent acts. The agent must maintain records that will disclose the full wages paid for each of his or her clients, as reported on the Schedule R. (IRS Publication 3823, Employment Tax e-file System Implementation and User Guide)

Standard mileage rate changes. The optional mileage allowance for owned or leased autos (including vans, pickups or panel trucks) is 50¢ per mile for business travel after 2009 (down from 55¢ per mile for 2009). For 2010, the depreciation component of the mileage rate is 23¢ per mile (up from 21¢ per mile for 2009 and 2008).

Employers that require employees to supply their own autos may reimburse them at a rate that doesn’t exceed 50¢ per mile for employment-connected business mileage during 2010 (down from 55¢ per mile for 2009), whether the autos are owned or leased. The reimbursement is treated as a tax-free accountable-plan reimbursement if the employee substantiates the time, place, business purpose, and mileage of each trip. Additionally, an employee’s personal use of lower-priced company autos during 2010 may be valued at 50¢ per mile if the conditions specified in Reg. §1.61-21(e)(1) are met. (Rev Proc 2009-54, 2009-51 IRB)

Many business tax breaks expired at the end of 2009. Unless Congress acts to retroactively revive them, all of the following business tax breaks won’t be available this year because they expired at the end of 2009. Note that tax breaks that would be extended by the “Tax Extenders Act” as passed by the House of Representatives in December of 2009 are indicated with an asterisk.

… Additional first-year 50% bonus depreciation for qualified property under IRC §168(k)(2) (but note that certain aircraft and long-production-period property continues to be eligible if placed in service in 2010). In addition, the $8,000 increase in the first-year depreciation limit for passenger automobiles that are qualified property also expired at the end of 2009.

 … For tax years beginning in 2010, (a) the maximum amount that may be expensed under IRC §179 is $134,000 (down from $250,000 for tax years beginning in 2008 or 2009); and (b) the maximum annual expensing amount generally is reduced dollar-for-dollar by the amount of IRC §179 property placed in service during the tax year in excess of $530,000 (down from $800,000 for tax years beginning in 2008 or 2009).

 … Incremental research credit under IRC §41.*

 … Election to accelerate AMT and research credits in lieu of additional first-year depreciation under IRC §168(k)(4).

 … Five-year depreciation for farming business machinery and equipment under IRC §168(e)(3)(B)(vii).*

 … Fifteen-year straight-line cost recovery for qualified leasehold improvements, qualified restaurant buildings and improvements, and qualified retail improvements under IRC §168(e)(3)(E)(iv), IRC §168(e)(3)(E)(v), and IRC §168(e)(3)(E)(ix).*

 … Deduction allowable for income attributable to domestic production activities in Puerto Rico under IRC §199.*

 … Expensing of “brownfields” environmental remediation costs under IRC §198(h).*

 … Credit for construction of new energy efficient homes under IRC §45L.

 … Encouragement of contributions of capital gain real property made for conservation purposes under IRC §170(b)(1)(E) and IRC §170(b)(2)(B).*

 … Enhanced charitable deduction for contributions of food inventory under IRC §170(e)(3)(C).*

 … Enhanced charitable deduction for contributions of book inventories to public schools under IRC §170(e)(3)(D).*

 … Enhanced deduction for corporate contributions of computer equipment for educational purposes under IRC §170(e)(6)(G).*

 … The active financing exception from Subpart F of the Code. (IRC §953, IRC §954)*

 … The look-through treatment of payments between related controlled foreign corporations. (IRC §954(c))*

 … Seven-year straight line cost recovery period for property used for land improvement and support facilities at motorsports entertainment complexes. (IRC §168(i)(15))*

 … The railroad track maintenance credit. (IRC §45G )*

 … Film and television producers’ election to expense the first $15 million of production costs incurred in the U.S. ($20 million if the costs are incurred in economically depressed areas in the U.S.). (IRC §181)*

 … The credit for training mine rescue team members. (IRC §45N)*

 … Election to expense 50% of the cost of qualified underground mine safety equipment. (IRC §179E)*

 … The credit for eligible small business employers equal to 20% of the sum of differential wage payments to activated military reservists. (IRC)*

 … The tax treatment of interest-related dividends, short-term capital gain dividends, and other special rules applicable to foreign shareholders that invest in regulated investment companies (RICs). (IRC §871(k))*

 … Suspension on the taxable income limit for purposes of claiming depletion deductions on a marginal oil or gas well. (IRC §613A(c)(6))

 … The new markets tax credit. (IRC §45D(f)(1))*

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Current Events, Tax Current Events and News, Tax planning

Another Attack on RI Small Business by our Elected Officials (UPDATED, AGAIN)

Tuesday, June 30th, 2009 by Moore McLaughlin

The Rhode Island Legislature has done it again.  They have managed to find a way to not only drive more Rhode Island small businesses out of business or out of state, but at the same time they have managed to reduce tax revenues in the state.  To top it all off, their actions are likely unconstitutional.  This does not seem like the way to get Rhode Island back on its economic feet.

Amazon.comWhat I’m referring to is the recent passage of a law that requires Amazon.com to collect Rhode Island sales tax on sales made through Rhode Island-based associates.  Click here for the entire article from the Providence Business News.  Not surprisingly, Amazon.com immediately severed all relationships with Rhode Island-based associates.

Since book buyers can go directly to Amazon.com to buy their books, with no Rhode Island intermediary, Amazon does not have an obligation to collect the Rhode Island sales tax.  So, now the state will still not receive any sales tax, and no income taxes, property taxes, employment taxes, etc., from the Rhode Island-based associate that may now go out of business, or move to another state.  Absolutely brilliant! (more…)

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in IRS and state tax collections, Tax Current Events and News, Tax planning

IRS seeks more taxes on your cell phone

Tuesday, June 16th, 2009 by Moore McLaughlin

The IRS says it is looking to make it easier for taxpayers to comply with recordkeeping requirements for employer-provided cell phones. Others see this as another attack on small business.  A new notice from the IRS confirms several IRS proposals to simplify the procedures under which employers substantiate an employee’s business use of employer-provided cellphones.  The notice also requests suggestions for alternative approaches.cell-phone-tax

In 2008, two identical bills-H.R. 5450 and S. 2668, both entitled “Modernize Our Bookkeeping In the Law for Employee’s Cell Phone Act of 2008″-were introduced in the House and Senate to remove cell phones and similar telecommunications equipment from the category of listed property. These measures, which had bipartisan support, and were backed by a number of companies and business associations, were never enacted. Perhaps that is why IRS is taking the matter into its own hands.

Under Internal Revenue Code Section 132, an employee may exclude from gross income the business use of an employer-provided cell phone as a working condition fringe benefit. However, because cell phones are listed property in Code Section 280F, strict substantiation requirements must be satisfied for business cell phone usage to qualify for the code Section 132 exclusion. Moreover, any personal usage of an employer-provided cell phone is a taxable fringe benefit. Thus, the current rules require documentation of the business and personal use of the cell phone.

(more…)

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in IRS and state tax collections, Tax Current Events and News, Tax planning

Where Does Your State Rank for Corporate Taxes?

Monday, May 18th, 2009 by Moore McLaughlin

The 2009 CFO Magazine State Tax Survey, conducted with KPMG, has just been released, and the results, while in some cases cfo3very predictable, are still enlightening.  According to the article in the May 2009 issue of CFO Magazine, “more than 40 states are facing budget shortfalls, and as many as ten expect fiscal 2010 revenues to lag expenses by more than 20%.”  Click here for the full article.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Tax Current Events and News, Tax planning