The International Tax Certificate and Master Degree is designed for international tax professionals (including lawyers, accountants, economists, and financial leaders) to deliver specialized legal training for an in-depth understanding of the international tax risk management field’s changing complex legal aspects.
This graduate-level International Tax certificate or Master degree will prepare new and experienced international tax professionals to effectively address complex legal and policy challenges with respect to global tax risk. Specifically, participants will be exposed to (i) important U.S. and international laws, regulations and policies in the international tax risk management field, and (ii) technology, data, and practice, as well as applications of law and regulation through case studies through a weekly based structure. Individuals who complete the program will be able to synthesize scenarios, practice, and legal regulation in the international tax risk management field, providing analysis or judgments for consideration to organizational leadership with a nuanced perspective.
Courses are offered by asynchronous distance learning to provide a flexible schedule for working professionals. Interactive coursework includes case study assignments and regular interaction opportunities with classmates & the faculty through twice-weekly zoom meetings (recorded), pre-recorded videos, audio casts, discussion boards, and group breakout sessions. For more information, please go to law.tamu.edu/distance-education/international-tax.
Example courses:
LAW 625 Spring Term A Transfer Pricing l – Methods, Econometrics, and Tangibles
LAW 626 Spring Term B Transfer Pricing II – Services and Intangibles
LAW 627 International Tax Risk Management I – Data, Analytics, and Technology
LAW 647 Fall Term A International Taxation and Treaties – residency issues
LAW 649 Fall Term B International Taxation and Treaties – source issues
LAW 719 Fall A Domestic Tax Systems Risk Management
LAW 720 Fall B International Tax Risk Management II – Data, Analytics, and Technology
U.S. International Tax Risk Management – Data and Analytics Spring Term A
U.S. International Tax Risk Management – Law and Regulation Summer
FATCA, CRS, and AEoI Risk Management – Summer
Texas A&M, operating budget of $9.6 billion (FY2022) and capital budget of $1.9 billion, is #1 for U.S. public universities, one of only 60 accredited U.S. universities of the American Association of Universities (R1: Doctoral Universities – Highest Research Activity) and one of only 17 U.S. universities that hold the triple U.S. federal grant of Land, Sea, and Space! The law school, ranked in the 1st tier, has the #1 bar passage in Texas, and #1 for employment in Texas (and top 10 in U.S.) The law school’s new campus is part of the Texas A&M AggieLand North billion dollar investment.
Texas A&M ranks #1 in Texas, #1 in the SEC, and #12 in the U.S. in Washington Monthly’s 2020 overall college rankings based on the quality of education, accessibility, graduation rates, student involvement, and research: see tx.ag/WashMonth20
More significant information about two of the most important changes to come out of the new legislation related to COVID-19.
The first update is an FAQ from the Department of Labor about the exemption from the expanded FMLA paid leave requirements for staff who are out of work for reasons related to a corona virus infection. The new law only applies to businesses with under 500 employees, but contains a vaguely-worded exemption for very small businesses with less than 50 employees and for whom the paid leave requirement would pose a hardship. While some commentators have thought that the exemption might be loosely interpreted to the point of being nearly automatic, the new FAQs require very small businesses to show particular kinds of challenges before the exemption applies.
We also have an update on the definition of “payroll costs” for small businesses applying for PPP loans. This definition is important because the calculation of those costs determine how large of a loan (which is potentially forgivable if certain requirements are met) the business is eligible for.
FFCRA Exemption for Very Small Business Clients
Generally, business owners with fewer than 50 employees can claim an exemption from the paid sick leave and expanded FMLA law if they can show that payment would jeopardize their business as a going concern. DOL FAQ have provided new details, which substantially narrow the availability of the exemption. For more information on the FFCRA paid leave requirements, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More
Telehealth Coverage and HDHP/HSA Eligibility
In response to the evolving COVID-19 pandemic, the CARES Act further expands the pre-deductible services high deductible health plans (HDHPs) may offer. HDHPs are now permitted to cover the cost of telehealth services without cost to participants before the HDHP deductible has been satisfied. For more information on the HDHP qualification rules, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More
Defining “Payroll Costs” for PPP
Taxpayers with fewer than 500 employees are eligible for new “payroll protection loans” administered via the Small Business Administration. In general, the loans may be forgiven (and amounts excluded from income for tax purposes) if used to cover payroll costs. For more information about how “payroll costs” are defined and calculated, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More
Texas A&M University is a public university and is ranked 1st among public universities for its superior education at an affordable cost (Fiske, 2018) and ranked 1st of Texas public universities for best value (Money, 2018). A 500,000 strong former students association network worldwide of “Texas Aggies” awaits you – just click our advert box to request information.
If a zombie apocalypse does not emanate from the illness known as Covid-19 caused by the coronavirus, then we still need to plan for our 2020 tax payments. It is likely that taxpayers with business or investment income will be able to reduce the 2020 quarterly estimated tax payments that will be due April 15 this year, June 15, September 15, and January 15 of 2021. Why?
2019 was a good income year for most taxpayers earning investment and business income. But 2020 will likely be a depressed income year, maybe even a recession (for those not eaten by zombies). Thus, estimated tax payments to avoid a penalty, generally, 90% of the tax that is estimated to be due for 2020, should be much reduced from the 2019 level paid. (Contrarian investor taxpayers that shorted the market may actually need to make higher estimated taxpayers because the contrarians are likely to have a great capital gain year).
What are the changes enacted in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 that, because of the coronavirus, impact 2020’s estimated tax payments?
A taxpayer’s ability to reduce tax because of a net operating loss (“NOL”) in 2020 has been reduced by the TCJA. An NOL resulting in 2020 cannot be applied to taxes paid in the previous two-years of 2019 and 2018 to claw those taxes back. Before the TCJA, the NOL “carry-back” of two-years was allowed. NOLs may still be carried forward. Excess NOL in 2020 may be used to reduce 2021’s income and thus tax due.
However, the TCJA even modifies how much NOL may be used to reduce 2020’s taxable income. Starting in 2018, the TCJA modified the tax law on “excess business losses” by limiting losses from all types of business for noncorporate taxpayers. An “excess business loss” is the amount of a taxpayer’s total deductions from business income that exceeds a taxpayer’s “total gross income and capital gains from business plus $250,000 for an individual taxpayer or $500,000 for married taxpayers filing a joint return.” Said another way, the business loss in 2020 is limited to a maximum of $250,000 for an individual taxpayer. Yet, the remainder does not evaporate like a vampire stabbed with a stake in the heart. The remainder may be carried forward to 2021. The remainder is called a “net operating loss” or NOL.
But the TCJA has another limitation for the carry forward of an NOL. The NOL may only be used in 2021 to reduce the taxpayer’s taxable income by 80%. The remainder NOL in 2021, if any, that resulted from 2020’s original loss and 2021’s limitation to just 80% of taxable income may again be carried forward, to 2022, yet again subject to the 80% of taxable income limitation. The NOL may keep rolling forward indefinitely, subject to the 80% limitation until it is all used.
High net wealth taxpayers that generate gross receipts greater than $26 million may be subject to the TCJA’s limitation of interest expense for 2020. The TCJA included a rule that limits the amount of interest associated with a taxpayer’s business income when the taxpayer has on average annual gross receipts of more than $26 million since 2018. The limitation does not apply to a taxpayer whose business income is generated from providing services as an employee, and a taxpayer that generates business income from real estate may elect not to have the limitation apply.
The amount of deductible business interest expense that is above a taxpayer’s business interest income is limited to 30% of the taxpayer’s adjusted taxable income (called “ATI”). For 2020, ATI will probably be significantly lower than in 2019 and 2018. A taxpayer calculated ATI taking the year’s taxable income then reducing it by the business interest expense as if the limitation did not apply. The remaining amount is then further reduced by any net operating loss deduction; the 20% deemed deduction for qualified business income, any depreciation, amortization, or depletion deduction, and finally, any capital loss. The business interest expense allowable for 2020 is 30% of that remainder. The lost business income resulting from the coronavirus in 2020 may lead the remainder to be zero, and 30% of zero is zero. Like the NOL above, the business interest expense if not usable in 2020 does not vanish. It carries forward to 2021 and each year thereafter, applying the same limitation rules each year.
Many taxpayers may end 2020 in a capital loss position if the stock market does not fully recover by December. If a taxpayer’s capital losses are more than the year’s capital gains, then $3,000 of that loss may be deducted from the taxpayer’s 2020 regular income. Remaining capital loss above the $3,000 may be carried forward to apply against 2021 income, and so on until used up.
The IRS may offer taxpayers more time beyond the April 15th deadline to file and pay 2019’s tax in 2020. The filing and payment for 2019, and estimated tax for 2020, is due on or before April 15. But the IRS has indicated that it may extend that deadline. A taxpayer may, regardless, file a request for a six-month extension on or before April 15, 2020, that is automatically granted if filed on time. But any tax owing for 2019 will still be due April 15, 2020, after which interest begins to be charged by the IRS to the taxpayer’s tax debt. Check the IRS website here for whether, because of the coronavirus, it has extended the payment deadline beyond April 15, 2020. Can the IRS extend the deadline, legally? Yes. Because Congress enacted a section of the Internal Revenue Code (our tax law) “§ 7508A” which is aptly named “Authority to postpone certain deadlines by reason of Presidentially declared disaster or terroristic or military actions”. The President declared an official national emergency (see here).
Taxpayers are not required to exhaust the deductible required by a high-deductible health plan (called “HDHP”) before using the HDHP to pay for COVID-19 related testing and treatment.
I have four tax policy suggestions for Congress that it can include in a taxpayer coronavirus relief bill. I welcome acronym suggestions for this proposed bill’s name, especially a creative bill name whose acronym is “Zombie” or “Eat Brains”. The four tax relief suggestions that will mitigate damage caused by Covid-19 are:
Proposal 1 (stop medical bankruptcy): In 2020 the itemized deduction for medical expenses is reduced by 7.5% of a taxpayer’s AGI. For 2020, I propose eliminating the 7.5% reduction of medical expenses attributed to the coronavirus or any 2020 flu (or zombie bite), such as hospitalization. Medical diagnosis should suffice. Not going to be used by many people. But the people who do use will really need it – those that do not awake as zombies that is.
Proposal 2 (stop restaurant bankruptcy): The administration proposes the suspension of the Social Security and Medicare payroll tax to jump-start consumer spending, presumably after the removal of quarantine orders to stay indoors or at least six feet away from each other. Not very targeted. Someone like me may just shift the payroll tax relief and use it instead to upward adjust my 403(b) retirement savings for 2020, taking advantage of my full $19,500 contribution allowance for 2020 (and because I am 50 years old or older – add another $6,000 retirement ‘catchup’ to that $19,500 for a full $25,500), Not only have I not spent the money to help the economy rebound, I have reduced my tax due for 2020 because my retirement contributions reduce my taxable income. I have saved tax twice!! While I quite like that idea personally, I feel empathy for all the local restaurant owners who may go bankrupt unless I go out to eat at more local restaurants once I assured that 2020 was not the year of the zombie apocalypse.
A better-targeted proposal to save our nation’s local restaurants and the local farmers that supply them is to allow taxpayers an itemized deduction up to $1,000 for an individual and $2,000 for a married filing jointly 2020, beyond the standard deduction, of 100% of restaurant meals expense between June 1 and October 31, at U.S. restaurants with the last three years gross annual receipts averaging less than [$5 million – whatever is reasonable so that big chains are not included, Small Business Administration uses a maximum of $8 million for full-service restaurants (NAICS 722511)- I’m OK with that]. I know – many reasons not to do this, such as Americans will become hooked on eating out at local restaurants. Wait, why is that a bad thing? And we will need to address the tax abusers who will order one slice of pizza and 20 bottles of wine, to go. So maybe the maximum meal receipt must be set at $100 per meal receipt per adult. That should allow plenty of food for a couple, and alcohol, and leave enough for the children to still have mac & cheese. Plus it requires ten different restaurant trips. Local restauranteurs and the local farmers can hold out hope that 2020 will not require filing for bankruptcy protection. November is Thanksgiving when people eat out anyway, at least in the restaurants that have remained open. By the way, I am purposely leaving business out of this. Business has a 50% business meal deduction anyway. And my policy suggestion is about Americans being social and not talking business at the dinner table (and perhaps not politics either).
Proposal 3 (stop hotel bankruptcy): And let’s not forget about locally-owned hotels with average gross receipts below $8 million (SBA uses $35 million for hotels and $8 million for B&B Inns so maybe I am way off base with just $8 million – see NAICS subsector 721 Accomodation). A $500 itemized deduction for 2020 for a U.S. hotel stay (not Air BnB homes or apartments, actually licensed hotels/BnB Inns) for an individual or couple between June 1 and October 31. Might not buy a weekend at the Ritz but the Ritz probably exceeds the small business amount of revenue a year. Is it sound tax policy? Huey Long (I’m from Louisiana) promised a chicken in every pot and a car in every yard. I promise a get-a-way weekend at a small(ish) hotel.
Proposal 4 (keep employees employed): A tax credit (I am not sure the right amount, let the Labor Secretary decide, something around $5,000 an employee) to employers of less than 500 employees who do not reduce the monthly payroll of the employees, or fire any employees, between June 1 and September 30. October 1 employers start thinking about Christmas hiring for the shopping season. I can imagine some mathematically-inclined employees thinking “I am going to walk into my boss’ office and projectile vomit because the cost of losing the tax credits for firing me is too high.” OK, so firing ‘for cause including projectile Zombie vomiting on the boss ‘ will be allowed without loss of the tax credit. Now if a business wants to expand and hire a lot of employees up to 500 that’s great. I propose that all employees employed and start fulltime work before June 1st qualify for a reduced $4,000 tax credit (basically $1,000 a month of employment for June through September).
These four proposals are enough to keep the economy, restaurants, hotels, and employees out of recession and bankruptcy. But I have more proposals not currently part of the current bill, but common sense dictates should be (well, maybe not). Why have we heard nothing from the House to encourage donations of toilet paper rolls to local shelters? And why hotels and restaurants, but not spas? I’ll leave it to the politicians (and lobbyists) to argue about. Meanwhile, I look forward to receiving your comments while I set up my anti-zombie chicken wire barricade around the yard.
2020’s Tax Facts Offers a Complete Web, App-Based, and Print Experience
Reducing complicated tax questions to understandable answers that can be immediately put into real-life practice, Tax Facts works when and where you need it….on your desktop, at home on your laptop, and on the go through your tablet or smartphone. Questions? Contact customer service: TaxFactsHelp@alm.com| 800-543-0874
The Tax Court recently decided a case, Slaughter v. Comm’r (find all the citations in 1 Taxation of Intellectual Property § 1.06 (2019), involving annual royalty payments to an author wherein the IRS argued that instead of treating the payments as royalties that are not subject to self-employment and Medicare tax, the payments should be treated as net earnings from self-employment. The dispute that the Tax Court faced was whether there is a distinction, for self-employment tax purposes, between an author’s royalty income derived from her writing and any royalty income derived from her name and likeness. The author contends that one portion of her royalty payments is derived from her writing, which is a trade or business, and that another portion is derived, not from her writing, but rather solely from her name and likeness which are personal attributes which are not part of any trade or business. The IRS argued that the entire payments the author received from her publishing contracts were derived from her trade or business as an author, thus subject to self-employment tax.
To provide context to the dispute, Karin Slaughter is a bestselling crime author: over 35 million books sold in 37 languages. The Tax Court stated the following details of her publishing contract are standard in the publishing industry. Her contracting publishers receive more than just the right to print, publish, distribute, sell, and license the works and manuscripts written, or to be written. The publisher also secures the right to use the author’s name and likeness in advertising, promotion, and publicity for the contracted works. The author is required to provide photos and be available for promotional activities. The contracts include noncompete clauses that vary in scope, from requiring that the specified manuscript be completed before others, to prohibiting the author from entry into another contract until her writing obligations are met. Publishers also secure the right to advertise other works in the author’s books, qualified by the requirement that the author’s consent to the specific advertisements. Several of the contracts allow for, but do not require, a share of advertising proceeds to be paid to the author as a condition of her consent. Finally, the contracts include an exclusive option for the respective publisher to negotiate the contract for the author’s next works.
The author also receives more than just her advances and royalties. For instance, some contracts include a marketing guaranty requiring the publisher to spend a minimum amount on marketing for the author’s books. Although the publishers fund the marketing plan, the author’s agent retains the authority over its development. Another example is the author’s option to purchase the publisher’s plates at a reduced cost for any book that goes out of print and that the publisher refuses to reissue or license. In that instance, the rights in the work also revert to the author.
On her Federal income tax returns, the author deducted as a business expense the cost of leasing a vehicle to attend media interviews and promotional events. She also deducted the cost of hosting her own promotional events. For marketing purposes, many of her meetings were scheduled in New York City. While there, the author often attended meetings, conducted media interviews, and participated in publishing industry events such as trade shows. During the years in the issue she also met with a fellow writer to collaborate on a script for a possible television series. To facilitate her various activities, the petitioner rented an apartment in New York City and deducted the rent. Petitioner also deducted the cost of business gifts to agents, editors, publishers, and others.
The authors income grew eightfold due to her brand as an author. That brand is monetized by the author’s ability to attract and engage readers, speak in front of a crowd, and recommend other authors within her publishing house. Petitioner’s promotional activities and writing have created a very successful brand and body of work. In petitioner’s case, her brand includes her name and likeness as well as her reputation, goodwill, and existing readership. She maintains contact with her readership through social media, websites, and a newsletter.
The author’s advisors concluded that any amount paid to the author for the use of her name and likeness was “investment income,” i.e., payment for an intangible asset beyond that of her trade or business as an author. The author’s name is a brand. The author’s expert concluded that the actual writing of a manuscript is but a small percentage of the value a publisher seeks from an author. An author’s work may sell on the basis of the author’s name and readers’ expectations for a particular kind of story, rather than for the quality of the writing. Thus, the author contended that the amount paid for her writing is what a publisher would pay a nonbrand author, and the residual amount is a separate and distinct payment for her brand.
The Tax Court held that the author’s brand became part of her trade or business. The Tax Court focused on the following elements of her behavior. The author was engaged in developing her brand with continuity and regularity. The author set out in a businesslike fashion to obtain stationery, a reputable agent, and a publishing contract. The author worked with a media coach and publishers to develop a successful brand. She has spent time meeting with publishers, agents, media contacts, and others to protect and further her status as a brand author. She attended interviews and promotional events and works to develop and maintain good relationships with booksellers and librarians. The author uses social media, websites, and a newsletter to maintain her brand with her readership. The Tax Court noted that royalties earned from her brand are not solely a result of her publishers’ actions.
The Tax Court then turned the fact that the author deducted advertising costs, the cost of a car used, in part, to attend promotional activities around Atlanta, and gifts sent to her contacts in the publishing world. Such expenses, stated the Tax Court, demonstrate that petitioner’s trade or business extends beyond writing to its promotion. If the author takes such promotion and brand-related expenditures on her Schedule C trade or business expenses, then the income derived from the brand to which those expenses relate must also be trade or business income. The Tax Court found on behalf of the IRS.
The Tax Court stated that there was not a particular case on point regarding an author’s income from the business of writing and that attaching to royalties for the sales of an author’s books. The Tax Court distinguished other cases decided in favor of the taxpayer regarding athletes and image rights, albeit these cases arguably are applicable to Karen Slaughter’s situation. For example, in Garcia v. Comm’r, the issues were to what extent to which payments made to the taxpayer under the endorsement agreement were compensation for the performance of the taxpayer’s personal services and the extent to which the payments were royalties for the use of the taxpayer’s image rights. The Tax Court stated that
“Courts have repeatedly characterized payments for the right to use a person’s name and likeness as royalties because the person has an ownership interest in the right.”
The Court therein cited Goosen v. Comm’r that the characterization of a taxpayer’s endorsement fees and bonuses depends on whether the sponsors primarily paid for the taxpayer’s services, for the use of the taxpayer’s name and likeness, or for both. The court held that the payments made by the company were allocated 65 percent to royalties and 35 percent to personal services.
In Kramer v. Comm’r, the Tax Court found that royalties paid primarily for the grant of the exclusive right to use the taxpayer’s name to sell sports equipment, and only secondarily for the personal services rendered by taxpayer under the royalty contract. Herein the Tax Court concluded that commercial success for sales upon which the royalty income derives depended upon accompanying aggressive promotional activities. For Mr. Kramer, the Tax Court concluded that only the portion of the royalties that reflected compensation for the personal services constituted “earned income.” In Boulez v. Comm’r, the Tax Court said if a taxpayer has an ownership interest in the property whose licensing or sale gives rise to the income, then that income should be characterized as a royalty as opposed to personal service income. Therein the Tax Court cited the Fifth Circuit decision of Patterson v. Texas Co, wherein the Court of Appeals adopted the definition of a “royalty” as
“a share of the product or profit reserved by the owner for permitting another to use the property.”
The Slaughter case is ripe for appeal. The weight of jurisprudence perhaps rests on the author’s side regarding whether the royalties should be apportioned and that a portion derives from her brand rights that are not personal service income. Like for the tennis star Mr. Kramer, aggressive promotional activities are necessary to grow the sales of the product. There can be no brand, such as a trademark, without promotion of it. But the promotional activities are not the business of the author but rather those of the publishing company to sell books.
Yet, the weight of the facts perhaps rest on the side of the IRS. If the author’s accountants claimed the full amount of the expenses, such as for the New York apartment, on the author’s Schedule C as a trade or business expense, then correspondingly, as the Tax Court presents, income associated with those expenses is also Schedule C. It does not appear that the accountants undertook any diligence, by example not reading the contracts and not seeking any support records for the guestimate by the author of her time apportionment. It does not appear the accountants undertook any research and analysis other than to dismiss that any cases applied. It does not appear that the accountants undertook any planning research, or at least, the author rejected paying for such advice because it is common practice for authors, artists, and athletes of this income level to operate via a Sub S corporation or LLC. The pass-through business is a well-understood mechanism for mitigating Medicare tax, though with its own host of issues regarding compensation versus distributions.
For more analysis and coverage on this and other related issues, see William Byrnes’ treatise Taxation of Intellectual Property and Technology (2020 edition), a 1,000-page analytical treatise to the federal tax consequences of the development, purchase, sale and licensing of intellectual properties and intangibles. Primary author William Byrnes leads a team of America’s leading tax senior counsel to analyze tax risk challenges for business and investment decisions concerning intellectual property, technology, intangibles, and the digital economy.
Nine seats remain for the Spring (4 teams of 3 students each) to join the current 4 teams January 13 – April 20 semester for the TRANSFER PRICING course taught by Dr. Lorraine Eden, Prof. William Byrnes, and several industry experts. The courses count toward the INTERNATIONAL TAX online Master curriculum of Texas A&M for tax attorneys, accountants, and economists. Taught live twice weekly using Zoom involving teams working to design positions and solutions for real-world post-BEPS client studies each week, supported by originally authored materials, videos and audio casts, PPTs, and a robust online law & business database library. For more information, contact Texas A&M Admissions https://info.law.tamu.edu/international-tax
My commentary this week… (well, it will be for a debate in my Spring Fed Income Tax course actually)
Of course, it’s not a violation of 8th because not a penalty, albeit I appreciate the (losing) argument. Yet, at this stage, cross-aisle agree both federal and state, marijuana, at least at defined dosages, it is more like Valium on Schedule IV then Vicodin Schedule II. The Schedules allow for dosage amounts. Only ardent prohibitionists I think (I am no expert) want the Schedule I classification to remain. I am sure state leaders, the financial industry (because of the AML provisions of the BSA), the IRS, and the AG industry want it reduced to at least Schedule II but preferably Schedule IV where it belongs. Or break it up by THC levels into Sch II, III, and IV.
But I think that the DEA is the real problem. I do not understand why the DEA will not remove marijuana from the blacklist (Schedule I) unless the DEA needs it on Schedule I to maintain its significant funding for global marijuana crop eradication programs because govt agencies never shrink themselves by giving up jurisdiction or budget. But I do not believe that the FDA, HHS, et al who inform the DEA want to keep it at Schedule I. Read the DEA’s current policy regarding CBD and THC-Cannabis. The medical pharmacological evidence is building of the benefits for various ailments, see the 2017 National Institutes of Health meta analysis (Medicinal Cannabis: History, Pharmacology, And Implications for the Acute Care Setting). All pharma has side effects so the fact that some participants who ingested the THC Cannabis (“got high”) reported being dizzy is very mild (‘don’t operate heavy machinery or drive’ warning labels mandatory). Prolonged and heavy use of any pharma, any drug like caffeine (of which I have much experience, but not willing to kick the habit yet) and alcohol, is probably going to be harmful to very harmful to just out-right early death. I am not saying something new – everyone in the debate already knows all the arguments for and against. So it’s either the teetotaler lobby, the DEA not wanting to give up ‘the war against marijuana”, or a combination, keeping marijuana on Schedule I.
So lots of pressure on Treasury to fix two insurmountable issues to marijuana state-licensed businesses from being federally legit and compliant. The BSA problem for AML compliance (keeps this a cash business) and the IRC 280E problem (makes marijuana industry a federal tax evader or unprofitable because effective rates of taxation of state and federal are in many cases greater than 100% of net income). And Treasury wants to fix it. But its hands are technically tied because the DEA will not delist marijuana from Schedule I. That forces 280E and AML rules to kick in. I’d be happy for Treasury to ignore the law but it’s too dangerous for Treasury or any agency to pick and choose what laws to adhere to. Of course, the discretion of enforcement is a totally different issue.
The AML issue Treasury issued, albeit the former prohibitionist AG basically said DOJ is not playing ball, a soft guidance explaining to banks how to distinguish good and bad marijuana dollars (the Marijuana SAR guidance). (See marijuana SAR results for 2018) For 280E though, Treasury would need to tell the IRS to ignore 280E marijuana stated licensed businesses fraudulent filed returns to circumvent the prohibition of deductions. It would be really hard to administer the audits.
If Treasury cannot do it, but wants to do it, that leaves the Tax Court. The Tax Court judges have over the past two years have concluded that marijuana should be removed from Schedule I so that 280E is not an issue. In this case, once again the conclusion is:
“Congress, rather than this Court, is the proper body to redress petitioner’s grievances. We are constrained by the law, and Congress has not carved out an exception in section 280E for businesses that operate lawfully under State law.”
It’s only doing so because the IRS Counsel (must I think) express this in arguments to the Court, begging the Court for a way out of this mess. So the Tax Court has written that Congress or an agency needs to fix the problem. It hasn’t been fixed. And then this case where a powerful voice on the Tax Court said to the DEA and Congress: ‘do not force us to rectify the problem because you are not going to like the theoretical hoop we must jump through to do it.’
So, the theoretical argument that could gain some traction about the denial of all deductions by 280E is that it imposes the tax rate (say 37%) on revenue which may violate the intention of the 16th Amendment. This is what Gustafon is musing about at page 23. I agree.
At page 26 the point is driven home (pun coming..):
“Very different would be an attempt by Congress to tax gross proceeds from the sale of a capital asset, without allowing a taxpayer to account for his “basis” in the property in calculating his taxable gain.”
So imagine Congress imposes the ordinary tax rate on the sale price of an individual taxpayer’s sale of the home. Say 37% on $500,000. Taxpayer not allowed the basis reduction of the acquisition cost of $450,000 three years ago. TP owes $185,000 tax (and also the additional 3.8% Net Investment Income Tax), on the $50,000 – expenses of the transaction gain. Of course, this is absurd because property requires financing and the remaining would be less than any mortgage secured loan. Same scenario but now shares in Apple bought at $220 last year by our home owing taxpayer and 13 months later sold for $250. Economic collapse. TP rebellion. Not a pretty civil scenario.
Well, 280E does not deny deductions for the cost of goods (of the narcotics like marijuana or heroin – I do not think marijuana should be a black-listed scheduled narcotic). But why not? Because, simply put, an ‘income’ tax on business ‘income’ should be imposed on the ‘income’ and not on the revenue which is not a business’ income. A tax imposed on a business revenue is something other than an ‘income tax’. Excise tax maybe, but not an income tax. See Judge Gustafson explain this at page 26-27.
“Likewise, a congressional attempt to tax the gross receipts of a business engaged in sales should fail. A taxpayer who purchased 100 widgets at a cost of $10 each and sold them at a price of $9 each would have gross receipts or sales of $900, which after being reduced by the “cost of goods sold” (“COGS”) of $1,000 (analogous to basis in the Blackacre example) would yield a loss of $100. Given that obvious loss, Congress could not tax the gross receipts of $900 as if it were “income”. Rather, as the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has explained: “To ensure taxation of income rather than sales, the ‘cost of goods sold’ is a mandatory exclusion from the calculation of a taxpayer’s gross income.””
Can Congress levy a tax on revenue under the 16th? We know the answer is no because that is why COG is allowed to be above the line to derive an income, and then 280E applies. Well settled. See page 27.
“The taxation of “income” must take account of the “basis” in a capital asset and of the COGS of inventory–not merely as an exercise of “legislative grace” but as mandatory under the Sixteenth Amendment of the Constitution.”
So some expenses are allowed being COG, and other, operating expenses, not allowed. Already 280E is in a quagmire of discriminating between good and bad expenses to fit into the 16th. Thus, the Tax Court could force a bushel of marijuana through a 280E keyhole using the pressure of the 16th Amend if it must to deal with this situation. Gustafson’s push through the keyhole is the second part of his sentence highlighted below at page 29.
“Congress taxes something other than a taxpayer’s “income” when it taxes gross receipts without accounting for basis or COGS--and, I would hold, when it taxes gross receipts without accounting for the ordinary and necessary expenses that are incurred in the course of business and must be paid before one can be said to have gain.”
The argument requires stretching the keyhole with a lot of 16th Amend pressure (though I personally quite like the 16th argument) and Appellate Circuits may want to keep the keyhole rather small and deflate that pressure. But I think that the 1st, 9th, and 10th judges have to live in states where education or other government funding is significantly helped by the state-legal licensed marijuana industry. Judges look at neighbor farmers who cannot sell to China about to go belly up with their grains and soybean – where marijuana can save the farm. I have no litigation or controversy experience but I imagine some Appellate judges know these situations from reading or table talk.
So if the stretch of the 280E keyhole is not totally implausible by using the 16th Amend, a panel may just agree to send a message like the Tax Court to the DEA and failing that, Congress. Anyway, the Supremes can sort out the ramifications of using the 16th to stretch the 280E keyhole. And by that time, maybe the DEA did what the public pressure wants it to do, and is the right thing to do based on medical evidence being generated, move marijuana, based on amount of THC, to the relevant schedules of II through IV.
Anyway, my take on this case. Look forward to our Spring debate.
2019’s Tax Facts Offers a Complete Web, App-Based, and Print Experience
Reducing complicated tax questions to understandable answers that can be immediately put into real-life practice, Tax Facts works when and where you need it….on your desktop, at home on your laptop, and on the go through your tablet or smartphone. Questions? Contact customer service: TaxFactsHelp@alm.com| 800-543-0874
Texas A&M University School of Law has launched its International Tax online curriculum for graduate degree candidates. Admissions is open for Spring (January) semester for the transfer pricing courses. Texas A&M University is a public university of the state of Texas and is ranked 1st among public universities for its superior education at an affordable cost (Fiske, 2018) and ranked 1st of Texas public universities for best value (Money, 2018).
IRS Releases Guidance on Failure to Cash Distribution Checks
The IRS has released guidance providing that when a check for a fully taxable distribution from a qualified plan is mailed to a plan participant, but not cashed, it is considered to have been “actually distributed” from the plan and is taxable to the participant in the year of distribution. Further, the failure to cash the check did not change the plan administrator’s withholding obligations with respect to the distribution and did not change the obligation to report the distribution on Form 1099-R (assuming the distribution exceeds the applicable reporting threshold). Despite these findings, the IRS was careful to note that it continues to consider the issue of uncashed distribution checks in situations involving missing participants. For more information on the withholding requirements that may apply to qualified plan distributions, visit TaxFacts Online. Read More
December 31 Opportunity Zone Deadline Fast Approaching
Investors who are considering an opportunity zone investment should be advised that now is the time to take advantage of the new rules in order to maximize the potential for deferral. December 31, 2019 is the final day that investors can elect to roll their gains into opportunity zone funds in order to obtain the full 15% reduction in the amount of the deferred gain. Generally, taxpayers can defer capital gains tax by rolling gains into a qualified opportunity fund (gains may be deferred until December 31, 2026). If the investment is held for at least seven years, the taxpayer will receive a 15% reduction in the amount of the deferred gain (so that the funds are invested for a full seven years). In turn, the fund has 180 days to acquire qualified property once the taxpayer invests the gain. Because gain on the sale of Section 1231 property is not determined until year-end, taxpayers wishing to roll over Section 1231 gain should be advised to track 1231 sales carefully to determine whether such sales will result in gain (treated as long-term capital gain) or loss (treated as ordinary loss). For more information on the opportunity zone rules, visit TaxFacts Online. Read More
IRS Extends Nondiscrimination Relief for Closed Defined Benefit Plans
Many employers who have closed defined benefit plans to new participants have continued to allow groups of “grandfathered” employees to earn benefits under the closed defined benefit plans. Because of this, many of these plans have had difficulties meeting the applicable nondiscrimination requirements as more of these grandfathered employees become “highly compensated” over time. Proposed regulations published in 2016 contain special rules to make it easier for these plans to satisfy the nondiscrimination requirements and Notice 2014-5 was released to provide temporary relief if certain conditions are satisfied. The proposed regulations modify the rules applicable to defined benefit replacement allocations (DBRAs) that allow some allocations to be disregarded when determining whether a defined contribution plan has a broadly available allocation rate in order to allow more allocations to satisfy the rules. Further, the regulations provide a special nondiscrimination testing rule that can apply if a benefit or plan feature is only made available to grandfathered employees in a closed plan. In anticipation of the finalization of these regulations, Notice 2019-49 expands the nondiscrimination relief to plan years beginning before 2021, so long as the conditions in Notice 2014-5 are satisfied. For more information the nondiscrimination rules, visit TaxFacts Online. Read More
I have received several requests this month about my initial thoughts on the EU Commission’s 56-page published (public version available here) State Aid preliminary decision with the reasoning that The Netherlands government provided Nike an anti-competitive subsidy via the tax system. My paraphrasing of the following EU Commission statement [para. 87] sums up the situation:
The Netherlands operational companies are remunerated with a low, but stable level of profit based on a limited margin on their total revenues reflecting those companies’ allegedly “routine” distribution functions. The residual profit generated by those companies in excess of that level of profit is then entirely allocated to Nike Bermuda as an alleged arm’s length royalty in return for the license of the Nike brands and other related IP”
The question that comes to my mind is: “Would I pay $100 for a canvas sneaker designed the 20’s that I know is $12 to manufacture, distribute, and have enough markup for the discount shoe store to provide it shelf space?” My answer is: “Yes, I own two pair of Converse’s Chuck Taylor All Stars.” So why did I spend much more than I know them to be worth (albeit, I wait until heavily discounted and then only on clearance). From a global value chain perspective: “To which Nike function and unit does the residual value for the ‘cool kids’ retro branding of All Stars belong?”
U.S. international tax professionals operating in the nineties know that The Netherlands is a royalty conduit intermediary country because of its good tax treaty system and favorable domestic tax system, with the intangible profits deposited to take advantage of the U.S. tax deferral regime that existed until the TCJA of 2017 (via the Bermuda IP company). Nike U.S., but for the deferral regime, could have done all this directly from its U.S. operations to each country that Nike operates in. No other country could object, pre-BEPs, because profit split and marketing intangibles were not pushed by governments during transfer pricing audits.
The substantial value of Nike (that from which its profits derive) is neither the routine services provided by The Netherlands nor local wholesalers/distributors. The value is the intangible brand created via R&D and marketing/promotion. That brand allows a $10 – $20 retail price sneaker to sell retail for $90 – $200, depending on the country. Converse All-Stars case in point. Same $10 shoe as when I was growing up now sold for $50 – $60 because Converse branded All-Stars as cool kid retro fashion.
Nike has centralized, for purposes of U.S. tax deferral leveraging a good tax treaty network, the revenue flows through NL. The royalty agreement looks non-traditional because instead of a fixed price (e.g. 8%), it sweeps the NL profit account of everything but for the routine rate of return for the grouping of operational services mentioned in the State Aid opinion. If Nike was an actual Dutch public company, or German (like Addidas), or French – then Nike would have a similar result from its home country base because of the way its tax system allows exemption from tax for the operational foreign-sourced income of branches. [Having worked back in the mid-nineties on similar type companies that were European, this is what I recall but I will need to research to determine if this has been the case since the nineties.]
I suspect that when I research this issue above that the NL operations will have been compensated within an allowable range based on all other similar situated 3rd parties. I could examine this service by service but that would require much more information and data analysis about the services, and lead to a lesser required margin by Nike. The NL functions include [para 33]: “…regional headquarter functions, such as marketing, management, sales management (ordering and warehousing), establishing product pricing and discount policies, adapting designs to local market needs, and distribution activities, as well as bearing the inventory risk, marketing risk and other business risks.”
By example, the EU Commission states in its initial Nike news announcement:
Nike European Operations Netherlands BV and Converse Netherlands BV have more than 1,000 employees and are involved in the development, management and exploitation of the intellectual property. For example, Nike European Operations Netherlands BV actively advertises and promotes Nike products in the EMEA region, and bears its own costs for the associated marketing and sales activities.
Nike’s internal Advertising, Marketing, and Promotion (AMP) services can be benchmarked to its 3rd party AMP providers. But by no means do the local NL AMP services rise to the level of Nike’s chief AMP partner (and arguably a central key to its brand build) Wieden + Kennedy (renown for creating many industry branding campaigns but perhaps most famously for Nike’s “Just Do it” – inspired by the last words of death row inmate Gary Gilmore before his execution by firing squad).
There is some value that should be allocated for the headquarters management of the combination of services on top of the service by service approach. Plenty of competing retail industry distributors to examine though. If by example the profit margin range was a low of 2% to a high of 8% for the margin return for the combination of services, then Nike based on the EU Commission’s public information falls within that range, being around 5%.
The Commission contends that Nike designed its transfer pricing study to achieve a result to justify the residual sweep to its Bermuda deferral subsidiary. The EU Commission states an interesting piece of evidence that may support its decision [at para 89]: “To the contrary, those documents indicate that comparable uncontrolled transactions may have existed as a result of which the arm’s length level of the royalty payment would have been lower…”. If it is correct that 3rd party royalty agreements for major brand overly compensate local distributors, by example provide 15% or 20% profit margin for local operations, then Nike must also. [I just made these numbers up to illustrate the issue]
All the services seem, on the face of the EU Commission’s public document, routine to me but for “adapting designs to local market needs”. That, I think, goes directly to product design which falls under the R&D and Branding. There are 3rd parties that do exactly this service so it can be benchmarked, but its value I suspect is higher than by example ‘inventory risk management’. We do not know from the EU document whether this ‘adapting product designs to local market’ service was consistent with a team of product engineers and market specialists, or was it merely occasional and outsourced. The EU Commission wants, like with Starbucks, Nike to use a profit split method. “…a transfer pricing arrangement based on the Profit Split Method would have been more appropriate to price…”. Finally, the EU Commission asserts [para. 90]: “…even if the TNMM was the most appropriate transfer pricing method…. Had a profit level indicator been chosen that properly reflected the functional analysis of NEON and CN BV, that would have led to a lower royalty payment…”.
But for the potential product design issue, recognizing I have not yet researched this issue yet, based on what I know about the fashion industry, seems rather implausible to me that a major brand would give up part of its brand residual to a 3rd party local distributor. In essence, that would be like the parent company of a well-established fashion brand stating “Let me split the brand’s value with you for local distribution, even though you have not borne any inputs of creating the value”. Perhaps at the onset of a startup trying to create and build a brand? But not Nike in the 1990s. I think that the words of the dissenting Judge in Altera (9th Cir June 2019) are appropriate:
An ‘arm’s length result is not simply any result that maximizes one’s tax obligations’.
The EU Commission obviously does not like the Bermuda IP holding subsidiary arrangement that the U.S. tax deferral regime allows (the same issue of its Starbucks state aid attack), but that does not take away from the reality that legally and economically, Bermuda for purposes of the NL companies owns the Nike brand and its associated IP. The new U.S. GILTI regime combined with the FDII export incentive regime addresses the Bermuda structure, making it much somewhat less comparably attractive to operating directly from the U.S. (albeit still produces some tax arbitrage benefit). Perhaps the U.S. tax regime if it survives, in combination with the need for the protection of the IRS Competent Authority for foreign transfer pricing adjustments will lead to fewer Bermuda IP holding subsidiaries and more Delaware ones.
My inevitable problem with the Starbucks and Nike (U.S. IP deferral structures) state aid cases is that looking backward, even if the EU Commission is correct, it is a de minimis amount (the EU Commission already alleged a de minimis amount for Starbucks but the actual amount will be even less if any amount at all). Post-BEPS, the concept and understanding of marketing intangibles including brands is changing, as well as allowable corporate fiscal operational structures based on look-through (GILTI type) regimes. More effective in the long term for these type of U.S. IP deferral structures is for the EU Commission is to spend its compliance resources on a go-forward basis from 2015 BEPS to assist the restructuring of corporations and renegotiation of APAs, BAPAs, Multilateral PAs to fit in the new BEPS reality. These two cases seem more about an EU – U.S. tax policy dispute than the actual underlying facts of the cases. And if as I suspect that EU companies pre-BEPS had the same outcome based on domestic tax policy foreign source income exemptions, then the EU Commission’s tax policy dispute would appear two-faced.
Want to help me in this research or have great analytical content for my transfer pricing treatise published by LexisNexis? Reach out on profbyrnes@gmail.com
2019’s Tax Facts Offers a Complete Web, App-Based, and Print Experience
Reducing complicated tax questions to understandable answers that can be immediately put into real-life practice, Tax Facts works when and where you need it….on your desktop, at home on your laptop, and on the go through your tablet or smartphone. Questions? Contact customer service: TaxFactsHelp@alm.com| 800-543-0874
William H. Byrnes, J.D., LL.M. and Robert Bloink, J.D., LL.M.
Words of Caution for Non-spouse Beneficiaries of Inherited IRAs
Generally, non-spouse beneficiaries are required to take distributions from the account either under the five-year rule (i.e., exhaust the funds within five years of inheriting them) or based on that beneficiary’s life expectancy. However, what many beneficiaries fail to understand is that when they take a distribution, that distribution will be taxable, cannot be undone by rolling the amount into another IRA and can cause the IRA to forfeit its stretch treatment. Non-spouse beneficiaries should be advised that their only opportunity with respect to rollover of an inherited IRA is to transfer the account (as an inherited account) to a new IRA custodian via a direct trustee-to-trustee transfer. For more information on inherited IRAs, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More
District Court Finds Retiree Not Entitled to Change Election Regarding Pension Distribution Form
A district court recently ruled that a pension plan did not abuse its discretion by denying the request of a participant in pay status to change her election from a monthly annuity payout to a lump sum payment. In this case, the pension had opened a window whereby retirees could elect to switch from receiving an annuity to the lump sum option. The option also allowed the participant to revoke the change by a certain set date, and revert back to the annuity. Here, the retiree and her son, who had power of attorney, took the lump sum option but later revoked it to revert back to the annuity. Later, when the retiree was diagnosed with a neurological disease, they attempted to revoke the revocation to receive the lump sum. The court held that there was no abuse of discretion in the pension’s denial of that request because the window for electing the lump sum had closed. The impact of the neurological disease was irrelevant because the son who made the initial requests had power of attorney to speak on the participant’s behalf. For more information on what to consider when facing a lump sum option, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More
Updated IRS FAQ Confirms Section 1231 Gains Invested in Qualified Opportunity Funds in 2018 are Qualifying Investments
The second round of proposed regulations regarding qualified opportunity zone fund (QOF) investments generated questions as to the treatment of Section 1231 gains that had been invested in a QOF. Section 1231 capital gain treatment generally applies to depreciable property and real property used in a business (but not land held as investment property). Under the proposed regulations, Section 1231 capital gains are only permissible QOF investments to the extent of the 1231 capital gain amount, if the investment is made within 180 days of the last day of the tax year. IRS released FAQ to provide relief for the 2018 tax year, so that investment in the QOF and deferral will be available for the gross amount of Section 1231 gain realized during the 2018 tax year if the investment was made within 180 days of the sale date, rather than the last day of the tax year (assuming that the taxpayer’s tax year ended before May 1, 2019, when the regulations were released). For more information on opportunity zones, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More
2019’s Tax Facts Offers a Complete Web, App-Based, and Print Experience
Reducing complicated tax questions to understandable answers that can be immediately put into real-life practice, Tax Facts works when and where you need it….on your desktop, at home on your laptop, and on the go through your tablet or smartphone. Questions? Contact customer service: TaxFactsHelp@alm.com| 800-543-0874
Family Attribution Rules Do Not Impair Deductibility of S Corporation Employee Health Insurance
The IRS released a CCM providing that an S corporation employee who was considered a 2-percent shareholder via the family attribution rules was entitled to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums paid by the S corporation and included in the employee’s income. Here, the S corporation paid the premium costs and included those amounts in the individual’s income, who was, in turn, entitled to the deduction. For more information on the tax treatment of S corporation health insurance, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More
IRS Rules Loan Availability Does Not Jeopardize Employee Stock Purchase Plan Qualification
The IRS released a PLR providing that a plan participant’s eligibility to obtain a loan from the employer (or a third party) to purchase shares under an employee stock purchase plan does not jeopardize the plan’s qualification under IRC Section 423(b). In this case, loan availability was premised on the fact that the loan could not violate the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, meaning that some participants may have been rendered ineligible to take out a loan to purchase employee shares through the plan. This PLR indicates the IRS’ view that provisions allowing purchase of shares via loans do not prevent qualification even if some employees are ineligible. For more information on the ownership of employer stock in an employer-sponsored plan, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More
Received a 226J Letter? Here’s How to Respond
Employers have recently begun receiving 226J letters detailing employer mandate compliance issues from the IRS with respect to the 2016 tax year. Importantly, employers must remember that the employer mandate continues in effect despite the repeal of the individual mandate and despite pending challenges to the ACA itself. An employer may receive a 226J letter with respect to two types of failures: failure to offer minimum essential coverage to at least 95% of full-time employees or failure to: (1) offer coverage to the employee, (2) provide affordable coverage or (3) offer coverage that satisfied minimum value requirements, in all cases if the FTE received a tax credit. Letter 226J should contain a deadline for a response, usually 30 days after the letter was issued (employers may request a 30-day extension). It is important to get expert advice when drafting the response, but issues to consider include whether the IRS was using the correct data (i.e., was a corrected Form 1094 filed with the IRS in 2016?), whether the plan was a calendar year plan (transition relief may apply) and whether the employer did, in fact, offer minimum coverage during each month. For more information on the employer mandate, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More
LL.M. or M.Jur. Curriculum in Wealth Management at Texas A&M Law
Our Wealth Management program gives you the knowledge and skills you need to advise wealthy clients and help manage their assets. Because wealth management involves professionals with various backgrounds, we’ve designed the program with both lawyers and non-lawyers in mind. This program is offered completely online, which gives professionals the flexibility they need to learn and to meet the increasing need of being versed in the legal aspects of financial transactions and in the legal aspects of financial investment and portfolio management. Contact us to learn more
2019’s Tax Facts Offers a Complete Web, App-Based, and Print Experience
William Byrnes and Robert Bloink reduce complicated tax questions to understandable client answers that can be immediately put into real-life practice, Tax Facts works when and where you need it….on your desktop, at home on your laptop, and on the go through your tablet or smartphone. Questions? Contact customer service: TaxFactsHelp@alm.com| 800-543-0874
IRS Releases FAQ on Section 199A Shedding Light on Impact of S Corporation Health Insurance Deductions
The IRS has released a set of FAQs based upon the regulations governing the new Section 199A deduction for pass-through entities, such as S corporations. One potentially overlooked issue in the S corporation context is the impact of health insurance premium payments on QBI. The FAQ provides that health insurance premiums paid by the S corporation for a greater-than-2-percent shareholder reduce QBI at the entity level (by reducing the ordinary income used to calculate QBI). Similarly, when a self-employed individual takes a deduction for health insurance attributable to the trade or business, this will be a deduction in determining QBI and can reduce QBI at the entity and individual levels. For more information on the treatment of health insurance premiums in the S corporation context, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More
Post-Reform Life Insurance Reporting Regs Provide Relief for Certain Contacts Acquired in Business Combinations
The proposed regulations governing the new life insurance reporting requirements created by the 2017 tax reform legislation (which do not become effective until finalized) would exclude from the new rules situations where one entity acquires a C corporation that owns life insurance contracts, so long as the life insurance contracts do not represent more than half of the corporation’s assets. Generally, the new rule created by tax reform would make cause certain life insurance contracts to lose their tax-preferred status if transferred in a reportable policy sale (and most business combinations would qualify as such). Under the proposed rules, however, the pre-tax reform exceptions to the transfer for value rule could apply when a C corporation is acquired. For more information on the future reporting requirements that will apply, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More
Missed the April 15 Tax Filing Deadline? Tips for Obtaining an Extension After the Fact
With the 2018 tax filing deadline behind us, many taxpayers who were unable to complete their returns may be wondering what steps to take to file those returns after the deadline has expired. Most taxpayers can easily request an extension through October 15 by using Form 4868 (available at irs.gov) to request the extension. The form will require that the client provide his or her estimated tax liability–remembering that the filing extension only extends the time for filing a return, so that the client’s 2018 tax payment was still due April 15. If the client was impacted by certain recent disasters, including the California wildfires, severe storms in Alabama, and storms and flooding in Nebraska or Iowa, have automatically been granted various extensions, so are not required to complete the paperwork necessary to obtain the extension. For more information on federal income tax filing requirements, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More
Tax Reform Impact on Performance Goal Certification Requirements in Executive Compensation Context
Prior to tax reform, companies were afforded special treatment for certain compensation in excess of the $1 million limit so long as the compensation was based on performance goals certified by the company’s compensation committee. Tax reform eliminated that exception so that companies cannot deduct this excess compensation even if it is performance based–therefore, there is no tangible benefit to having a compensation committee certify that those goals were met in many cases. Despite this, in order to qualify under tax reform’s grandfathering provisions, performance-based compensation must continue to satisfy all of the standards that existed prior to the reform, so many companies may wish to continue their certification practice if they otherwise qualify for grandfathering treatment. For more information on the post-reform rules governing the deduction for executive compensation and the grandfathering rules, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More
2019 Tax Season Preview: Now is the Time to Check Withholding
As we near the end of the 2018 tax season, many clients may have been disappointed by the amount of their refunds or even unexpectedly owed taxes because of the changes brought about by the 2017 tax reform legislation. Many of these surprises were caused by the new withholding tables developed by the IRS because the personal exemption was suspended from 2018-2025. Because of this, taxpayers should be advised to check their withholding now even though it may seem early in order to make any adjustments necessary to avoid unpleasant tax surprises next year. Taxpayers are entitled to have their employers withhold more or less depending upon their personal preferences, and the IRS website provides a calculator designed to help taxpayers anticipate how their withholding choices will impact their refund next year. For more information on the federal tax rules that apply this year post-reform, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More
IRS Provides Last-Minute Penalty Relief for Taxpayers Who Underpaid in 2018
The IRS released last minute penalty relief for certain taxpayers whose tax withholding or estimated tax payments were insufficient in 2018. Usually, a penalty will apply if the taxpayer did not pay at least 90 percent of his or her tax liability for the year. For the 2018 tax year only, the IRS lowered the threshold to 80 percent to account for the significant changes made to the tax code late in 2017. Under previous guidance released in January, the relief was to apply for taxpayers who paid at least 85 percent of their total tax liability. This relief applies both to taxpayers who paid through employer withholding and those who paid quarterly estimated payments (or any combination). If the taxpayer qualifies for this relief but has already filed a return, the taxpayer can request a refund using Form 843, which must be filed in paper format. For more information on the underpayment penalty, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More
Tax Facts Team
Molly Miller Publisher
William H. Byrnes, J.D., LL.M Tax Facts Author
Jason Gilbert, J.D. Senior Editor
Robert Bloink, J.D., LL.M. Tax Facts Author
Connie L. Jump Senior Manager, Editorial Operations
Alexis Long, J.D. Senior Contributor
Patti O’Leary Senior Editorial Assistant
Danielle Birdsail Digital Marketing Manager
Emily Brunner Editorial Assistant
2019’s Tax Facts Offers a Complete Web, App-Based, and Print Experience
Reducing complicated tax questions to understandable answers that can be immediately put into real-life practice, Tax Facts works when and where you need it….on your desktop, at home on your laptop, and on the go through your tablet or smartphone. Questions? Contact customer service: TaxFactsHelp@alm.com| 800-543-0874
IRS Explains Impact of SALT Cap on Taxpayers Receiving State and Local Tax Refunds
The IRS has provided guidance explaining the relevance of the “tax benefit rule” for taxpayers who receive a refund of state and local taxes in years when the post-reform limit on deducting state and local taxes (the “SALT cap”) is in effect. For more information on the impact of the SALT cap, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More
Federal Court Invalidates DOL Rules Expanding Association Health Plans
A Washington, D.C. federal court struck down the final regulations released by the DOL in effort to expand the availability of association health plans for various smaller employers and owner-employees, which would have given these groups access to less expensive plans that offered fewer benefits and did not satisfy ACA requirements. The fate of the actual expansion of association health plans remains unclear, however, as the DOL has indicated it will explore all available options and continue to work toward expanding access. For more information on the tax rules for self-employed business owners’ health coverage, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More
Employer Stock & 401(k) Plans: The Bad, the Ugly…and the Potentially Good?
In recent years, many employers have begun shying away from offering employer stock to employees as 401(k) investments. Fiduciary liability concerns and lack of diversification, especially amid dramatic decreases in value in some cases, have made the strategy risky for some companies. However, this does not mean that any client who currently holds employer stock in a 401(k) should immediately liquidate all employer stock. Clients should first be advised that the potential to take advantage of a net unrealized appreciation (NUA) strategy could provide a more valuable way to sell off employer stock. For more information on the NUA strategy, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More
Tax Facts Team
Molly Miller Publisher
William H. Byrnes, J.D., LL.M Tax Facts Author
Jason Gilbert, J.D. Senior Editor
Robert Bloink, J.D., LL.M. Tax Facts Author
Connie L. Jump Senior Manager, Editorial Operations
Alexis Long, J.D. Senior Contributor
Patti O’Leary Senior Editorial Assistant
Danielle Birdsail Digital Marketing Manager
Emily Brunner Editorial Assistant
For questions, contact Customer Service at 1-800-543-0874.
2019’s Tax Facts Offers a Complete Web, App-Based, and Print Experience
Reducing complicated tax questions to understandable answers that can be immediately put into real-life practice, Tax Facts works when and where you need it….on your desktop, at home on your laptop, and on the go through your tablet or smartphone. Questions? Contact customer service: TaxFactsHelp@alm.com| 800-543-0874
EDITOR’S NOTE FOR ONLINE SUBSCRIBERS
You will notice a new orange banner appearing at the top of your screen called “Latest Developments”. In this section we are offering new features, and we will introduce other features later in the year….
· Tax Facts Intelligence Weekly – current as well as archive weekly newsletters you receive by email as another way to access our latest developments.
· Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down – a debate each week between Robert Bloink and myself (William Byrnes) whereby we take opposing viewpoints on tax policy and argue our opinions. Find out if you agree or disagree and, eventually, you will be able to vote on whose side you are on for that week.
· Featured Articles – a weekly article with archives written by Robert Bloink and myself, thought leaders in finding customer needs for new products and how to make new practice tools work with your clients, perhaps in ways you may not have thought about.
· Recent Updates – as you may know, our digital version of Tax Facts is updated weekly and not annually like our print version of Tax Facts. You can now see any significant changes made to a Tax Facts question that week as it will appear in the “Latest Developments” section, so you are aware of changes. These changes can even be delivered to your smartphone should you choose.
We are looking for another big year providing lots of value-added commentary and analysis. I am always interested in your feedback so feel free to email me at williambyrnes@gmail.com.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently confirmed that life insurance agents were properly classified as independent contractors, rather than employees. The case involved eligibility for benefits under ERISA, and a district court, using the traditional Darden factors for determining classification status, had ruled in 2017 that the agents were employees who were eligible for ERISA benefits. For more information on insurance agents and employment classification issues, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More
Renewed Importance of Checking “Compensation” Definition in Retirement Plans Post-Tax Reform
The definition of “compensation” is important for many reasons in the retirement planning arena, but has gained new importance in light of suspended deductions and exclusions post-tax reform. Retirement plans generally must use the IRC’s definition of compensation for nondiscrimination testing purposes, which includes, for example, nondeductible moving expenses (but excludes deductible moving expenses). Post-reform, however, all moving expenses are nondeductible. Despite this, the moving expense deduction was only suspended, not eliminated. This is one example of how tax reform has created a level of uncertainty regarding the appropriate definition of compensation while all tax reform provisions remain (at least temporarily) in effect. For more information on the definition of compensation for qualified plan purposes, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More
Grandfathered Health Plan Status: Still Important for Employers
In the years that have passed since the ACA became effective, many employers may have forgotten the importance of maintaining the grandfathered status of their health insurance plans. Grandfathered health plans remain exempt from many of the ACA market reform provisions and help employers avoid some of the more difficult compliance issues presented by the ACA. To maintain grandfathered status, employers should be sure to maintain proper documentation of the plan coverage extending from March 23, 2010 to the present. If and when the plan enters a new policy or contract, it should provide the health insurance company with documents governing the plan terms to make sure the change will not cause loss of grandfathered status. Adding new employees or new contributing employers will not impact the grandfathered status of the plan, so long as the principal purpose of any restructuring of the business was not to cover additional people under a grandfathered plan. Amendments to the plan that eliminate certain benefits can cause loss of grandfathered status, as can increases in certain cost-sharing requirements and copayments. For more information on grandfathered health plans, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More
2019’s Tax Facts Offers a Complete Web, App-Based, and Print Experience
Reducing complicated tax questions to understandable answers that can be immediately put into real-life practice, Tax Facts works when and where you need it….on your desktop, at home on your laptop, and on the go through your tablet or smartphone. Questions? Contact customer service: TaxFactsHelp@alm.com| 800-543-0874
EDITOR’S NOTE FOR ONLINE SUBSCRIBERS You will notice a new orange banner appearing at the top of your TaxFacts & App screen called “Latest Developments”. In this section we are offering new features, and we will introduce other features later in the year….
· Tax Facts Intelligence Weekly – current as well as archive weekly newsletters you receive by email as another way to access our latest developments.
· Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down – a debate each week between Robert Bloink and myself (William Byrnes) whereby we take opposing viewpoints on tax policy and argue our opinions. Find out if you agree or disagree and, eventually, you will be able to vote on whose side you are on for that week.
· Featured Articles – a weekly article with archives written by Robert Bloink and myself, thought leaders in finding customer needs for new products and how to make new practice tools work with your clients, perhaps in ways you may not have thought about.
· Recent Updates – as you may know, our digital version of Tax Facts is updated weekly and not annually like our print version of Tax Facts. You can now see any significant changes made to a Tax Facts question that week as it will appear in the “Latest Developments” section, so you are aware of changes. These changes can even be delivered to your smartphone should you choose.
We are looking for another big year providing value-added commentary and analysis. I am always interested in your feedback and “practitioner note” submissions so feel free to email me at williambyrnes@gmail.com.
IRS Releases New Safe Harbor for Depreciating Passenger Autos Under Tax Reform
Post-reform, taxpayers are generally entitled to an additional depreciation deduction for qualified property, including passenger automobiles, if that property was placed in service after September 27, 2017 (and before 2027). If the passenger auto qualifies for 100% depreciation deduction in year one, the tax legislation increased the first-year limitation by $8,000. Assuming the depreciable basis is less than the first year limitation, the additional amount is deductible in the first tax year after the end of the recovery period. Under the safe harbor, however, the taxpayer can take the depreciation deductible for the excess amounts during the recovery period up to the limits applicable to passenger autos during this time frame. The IRS will publish a depreciation table in Appendix A of Publication 946, which taxpayers must use to apply the safe harbor. The safe harbor only applies to passenger autos placed into service before 2023, and does not apply if (1) the taxpayer elected out of 100% first year depreciation or (2) elected to expense the automobile under Section 179. For more information on the rules that apply in determining the depreciation deduction for passenger automobiles, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More
PBGC Proposes Regulations to Simplify Calculating Withdrawal Liability Under the Multi-Employer Pension Reform Act
PBGC recently released a set of proposed regulations to amend the rules on calculating withdrawal liability and annual withdrawal liability payments when an employer withdraws from a multi-employer pension plan. Under the regulations, in calculating withdrawal liability, plan sponsors must disregard benefit suspensions for the ten plan years following the plan year in which the suspension of benefits became effective, and include the suspended benefits when determining the plans unvested benefit liability (UVBs) during that period. The proposed regulations would also require plan sponsors to disregard surcharges when determining how to allocate UVBs to a withdrawing employer, as well as certain increases in contribution rates. The regulations provide detailed guidance on how each element necessary to calculate a withdrawing employer’s liability could be calculated. For more information on benefit reductions under the MPRA, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More
Court Clarifies When Disabled Employees May be Entitled to Disability Benefits
A district court recently clarified that an employee’s request for reasonable accommodations for a disability does not necessarily mean that the employee will also qualify for benefits under a short-term disability plan. In this case, the employee provided evidence from his doctor that stated he was unable to drive in traffic, but the employer’s plan required that he be unable to perform essential duties of his job in order to qualify for disability benefits. The employer denied the claim for benefits because the employee’s job did not involve driving, although he was entitled to work from home so that he could avoid driving into an office (the “reasonable accommodation” in this case). The court agreed with the employer that the employee’s ability to perform his job was not impaired, so he was not entitled to disability benefits. The key takeaway from this case is that, even if an employee has a disability that requires reasonable accommodation, that employee is not necessarily entitled to receive employer-sponsored disability benefits. For more information on employer-sponsored disability benefits, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More
2019’s Tax Facts Offers a Complete Web, App-Based, and Print Experience
Reducing complicated tax questions to understandable answers that can be immediately put into real-life practice, Tax Facts works when and where you need it….on your desktop, at home on your laptop, and on the go through your tablet or smartphone. Questions? Contact customer service: TaxFactsHelp@alm.com| 800-543-0874
EDITOR’S NOTE FOR ONLINE SUBSCRIBERS
You will notice a new orange banner appearing at the top of your screen called “Latest Developments”. In this section we are offering new features, and we will introduce other features later in the year….· Tax Facts Intelligence Weekly – current as well as archive weekly newsletters you receive in email today as another way to access our latest developments.
· Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down – a debate each week between Robert Bloink and myself (William Byrnes) whereby we take opposing viewpoints on tax policy and argue our opinions. Find out if you agree or disagree and, eventually, you will be able to vote on whose side you are on for that week.
· Featured Articles – a weekly article with archives written by Robert Bloink and myself, thought leaders in finding customer needs for new products and how to make new practice tools work with your clients, perhaps in ways you may not have thought about.
· Recent Updates – as you may know, our digital version of Tax Facts is updated weekly and not annually like our print version of Tax Facts. You can now see any significant changes made to a Tax Facts question that week as it will appear in the “Latest Developments” section, so you are aware of changes. These changes can even be delivered to your smartphone should you choose.
We are looking for another big year providing lots of value-added commentary and analysis. I am always interested in your feedback so feel free to email me at williambyrnes@gmail.com.
IMPORTANT TAX DEVELOPMENTS
IRS Provides Additional Rules for Employers’ Ability to Recover Mistaken HSA Contributions
The IRS clarified when an employer can recover health savings account (HSA) contributions made in error. Generally, erroneous HSA contributions must be corrected by reducing future contributions. The IRS Office of the Chief Counsel released an information letter stating an employer can recover mistaken contributions if the employer has clear documentary evidence that demonstrates an administrative or process error that caused the mistaken contribution. Examples of correctable mistakes provided by the IRS include situations where the participants’ names were confused, mathematical errors and duplicate payroll transmittals. For more information on excess HSA contributions, visit Tax Facts Online and Read More.
8th Circuit Denies Bankruptcy Exemption for Retirement Accounts Transferred Incident to Divorce
The 8th Circuit denied the bankruptcy exemption for retirement plan assets that the debtor acquired incident to divorce. Qualified plan assets and up to about $1.3 million in IRA assets are usually protected from creditors in bankruptcy. In this case, the debtor received a portion of his former spouse’s 401(k) and her entire IRA in their divorce settlement, via a domestic relations order. The courts relied upon the Supreme Court’s prior ruling that inherited IRAs are not exempt in bankruptcy in concluding that assets acquired through a divorce are not primarily retirement assets of the debtor. Instead, the assets represented a property settlement, so were not entitled to any type of special treatment in bankruptcy. For more information on the treatment of qualified plans in divorce, visit Tax Facts Online and Read More.
LITIGATION WATCH
Wellness Programs Post-EEOC: What Remains Important
EEOC regulations that were recently vacated and removed focused incentives an employer could offer without rendering the program impermissibly involuntary. Although the incentive based regulations were removed, the remaining regulations provide some clarity on this “voluntariness” issue. The program may not require employees to participate, and the employer is not permitted to deny health coverage or limit group health plan or other benefits if the employee chooses not to participate in the program. The employer cannot take an action that would be considered retaliation or take any adverse employment actions for non-participation. For more information on the rules that currently govern employer-sponsored wellness programs, visit Tax Facts Online and Read More.
2019’s Tax Facts Offers a Complete Web, App-Based, and Print Experience
Reducing complicated tax questions to understandable answers that can be immediately put into real-life practice, Tax Facts works when and where you need it….on your desktop, at home on your laptop, and on the go through your tablet or smartphone. Questions? Contact customer service: TaxFactsHelp@alm.com| 800-543-0874
William H. Byrnes, J.D., LL.M. and Robert Bloink, J.D., LL.M.
IRS Ruling Provides New Impetus for Lump-Sum Pension Buyouts for Retirees
The IRS has released a ruling that impacts whether pension plan sponsors are permitted to provide lump-sum distributions to plan participants who are already receiving plan benefits via regular annuity payments. The issue was whether, under the IRS required minimum distribution (RMD) rules, a lump-sum payment would constitute an impermissible increase in the payment amounts these participants were receiving. In 2015, the IRS reversed its previous stance allowing these lump-sum payments to participants in pay status and stated its intent to amend the RMD rules to prohibit these payment options. Now, the IRS has once again changed course and announced that, for the time being anyway, it is no longer planning to amend the RMD rules to prohibit lump-sum payments to pension plan participants already receiving annuity payments under the plan. For more information on lump sum pension buyout offers, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More
Tax Court Case Could Eliminate Valuable Split-Dollar Insurance Estate Planning Strategy
The Tax Court is set to hear a case that has had planners who help very wealthy clients use split-dollar strategies to minimize transfer taxes waiting for results since 2014. This issue in this case involves the value of several life insurance policies. Here, a parent purchased life insurance on her sons’ lives–the policies were technically purchased through revocable “dynasty” trusts–for $29.9 million (premium costs). When she died, her reimbursement rights under these “split-dollar” arrangements were valued at only $7.5 million, because the policies would not pay out until the sons died at some future date (essentially, the strategy is valuable because the difference between the two values is a tax-free gift). The IRS has argued that a fair market valuation approach must be used in split-dollar cases, which would assign the much higher premium cost to the value of the policies using the logic typically applied to buy-sell arrangements in family businesses. Initially, the Tax Court indicated that the economic benefit theory of split-dollar could be applied, a result that would favor the estate. Since then, the court has noted that the estate may have to prove it can satisfy an exception under IRC Section 2703 to avoid full taxation of the $29.9 million in premiums paid. A similar case, Cahill v. Comm., was settled out of court in 2018. For more information on split-dollar plans, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More
Sixth Circuit Allows Employer to Terminate Retiree Health Benefits Despite Collective Bargaining Agreements
The Sixth Circuit recently overturned a district court ruling, finding instead that an employer was permitted to terminate certain retiree health benefits despite the presence of collective bargaining agreements (CBAs). The plaintiffs in this case failed to show that the CBAs’ general durational clauses did not apply to healthcare benefits covered under the agreements. In the Sixth Circuit, a CBA’s general durational clause applies to every provision, unless the contract clearly states that it does not. Despite language pertaining to health benefits in the CBAs, that language did not specifically state the duration of the health benefits, so that the general durational clauses applied and the employer was permitted to modify or terminate coverage when the relevant CBAs expired. For more information on retiree-only health benefits provided in the employment context, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More
2019’s Tax Facts Offers a Complete Web, App-Based, and Print Experience
Reducing complicated tax questions to understandable answers that can be immediately put into real-life practice, Tax Facts works when and where you need it….on your desktop, at home on your laptop, and on the go through your tablet or smartphone. Questions? Contact customer service: TaxFactsHelp@alm.com| 800-543-0874
the weekly tax debate transcribed from Tax Facts authors Professors Robert Bloink and William Byrnes, both of Texas A&M University Law School’s Wealth Management graduate program for professionals.
2019’s Tax Facts Offers a Complete Web, App-Based, and Print Experience
Reducing complicated tax questions to understandable answers that can be immediately put into real-life practice, Tax Facts works when and where you need it….on your desktop, at home on your laptop, and on the go through your tablet or smartphone. Questions? Contact customer service: TaxFactsHelp@alm.com| 800-543-0874
IRS: Employers Must Exercise Caution in Providing “Free Lunch” for Employees
The IRS has released a technical advice memorandum (TAM) that sheds light on the potential tax implications when employers provide employees with free meals in the office. Post-tax reform, meals provided “for the convenience of the employer” may receive favorable tax treatment. In the TAM, the IRS denied exclusion of the meals’ value from employee compensation. Here, the employer provided free meals to all employees in snack areas, at their desks and in the cafeteria, justifying provision of these meals by citing need for a secure business environment for confidential discussions, employee protection, improvement of employee health and a shortened meal period policy. The IRS rejected these rationales, stating that the employer was required to show that the policies existed in practice, not just in form, and that they were enforced upon specific employees. In this case, the employer had no policies relating to employee discussion of confidential information and provided no factual support for its other claims. General goals of improving employee health were found to be insufficient. The IRS also considered the availability of meal delivery services a factor in denying the exclusion, but indicated that if the employees were provided meals because they had to remain on the premises to respond to emergencies, that would be a factor indicating that the exclusion should be granted. For more information on “de minimis” type fringe benefits, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More
Common Scenarios in Client Retirement Planning: Account Consolidation and the Rules of the Road
Most clients will change jobs a few times in their lives, which often means they wind up with multiple 401(k) and other types of retirement plans. Consolidating can produce many benefits–namely, making it easier to manage retirement assets and easing RMD calculations, but there are rules to consolidating and clients also need to be aware of benefits that may be unique to any one type of plan. Clients should evaluate their goals with respect to eventual withdrawals, as the rules for penalty-free withdrawals–for example, via using an IRA to establish a series of substantially equal periodic payments to provide penalty-free withdrawals prior to age 591/2. For more information on the rollover rules and how they may impact clients considering retirement account consolidation, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More
April 1 is Fast Approaching: Important Deadline for Clients With First-Time RMD Obligations
While April 15 is a well-known and understood deadline, most clients don’t associate April 1 with any important tax-related deadlines—but April 1 is, in fact, one of the most important deadlines for clients who turned 701/2 years old in the previous year. For those clients who maintain traditional retirement accounts, such as 401(k)s and IRAs, April 1 is the date by which they must take their first required minimum distribution (RMD) from the account if they turned 701/2 in the previous year. For example, a client who turned 701/2 in 2018 must take their first RMD by April 1, 2019. This April 1 deadline is a special rule that applies only to first-time RMDs–a client’s 2019 RMD will be due by December 31, 2019. This means that clients who choose to wait until the April 1 deadline will be required to take two RMDs in 2019. For each subsequent year, the generally applicable December 31 deadline is the relevant date for RMDs. For more information on lifetime RMD requirements, visit Tax Facts Online. Read More
2019’s Tax Facts Offers a Complete Web, App-Based, and Print Experience
Reducing complicated tax questions to understandable answers that can be immediately put into real-life practice, Tax Facts works when and where you need it….on your desktop, at home on your laptop, and on the go through your tablet or smartphone. Questions? Contact customer service: TaxFactsHelp@alm.com| 800-543-0874
IRS Provides New 199A Safe Harbor for Rental Real Estate Activities
Since the introduction of Section 199A, business owners engaged in real estate activities have been confused by the new 20 percent deduction for qualified business income of certain pass-through entities. IRS proposed Revenue Procedure 2019-07 provide a safe harbor so that rental real estate businesses will qualify as “trades or businesses” if it: (1) maintains separate books and records for each rental enterprise, (2) involves the performance of at least 250 hours of rental real estate activities, and (3) maintains contemporaneous records regarding the rental real estate services. The safe harbor is effective for tax years ending after December 31, 2017. For more information, visit Tax Facts Online and Read More.
Final 199A Guidance on Tracking W-2 Wages Provides Guidance for Short Tax Years
The IRS has recently finalized the methods that a business owner can use to track W-2 wages for calculating the Section 199A deduction. The new guidance clarifies that, in the case of short taxable years, the business owner is required to use the “tracking wages method” with certain modifications. The total amount of wages subject to income tax withholding and reported on Form W-2 can only include amounts that are actually or constructively paid to the employee during the short tax year and reported on a Form W-2 for the calendar year with or within that short tax year. For more information on the methods available for calculating W-2 wages for Section 199A purposes, visit Tax Facts Online and Read More.
LITIGATION WATCH
Court Requires Employer to Pay Dependent Life Insurance Benefits After Failure to Provide SPD
A court recently ruled that an employer was required to pay life insurance benefits to an employee under a life insurance policy insuring her former spouse, which was offered by the employer as a dependent life insurance benefit. When the employee’s former husband died within three months’ of their divorce, her claim for benefits under the policy was denied because she was not an “eligible dependent” because of the divorce. The employee made several claims, including one that the she was not provided a summary plan description (SPD) with respect to the policy. The court agreed with the plaintiff’s claim that failure to provide the SPD was a breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA. For more information on employer-sponsored life insurance, visit Tax Facts Online and Read More.
2019’s Tax Facts Offers a Complete Web, App-Based, and Print Experience
Reducing complicated tax questions to understandable answers that can be immediately put into real-life practice, Tax Facts works when and where you need it….on your desktop, at home on your laptop, and on the go through your tablet or smartphone. Questions? Contact customer service: TaxFactsHelp@alm.com| 800-543-0874
Tax Facts Team
William H. Byrnes, J.D., LL.M, Tax Facts Author
Robert Bloink, J.D., LL.M., Tax Facts Author
Alexis Long, J.D., Senior Contributor
Richard Cline, J.D. Senior Director, Practical Insights
Jason Gilbert, J.D., Senior Editor
Patti O’Leary, Senior Editorial Assistant
Connie L. Jump, Senior Manager, Editorial Operations
SEC Announces New Disclosure Requirements for Variable Annuities and Life Insurance
The SEC recently proposed a rule change designed to improve disclosures with respect to variable annuities and variable life insurance contracts. The new disclosure obligations would help investors understand the features, fees and risks to these types of products in an effort to allow investors to make more informed investment decisions. Under the proposal, annuity and life insurance carriers would be entitled to provide information to investors in a summary prospectus form that would provide a more concise summary of the terms of the contract. For more information on variable annuities, visit Tax Facts Online and Read More.
Digging Into the Details of Hardship Distributions for Primary Residence Purchases
Qualified plans can to allow participants to take hardship distributions to help with the purchase of a primary residence. The distribution must be directly taken to purchase the residence–items such as renovations made prior to move-in do not qualify. Despite this, the distribution can cover more than just the purchase price of the residence itself. Closing costs would also qualify, as would the cost of a piece of land upon which the primary residence would be built. If a participant buys out a former spouse’s interest in a jointly-owned home pursuant to divorce, the distribution would also qualify. For more information on the hardship distribution rules, visit Tax Facts Online and Read More.
Avoiding Gift Tax Traps This Holiday Season
Most taxpayers believe that they are not required to file a gift tax tax return if they do not owe gift taxes–as many will not because of the current $11.18 million gift tax exemption will shield most donors from gift tax liability. Despite this, each gift made during a donor’s lifetime serves to reduce that $11.18 million amount, which applies both to lifetime gifts and transfers made at death. Taxpayers must file Form 709 to report taxable gifts in excess of the annual exclusion amount to avoid potential IRS penalties for failure to file a return. The form is required not because gift taxes are owed, but to provide the IRS with a mechanism for tracking any given taxpayer’s use of the exemption amount during life. For more information on the gift tax filing requirements, visit Tax Facts Online and Read More.
IRS Provides Guidance Updating Accounting Method Changes for Terminated S Corporations
The 2017 tax reform legislation added a new IRC section that now requires eligible terminated S corporations to take any Section 481(a) adjustment attributable to revocation of the S election into account ratably over a six-year period. Under newly released Revenue Procedure 2018-44, an eligible terminated S corporation is required to take a Section 481(a) adjustment ratably over six years beginning with the year of change if the corporation (1) is required to change from the cash method to accrual method and (2) makes the accounting method change for the C corporation’s first tax year. For more information on the rules governing S corporations that convert to C corporation status post-reform, visit Tax Facts Online and Read More.
OTHER IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENTS
IRS Guidance on Interaction between New Association Health Plan Rules and ACA Employer Mandate
The IRS recently released new guidance on the rules governing association health plans (AHPs), which permit expanded access to these types of plans, and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) employer mandate. The guidance provides that determination of whether an employer is an applicable large employer subject to the shared responsibility provisions is not impacted by whether the employer offers coverage through an AHP. Participation in an AHP does not turn an employer into an applicable large employer if the employer has less than 50 employees. For more information on the employer mandate, visit Tax Facts Online and Read More.
OCC Explains Employee Tax Consequences of Employer’s Belated Payment of FICA Tax on Fringe Benefits
The IRS Office of Chief Counsel (OCC) released a memo explaining the tax consequences of a situation where the employer failed to include $10,000 of fringe benefits. The employer paid the FICA taxes associated with the benefits in 2018, although the benefits were provided in 2016. The guidance provides that the payment in 2018 did not create additional compensation for the employee in 2016. If the employer collects the amount of the employee portion of the FICA tax from the employee in 2018, the employer’s payment is not additional compensation. However, if the employer does not seek repayment, the payment of the employee’s portion is additional compensation. For more information on FICA tax issues in the employment benefit context, visit Tax Facts Online and Read More.
LITIGATION WATCH
Employer Amendments to VEBA Did Not Result in Adverse Tax Consequences
The IRS recently ruled that an employer could amend its voluntary employees’ beneficiary association (VEBA) to provide health benefits for active employees in addition to retired employees without violating the tax benefit rule or incurring excise taxes. In this case, the VEBA provided health benefits for collectively bargained retired employees. When the VEBA became overfunded, the employer proposed transferring the excess assets into a subaccount for collectively bargained active employees. The IRS found that this proposed amendment would not violate the tax benefit rule because, the new purpose of providing health benefits to active employees under a collective bargaining agreement was not inconsistent with the employer’s earlier deduction. For more information on VEBAs, visit Tax Facts Online and Read More.
Tax Facts Team
Molly Miller Publisher
William H. Byrnes, J.D., LL.M Tax Facts Author
Richard Cline, J.D. Senior Director, Practical Insights
Robert Bloink, J.D., LL.M. Tax Facts Author
Jason Gilbert, J.D. Senior Editor
Alexis Long, J.D. Senior Contributor
Connie L. Jump Senior Manager, Editorial Operations
Danielle Birdsail Digital Marketing Manager
Patti O’Leary Senior Editorial Assistant
Emily Brunner Editorial Assistant
For questions, contact Customer Service at 1-800-543-0874.
Haven’t sat down with Kat in couple years (she’s the nation’s leading tax recruiter, all the big companies and Big 4 hiring partners know her), but she wrote this entertaining and highlydescriptive story yesterday to her 100,000 tax folks worldwide that leverage her tax recruitment site.
“… What I shall never forget was the experience that summer day in 2007 in an old dilapidated building. There I was sitting in a wobbly old chair to the right side of a scholarly, forward thinking tax law Professor sitting in front of a computer that looked like the very first “Lisa” computer that Steve Jobs built. Although it was probably not that one, it sure looked like it! The old computer had loose wires hooked up to another old computer with a video fixture added to the mix of wires and computer equipment. I sat there next to Professor Byrnes and experienced my very first distance course with students from Asia, South Africa, Brazil, Europe, U.S. and some other countries. It was fascinating to observe him teaching his tax students online from multiple countries. The experience in this old building with old computers hooked together with loose wires in what appeared to look like an old scientist experiment had me thinking privately… ”
From when I started in 1994 until recently, technology and education had been totally disconnected, so much so that I had to build my own computers and servers from parts I scavenged from the computer lab discarded machines, like old Gateways and IBMs, because faculty administration would not budget for technology build out for a professor. Anyway – blast from the past that I thought may be interesting to anyone in tax education.
If you move because of your job, you may be able to deduct the cost of the move on your tax return. You may be able to deduct your costs if you move to start a new job or to work at the same job in a new location. The IRS offers the following tips about moving expenses and your tax return.
In order to deduct moving expenses, your move must meet three requirements:
1. The move must closely relate to the start of work. Generally, you can consider moving expenses within one year of the date you start work at a new job location. Additional rules apply to this requirement.
2. Your move must meet the distance test. Your new main job location must be at least 50 miles farther from your old home than your previous job location. For example, if your old job was three miles from your old home, your new job must be at least 53 miles from your old home.
3. You must meet the time test. After the move, you must work full-time at your new job for at least 39 weeks the first year. If you’re self-employed, you must meet this test and work full-time for a total of at least 78 weeks during the first two years at the new job site. If your income tax return is due before you’ve met this test, you can still deduct moving expenses if you expect to meet it.
If you can claim this deduction, here are a few more tips from the IRS:
Travel. You can deduct transportation and lodging expenses for yourself and household members while moving from your old home to your new home. BUT you cannot deduct your travel meal costs.
Household goods and utilities. You can deduct the cost of packing, crating and shipping your things. You may be able to include the cost of storing and insuring these items while in transit. You can deduct the cost of connecting or disconnecting utilities.
Nondeductible expenses. You cannot deduct as moving expenses any part of the purchase price of your new home, the cost of selling a home or the cost of entering into or breaking a lease. See Publication 521 for a complete list.
Reimbursed expenses. If your employer later pays you for the cost of a move that you deducted on your tax return, you may need to include the payment as income. You report any taxable amount on your tax return in the year you get the payment.
Address Change. When you move, be sure to update your address with the IRS and the U.S. Post Office. To notify the IRS file Form 8822, Change of Address.
Tax Facts Online is the premier practical, useful, actionable, and affordable reference on the taxation of insurance, employee benefits, investments, small
business and individuals. This advisory service provides expert guidance on hundreds of the most frequently asked client questions concerning their most important tax issues.
Many ongoing, significant developments have affected tax law and, consequently, tax advice and strategies. Tax Facts Online is the only source that is reviewed daily and updated regularly by our expert editors.
In addition to completely current content not available anywhere else, Tax Facts Online gives you exclusive access to:
Robust search capabilities that enable you to locate detailed answers—fast
Time-saving calculators, tables and graphs
A copy/paste capability that speeds the production of presentations and enables you to easily incorporate Tax Facts content into your workPlus, the recent addition of current news, case studies, commentary and competitive intelligence serves our customers well as the only tax reference that a non-professional tax expert will ever need.
Tax Facts Online Core Content
Tax Facts on Insurance provides definitive answers to your clients’ most important tax-related insurance questions, while offering insightful analysis and illustrative examples. Numerous planning points direct you to the most recent and important insurance solutions.
Tax Facts on Employee Benefits provides current in-depth coverage of important client-related employee benefits questions. Employee benefits affect mosteveryone, and your clients must know how to deal with often complex issues and problems. Tax Facts on Employee Benefits provides the answers in a direct, concise, and practical manner.
Tax Facts on Investments provides clear, detailed answers to your difficult tax questions concerning investments. You must know what investments best suit your clients from a tax standpoint. You will discover questions that directly provide insightful answers, comparison of investment choices, as well as how investments have changed in recent years.
Tax Facts on Individuals & Small Business focuses exclusively on what individuals and small buisnesses need to know to maximize opportunities under today’s often complex tax rules. It is the essential tax reference for financial advisors, & planners; insurance professionals; CPAs; attorneys; and other practitioners advising small businesses and individuals.
Charles Calello Enterprise/Group Inquiries 201-526-1259 Email Me
Customer Service 800-543-0874 8am – 6pm ET Monday – Thursday 8am – 5pm ET Friday Email Customer Service
Two global banks and more than a dozen hedge funds misused a complex financial structure to claim billions of dollars in unjustified tax savings and to avoid leverage limits that protect the financial system from risky debt, a Senate Subcommittee investigation has found.
In Tax Tip 2014-56, the IRS provided 9 tax facts that a taxpayer needs to know about late filing and late paying tax penalties after the deadline of April 15. By example, taxpayers should be made aware that the failure-to-file penalty is usually 10 times greater than the failure-to-pay penalty. So the IRS encourages taxpayers to file on time, even if they cannot pay on time.
1. If a taxpayer is due a federal tax refund then there is no penalty if the tax return is filed later than April 15. However, if a taxpayer owes taxes and fails to file the tax return by April 15 or fails to pay any tax due by April 15, then the taxpayer will probably owe interest and penalties on the tax still after April 15.
2. Two federal penalties may apply. The first is a failure-to-file penalty for late filing. The second is a failure-to-pay penalty for paying late.
3. The failure-to-file penalty is usually much more than the failure-to-pay penalty. In most cases, it is 10 times more!!! So if a taxpayer cannot pay what is owe by April 15, the taxpayer should still file a tax return on time and pay as much as possible to reduce the balance.
4. The failure-to-file penalty is normally 5% of the unpaid taxes for each month or part of a month that a tax return is late. It will not exceed 25% of the unpaid taxes.
5. If a taxpayer files a return more than 60 days after the due date (or extended due date), the minimum penalty for late filing is the smaller of $135 or 100% of the unpaid tax.
6. The failure-to-pay penalty is generally 0.5% per month of your unpaid taxes. It applies for each month or part of a month your taxes remain unpaid and starts accruing the day after taxes are due. It can build up to as much as 25% of the unpaid taxes.
7. If the 5% failure-to-file penalty and the 0.5% failure-to-pay penalty both apply in any month, the maximum penalty amount charged for that month is 5%.
8. If a taxpayer requested the 6-month extension of time to file the income tax return (until October 15) by the tax due date of April 15 and paid at least 90% of the taxes that are owed, then the taxpayer may not face a failure-to-pay penalty. However, the taxpayer must pay the remaining balance by the extended due date. The taxpayer will still owe interest on any taxes paid after the April 15 due date.
9. A taxpayer may avoid a failure-to-file or failure-to-pay penalty if able to show reasonable cause for not filing or paying on time.
Because of the constant changes to the tax law, taxpayers are currently facing many questions connected to important issues such as healthcare, home office use, capital gains, investments, and whether an individual is considered an employee or a contractor. Financial advisors are continually looking for updated tax information that can help them provide the right answers to the right people at the right time. For over 110 years, National Underwriter has provided fast, clear, and authoritative answers to financial advisors pressing questions, and it does so in the convenient, timesaving, Q&A format.
“Our brand-new Tax Facts title is exciting in many ways,” says Rick Kravitz, Vice President & Managing Director of Summit Professional Network’s Professional Publishing Division. “First of all, it fills a huge gap in the resources available to today’s advisors. Small business is a big market, and this book enables advisors to get up-and-running right away, with proven guidance that will help them serve their clients’ needs. Secondly, it addresses the biggest questions facing all taxpayers and provides absolutely reliable answers that help advisors solve today’s biggest problems with confidence.”
“Robert Bloink, Esq., LL.M., and William H. Byrnes, Esq., LL.M., CWM®—are delivering real-life guidance based on decades of experience. The authors’ knowledge and experience in tax law and practice provides the expert guidance for National Underwriter to once again deliver a valuable resource for the financial advising community,” added Rick Kravitz.
If you are interested in discussing the Master or Doctoral degree in the areas of financial services or international taxation, please contact me: profbyrnes@gmail.com to Google Hangout or Skype that I may take you on an “online tour”
What are the tax advantages of owning exchange-traded funds (ETFs)?
ETFs enjoy a more favorable tax treatment than mutual funds due to their unique structure. …
How are ETFs taxed? …
How are dividends received from a mutual fund taxed?
… may pay three types of dividends to their shareholders …
These and 7 other tax questions about investments are answered in our article and analysis on LifeHealthPro
If you are interested in discussing the Master or Doctoral degree in the areas of financial planning, please contact me: profbyrnes@gmail.com to Google Hangout or Skype that I may take you on an “online tour”
$127,000 if married filling jointly;
$63,000 if single, head of household, or qualifying widow(er)
Refundable or nonrefundable
Nonrefundable—credit limited to the amount of tax you must pay on your taxable income
Number of years of postsecondary education
Available for all years of postsecondary education and for courses to acquire or improve job skills
Number of tax years credit available
Available for an unlimited number of years
Type of program required
Student does not need to be pursuing a program leading to a degree or other recognized education credential
Number of courses
Available for one or more courses
Felony drug conviction
Felony drug convictions do not make the student ineligible
Qualified expenses
Tuition and fees required for enrollment or attendance (including amounts required to be paid to the institution for course-related books, supplies, and equipment)
Payments for academic periods
Payments made in 2014 for academic periods beginning in 2014 or beginning in the first 3 months of 2015
How does a tax credit work?
A tax credit reduces the amount of income tax a taxpayer may have to pay. Unlike a deduction, which reduces the amount of income subject to tax, a credit directly reduces the tax itself. The lifetime learning credit is a nonrefundable credit. This means that it can reduce tax owed to zero, but if the credit is more than the tax owing then the excess will not be refunded.
Effect of the Amount of Your Income on the Amount of Your Credit
The amount of the lifetime learning credit is phased out (gradually reduced) if MAGI is between $53,000 and $63,000 ($107,000 and $127,000 if you file a joint return). For 2013, by example, a taxpayer cannot claim a lifetime learning credit if MAGI is $63,000 or more ($127,000 or more if a joint tax return).
For most taxpayers, MAGI is adjusted gross income (AGI) as figured on the federal income tax return. MAGI is the AGI on line 38 of the 1040 form, modified by adding back any:
Foreign earned income exclusion,
Foreign housing exclusion,
Foreign housing deduction,
Exclusion of income by bona fide residents of American Samoa, and
Exclusion of income by bona fide residents of Puerto Rico.
If you are interested in discussing the Master or Doctoral degree in the areas of financial services or international taxation, please contact me profbyrnes@gmail.com to Google Hangout or Skype that I may take you on an “online tour”
In Tax Tip 2014-34, the IRS provided 6 tax tips for self employed taxpayers.
Self-employment income includes income received for part-time work. This is in addition to income from a regular job.
A self employed taxpayer must file a Schedule C, Profit or Loss from Business, or Schedule C-EZ, Net Profit from Business, with your Form 1040.
A self employed taxpayer may have to pay self-employment tax as well as income tax if a profit was earned. Self-employment tax includes Social Security and Medicare taxes. Use Schedule SE, Self-Employment Tax, to calculate whether any self employment tax is due.
A self employed taxpayer may need to make estimated tax payments. Taxpayers typically make these payments on income that is not subject to withholding. A taxpayer may be charged a penalty if not paying enough estimated taxes throughout the entire year.
A self employed taxpayer can deduct some expenses paid to run your trade or business. A self employed taxpayer can deduct most business expenses in full, but some must be ’capitalized.’ Capitalization means that the deduction will be limited to just a portion of the expense each year over a period of years. By example, only the first $5,000 of the “start-up” expenses for a new business of the taxpayer is potentially deductible, and not until the year in which the active trade or business begins. All other start up expenses must be amortized over a 180-month period, beginning with the month the business starts. Thus, start up expenses in general are only deductible over this 180 month period, and not in the year actually incurred.
A self employed taxpayer can deduct business expenses only if the expenses are both ordinary and necessary. An ordinary expense is one that is common and accepted in an industry. A necessary expense is one that is helpful and proper for the trade or business.
Due to a number of recent changes in the law, taxpayers are currently facing many questions connected to important issues such as healthcare, home office use, capital gains, investments, and whether an individual is considered an employee or a contractor. Financial advisors are continually looking for updated tax information that can help them provide the right answers to the right people at the right time. This brand-new resource provides fast, clear, and authoritative answers to pressing questions, and it does so in the convenient, timesaving, Q&A format for which Tax Facts is famous.
“Our brand-new Tax Facts title is exciting in many ways,” says Rick Kravitz, Vice President & Managing Director of Summit Professional Network’s Professional Publishing Division. “First of all, it fills a huge gap in the resources available to today’s advisors. Small business is a big market, and this book enables advisors to get up-and-running right away, with proven guidance that will help them serve their clients’ needs. Secondly, it addresses the biggest questions facing all taxpayers and provides absolutely reliable answers that help advisors solve today’s biggest problems with confidence.”
“Robert Bloink, Esq., LL.M., and William H. Byrnes, Esq., LL.M., CWM®—are delivering real-life guidance based on decades of experience. The authors’ knowledge and experience in tax law and practice provides the expert guidance for National Underwriter to once again deliver a valuable resource for the financial advising community,” added Rick Kravitz.
The IRS stated in Health Care Tax Tip 2014-10 that for most taxpayers, the Affordable Care Act has no effect on the 2013 federal income tax return. For example, for the 2013 tax return a taxpayer does not yet report health care coverage under the individual shared responsibility provision or claim the premium tax credit. Reporting of these items start with the filing of the 2014 tax return (which will only happen between late January and April 15, 2015).
The IRS reminded taxpayers that the employer’s reporting of a taxpayer’s value of health care coverage is not taxable (the new box 12 employer health care reporting requirement, identified by Code DD on an employee’s Form W-2) .
Due to a number of recent changes in the law, taxpayers are currently facing many questions connected to important issues such as healthcare, home office use, capital gains, investments, and whether an individual is considered an employee or a contractor. Financial advisors are continually looking for updated tax information that can help them provide the right answers to the right people at the right time. This brand-new resource provides fast, clear, and authoritative answers to pressing questions, and it does so in the convenient, timesaving, Q&A format for which Tax Facts is famous.
“Our brand-new Tax Facts title is exciting in many ways,” says Rick Kravitz, Vice President & Managing Director of Summit Professional Network’s Professional Publishing Division. “First of all, it fills a huge gap in the resources available to today’s advisors. Small business is a big market, and this book enables advisors to get up-and-running right away, with proven guidance that will help them serve their clients’ needs. Secondly, it addresses the biggest questions facing all taxpayers and provides absolutely reliable answers that help advisors solve today’s biggest problems with confidence.”
“Robert Bloink, Esq., LL.M., and William H. Byrnes, Esq., LL.M., CWM®—are delivering real-life guidance based on decades of experience. The authors’ knowledge and experience in tax law and practice provides the expert guidance for National Underwriter to once again deliver a valuable resource for the financial advising community,” added Rick Kravitz.
Here are three tips about how the law may affect you:
The IRS published tax tip HC-TT- 2014-05 alerting taxpayers that Obama Care has provisions that may affect personal income taxes. How Obama Care affects a taxpayer depends on employment status, whether the taxpayer participates in a tax favored health plan, and the taxpayer’s age.
1. Employment Status
If a taxpayer is employed then the employer may report the value of the health insurance provided on the W-2 in Box 12 with a Code “DD”. However, this amount is not taxable.
If a taxpayer is self-employed, then the taxpayer may deduct the cost of health insurance premiums, within limits.
2. Tax Favored Health Plans
If a taxpayer has a health flexible spending arrangement (FSA) at work, money added to it normally reduces taxable income.
If a taxpayer has a health savings account (HSA) at work, money the employer adds to it, within limits, is not taxable.
Money added to an HSA usually counts as a deduction.
Money used from an HSA for “qualified medical expenses” is not taxable income; however, withdrawals for other purposes are taxable and can even be subject to an additional tax.
If a taxpayer has a health reimbursement arrangement (HRA) at work, money received from it is generally not taxable.
3. Age
If a taxpayer is age 65 or older, the threshold for itemized medical deductions remains at 7.5 percent of Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) until 2017; for others the threshold increased to 10 percent of AGI in 2013. AGI is shown on Form 1040 tax form.
IRS Tax Tip 2014-09 posted February a couple weeks ago and I excerpt relevant portions for the small business community, many actively engaging with their tax preparers for tax season.
IRS Video Portal. Watch helpful videos and webinars on many topics. Find out about filing and paying business taxes or about how the IRS audit process works. Under the ‘Businesses’ tab, look for the ’Small Biz Workshop.’ Watch it when you want to learn the basics about small business taxes.
Online Tools and Educational Products. The list of Small Business products includes the Tax Calendar for Small Businesses and Self-Employed. Install the IRS CalendarConnector tool and access important tax dates and tips right from your smart phone or computer, even when you’re offline.
Small Business Events. Find out about free IRS small business workshops and other events planned in your state.
For more than half a century, Tax Facts has been an essential resource designed to meet the real-world tax-guidance needs of professionals in both the insurance and investment industries. For over 110 years, National Underwriter has been the first in line with the targeted tax, insurance, and financial planning information you need to make critical business decisions.
Due to a number of recent changes in the law, taxpayers are currently facing many questions connected to important issues such as healthcare, home office use, capital gains, investments, and whether an individual is considered an employee or a contractor. Financial advisors are continually looking for updated tax information that can help them provide the right answers to the right people at the right time. This brand-new resource provides fast, clear, and authoritative answers to pressing questions, and it does so in the convenient, timesaving, Q&A format for which Tax Facts is famous.
“Our brand-new Tax Facts title is exciting in many ways,” says Rick Kravitz, Vice President & Managing Director of Summit Professional Network’s Professional Publishing Division. “First of all, it fills a huge gap in the resources available to today’s advisors. Small business is a big market, and this book enables advisors to get up-and-running right away, with proven guidance that will help them serve their clients’ needs. Secondly, it addresses the biggest questions facing all taxpayers and provides absolutely reliable answers that help advisors solve today’s biggest problems with confidence.”
The company also points out that the expert authors—Robert Bloink, Esq., LL.M., and William H. Byrnes, Esq., LL.M., CWM®—are delivering real-life guidance based on decades of experience.
“The authors’ knowledge and experience in tax law and practice provides the expert guidance for National Underwriter to once again deliver a valuable resource for the financial advising community,” added Kravitz.
Anyone interested can try Tax Facts on Individuals & Small Business, risk-free for 30 days, with a 100% guarantee of complete satisfaction. For more information, please go to www.nationalunderwriter.com/TaxFactsIndividuals or call 1-800-543-0874.
This > article < by Professor William Byrnes traces Roman charity from its incipient meager beginnings during Rome’s infancy to the mature legal formula it assumed after intersecting with the Roman emperors and Christianity. During this evolution, charity went from being a haphazard and often accidental private event, to a broad undertaking of public, religious, and legal commitment. Charitable giving within ancient Rome was quite extensive and longstanding, with some obvious differences from the modern definition and practice of the activity.
The main differences can be broken into four key aspects. First, as regards the republican period, Roman charity was invariably given with either political or ego-driven motives, connected to ambitions for friendship, political power or lasting reputation. Second, charity was almost never earmarked for the most needy. Third, Roman largesse was not religiously derived, but rather drawn from personal, or civic impetus. Last, Roman charity tended to avoid any set doctrine, but was hit and miss in application. It was not till the imperium’s grain dole, or cura annonae, and the support of select Italian children, or alimenta were established in the later Empire that the approach became more or less fixed in some basic areas. It was also in the later Empire that Christianity made an enormous impact, helping motivate Constantine – who made Christianity the state religion – and Justinian to develop legal doctrines of charity.This study of Roman charitable activities will concern itself with several streams of enquiry, one side being the historical, societal, and religious, versus the legal. From another angle, it will follow the pagan versus Christian developments. The first part is a reckoning of Roman largesse in its many expressions, with explanations of what appeared to motivate Roman benefactors. This will be buttressed by a description of the Roman view of society and how charity fit within it. The second part will deal with the specific legal expressions of euegertism (or ‘private munificence for public benefit’ ) that typify and reveal the particular genius that Romans had for casting their activities in a legal framework. This is important because Rome is the starting point of much of charity as we understand the term, both legally and institutionally in the modern world. So studying Roman giving brings into highlight and contrast the beginnings of Charity itself – arguably one of the most important developments of the civilized world, and the linchpin of the Liberal ethos.
The IRS released Special Edition Tax Tip 2013-16 in time for Christmas within which it offers three year end tips to help taxpayers prepare for the tax filing season. The IRS three tax tips are as follows:
1. Start a filing system. If you don’t have a filing system for your tax records, you should start one. It can be as simple as saving receipts in a shoebox, or more complex like creating folders or spreadsheets. It’s always a good idea to save tax-related receipts and records. Keeping good records now will save time and help you file a complete and accurate tax return next year.
2. Make Charitable Contributions. If you plan to give to charity, consider donating before the year ends. That way you can claim your contribution as an itemized deduction for 2013. This includes donations you charge to a credit card by Dec. 31, even if you don’t pay the bill until 2014. A gift by check also counts for 2013 as long as you mail it in December. Remember that you must give to a qualified charity to claim a tax deduction. (See the blog posting on December 19 here under regarding the IRS charitable giving year-end tips and compliance notes.)
3. Contribute to Retirement Accounts. You need to contribute to your 401(k) or similar retirement plan by Dec. 31 to count for 2013. On the other hand, you have until April 15, 2014, to set up a new IRA or add money to an existing IRA and still have it count for 2013.
The Saver’s Credit, also known as the Retirement Savings Contribution Credit, helps low- and moderate-income workers in two ways. It helps people save for retirement and earn a special tax credit. Eligible workers who contribute to IRAs, 401(k)s or similar workplace retirement plans can get a tax credit on their federal tax return. The maximum credit is up to $1,000, $2,000 for married couples. Other deductions and credits may reduce or eliminate the amount you can claim.
While you think about how to reduce your weight, after the glutinous consumption of the Thanksgiving meal today, also consider how to reduce your client’s estate tax before an investment pays off. The Twitter executives developed a plan to reduce their eventual gift and estate taxes in advance of their IPO. The IPO has cause the value of the company to skyrocket. But your client does not have to own Twitter stock to leverage the Twitter tax plan…. In fact, a closer look at the planning strategies employed by Twitter shows that your client does not have to be sitting on the next hot silicon valley IPO to benefit from their use. Even if your client does not own pre-IPO shares, the freeze and discounting strategies used can save them from a hefty tax bill.
In the gift tax arena, the value assigned to the transferred property can often make or break your high-net-worth clients’ tax planning strategies, leading many clients to move conservatively through the valuation minefield.
Despite this, the newest strategy to emerge in the world of gift tax valuation can actually allow these wealthy clients to reduce their estate tax liability. Reversing course from a previous line of cases, the Tax Court recently blessed a cutting edge valuation strategy for lifetime gifts that can be used to reduce overall estate tax liability for these clients by simultaneously reducing the bite of the often-overlooked three-year bringback rule—a rule which can cause even the most carefully laid estate plans to fail.
Professor William H. Byrnes was a pioneer of online legal education, creating the first LL.M. offered online through a law school accredited by the American Bar Association. Now as Associate Dean for Graduate & Distance Education Programs at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, Professor Byrnes teaches courses including Federal Tax, International Tax, and International Business Transactions. Professor Byrnes has an impressive record in academics and research, and was kind enough to set aside time to speak with MastersinAccounting.info
How did your professional experiences shape your approach to the classroom?
As a Senior Manager then Associate Director of Coopers & Lybrand, a three year associate to a renowned senior figure in the international tax industry, and undertaking a three year fellowship at the International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation on the topic of transfer pricing. I advised clients in many countries. Large diverse multinational groups required a robust sensitivity for intercultural business practices and social differences.
In the nineties, I was a tax professor in South Africa during the time of its change to a full democracy with the corresponding upheavals. During those years, I experienced the challenges of classroom integration of cultures, languages, and economic backgrounds. Moreover, being a pioneer of online education in the field of tax during those years, I developed a pedagogical understanding of knowledge and expertise acquisition, and of mapping education processes to learning outcomes. …. .
…
I bring all of these experiences holistically to a “flipped” classroom, learner-centered approach. ….
The tax break provided for net unrealized appreciation (NUA) on 401(k) account distributions once provided a powerful tax savings strategy for clients with large 401(k) balances — allowing some clients to reduce their taxes on these retirement funds by as much as 20 percent.
Today, as high-net-worth clients are increasingly seeking strategies to help minimize their tax burdens in light of higher 2013 tax rates, the NUA strategy may have become more complicated than ever. Read the full analysis of William Byrnes & Robert Bloink at > Life Health Pro <
For the period from the opening of the FATCA registration website through December 31, 2013, a financial institution (FI) will be able to access its online account to modify or add registration information.
FIs can use the remainder of 2013 to become familiar with the FATCA registration website, to input preliminary information, and to refine that information. On or after January 1, 2014, each FI will be expected to finalize its registration information by logging into its online account on the FATCA registration website, making any necessary additional changes, and submitting the information as final.
As registrations are finalized and approved in 2014, registering FIs will receive a notice of registration acceptance and will be issued a global intermediary identification number (GIIN).
The IRS will electronically post the first IRS Foreign Financial Institution (FFI) List by June 2, 2014, and will update the list on a monthly basis thereafter. To ensure inclusion in the June 2014 IRS FFI List, an FI will need to finalize its registration by April 25, 2014.
Below find a link to IRS instructions, user guide and video materials to assist you and your financial institution with FATCA registration:
The second edition of International Withholding Tax Treaty Guide, authored by Professor William H. Byrnes and Dr. Robert J. Munro, includes new binders with new chapter structures of completely rewritten tax information and analysis. The second edition of Foreign Tax & Trade Briefs includes a new structure for all 110 country chapters to reflect the evolution of national tax systems since 1948. The International Withholding Tax Treaty Guide has been expanded to include many new countries to match the robust list of Foreign Tax & Trade Briefs, and its footnote numbering has been amended for brevity and modern coherence.
Moreover, International Withholding Tax Treaty Guide subscribers will receive new chapters of analysis and planning based on the OECD Model DTA articles and major trading country jurisprudence that are most relevant to corporate tax counsel, addressing topics such as capital gains, dividends, interest, rents, leasing income, royalties, and permanent establishment, as well as developing topics such as new standards of information exchange. Corporate counsel may combine these publications with the LexisNexis Matthew Bender publication Tax Havens of the World to form a complete international tax planning and risk management library.
Associate Dean William Byrnes said “The Second Edition completes my re-write process of this book to re-structure the citation architecture for a modern approach to tax treaty analysis,” Over the next two years I will author an in-depth, comparative analysis of tax treaty articles, to provide practitioners and arbitrators a go-to treatise for global corporate planning.”
William Byrnes continued “In 1974, Matthew Bender added a third binder to Foreign Tax & Trade Briefs, the International Withholding Tax Treaty Guide, to specifically address the important role of tax treaties in tax risk management that had developed in the sixties. By 1975, nearly one thousand tax treaties had been signed between countries based on the OECD’s Model with an additional 200 treaties in force based on the League of Nations Models. Moreover, many (former) territories had become independent, developing countries with the ability to establish their own tax treaties. There are now more than 3,200 tax treaties, of which 2,900 are signed and in effect with the remaining 300 yet to become effective by official legislative approval.”
“We have included a new section on cross border employment and estate tax issues, captive insurance and alternative risk transfer, reverse mortgages, DOMA, as well as the previously expanding sections on ETFs and on precious metals & collectibles,” William Byrnes said. “Moreover, we hope to soon announce the newest title of Tax Facts addressing entrepreneurs and their small business tax issues.”
“Tax Facts Books and the Tax Facts Online portal have built strong following of many thousand of financial planning professionals. I think financial planning professionals relate to National Underwriter’s approach of contextualizing client problems in a Question – Answer format.”
Both publications are now available as e-books, as an alternative or in combination with print.
This article describes the ancient legal practices, codified in Biblical law and later rabbinical commentary, to protect the needy. The ancient Hebrews were the first civilization to establish a charitable framework for the caretaking of the populace. The Hebrews developed a complex and comprehensive system of charity to protect the needy and vulnerable. These anti-poverty measures – including regulation of agriculture, loans, working conditions, and customs for sharing at feasts – were a significant development in the jurisprudence of charity.
The first half begins with a brief history of ancient civilization, providing context for the development of charity by exploring the living conditions of the poor. The second half concludes with a searching analysis of the rabbinic jurisprudence that established the jurisprudence of charity. This ancient jurisprudence is the root of the American modern philanthropic idea of charitable giving exemplified by modern equivalent provisions in the United States Tax Code. However, the author normatively concludes that American law has in recent times deviated from these practices to the detriment of modern charitable jurisprudence. A return to the wisdom of ancient jurisprudence will improve the effectiveness of modern charity and philanthropy.
FATCA requires that FFIs, through a responsible officer (a.k.a. “FATCA compliance officer”), make regular certifications to the IRS via the FATCA Portal, as well as annually disclose taxpayer and account information for U.S. persons, unless an intergovernmental agreement allows for indirect reporting to the IRS via a foreign government. On Monday, August 19 the IRS opened its new online FATCA registration system for financial institutions that need to register for compliance with the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act.[2] This critical FATCA milestone was supposed to open July 15; however only on July 12 the IRS issued a postponement, as well as a push back of all corresponding impacted milestones and deadlines.
“. . . [w]hen the Finance Committee began public hearings on the Tax Reform Act of 1969 I referred to the bill as ‘368 pages of bewildering complexity.’ It is now 585 pages . . . . Much of this complexity stems from the many sophisticated ways wealthy individuals – using the best advice that money can buy – have found ways to shift their income from high tax brackets to low ones, and in many instances to make themselves completely tax free. It takes complicated amendments to end complicated devices.” Senator Russell Long, Chairman, Finance Committee
From the turn of the twentieth century, Congress and the states have uniformly granted tax exemption to charitable foundations, and shortly thereafter tax deductions for charitable donations. But an examination of state and federal debates and corresponding government reports, from the War of Independence to the 1969 private foundation reforms, clearly shows that politically, America has been a house divided on the issue of the charitable foundation tax exemption. By example, in 1863, the Treasury Department issued a ruling that exempted charitable institutions from the federal income tax but the following year, Congress rejected charitable tax exemption legislation. However thirty years later, precisely as feared by its 1864 critics, the 1894 charitable tax exemption’s enactment carried on its coat tails a host of non-charitable associations, such as mutual savings banks, mutual insurance associations, and building and loan associations.
Yet, the political debate regarding tax exemption for the non-charitable associations did not nearly rise to the level expended upon that for philanthropic, private foundations established by industrialists for charitable purposes in the early part of the century. But the twentieth century debate upon the foundation’s charitable exemption little changed from that posited between the 1850s and 1870s by Presidents James Madison and Ulysses Grant, political commentator James Parton and Dr. Charles Eliot, President of Harvard. The private foundation tax exemption evoked a populist fury, leading to numerous, contentious, investigatory foundation reports from that of 1916 Commission of Industrial Relations, 1954 Reece Committee, 1960 Patman reports, and eventually the testimony and committee reports for the 1969 tax reform. These reports uniformly alleged widespread abuse of, and by, private foundations, including tax avoidance, and economic and public policy control of the nation. The private foundation sector sought refuge in the 1952 Cox Committee, 1965 Treasury Report, and 1970 Petersen Commission, which uncovered insignificant abuse, concluded strong public benefit, though recommending modest regulation.
During the charitable exemption debates from 1915 to 1969, Congress initiated and intermittently increased the charitable income tax deduction while scaling back the extent of exemption for both private and public foundations to the nineteenth century norms. At first, the private foundation’s lack of differentiation from general public charities protected their insubstantially regulated exemption. But in 1943, contemplating eliminating the charitable exemption, Congress rather drove a wedge between private and public charities. This wedge allowed the private foundation’s critics to enact a variety of discriminatory rules, such as limiting its charitable deduction from that of public charities, and eventually snowballed to become a significant portion of the 1969 tax reform’s 585 pages.
This article studies this American political debate on the charitable tax exemption from 1864 to 1969, in particular, the debate regarding philanthropic, private foundations. The article’s premise is that the debate’s core has little evolved since that between the 1850s and 1870s. To create perspective, a short brief of the modern economic significance of the foundation sector follows. Thereafter, the article begins with a review of the pre- and post-colonial attitudes toward charitable institutions leading up to the 1800s debates, illustrating the incongruity of American policy regarding whether and to what extent to grant charities tax exemption. The 1800s state debates are referenced and correlated to parts of the 1900s federal debate to show the similarity if not sameness of the arguments against and justifications for exemption. The twentieth century legislative examination primarily focuses upon the regulatory evolution for foundations. Finally, the article concludes with a brief discussion of the 1969 tax reform’s changes to the foundation rules and the significant twentieth century legislation regulating both public and private foundations.
by Professor Denis Kleinfeld, Esq. (Contributing Expert Author, LexisNexis® Guide to FATCA Compliance. Author of Langer on Practical International Tax Planning. Attorney, Miami, Florida).
The U.S. Treasury announced on July 12, that due to overwhelming concern from countries around the world, the implementation of FATCA (the Foreign Account Compliance Tax Act) would be deferred from January 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014.
IRS Notice 2013-43 provides that this additional time is to:
… read Denis Kleinfeld’s entire expert analysis by linking to his article on the > LexisNexisFATCA Center <
Note: The following is an excerpt from Chapter 11 of the LexisNexis® Guide to FATCA Compliance* – The title is now shipping to customers world-wide.
Importance of the Income Source
In cross-border transactions, the U.S. tax system, as well as the tax systems of most other nations or jurisdictions, contains rules to determine and identify items of income (or expense) derived from U.S. sources or foreign sources-referred to from the U.S, perspective as U.S. source income or foreign source income. This is generally referred to as the source of income rules. The U.S. Internal Revenue Code (IRC) contains source of income rules.1 Tax treaties also provide and often clarify source of income rules. The source of income rules provide the basis for taxation, but the operating rules are contained elsewhere in the IRC.
The income category generally determines the source of income rules. These rules attempt to assign income to a U.S. or non-U.S. source on a statutory basis by looking at the perception of what is the predominate situs (location) of the economic activity that generates the income, and the source of legal protections that facilitate such income generation.
Certain categories of U.S. source income are subject to withholding “at source”-i.e. in the U.S. Because the U.S. has no taxing authority or jurisdiction over foreign persons, the IRC finds one or more withholding agents who are required to withhold at source in the U.S. Generally when transfers of these certain categories of income are made to persons outside the U.S., the withholding agent in the U.S. withholds a certain percentage of the funds and remits the funds to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The withholding rules are generally described under the Qualified Intermediary (QI) program.
FATCA Is In Addition to QI
The U.S. added the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) as an additional layer over QI.2 FATCA consists of worldwide reporting and withholding rules designed to greatly reduce U.S. tax noncompliance for accounts and certain assets held offshore by U.S. taxpayers. FATCA’s withholding rules are discussed in this chapter.
… following on the heels of the successful hardcopy release for this critical tax compliance area in which most financial firms must begin registering with the IRS reporting portal this July until the October deadline to be included on the IRS’ December participating list …
“LexisNexis Guide to FATCA Compliance” has now been released in electronic format. Print orders have already been mailed to Asia, Europe, North America, and the Caribbean.
Professor William Byrnes stated, “I built the international tax & financial services graduate program with a mission of facilitating professionals to become excellent communicators of the robust and complex area of international taxation, passing on the legacy of my mentors Walter Diamond, Jacobus (“Joop”) van Hoorn, Marshall Langer and Barry Spitz.
“The FATCA Compliance Guide was designed by a list of top industry FATCA experts via numerous interviews and meetings with government and central bank officials, NGO staff, large financial institution compliance officers, investment fund compliance officers, and trust company counsel, and of course, substantial analytic writing.
“It is amazing how many contributing experts that I can leverage with modern communications technology, and organize discussions and editing among multiple persons using online platforms. This method really leverages the learning technologies used in the online international tax program these past 18 years.”
When asked about the Guide’s subject, William Byrnes replied, “Simply put, the FATCA regulations require foreign financial enterprises to report financial information about US taxpayers to the IRS. Moreover, US financial institutions must begin reporting similar financial information on foreign taxpayers to the IRS that the IRS will automatically forward to the respective foreign government. Noncompliance leads to a 30% withholding on all payments made to the non-compliant institution, which will drive such institution out of the US market rather quickly.”
“FATCA became effective on January 1, 2013, albeit withholding begins only January 1, 2014. Though FATCA was enacted 3 years ago, there is substantial industry concern that many impacted compliance departments currently do not have access to sufficient, detailed information regarding which sources of the enterprises income are foreign and which are based in the U.S. and which of their customers are U.S. (taxable) persons (e.g. dual U.S. nationals, substantially presence U.S. tax residents), and which entities have substantial U.S. ultimate beneficial owners.”
“The 400 pages of the Guide are grouped in 3 parts: compliance, regulatory analysis, and intergovernmental agreement analysis.”
The over-arching requirements for FATCA [the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act] are three-fold:
obtain appropriate due diligence information and documentation for account holders, investors and payees;
report on relevant parties such as U.S. account holders, recalcitrant account holdersand non-participating foreign financial institutions (“FFIs”); and
coordinate withholding as appropriate and if necessary. The requirements are largely intertwined, with due diligence serving as the foundation for the reporting and withholding requirements.
Now that the final FATCA Regulations are published and a number of intergovernmental agreements (“IGAs”) have been signed, FFIs must implement practical steps to be FATCA compliant by January 1, 2014.There is no one-size-fits-all compliance plan for FFIs; however, there are many similar and consistent steps FFIs, regardless of location, can take to develop a FATCA compliance program to meet the broad goal of FATCA: to combat offshore tax evasion by U.S. persons and become FATCA compliant.
Before a FFI can become FATCA compliant, a FFI should take certain preliminary steps to determine the impact FATCA will have on the FFI as well as plan the path toward compliance in an efficient and timely manner.
Early in the process, the FFI should develop a FATCA task force or program team that will oversee the day-to-day operations to becoming FATCA compliant. The task force should include representatives from tax, anti-money laundering (“AML”) and customer on-boarding groups, technology, change management and operations as well as, potentially, other stakeholders. The task force will oversee the broad program plan for the FFI and likely report to the FATCA sponsoring executives or steering committee.
FFIs have to determine what, if any, communications they will prepare for both internal and external stakeholders concerning FATCA. An internal awareness and training program should be developed to teach FFI employees about FATCA and its importance to the FFI. The awareness program should start at the highest level to establish the necessary “tone at the top.”
The FFI may also want to prepare a list of questions, a “FAQs of FATCA,” to ensure the FFI’s clients are receiving a consistent message, regardless of where in the world they are located. FFIs should also determine what if any message they want to provide directly to clients or put on their websites, although it is very important that the FFI does not give unintentional tax advice to its clients.
Additionally, some training of FFI staff, including client-facing personnel, could assist with customers of the FFI receiving a clear and consistent message. It may likely be the FFI’s client-facing personnel are already receiving questions from customers regarding FATCA.
FFIs should take a proactive approach to minimize costs and interference with the customer experience at the FFI. With that in mind, prior to developing a FATCA compliance strategy, FFIs should conduct an assessment of the impact FATCA will have on the FFI by collecting information relating to:
Number and activity of each legal entity and/or business line;
Products and services offered by the business line;
Types and volume of accounts;
Relevant policies and procedures; and
Identification of information technology (“IT”) systems and databases that maintain relevant information and may require updates.
The FFI should also determine what past interactions it has had with the IRS or home country tax authority relating to information reporting on their customers. FFIs may be able to leverage past reporting for FATCA compliance.
FFIs around the globe may rely on other parties to take on certain responsibilities. For example, a foreign fund may outsource some or all of its asset custody, compliance and regulatory functions, transfer agency services and/or distribution. In this case, the FATCA compliance program will only be as strong as the weakest link.
Coordinating and ensuring all relevant parties are working towards FATCA compliance will be important since a FATCA compliance failure on behalf of an agent of the FFI can be construed as a failure by the FFI itself. Asking questions of the FFI’s third-party service providers will be an important early step. If a third-party service provider is not working towards FATCA compliance, the FFI may want to re-assess their relationship and engagement with that party.
After the impact assessment is complete, the FFI will need to plan a path forward that not only makes all of the information technology systems and policy changes, but also develops a working corporate governance structure and functioning compliance program. …
Chapter contributors:
Richard Kando, CPA (New York) is a Director at Navigant Consulting and served as a Special Agent with the IRS Criminal Investigation Division where he received the U.S. Department of Justice – Tax Division Assistant Attorney General’s Special Contribution Award.
Jeffrey Locke, Esq. is Director at Navigant Consulting. Prior to joining Navigant, he served as an assistant New York state attorney general in the Criminal Prosecutions Bureau and worked in the prosecutor’s office for the United Nations in Kosovo.
The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (“FATCA”) provides for withholding taxes to enforce reporting requirements on specified foreign accounts owned by specified U.S. persons or by U.S. owned foreign entities.
FATCA requires specified U.S. persons (U.S. citizen, residents and certain non-resident aliens) and specified domestic entities to report interests in specified foreign financial assets (SFFAs) if the aggregate value of those assets exceeds certain threshold. The regulations apply to domestic entities formed or availed of to hold, directly or indirectly, specified foreign financial assets. These specified entities include certain closely held corporations and partnerships that meet certain conditions and aggregation rules. Specified entities include domestic trusts if they meet certain criteria and exceed certain reporting threshold.
A U.S. owned foreign entity is an entity with one or more substantial U.S. owners. With certain exceptions, a substantial U.S. owner is any U.S. person with greater than 10% direct or indirect ownership interest in the foreign entity.
FATCA applies to U.S. persons who have specified foreign financial assets (SFFAs) whose value exceeds certain thresholds. The IRS announced in January 2013 that reporting by domestic entities with interests in specified foreign financial assets will not be required to file the IRS reporting form for FATCA, Form 8938, until after the date specified by final regulations, which will not be earlier than taxable years beginning after December 31, 2012.1
All foreign entities and foreign trusts are potentially subject to FATCA, in addition to the current Qualified Intermediary (QI) rules. Withholding rules and reporting requirements under FATCA depend upon the entity’s classification. FATCA classifies foreign entities as either financial entities or non-financial entities. Financial entities are classified as Foreign Financial Institutions (FFIs) [see infra. Chapter 7] while non-financial entities are classified as Non-Financial Foreign Entities (NFFEs) [see infra. Chapter 8].
Entities and trusts are very different under U.S. law. Entities include partnerships, limited liability companies (LLCs), international business companies (IBCs), foundations, usufructs, and corporations. In entities, the title to the property owned is not divided.
In a trust, however, U.S. law splits the ownership of the title into two parts, legal and equitable. The trustee of the trust owns the legal title for the benefit of the beneficiary, who owns the equitable title. A trust is a relationship, not an entity, and is treated differently under both the existing QI rules and FATCA.
Specified Foreign Financial Assets (SFFAs)
Financial Accounts
The most common type of SFFA that banks will encounter is a financial account such as any depository or custodial account that is maintained by an FFI.2 A financial account also includes non-publically traded equity or debt interest in a depository or custodial institution, an insurance company, or an investment entity.3 …
Moreover, a financial account includes a non-publically traded equity or debt interest in a holding company or treasury center in an expanded affiliated group [See infra. Chapter 8]. This applies if the holding company or treasury center has at least one investment entity or passive NFFE and the income of the investment entity or passive NFFE in the group exceeds 50% of the group’s aggregate income.4 …
Assets
SFFAs include assets not held in an account. Stocks and securities issued by a non-U.S. person that are held for investment are SFFAs whether they are held in an account with a FFI or not. The same holds true for capital or profits interests in a foreign partnership, any form of debt issued by a non-U.S. person, or a beneficial interest in a foreign trust, foreign estate, or foreign entity. A litany of financial instruments collectively referred to as “swaps” are also SFFAs whether held in an account or not. Options and derivative instruments that have any non-U.S. parties or are issued by a non-U.S. issuer are also SFFAs.5 …
Exemptions from SFFA Definitions
FATCA does provide exemptions. An interest in a foreign security or social insurance program is not a SFFA. A stock of precious metals held in a foreign safe deposit box is not a SFFA. Any security or partnership interest used or held in the conduct of normal trade or business is considered not to be held for investment under FATCA. Stock, however, cannot be considered to be held in the conduct of normal trade or business for purposes of FATCA. Therefore, foreign stock is a SFFA.6 …
Example of SFFA
To clarify what may be considered an SFFA, consider the following example. Mr. Smith, a U.S. person resident in the U.S., has $1 million in a Swiss bank account. He owns a partnership interest in a hedge fund established in the Cayman Islands, and directly owns 5,000 shares of a publically traded Japanese corporation, JapanCo. He also has social security benefits in a foreign country. …
1. IRS Notice 2013-10, “Information Reporting by Domestic Entities under Section 6038D with Respect to Specified Foreign Financial Assets”.
3. IRC §1471(d)(2), Treas Reg §1.1471-5(b)(1)(iii)(A). “Investment entity” is defined in Treas Reg §1.1471-5(e)(4)(i).
4. IRC §1471(d)(2), Treas Reg §1.1471-5(b)(1)(iii)(B)(1). “Treasury center” is defined in Treas Reg §1.1471-5(e)(1)(v).
5. See generally IRS Form 8938, Statement of Specified Foreign Financial Assets.
6. See generally IRS Form 8938, Statement of Specified Foreign Financial Assets.
7. Foreign social security or social insurance programs are not specified as FFA, so they are not subject to FATCA reporting. Instructions to IRS Form 8938, Statement of Specified Foreign Financial Assets, p. 4.
Over 400 pages of compliance analysis !! now available with the 20% discount code link in this flier –> LN Guide to FATCA_flier.
The LexisNexis® Guide to FATCA Compliance was designed in consultation, via numerous interviews and meetings, with government officials, NGO staff, large financial institution compliance officers, investment fund compliance officers, and trust companies, in consultation with contributors who are leading industry experts. The contributors hail from several countries and an offshore financial center and include attorneys, accountants, information technology engineers, and risk managers from large, medium and small firms and from large financial institutions. A sample chapter from the 25 is available on LexisNexis: http://www.lexisnexis.com/store/images/samples/9780769853734.pdf
Contributing FATCA Expert Practitioners
Kyria Ali, FCCA is a member of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (“ACCA”) of Baker Tilly (BVI) Limited.
Michael Alliston, Esq. is a solicitor in the London office of Herbert Smith Freehills LLP.
Ariene d’Arc Diniz e Amaral, Adv. is a Brazilian tax attorney of Rolim, Viotti & Leite Campos Advogados.
Maarten de Bruin, Esq. is a partner ofStibbe Simont.
Jean-Paul van den Berg, Esq. is a tax partner of Stibbe Simont.
Amanda Castellano, Esq. spent three years as an auditor with the Internal Revenue Service.
Luzius Cavelti, Esq. is an associate at Tappolet & Partner in Zurich.
Bruno Da Silva, LL.M. works at Loyens & Loeff, European Direct Tax Law team and is a tax treaty adviser for the Macau special administrative region of the People’s Republic of China.
Prof. J. Richard Duke, Esq. is an attorney admitted in Alabama and Florida specializing over forty years in income and estate tax planning and compliance, as well as asset protection, for high net wealth families. He served as Counsel to the Ludwig von Mises Institute for Austrian Economics 1983-1989.
Dr. Jan Dyckmans, Esq. is a German attorney at Flick Gocke Schaumburg in Frankfurt am Main.
Arne Hansen is a legal trainee of the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court of Hamburg), Germany.
Mark Heroux, J.D. is a Principal in the Tax Services Group at Baker Tilly who began his career in 1986 with the IRS Office of Chief Counsel.
Rob. H. Holt, Esq. is a practicing attorney of thirty years licensed in New York and Texas representing real estate investment companies.
Richard Kando, CPA (New York) is a Director at Navigant Consulting and served as a Special Agent with the IRS Criminal Investigation Division where he received the U.S. Department of Justice – Tax Division Assistant Attorney General’s Special Contribution Award.
Denis Kleinfeld, Esq., CPA. is a renown tax authoroverfour decades specializing in international tax planning of high net wealth families. He is Of Counsel to Fuerst Ittleman David & Joseph, PL, in Miami, Florida and was employed as an attorney with the Internal Revenue Service in the Estate and Gift Tax Division.
Richard L. Knickerbocker, Esq. is the senior partner in the Los Angeles office of the Knickerbocker Law Group and the former City Attorney of the City of Santa Monica.
Saloi Abou-Jaoude’ Knickerbocker Saloi Abou-Jaoude’ Knickerbocker is a Legal Administrator in the Los Angeles office of the Knickerbocker Law Group concentrated on shari’a finance.
Jeffrey Locke, Esq. is Director at Navigant Consulting.
Josh Lom works at Herbert Smith Freehills LLP.
Prof. Stephen Polak is a Tax Professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law’s International Tax & Financial Services Graduate Program where he lectures on Financial Products, Tax Procedure and Financial Crimes. As a U.S. Senior Internal Revenue Agent, Financial Products and Transaction Examiner he examined exotic financial products of large multi-national corporations. Currently, Prof. Polak is assigned to U.S. Internal Revenue Service’s three year National Research Program’s as a Federal State and Local Government Specialist where he examines states, cities, municipalities, and other governmental entities.
Dr. Maji C. Rhee is a professor of Waseda University located in Tokyo.
Jean Richard, Esq. a Canadian attorney, previously worked for the Quebec Tax Department, as a Senior Tax Manager with a large international accounting firm and as a Tax & Estate consultant for a pre-eminent Canadian insurance company. He is currently the Vice President and Sr. Wealth Management Consultant of the BMO Financial Group.
Michael J. Rinaldi, II, CPA. is a renown international tax accountant and author, responsible for the largest independent audit firm in Washington, D.C.
Edgardo Santiago-Torres, Esq., CPA, is also a Certified Public Accountant and a Chartered Global Management Accountant, pursuant to the AICPA and CIMA rules and regulations, admitted by the Puerto Rico Board of Accountancy to practice Public Accounting in Puerto Rico, and an attorney.
Hope M. Shoulders, Esq. is a licensed attorney in the State of New Jersey whom has previously worked for General Motors, National Transportation Safety Board and the Department of Commerce.
Jason Simpson, CAMS is the Director of the Miami office for Global Atlantic Partners, overseeing all operations in Florida, the Caribbean and most of Latin America. He has worked previously as a bank compliance employee at various large and mid-sized financial institutions over the past ten years. He has been a key component in the removal of Cease and Desist Orders as well as other written regulatory agreements within a number of Domestic and International Banks, and designed complete AML units for domestic as well as international banks with over three million clients.
Dr. Alberto Gil Soriano, Esq. worked at the European Commission’s Anti-Fraud Office in Brussels, and most recently at the Legal Department of the International Monetary Fund’s Financial Integrity Group in Washington, D.C. He currently works at the Fiscal Department of Uría Menéndez Abogados, S.L.P in Barcelona (Spain).
Lily L. Tse, CPA. is a partner of Rinaldi & Associates (Washington, D.C.).
Dr. Oliver Untersander, Esq. is partner at Tappolet & Partner in Zurich.
Mauricio Cano del Valle, Esq. is a Mexican attorney who previously worked for the Mexican Ministry of Finance (Secretaría de Hacienda) and Deloitte and Touche Mexico. He was Managing Director of the Amicorp Group Mexico City and San Diego offices, and now has his own law firm.
John Walker, Esq. is an accomplished attorney with a software engineering and architecture background.
Bruce Zagaris, Esq. is a partner at the Washington, D.C. law firm Berliner, Corcoran & Rowe, LLP.
Prof. William Byrnes was a Senior Manager then Associate Director at Coopers & Lybrand, before joining academia wherein he became a renowned author of 38 book and compendium volumes, 93 book & treatise chapters and supplements, and 800+ articles. He is Associate Dean of Thomas Jefferson School of Law’s International Taxation & Financial Services Program.
Dr. Robert J. Munro is the author of 35published books is a Senior Research Fellow and Director of Research for North America of CIDOEC at Jesus College, Cambridge University, and head of the anti money laundering studies of Thomas Jefferson School of Law’s International Taxation & Financial Services Program.
In the first moments of 2013, Congress eased the fiscal cliff tax increases for taxpayers earning less than $450,000 by enacting the American Taxpayer Relief Act (Act), permanently extending the Bush-era income tax cuts for this group. … While the legislation extends the current income tax rates for taxpayers earning less than $450,000 ($400,000 for single filers) per year, it allowed the Bush-era tax cuts to expire for all higher-income taxpayers. Similarly, taxes on capital gains, dividends, and estates were increased for the wealthiest taxpayers.
How Were Income Taxes Increased by the Fiscal Cliff Compromise?
How Does the Act Impact the Current System for Tax Deductions and Exemptions?
Were Capital Gains and Dividend Rates Impacted by the Act?
How Are Estate and Gift Tax Rates Affected?
What Other Changes Were Made?
Beyond the Act: What is the “Investment Income Tax”?
Planning Under the Act: How Should Clients Plan for Higher Taxes in 2013?
William Byrnes' Tax, Wealth, and Risk Intelligence 