Posts Tagged ‘Providence’

« Older Entries

President Obama admits his new healthcare program is a tax

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.

No Comments »

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

RI Senator Sheldon Whitehouse Introduces Estate Tax Reform Bill

Thursday, July 15th, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin

S. 3533, 111th Cong., 2d Sess. (June 23, 2010), the “Responsible Estate Tax Act of 2010,” introduced by Senators Bernard Sanders (I-Vermont), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), would:

  • Retroactively reimpose the estate tax and GST tax;
  • Adopt an applicable exclusion amount and GST exemption of $3.5 million per person;
  • Adopt a progressive rate structure, under which a 45% rate would apply on the taxable estate up to $10 million, 50% on the taxable estate above $10 million and below $50 million, and 55% on taxable estates above $50 million, and a 10% surtax on estates above $500 million;
  • Enact two loophole closures included in President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2011 budget, requiring consistent valuation for transfer and income tax purposes, and requiring a 10-year minimum term for GRATs;
  • Eliminate the use of valuation discounts for entities that do not operate an active trade or business;
  • Allow reduction in the gross estate under Code Sec. 2032A , special use valuation for family farms and certain closely held business real estate, by up to $3 million; and
  • Expand the rules for conservation easements through increasing the maximum exclusion amount to $2 million and increasing the base percentage to 60%.
No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized

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

Deduction denied to property developer where access to land was challenged in court

Thursday, July 1st, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin

The Tax Court has held in D.L. White Construction, Inc., TC Memo. 2010-141 that a corporation engaged in the business of residential real estate construction could not claim the cost of acquiring unimproved real estate as the cost of goods sold or alternatively deduct that amount as a Code Sec. 165(a) business loss where its easement to access the property through adjacent land was challenged in the courts.Real Estate Development

Background on cost of goods. In a manufacturing, merchandising, or mining business, gross income means total sales less the cost of goods sold, plus any income from investments and from incidental or outside operations or sources. (Reg. § 1.61-3(a)) The amount that a taxpayer claims as cost of goods sold is not subject to the limitations on deductions found in Code Sec. 162 (ordinary and necessary trade or business expense) and Code Sec. 274 (substantiation requirements). Rather, it is treated as a subtraction from gross sales to arrive at a qualifying business’ gross income. (Metra Chem Corp. (1987), 88 TC 654) As a general rule, where the production, purchase, or sale of merchandise of any kind (inventory) is an income-producing factor, inventory on hand at the beginning and end of the year is taken into account in computing the taxable income for the year. If a taxpayer must use an inventory, a taxpayer ordinarily is required to use the accrual method. (Reg. § 1.446-1 , Reg. § 1.471-1) Real property is not generally merchandise for purposes of inventory accounting. (W.C. & A.N. Miller Dev. Co. (1983), 81 TC 619)

Background on business loss deduction. Under Code Sec. 165(a), a taxpayer may deduct a loss sustained during the tax year and not compensated for by insurance or otherwise. To be allowable under Code Sec. 165(a) , the loss must be evidenced by a closed and completed transaction, fixed by identifiable events, and actually sustained during the tax year. If a taxpayer has a claim for reimbursement on which there’s a reasonable prospect of recovery, that “reimbursable” loss can’t be deducted until it’s reasonably certain the reimbursement will or will not be made. This may be ascertained by, among other things, settlement, adjudication or abandonment of the claim. (Code Sec. 165(a), Reg. § 1.165-1(d))

Facts. D.L. White Construction, Inc. (White Construction), is a C corporation that uses the cash method of accounting and a fiscal year ending on September 30. It’s in the business of residential real estate construction. During its 2002 tax year, it bought four parcels of adjoining land in northern Idaho (the Blossom Mountain property), totaling approximately 80 acres, for $290,000 ($90,000 of which was financed through a promissory note). It planned to build four homes on the Blossom Mountain property and sell the homes at a profit. However, to reach the Blossom Mountain property, White Construction used an access road that crossed an adjoining property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Akers. On January 10, 2002, the Akerses filed suit against White Construction in the Idaho district court for negligence and trespass and to quiet title.

White Construction filed its Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return, for the 2002 tax year. It included the $220,000 it spent on the Blossom Mountain property in its cost of goods sold. Although the Akerses’ lawsuit was still ongoing when it filed its Form 1120, White Construction claimed the $220,000 amount because it didn’t have legal access to the Blossom Mountain property and contended that the property was worthless.

The Blossom Mountain litigation was protracted. On January 3, 2003, the Idaho district court found that White Construction did not have a complete easement over the Akerses’ property, had trespassed, was negligent, and had engaged in malicious conduct. On April 1, 2004, the district court reheard the case, again finding against White Construction. This decision was appealed, and the Idaho Supreme Court remanded the case to the district court. On October 6, 2006, the district court again found against White Construction. This decision was appealed, and the case was once again remanded to the district court. On January 22, 2009, the Idaho Supreme Court withdrew its latest decision to remand, and, affirming the district court in part and vacating its judgment in part, once more remanded the case for further proceedings.

After the Idaho district court issued its April 1, 2004 decision, White Construction’s title company’s insurer issued White Construction a $200,000 check.

On audit of the 2002 tax year, IRS reduced White Construction’s cost of goods by $220,000. White Construction sought relief in court, where it acknowledged that its deduction for cost of goods sold might have been incorrect, but argued that it nevertheless should be able to deduct the $220,000 amount as a Code Sec. 165 business loss.

Decision on cost of goods argument. The Tax Court concluded that even if the Blossom Mountain property were properly classified as inventory, White Construction would not be entitled to include the cost of the property in its cost of goods sold.

After first noting the oddness of the fact that White Construction apparently used an inventory in its business even though it claimed to be a cash basis taxpayer, the Court assumed for the sake of argument that merchandise was an income-producing factor in its business and that it was required to use an inventory. That being the case, the Court concluded that White Construction failed to prove that the Blossom Mountain property was merchandise properly includable in calculating its cost of goods sold. White Construction also failed to prove that the Blossom Mountain property, even if properly classified as merchandise includable in inventory, should not have been included in closing inventory for purposes of calculating its cost of goods sold. White Construction continued to own the property on September 30, 2002, and failed to show that it was worthless as of that date.

Decision on business deduction argument. The Court found that White Construction failed to prove any of the elements for a deduction under Code Sec. 165. Its claimed loss for the Blossom Mountain property was not evidenced by a closed and completed transaction, fixed by identifiable events. As of the close of White Construction’s 2002 tax year, the Idaho district court had not issued its first opinion in the lawsuit-a lawsuit that the Court noted was still unresolved. Further, White Construction failed to show that the claimed loss was actually sustained during its 2002 tax year or in any other year. While contending that the Blossom Mountain property was worthless because there was not any access to the property, White Construction continued to own the property. There was no credible evidence that White Construction could not acquire access to the property in some other way or that the property had become worthless as of September 30, 2002. In addition, even if it did establish that it sustained a $220,000 loss with respect to the Blossom Mountain property during the tax year 2002, it still could not deduct the loss because it had a reasonable prospect of recovery as of the end of the year since it had a claim under its title insurance policy. Indeed, White Construction actually received reimbursement of $200,000 for its loss.

For more information about this case or tax planning for real estate developers, contact Moore McLaughlin, Esq. at MMcLaughlin@McLaughlinQuinn.com or by phone at 401-421-5115 ext. 212.

No Comments »

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

Online Legal Documents Company Sued Over Flawed Estate Plan

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.

legalzoomThe 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.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Current Events, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning

What Is the Generation-Skipping Transfer Tax?

Monday, June 14th, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin

The estate tax gets all the press, but if you are leaving property to a grandchild, there is an additional tax you should know about. According to Jill E. Sugarman, Esq., elderlaw and estate planning attorney at McLaughlin & Quinn, LLC, the generation-skipping transfer (GST) tax is a tax on property that is passed from a grandparent to a grandchild (or great-grandchild) in a will or trust. The tax is also assessed on property passed to unrelated individuals more than 37.5 years younger. Like the estate tax, it is currently repealed, but is scheduled to return in 2011.

Generation Skipping TaxThe GST tax was designed to close a loophole in the estate tax. Normally, grandparents would leave their estates to their children, incurring estate taxes. Then the children would pass on the estates to the grandchildren, incurring estate taxes again. Wealthy individuals realized they could leave their estates to their grandchildren directly and avoid one set of estate taxes. Congress established the GST tax to prevent this by taxing transfers to related individuals more than one generation away and to unrelated individuals more than 37.5 years younger.

A GST tax is imposed even when property is left in trust for a grandchild. For example, suppose a grandparent sets up a trust that leaves income to her children for life and then the remainder to her grandchildren. The part of the trust left to the grandchildren will be subject to a GST tax.

The GST tax has tracked the estate tax rate and exemption amounts. In 2009, the federal government exempted $3.5 million from the tax and the tax rate was 45 percent. The GST tax expired in 2010 along with the estate tax, but it is scheduled to return in 2011. Unless Congress acts in the meantime, the 2011 GST tax exemption amount will be $1 million and the tax rate will be 55 percent.

For more information on estate taxes, contact Founding Partner F. Moore McLaughlin, IV, CPA, Esq. at 401-421-5115 ext 212 or by e-mail at MMcLaughlin@McLaughlinQuinn.com or Jill E. Sugarman, Esq. at 401-421-5115 ext 217 or by e-mail at JSugarman@McLaughlinQuinn.com.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning, 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

Powers of Attorney Come in Different Flavors

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.

Power of AttorneyA 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.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning

Make Sure Your Life Insurance Is Not Taxed at Your Death

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.Life Insurance

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.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Current Events, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning

« Older Entries