Newsletters

Many parents failing to educate children about money

BY KEN TYSIAC

AUGUST 9, 2012

Many children aren’t learning much about money from their parents, a new survey shows.

Three in 10 parents never talk to their children about money or have had just one big talk with their children on the subject, according to a U.S. telephone survey conducted for the AICPA by Harris Interactive.

On average, children are 10 years old when their mother or father has their first conversation with them about money, and mothers are more likely to talk with children about money at an earlier age than fathers, the survey showed. Just 13% of parents surveyed talk daily with their children about financial matters.

Sixty-seven percent of parents surveyed strongly agree that they know enough about personal finance to teach their children good habits. Yet parents participating in the survey were more likely to have talked to their children about other important topics, including:

•  The importance of good manners (95%).

• The benefits of good eating habits (87%).

• The importance of getting good grades (87%).

• The dangers of drugs and alcohol (84%).

• The risks of smoking (82%).

This week, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said early financial education is important for individual well-being and also the economic health of the United States.

"Based on our findings, parents seem more concerned about the politeness of their children than their financial fitness," Ernie Almonte, CPA, vice chair of the AICPA’s National CPA Financial Literacy Commission, said in a statement. "Dollars and cents should get the same attention as ‘please’ and ‘thank you’ at home. Financial education builds critical skills that help put life goals within reach and strengthen the economy. Parents must make financial lessons a priority in both conversation and action as early as possible."

Almonte, who is also a past AICPA Board chairman, said it is important to teach children the right lessons about financial responsibility, and said that in his work he has encountered financial misunderstandings that people have held for decades.

The National Financial Literacy Commission offers the following tips for parents in educating their children:

Start early.  As soon as children are able to express a want, discuss basics like delayed gratification that are the foundation for budgeting and saving for a goal. Require children to save some of their birthday cash and money earned in after-school jobs. Give them small jobs to earn an allowance to pay for toys or other wants. Make saving fun by giving them a grocery list, and have them clip coupons and comparison shop by reviewing store fliers. Split the savings with them to reward their effort.

Repeat often.  The more you discuss good financial habits, the more likely your child is to make them a part of their daily life. During dinner, talk about saving for a big purchase, such as a family vacation, and how it might affect the budget. Show them your pay stub to talk about taxes and saving for retirement, and review their savings account and college account statements with them.

Walk the talk.  No matter what you say to your children about money, your actions are even more important. If you cave in easily when they make a fuss over a toy at the store, you will have difficulty convincing them to delay gratification and stick to a budget.

For more information on financial education and responsibility, visit the AICPA’s 360 Degrees of Financial Literacy.

Ken Tysiac (ktysiac@aicpa.org) is a JofA senior editor.

A "phase two" tax reform outline could be unveiled by House GOP tax writers by August. Republicans have started to increase their tax meetings related to the effort, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Tex., told reporters on June 13.

A "phase two" tax reform outline could be unveiled by House GOP tax writers by August. Republicans have started to increase their tax meetings related to the effort, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Tex., told reporters on June 13.

Tax Reform "2.0" Timeline

The precise timing of a "phase two" tax reform bill or discussion draft release remains "to-be-determined," a House Ways and Means Committee spokesperson told Wolters Kluwer on June 14. However, Brady told reporters he expects to see a legislative package outlined before the House’s August recess.

Previously, White House Legislative Affairs Director Marc Short predicted a late-summer release of the House’s tax bill. Further, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., has predicted that the House will approve the measure before midterm elections in November.

Individual Tax Cuts

Brady reiterated to reporters that "phase two" will focus on the individual side of the tax code. Moreover, making permanent the individual tax cuts enacted under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) will be the "centerpiece" of a " phase two" bill, Brady reportedly said. Additionally, Republican tax writers are considering proposals that would streamline the retirement savings process, a Ways and Means spokesperson previously told Wolters Kluwer.

Phase Two Fate Uncertain

The next major tax bill’s fate in the Senate remains uncertain. At least nine Democratic votes will be needed to reach the Senate’s 60-vote threshold. Brady has said he is hopeful for Democratic support.

However, Democratic lawmakers in the House and Senate remain largely opposed to the TCJA. Democrats have criticized the TCJA for primarily benefiting corporations. However, House Republicans are hopeful for bipartisan support on a new measure that focuses primarily on individual tax cuts.

A bipartisan group of House and Senate lawmakers have introduced companion Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit (HTC) bills. The measure aims to strengthen the HTC by encouraging investment and minimizing administrative burdens, according to the lawmakers.

A bipartisan group of House and Senate lawmakers have introduced companion Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit (HTC) bills. The measure aims to strengthen the HTC by encouraging investment and minimizing administrative burdens, according to the lawmakers.

Rehabilitation Credit

As amended by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), the rehabilitation credit under Code Sec. 47 is limited to 20 percent of qualified rehabilitation expenditures (QREs) of the taxpayer for qualified rehabilitated buildings. The credit is claimed ratably over a five-year period beginning in the tax year in which the rehabilitated building is placed in service. A "qualified rehabilitated building" (QRB) is a building and its structural components for which depreciation is allowable, and that has been substantially rehabilitated and placed in service before the beginning of the rehabilitation. The building must be a certified historic structure, but any expenditure attributable to rehabilitation of the structure is not a QRE unless it is a certified rehabilitation.

Property is considered substantially rehabilitated only if the expenditures during an elected 24-month measurement period (60-month period for phased rehabilitations) ending with or within the tax year are greater than the adjusted basis of the property or $5,000.

Basis-Adjustment Requirement

The bipartisan Historic Tax Credit Enhancement Bill, introduced June 13, would eliminate the existing basis-adjustment requirement. Eliminating this requirement would "bring the HTC in line with other tax credits claimed over multiple years," according to a joint press release by the bill’s sponsors.

The measure was introduced by Sens. Bill Cassidy, R-La., Ben Cardin, D-Md., and Susan Collins, R-Me., and Reps. Darin LaHood, R-Ill., and Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore. "Protecting this credit was one of my top priorities in tax reform, and I’m glad there is bipartisan support for making it even better," Cassidy said in the joint press release. Cardin praised the measure for helping to create economic growth.

Improved HTC

Likewise, Collins said the bill would make the HTC easier to use as well as create economic development across the country. Additionally, an improved HTC would create jobs, according to Blumenauer. "Strengthening the Historic Tax Credit will further revitalize American cities while creating local jobs and spurring economic development in communities large and small," Blumenauer said.

House tax writers have moved two bills through committee. The bills focus on IRS hiring and the tax treatment of mutual ditch irrigation companies. The House Ways and Means Committee approved the measures in a June 21 markup.

House tax writers have moved two bills through committee. The bills focus on IRS hiring and the tax treatment of mutual ditch irrigation companies. The House Ways and Means Committee approved the measures in a June 21 markup.

IRS Hiring

The Ensuring Integrity in the IRS Workforce bill (HR 3500) would set certain restrictions on the IRS’s hiring policy. The bipartisan bill would amend Code Sec. 7804 to prohibit the rehiring of any employee previously dismissed for certain misconduct issues.

The bill comes after two Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) reports noted that the IRS rehired hundreds of former employees with conduct violations. Over 200 of the more than 2,000 former employees rehired between January 2015 and March 2016 were previously terminated from the IRS for a substantiated conduct or performance issue, according to a July 2017 TIGTA report. Inspector General J. Russell George previously told lawmakers that the particular IRS hiring process is "bad decision making."

The bill, sponsored by Reps. Kristi Noem, R-S.D., and Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., originally passed the House with bipartisan support in the 114th Congress. However, the Senate never took up the measure. Also, Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., introduced a related bill in the Senate.

"If a person is fired for falsifying information or mishandling sensitive taxpayer data, it’s common sense that individuals should not be rehired," Noem said in a June 21 press release. "Nonetheless, the IRS has done this repeatedly."

Agriculture Tax Reform

Additionally, the Ways and Means Committee approved the Water and Agriculture Tax Reform bill (HR 519). The bill aims to facilitate water leasing and transfers to promote conservation and efficiency. HR 519 would amend the "tax treatment of mutual water storage and delivery companies so that they can maintain their nonprofit status even if more than 15 percent of their revenue comes from nonmembers," according to a June 21 press release by the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo.

HR 519 and HR 3500 are now headed to the House floor.

The American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Taxation has expressed concerns to top Senate tax writers about certain congressional IRS reform efforts. The ABA Section of Taxation sent a June 6 letter to Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Chairman Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah and ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., regarding the House-approved bipartisan Taxpayer First Act (HR 5444).

The American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Taxation has expressed concerns to top Senate tax writers about certain congressional IRS reform efforts. The ABA Section of Taxation sent a June 6 letter to Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Chairman Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah and ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., regarding the House-approved bipartisan Taxpayer First Act (HR 5444).

IRS Reform

"The administrative reforms included in the House bills are a welcome step forward," Hatch previously told Wolters Kluwer. The House passed a package of bills in April, which aims to restructure the IRS for the first time in 20 years. Hatch told Wolters Kluwer that he is looking forward to working with his colleagues to find a path forward that reflects both House and Senate views on IRS reform.

While the SFC considers the House’s IRS reform package, the ABA Section of Taxation has asked Senate tax writers to consider certain suggestions to enhance IRS restructuring efforts. "We appreciate that Congress has turned its attention to the relationship between taxpayers and the agency charged with the assessment and collection of taxes," the letter said. The ABA Section of Taxation agrees with most of the House-proposed changes but has concerns with certain aspects of the bill, the letter noted.

Appeals

The House bill, HR 5444, proposes the establishment of an independent Office of Appeals along with a "generally available" right to appeal for taxpayers. While the letter to Hatch and Wyden supports a statutory right to appeals, among other things, it expresses concern that the IRS could limit certain taxpayer’s access to an appeal. "To the extent that the Service wishes to deny appeal rights to taxpayers, it should be required to articulate objective standards for when appeals will not be available, so that any Service determination to deny appeal rights can be measured against those standards," the letter said.

Additionally, the letter proposes that Congress remove certain limiting words from the bill’s provisions that discuss taxpayers’ rights to access case files. Currently, the bill states that only "specified taxpayers" will automatically be provided access to their case files. The ABA Section of Taxation urges Congress to allow all taxpayers access to information in their case file, regardless of income thresholds.

Senate Timeline

As for when the SFC will release its anticipated amendments to the House-approved IRS reform package remains unclear. The Senate’s legislative efforts toward restructuring the IRS are expected among lawmakers to be bipartisan.

The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that nonqualified employee stock options are not taxable compensation under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act (RRTA). The term "money remuneration" in the Act unambiguously excludes "stock."

The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that nonqualified employee stock options are not taxable compensation under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act (RRTA). The term "money remuneration" in the Act unambiguously excludes "stock."

Background

Several railroads filed a refund claim for overpaid Railroad Retirement taxes. The railroads claimed they overpaid their taxes because they included the value of employee stock options when calculating the tax.

The IRS denied the refund request. The IRS argued that stock options were taxable "money remuneration" under the RRTA because stock can be easily converted into money.

The railroads replied that stock options are not money. Moreover, they argued that when Congress passed the RRTA, it sought to mimic existing industry pension practices. Generally, those practices ignored in-kind benefits like food, lodging, and railroad tickets.

Stock Options Not Money

When Congress adopted the RRTA in 1937, it understood "money" as "currency issued by a recognized authority as a medium of exchange." Stock options do not fall within this definition.

Further, while stock can be bought or sold for money, it is not usually considered a medium of exchange. Few people value goods and services using stock, or buy groceries or pay rent with stock.

Also, adding the word remuneration did not alter the meaning of the word money. Thus, "any form of money remuneration" indicated that Congress wanted to tax money compensation. It did not indicate that Congress wanted to tax things, like stock, that are not money.

Statutory Context

Moreover, the broader statutory context pointed to the same conclusion. For example, the 1939 Internal Revenue Code treated money and stock differently. However, the Federal Insurance Contribution Act taxes all remuneration, including benefits paid in a medium other than cash.

Further, a contemporaneous IRS rule explained that the RRTA taxed all money compensation. The rule lists examples like salaries, wages, commissions and bonuses. It also included things that could be used as money, like scrip. However, the rule did not suggest that stock was taxable compensation.

Thus, Congress knew the difference between money and other forms of compensation. The choice of Congress to use the narrower term for railroad pensions had to be respected.

Reversing and remanding CA-7, 2017-2 ustc ¶50,295.

A member of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida had to pay federal income tax on distributions of gaming income that she and her family received from the tribe. The payments were taxable income under the Indian Gaming Revenue Act, rather than Indian general welfare benefits that were excluded from tax under Code Sec. 139E. Both the taxpayer and the tribe were bound by the decision.

A member of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida had to pay federal income tax on distributions of gaming income that she and her family received from the tribe. The payments were taxable income under the Indian Gaming Revenue Act, rather than Indian general welfare benefits that were excluded from tax under Code Sec. 139E. Both the taxpayer and the tribe were bound by the decision.

Tribal Distributions

The Miccosukee Tribe distributed income to its members in quarterly payments. Historically, these payments were in the $20 to $25 range. In 1990, however, the tribe opened a gaming center that offered high-stakes bingo, poker, and video pull-tab machines. The tribe’s income, and its distributions to its members, increased substantially.

Each quarter, the tribe used the revenue of the gaming activities to fund per capita distributions to its members. But the tribe disregarded its federal tax obligations on these distributions. It neither reported the distributions nor withheld taxes on them. The tribe also told its members not to discuss the payments with outsiders, not to report them to credit card agencies, and not to cash the distribution checks in places that would report them to the IRS.

For the tax year at issue, the taxpayer received a total of $272,000, which represented payments for herself, her husband, and her two children. She did not file a tax return or pay any income tax for that year.

After the IRS assessed tax, interest and penalties against her, the taxpayer attempted to file a late return that reported the $272,000 as nontaxable income. She did not pay any of her assessment. The tribe intervened in her case as a matter of right.

District Court Decision

The District Court agreed with the IRS that the payments were distributions of gaming income that were fully taxable to the taxpayer. Most of the funds came from the gaming operation. The taxpayer and the tribe did not show what portion may have come from other, nontaxable sources.

Although the $272,000 included payments on behalf of the taxpayer’s husband and children, the taxpayer was responsible for tax on the entire amount. The tribe was structured as a matriarchy. Thus, the taxpayer was the head of her household, and the payments were all made available to her. She also spent all of the payments on household expenses, and she had reported all of the payments as her income when she tried to file a late return.

IGRA vs GWEA

The main issue on appeal was whether the tribe’s distributions were covered by the Indian Gaming Revenue Act or the Tribal General Welfare Exclusion Act.

The Indian Gaming Revenue Act (IGRA) was passed in 1988. It allows an Indian tribe to engage in gaming and distribute the revenue to members on a per capita basis. It also explicitly includes those distributions in a tribe member’s taxable income.

Code Sec. 139E was enacted in 2014 as part of the Tribal General Welfare Exclusion Act (GWEA). It excludes from federal taxation any payment made or services provided to or on behalf of an Indian tribe member under an Indian tribal government program. To be excludible, benefits provided under the program must be for the promotion of general welfare.

The court held that the exemption for Indian general welfare benefits under Code Sec. 139Edoes not apply to the per capita payments an Indian tribe makes from gaming revenue.

The taxpayer and the tribe claimed that GWEA effectively amended IGRA because it was more recent. The court disagreed, clarifying that IGRA applied only to gaming income, while GWEA was a law of general application. Thus, under the rules of statutory construction, IGRA continued to apply to distributions of gaming income because it was more specific than GWEA.

The court also rejected the characterization of the payments as distributions of the tribe’s tax revenues rather than its gaming income. The tax did not affect the nature of the gaming income. Instead, it was merely a mechanism to collect the income and distribute it to members.

The distributions also were not nontaxable income from Indian land, because they did not come directly from the use of the reservation land or its resources. Instead, the distributions came from improvements and related business activities–that is, gambling in the casino.

Effect on the Tribe

The tribe argued that it should not be included in the District Court’s judgment. However, the tribe had intervened as a matter of right because, if the court determined the payments were taxable, the tribe would have to report them and withhold income tax from them.

As an intervenor, the tribe had the same status as an original party. It also fully participated in the trial by arguing motions, attending depositions, presenting evidence, and examining witnesses. Thus, it was bound by the District Court’s judgment.

Affirming a DC Fla. decision, 2016-2 ustc ¶50,474.

An individual shareholder of an S corporation restaurant operator was not allowed to claim FICA tip credits under Code Sec. 45B that the S corporation did not claim. The shareholder could not unilaterally and retroactively nullify the S corporation’s election to deduct FICA tip taxes.

An individual shareholder of an S corporation restaurant operator was not allowed to claim FICA tip credits under Code Sec. 45B that the S corporation did not claim. The shareholder could not unilaterally and retroactively nullify the S corporation’s election to deduct FICA tip taxes.

Background

The restaurants owned by the S corporation had hired “tipped employees” whose earnings came partly from customer tips. The S corporation was required to pay taxes on these tips as part of its FICA tax payments. For the two tax years at issue, the S corporation did not claim any FICA tip credits. Instead, the S corporation deducted its payments of the FICA tip taxes on its Forms 1120S, and did not later amend those returns.

On his amended Forms 1040 for those tax years, the shareholder claimed he was entitled to flowthrough FICA tip credits with respect to his interest in the S corporation.

FICA Tip Credit

Code Sec. 45B allows an employer working in the food and beverage industry to claim business tax credits for the portion of the FICA taxes—i.e., social security and Medicare taxes—that it paid on employee tips in excess of the minimum wage. The employer must have employees who receive tips from customers for providing food or beverages for consumption, and must be deemed to have paid FICA taxes on the tips in excess of the minimum wage. The employer must not have already claimed a deduction for the FICA tax payment. An employer claims its FICA tip credits on Form 8846.

Here, when the S corporation chose to deduct its FICA tax payments, it had made an election not to claim any FICA tip credits. The S corporation never claimed or intended to claim FICA tip credits. Based on this reporting position, the shareholder was not entitled to any flowthrough FICA tip credits for either tax year.

S Corporation Elections

Under Code Sec. 1363(c) and its regulations, elections that affect the computation of items derived from an S corporation generally must be made by the S corporation, not separately by its shareholders. There are two exceptions: the shareholder claims any elections (1) for the deduction and recapture of certain mining exploration expenditures, and (2) for foreign tax credits.

In this case, the shareholder argued in effect that the S corporation’s election to deduct FICA tax payments could be changed unilaterally by his request, made in his capacity as a shareholder, that the S corporation amend its returns to claim the FICA tip credit. The shareholder’s position was rejected based on the plain text of Code Sec. 1363(c), and of Code Sec. 45B(d), which states that the credit does not apply to a taxpayer if the taxpayer elects to have the credit provision not apply.

Further, the Tax Court stated that it refused to create a new precedent that would give each individual shareholder the power to change an S corporation’s tax election unilaterally. Such a change, stated the court, would not only affect the tax liabilities of the requesting shareholder, but could also affect the tax liabilities of the shareholders who have not consented to the change.

The Treasury Department and the IRS have issued final regulations that:

• prevent a corporate partner from avoiding corporate-level gain through transactions with a partnership involving equity interests of the partner or certain related entities;
• allow consolidated group members that are partners in the same partnership to aggregate their bases in stock distributed by the partnership for purposes of limiting the application of rules that might otherwise cause basis reduction or gain recognition; and
• require certain corporations that engage in gain elimination transactions to reduce the basis of corporate assets or to recognize gain.

The Treasury Department and the IRS have issued final regulations that:

• prevent a corporate partner from avoiding corporate-level gain through transactions with a partnership involving equity interests of the partner or certain related entities;
• allow consolidated group members that are partners in the same partnership to aggregate their bases in stock distributed by the partnership for purposes of limiting the application of rules that might otherwise cause basis reduction or gain recognition; and
• require certain corporations that engage in gain elimination transactions to reduce the basis of corporate assets or to recognize gain.

The Treasury Decision adopts as final certain rules set forth in proposed regulations issued in 2015, under Code Sec. 337(d) (with only minor, nonsubstantive clarifications) ( NPRM REG-149518-03), and Code Sec. 732(f) ( NPRM REG-138759-14).

The final regulations affect partnerships and their partners, and apply to transactions occurring on or after June 12, 2015. The regulations are effective on June 8, 2018.

Acquisition of Interest in Stock to Avoid Gain on Appreciated Property

A corporation that distributes appreciated property to its shareholders has to recognize gain under Code Secs. 311(b) and 336(a) as if the property were sold to the shareholders for its fair market value. However, taxpayers have tried to postpone or avoiding the recognition of that gain.

For example, if a corporation exchanges appreciated property for its own stock, the corporation would recognize gain on the exchange. But corporations have tried to avoid recognizing that gain by, for example, taking these steps:

• the corporation enters into a partnership and contributes appreciated property;
• the partnership acquires stock of that corporate partner; then
• the partnership makes a liquidating distribution of the stock to the corporate partner.

The final regulations under Code Sec. 337(d) aim to prevent a corporate partner from avoiding gain recognition when it acquires or increases its interest in stock held by a partnership in exchange for appreciated property. Under the final regulations, a corporate partner may recognize gain when it is treated as acquiring or increasing its interest in stock of the corporate partner held by a partnership in exchange for appreciated property in a manner that avoids gain recognition under Code Sec. 311(b) or Code Sec. 336(a). The final regulations also provide exceptions under which a corporate partner is not required to recognize gain.

Limit on Basis Reduction or Gain Recognition for Consolidated Group Members

The final regulations limit rules that cause basis reduction or gain recognition for consolidated group members that are partners in the same partnership. Code Sec. 732(f)limits the basis of a distributed corporation’s property if—

• a corporate partner receives a distribution from a partnership of stock in another corporation (distributed corporation);
• the corporate partner has control of the distributed corporation, defined as ownership of stock meeting the requirements of Code Sec. 1504(a)(2), immediately after the distribution or at any time thereafter (control requirement); and
• the partnership’s basis in the stock immediately before the distribution exceeded the corporate partner’s basis in the stock immediately after the distribution.

Under these circumstances, the basis of the distributed corporation’s property must be reduced by this excess. Further, the corporate partner must recognize gain to the extent that the basis of the distributed corporation’s property cannot be reduced.

In applying this rule, the final regulations allow the bases of consolidated group members to be aggregated if when two conditions are met: (1) two or more of the corporate partners receive a distribution of stock in a distributed corporation from the partnership; and (2) the distributed corporation is or becomes a member of the distributee partners’ consolidated group after the distribution.

Elimination Transactions

Final regulations restrict corporate partners from entering into gain elimination transactions. They focus on attempts to eliminate gain in the stock of a distributed corporation while avoiding the effects of a basis step-down in transactions. Under the regulations, in the event of a gain elimination transaction, Code Sec. 732(f) will apply as though the corporate partner acquired control of the distributed corporation immediately before the gain elimination transaction.

Future Proposed Regs?

The Treasury and IRS are considering publishing a new notice of proposed rulemaking to propose more substantive amendments to the final 337(d) regulations, and to allow for additional public comment with respect to proposals in response to certain comments received, further reflection by the Treasury IRS, and concerns raised by practitioners.

Participants in the Son of BOSS tax shelter have maintained their perfect losing record in the Tax Court. Thus, another Son-of-Boss deal has failed to produce its promised loss deductions.

Participants in the Son of BOSS tax shelter have maintained their perfect losing record in the Tax Court. Thus, another Son-of-Boss deal has failed to produce its promised loss deductions.

Son-of-BOSS Arrangements

Son-of-BOSS is a variation of a slightly older tax shelter known as the "bond and options sales strategy," or BOSS. Son-of-BOSS transactions take many forms, but they all have one thing in common: Assets that are encumbered by significant liabilities must always be transferred to a partnership. The goal is to increase basis in that partnership or in the assets themselves.

The liabilities are usually obligations to buy securities. However, they are typically not completely fixed when they are transferred to the partnership.

This contingency is supposed to let the partnership treat the liabilities as uncertain. This, in turn, is supposed to let the partnership ignore the liabilities in computing basis. The result is supposed to give the partners basis in the partnership or in the assets themselves. This increased basis is supposed to translate into large loss deductions for the partners, all with no actual economic losses.

The Tax Court has yet to fall for the scheme.

Invalid Partnerships

The court has used several theories to reject Son-of-Boss losses. In this case, the court once again relied on the fact that the two partnerships involved in the transactions did not actually exist.

The partnerships were invalid because they were created only to carry out tax avoidance schemes. Thus, their members never intended to run any business through them.

The partnerships also failed the “prongified” test for determining whether the parties intended to, and did in fact, join together for the present conduct of an undertaking or enterprise. One managed to scrupulously adhere to the formal requirements for looking like a partnership. However, it did not display any objective indication of a mutual combination for the conduct of an ongoing enterprise.

The second partnership barely even went through the motions. It filed partnership returns and issued K-1s to its purported partners. However:

• There was no evidence the purported partners made any contributions to the partnership;
• The partnership did not have a formal operating agreement;
• The partnership did not conduct any business in its own name;
• There was no real profit for the partners to control or withdraw; and
• The partnership did not keep any books or records.

Since the partnerships were invalid, they were simply disregarded. Thus, the purported partners were treated as directly engaging in the partnerships’ activities and directly owning the partnerships’ property. This meant that the supposedly separate long and short options that were the heart of the transaction were actually a single-option spread. Thus the options were part of one contract, and they could not be separated to produce artificial losses.

Since taking office in January, President Trump has called for comprehensive tax reform. The President’s recently released fiscal year (FY) 2018 outlines some of his key tax reform principles. At the same time, White House officials said that more tax reform details will be released in coming weeks. These details are expected to describe rate cuts for individuals and businesses, new incentives for child and elder care, elimination of certain deductions and credits, and more.

Since taking office in January, President Trump has called for comprehensive tax reform. The President’s recently released fiscal year (FY) 2018 outlines some of his key tax reform principles. At the same time, White House officials said that more tax reform details will be released in coming weeks. These details are expected to describe rate cuts for individuals and businesses, new incentives for child and elder care, elimination of certain deductions and credits, and more. 

Note. The President’s budget is a blueprint for Congressional action. “This is the message from the President to the Congress and says, look, here are my priorities in terms of where I want to spend more; here's what I think should be spent; here's where the big-ticket items are,” White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney told reporters in Washington, D.C. at a news conference unveiling the FY 2018 budget proposals.

Tax measures

The President’s FY 2018 budget highlights a number of tax reform proposals, leaving details for later. The President called for tax reform that lowers individual tax rates, expands the standard deduction, and protects homeownership, charitable giving and retirement saving. The FY 2018 budget also urges Congress to repeal the alternative minimum tax (AMT), the federal estate tax and the net investment income (NII) tax.

The President’s FY 2018 also highlights some business tax proposals, including lower rates for corporations and other business entities. To offset the cost of lower rates, unspecified business tax expenditures would be repealed.

Note. Federal law requires that every budget list all tax expenditures.  Generally, a tax expenditure is any item that causes a loss of revenue due to a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction from gross income or which a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability. The FY 2018 budget lists more than 160 tax expenditures.

Health care and taxes

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) created the NII tax and a number of other new taxes. The President’s budget assumes the ACA will be repealed and replaced with the American Health Care Act (AHCA). As passed by the House in April, the ACHA repeals the NII tax, the additional Medicare tax, the excise tax on medical devices, and more. The Senate is currently debating the AHCA.

Funding the IRS

Earlier this year, President Trump proposed to reduce the IRS’s funding and his FY 2018 budget reflects that. However, in past years, Congress has restored some of the proposed funding cuts to the IRS. Last year, Congress gave the IRS an additional $290 million with instructions to use the funds for taxpayer services and to curb tax-related identity theft.

Additionally, President Trump proposed giving the IRS more authority to correct errors on taxpayer returns. The FY 2018 budget also urges Congress to expressly grant the IRS authority to regulate return preparers.

Family leave

President Trump also proposed to create a new benefit within the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program. This new benefit would provide up to six weeks paid leave to mothers, fathers, and adoptive parents.

If you have any questions about the President’s FY 2018 budget, please contact our office. Our office will keep you posted of developments as Congress begins to debate the President’s proposals and more details are released by the White House.

The future of the Affordable Care Act and its associated taxes has moved to the Senate following passage of the American Health Care Act (AHCA) in the House in April. Traditionally, legislation moves more slowly in the Senate than in the House, which means that any ACA repeal and replacement bill may be weeks if not months away.

The future of the Affordable Care Act and its associated taxes has moved to the Senate following passage of the American Health Care Act (AHCA) in the House in April. Traditionally, legislation moves more slowly in the Senate than in the House, which means that any ACA repeal and replacement bill may be weeks if not months away. 

Note. At the time this article was prepared, few details have emerged about discussions in the Senate on the ACA’s taxes. Some senators have predicted that the Senate will write its own ACA repeal and replacement bill. A Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report, issued in late May, scored the House-passed AHCA as eventually causing 23 million fewer individuals to be covered, a number that may prompt the Senate to move further away from the House bill. It is also unclear if a Senate bill would repeal all or some of the ACA’s taxes. A Senate bill could also make other changes to the ACA, such as changes to the individual and employer shared responsibility requirements and the Code Sec. 36B premium assistance tax credit.

Health care taxes

As approved by the House, the AHCA repeals nearly all of the ACA’s taxes and delays the ones it does not repeal immediately. The House-passed version of the AHCA repeals the net investment income (NII) tax, the excise tax on medical devices, and the health insurance provider fee, among others, retroactively to the start of 2017. Further, the House-passed version of the AHCA delays the ACA’s excise tax on high-dollar health plans.

Whether the Senate will go along with repealing all or some of the ACA’s taxes is unclear. Some GOP members of the Senate Finance Committee had previously called for immediate repeal of the additional Medicare tax. Other Republican senators called for immediate repeal of the medical device excise tax. Our office will keep you posted of developments.

Code Sec. 36B credit

Individuals who obtain health insurance through the ACA Marketplace may qualify for a tax credit to help offset the cost of coverage. The House-passed version of the AHCA also revises the Code Sec. 36B premium assistance tax credit. The amount of the credit would vary depending on the taxpayer’s age, among other modifications. Again, it is unclear if the Senate will adopt these changes to the credit or make its own revisions.

Other provisions

An ACA repeal and replacement bill in the Senate also is expected to address, among other things,

• Individual and employer shared responsibility requirements
• Health savings accounts
• Code Sec. 45R small employer health insurance credit
• Branded prescription drug fee
• Medical expense deduction
• Minimum essential health benefits

Other health care bills

Just before Congress’ Memorial Day recess, the House Ways and Means Committee approved several bills related to the House version of the AHCA. One bill would allow individuals who have certain types of COBRA coverage to claim the revised Code Sec. 36B credit. Another bill would disallow advance payments of the credit unless the recipient is a citizen or national of the U.S. or an alien lawfully present in the U.S.

Administrative actions

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Department of Labor (DOL) and the IRS administer different parts of the ACA. In May, HHS announced that changes to the direct enrollment process for the ACA Marketplace. HHS also announced that online enrollment for the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) would be through an agent or broker.

Please contact our office if you have any questions about health care and taxes.

Many businesses consider the occasional wining and dining of customers and clients just to stay in touch with them to be a necessary cost of doing business. The same goes for taking business associates or even employees out to lunch once in a while after an especially tough assignment has been completed successfully. It's easy to think of these entertainment costs as deductible business expenses, but they may not be. As a general rule, meals and entertainment are deductible as a business expense only if specific conditions are met. What's more, the deduction for either type of expense generally is limited to 50 percent of the cost.

Many businesses consider the occasional wining and dining of customers and clients just to stay in touch with them to be a necessary cost of doing business. The same goes for taking business associates or even employees out to lunch once in a while after an especially tough assignment has been completed successfully. It's easy to think of these entertainment costs as deductible business expenses, but they may not be. As a general rule, meals and entertainment are deductible as a business expense only if specific conditions are met. What's more, the deduction for either type of expense generally is limited to 50 percent of the cost. 

Meals and entertainment directly connected to business. To be considered directly connected to business, the meal or entertainment event must meet three conditions:

• It must have been scheduled with more than a general expectation of deriving future income or a specific business benefit from the event. In other words, a meal or dinner date arranged for general goodwill purposes does not qualify.
• A business meeting, negotiation, or transaction must actually occur during the meal or entertainment, or immediately preceding and following it. In other words, business actually must be discussed.
• The main character of the event, considering the facts and circumstances, is the active conduct of your company's trade or business.

For example, an executive employee who treats a client to a golf game in order to discuss the general parameters of a business deal in an informal atmosphere is engaged in entertainment that is directly connected to business. So is a manager who discusses sensitive business plans with a subordinate over lunch at an off-premises restaurant.

Applicable limitations. In general, only 50 percent of expenses incurred for entertainment and meal expenses is deductible. A limited exception applies to entertainment or on-premise meals provided to employees.

Expenses with respect to entertainment facilities generally are not deductible at all. A facility includes any item of personal or real property owned, rented, or used by a taxpayer if it is used during the tax year for or in connection with entertainment. They include yachts, hunting lodges, fishing camps, swimming pools, tennis courts, bowling alleys, automobiles, airplanes, apartments, hotel suites and homes in vacation resorts.

Country club dues are not deductible (although the meals purchased with business clients at the club are, up to the 50 percent limit). Deductions for skyboxes or other private luxury boxes at sporting events are limited to the face value of a nonluxury box seat ticket multiplied by the number of seats in the box.

Record-keeping requirements. Even if a meal or entertainment expense qualifies as a business expense, none of the cost is deductible unless strict and detailed substantiation and recordkeeping requirements are met to the letter.

Please contact our offices for assistance on how to comply with these requirements at minimum cost and expense, and how your business’s typical meal and entertainment expenses fare under the deduction rules.

A SIMPLE (Savings Incentive Match Plan for Employees of Small Employers) IRA is a retirement savings plan designed specifically for small employers. A SIMPLE IRA is an IRA-based plan with ease of use features intended to encourage small employers, which may otherwise not offer a retirement plan, to create a retirement plan.

Basics

Generally, any business with 100 or fewer employees can establish a SIMPLE IRA. If an employer establishes a SIMPLE IRA plan, all employees of the employer who received at least $5,000 in compensation from the employer during any two preceding calendar years (whether or not consecutive) and who are reasonably expected to receive at least $5,000 in compensation during the calendar year, must be eligible to participate in the SIMPLE IRA.  For purposes of the 100-employee limitation, all employees employed at any time during the calendar year are taken into account

SIMPLE IRAs must be established under a written plan agreement.  All employees must be notified about the SIMPLE IRA plan. Generally, employees must be informed about his or her opportunity to make or change a salary reduction choice under the SIMPLE IRA plan and the employer's decision to make either matching contributions or nonelective contributions.  Employees are always 100 percent vested in a SIMPLE IRA.

Salary reduction contributions

SIMPLE IRAs are subject to important limits on salary reduction contributions.  The limit is $11,500 for 2012.  However, employees age 50 or over may make so-called $2,500 "catch-up" contributions for 2012.

Employer contributions

Employers have two choices in determining their contributions to a SIMPLE IRA plan:

• A two percent nonelective employer contribution, where employees eligible to participate receive an employer contribution equal to two percent of their compensation (limited to $245,000 per year for 2012 and subject to cost-of-living adjustments for later years), regardless of whether the employee makes his or her own contributions.
• A dollar-for-dollar match, up to three percent of compensation, where only the participating employees who have elected to make contributions will receive an employer contribution (this is called a matching contribution).

Each year, employers can choose which one they will use for the next year's contributions. This choice must be communicated to employees.  Owners of small businesses can use SIMPLE IRA plans as vehicles for retirement savings for themselves without reference to how many of their employees actually participate, as long as the employees are given the option.

The three percent matching contribution applies if the employee has made a contribution.  In contrast, the two percent nonelective contribution applies even if the eligible employee did not make a contribution.

Let's look at an example:  Jacob, age 29, has worked for his employer for five years. This year, the employer established a SIMPLE IRA plan for Jacob and its other 44 employees. The employer will match contributions made by Jacob and the other employees dollar-for-dollar up to three percent of each employee's compensation. Jacob contributes three percent of his yearly compensation to his SIMPLE IRA (three percent of $40,000 or $1,200).  His employer's matching contribution is also $1,200.  The total contribution to Jacob's SIMPLE IRA is $2,400.

The three percent limit on matching contributions may be reduced for a calendar year at the election of the employer, but only if the limit is not reduced below one percent; the limit is not reduced for more than two years out of the five-year period that ends with (and includes) the year for which the election is effective; and employees are notified of the reduced limit within a reasonable period of time before the 60-day election period during which employees can enter into salary reduction agreements. If an employer fails to satisfy the contribution rules, the SIMPLE IRA plan is in jeopardy of losing its tax benefits for the employer and all participants.

If you have any questions about matching contributions to SIMPLE plans or how to set up a SIMPLE plan, please contact our office.

Retired employees often start taking benefits by age 65 and, under the minimum distribution rules, must begin taking distributions from their retirement plans when they reach age 70 ½. According to Treasury, a 65-year old female has an even chance of living past age 86, while a 65-year old male has an even chance of living past age 84. The government has become concerned that taxpayers who normally retire at age 65 or even age 70 will outlive their retirement benefits.

The government has found that most employees want at least a partial lump sum payment at retirement, so that some cash is currently available for living expenses. However, under current rules, most employer plans do not offer a partial lump sum coupled with a partial annuity. Employees often are faced with an “all or nothing” decision, where they would have to take their entire retirement benefit either as a lump sum payment when they retire, or as an annuity that does not make available any immediate lump-sum cash cushion. For retirees who live longer, it becomes difficult to stretch their lump sum benefits.

Longevity solution

To address this dilemma, the government is proposing new retirement plan rules to allow plans to make available a partial lump sum payment while allowing participants to take an annuity with the other portion of their benefits. Furthermore, to address the problem of employees outliving their benefits, the government would also encourage plans to offer “longevity” annuities. These annuities would not begin paying benefits until ages 80 or 85. They would provide you a larger annual payment for the same funds than would an annuity starting at age 70 ½. Of course, one reason for the better buy-in price is that you or your heirs would receive nothing if you die before the age 80 or 85 starting date. But many experts believe that it is worth the cost to have the security of knowing that this will help prevent you from “outliving your money.”

To streamline the calculation of partial annuities, the government would allow employees receiving lump-sum payouts from their 401(k) plans to transfer assets into the employer’s existing defined benefit (DB) plan and to purchase an annuity through the DB plan. This would give employees access to the DB plans low-cost annuity purchase rates.

According to the government, the required minimum distribution (RMD) rules are a deterrent to longevity annuities. Because of the minimum distribution rules, plan benefits that could otherwise be deferred until ages 80 or 85 have to start being distributed to a retired employee at age 70 ½. These rules can affect distributions from 401(k) plans, 403(b) tax-sheltered annuities, individual retirement accounts under Code Sec. 408, and eligible governmental deferred compensation plans under Code Sec. 457.

Tentative limitations

The IRS proposes to modify the RMD rules to allow a portion of a participant’s retirement account to be set aside to fund the purchase of a deferred annuity. Participants would be able to exclude the value of this qualified longevity annuity contract (QLAC) from the account balance used to calculate RMDs. Under this approach, up to 25 percent of the account balance could be excluded. The amount is limited to 25 percent to deter the use of longevity annuities as an estate planning device to pass on assets to descendants.

Coming soon

Many of these changes are in proposed regulations and would not take effect until the government issues final regulations. The changes would apply to distributions with annuity starting dates in plan years beginning after final regulations are published, which could be before the end of 2012. Our office will continue to monitor the progress of this important development.

The number of tax return-related identity theft incidents has almost doubled in the past three years to well over half a million reported during 2011, according to a recent report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA). Identity theft in the context of tax administration generally involves the fraudulent use of someone else’s identity in order to claim a tax refund. In other cases an identity thief might steal a person’s information to obtain a job, and the thief’s employer may report income to the IRS using the legitimate taxpayer’s Social Security Number, thus making it appear that the taxpayer did not report all of his or her income.

In light of these dangers, the IRS has taken numerous steps to combat identity theft and protect taxpayers. There are also measures that you can take to safeguard yourself against identity theft in the future and assist the IRS in the process.  

IRS does not solicit financial information via email or social media

The IRS will never request a taxpayer’s personal or financial information by email or social media such as Facebook or Twitter. Likewise, the IRS will not alert taxpayers to an audit or tax refund by email or any other form of electronic communication, such as text messages and social media channels.

If you receive a scam email claiming to be from the IRS, forward it to the IRS at phishing@irs.gov. If you discover a website that claims to be the IRS but does not begin with 'www.irs.gov', forward that link to the IRS at phishing@irs.gov.

How identity thieves operate

Identity theft scams are not limited to users of email and social media tools. Scammers may also use a phone or fax to reach their victims to solicit personal information. Other means include:

-Stealing your wallet or purse
-Looking through your trash
-Accessing information you provide to an unsecured Internet site.

How do I know if I am a victim?

Your identity may have been stolen if a letter from the IRS indicates more than one tax return was filed for you or the letter states you received wages from an employer you don't know. If you receive such a letter from the IRS, leading you to believe your identity has been stolen, respond immediately to the name, address or phone number on the IRS notice. If you believe the notice is not from the IRS, contact the IRS to determine if the letter is a legitimate IRS notice.

If your tax records are not currently affected by identity theft, but you believe you may be at risk due to a lost wallet, questionable credit card activity, or credit report, you need to provide the IRS with proof of your identity. You should submit a copy of your valid government-issued identification, such as a Social Security card, driver's license or passport, along with a copy of a police report and/or a completed IRS Form 14039, Identity Theft Affidavit, which should be faxed to the IRS at 1-978-684-4542.

What should I do if someone has stolen my identity?

If you discover that someone has filed a tax return using your SSN you should contact the IRS to show the income is not yours. After the IRS authenticates who you are, your tax record will be updated to reflect only your information. The IRS will use this information to minimize future occurrences.

What other precautions can I take?

There are many things you can do to protect your identity. One is to be careful while distributing your personal information. You should show employers your Social Security card to your employer at the start of a job, but otherwise do not routinely carry your card or other documents that display your SSN.

Only use secure websites while making online financial transactions, including online shopping. Generally a secure website will have an icon, such as a lock, located in the lower right-hand corner of your web browser or the address bar of the website with read “https://…” rather than simply “http://.”

Never open suspicious attachments or links, even just to see what they say. Never respond to emails from unknown senders. Install anti-virus software, keep it updated, and run it regularly.

For taxpayers planning to e-file their tax returns, the IRS recommends use of a strong password. Afterwards, save the file to a CD or flash drive and keep it in a secure location. Then delete the personal return information from the computer hard drive.

Finally, if working with an accountant, query him or her on what measures they take to protect your information.

The Treasury Department is authorized to offset a taxpayer’s tax refund to satisfy certain debts. A spouse who believes that his or her portion of the refund should not be used to offset the debt that the other spouse owes may request a refund from the IRS.

Offset

If an individual owes money to the federal government because of a delinquent debt, the Treasury Department’s Financial Management Service (FMS) can offset that individual's tax refund (and certain other federal payments) to satisfy the debt. The debtor will be notified in advance of the offset.

A taxpayer’s refund may be reduced by FMS and offset to pay:

• Past-due child support
• Federal agency non-tax debts
• State income tax obligations, or
• Certain unemployment compensation debts owed a state.

FMS advises taxpayers by written notice of an offset. FMS has explained that the notice will reflect the original refund amount, the taxpayer’s offset amount, the agency receiving the payment, and the address and telephone number of the agency. FMS will notify the IRS of the amount taken from your refund.

Form 8379

If a taxpayer filed a joint return and is not responsible for the debt of his or her spouse, the taxpayer may request his or her portion of the refund by filing Form 8379, Injured Spouse Allocation, with the IRS. Form 8379 may be filed with the original return or by itself after the taxpayer is aware of the offset.

The IRS has instructed taxpayers filing Form 8379 by itself to attach a copy of all Forms W-2 and W-2G for both spouses, and any Forms 1099 showing federal income tax withholding to Form 8379. Failure to attach these items may result in a delay in processing by the IRS.

The IRS has reported on its website that it generally processes Forms 8379 that are filed after a joint return has been filed in approximately eight weeks. The timeframe for processing a Form 8379 that is attached to a joint return is approximately 11 weeks (14 weeks if the joint return is filed on paper).