Newsletters

What is the key to improving business performance?

How do you know what works and what does not?

Benchmarking helps private companies answer these questions and more. It is a powerful performance tool that provides an in depth look at your company as compared to your competitors who are at the same level as your company and also compare you to those companies that are leaders in your industry. We have data based information that has been provided and entered by many CPA firms to help populate these databases. We use this data from private companies like yours to compare your operation with your competitors. This has to be relevant to your company's performance. The data we select goes beyond financials to include hard-to-find operational metrics, gathered from a combination of 2001, 2002, and 2003 companies data elements. These elements include over 200 metrics covering approximately 3,500 company data sets in more than 230 industries.

As discussed above we can use over 200 metrics within these industry segments which include some of the following: Profitability

Employee turnover

Debt Leveraging

Information Technology Costs

Health Insurance Costs

Incremental borrowing rates We have the ability to focus on your company by using your industry data sets to assist us in our analysis of your company. The data we select is within revenue ranges, relevant to the size of your business.

We analyze this data and provide you with a report that helps you guide yourself to the next level of profitability. We will make recommendations as to what will be best for your company at the time we provide this service. We can then continue to update our review periodically to help you see that you are moving in the right direction. Benchmarking is a tool that helps you chart the course for profit improvement of your company. With today's intense competition, Benchmarking is a vital performance tool for private companies. By comparing our clients' performance to their peers and competitors both inside and outside their industry, we are able to bring our clients insights and performance-based ideas on how to improve their operations.

This service is something we are recommending to our clients as a value added business consultation which will provide you with insights that you have never before considered. We are offering this value added service during the up coming months for those clients who feel the need to see what improvements they can make to increase profitability.

If you feel this service is something you need to chart your future, please feel free to give us a call to discuss this in more detail.

President Trump recently walked back consideration of capital gains indexing and a payroll tax cut, less than 24 hours after signaling his support for both.

President Trump recently walked back consideration of capital gains indexing and a payroll tax cut, less than 24 hours after signaling his support for both.

Payroll Tax Cut
Reports on Capitol Hill had begun swirling recently that the Trump administration was considering cutting payroll taxes.

"We’re looking at various tax reductions," Trump told reporters at the White House on August 20. "I have been thinking about payroll taxes for a long time," he added. "A lot of people would like to see that."

However, White House staff swiftly denied that any payroll tax cut was under consideration, according to several reports.

Along those lines, Michael Zona, communications director for Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, told Wolters Kluwer on August 20 that no such discussions were occurring between the SFC majority and the president. "Chairman Grassley has not discussed a potential payroll tax cut with the Administration," Zona told Wolters Kluwer.

Payroll taxes are used to fund certain social programs such as Social Security and Medicare. Generally, payroll taxes are paid primarily through the wages and salaries of employees, as noted by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. Amid recent reports that the U.S. economy could be heading toward a recession, cutting payroll taxes could potentially benefit middle-income taxpayers and bolster consumer spending.

On August 20, Trump disputed the notion that a recession could be around the bend. Additionally, Trump told reporters that any consideration of a payroll tax cut is unrelated to mostly Democratic claims of an impending recession. In that vein, Zona told Wolters Kluwer on August 20 that "[a]t this point, recession seems more of a political wish by Democrats than an economic reality."

Indexing Capital Gains to Inflation
Further, Trump confirmed to reporters at the White House on August 20 that he is still considering indexing capital gains to inflation. Lately, lawmakers have become increasingly vocal concerning their differing viewpoints on the matter, both as to tax policy and legality.

"We’ve been talking about indexing [capital gains to inflation] for a long time," Trump said. "It can be done directly by me…I can do it directly," he said, referencing a recent uptick in debate between Republican and Democratic lawmakers on the legality of such an executive move.

No Tax Cuts, No Indexing
Then on August 21, Trump told reporters at the White House that "I’m not looking at a tax cut now; we don’t need it. We have a strong economy."

Additionally, Trump followed up his initial assertion of authority to circumvent Congress on the tax policy issue by stating on August 21 that if he wanted to unilaterally index capital gains to inflation, he would need a letter from the Attorney General.

However, the longstanding Republican and Democratic debate as to whether the executive branch has authority to index capital gains to inflation appears to be moot, at least for the time being.

"I’m not looking to do indexing," Trump said on August 21. "I’ve studied indexing for a long time. I want tax [cuts] for middle-class workers. I think indexing is probably better for the upper income groups; I’m not looking to do that."

The Senate’s top tax writers have released the first round of bipartisan task force reports examining over 40 expired and soon to be expired tax breaks known as tax extenders. Congress is expected to address these particular tax breaks, as well as temporary tax policy in general, when lawmakers return to Washington, D.C. in September.

The Senate’s top tax writers have released the first round of bipartisan task force reports examining over 40 expired and soon to be expired tax breaks known as tax extenders. Congress is expected to address these particular tax breaks, as well as temporary tax policy in general, when lawmakers return to Washington, D.C. in September.

Tax Extenders Task Forces
Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Ranking Member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., on August 13 released three of six reports detailing the work of bipartisan task forces that were created to examine certain tax breaks, which expired or will expire between December 31, 2017, and December 31, 2019. The three remaining tax extenders task force reports are expected to be released soon.

The reports released by Grassley and Wyden on August 13 were from the following task forces:

• Energy;
• Cost Recovery; and
• Individual, Excise and Other Temporary Tax Policy.

Next Steps
Wyden also highlighted the importance of moving away from the notion of temporary tax provisions in general, which Democrats and Republicans alike largely agree is not good tax policy. "Tax policy should not be set a year or two at a time. We need to find permanent solutions that provide certainty to families and businesses," Wyden said in an August 13 press release.

Grassley and Wyden introduced their bipartisan tax extenders bill earlier this year. However, Grassley reiterated on August 13 that movement of all tax legislation must be initiated in the House. Although House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., has also introduced his own tax extenders proposal, the bill is unlikely to garner enough support from Senate Republicans.

"The next step will be to put together a legislative package based on the proposals that the taskforces received, the areas of consensus among the taskforce members and continued bipartisan discussions," Grassley said in an August 13 press release. "Taxpayers deserve predictability and clarity, and they haven’t received either for far too long on temporary tax policy."

Bonus depreciation guidance that applies to property acquired after September 27, 2017, in a tax year that includes September 28, 2017, allows taxpayers to make a late election or revoke a prior valid election to...

Bonus depreciation guidance that applies to property acquired after September 27, 2017, in a tax year that includes September 28, 2017, allows taxpayers to make a late election or revoke a prior valid election to:

• elect out of 100 percent bonus depreciation;
• elect 100 percent bonus depreciation on specified plants in the year of planting or grafting; or
• elect the 50 percent rate in place of the 100 percent rate.

The late election or revocation may be made by filing an accounting method change, or in certain cases by filing an amended return. The taxpayer must have timely filed its federal tax return for the 2016 or 2017 tax year. Most taxpayers will prefer the administrative ease of filing an accounting method change with their next return and making a single Code Sec. 481(a) adjustment. This route is easier than filling an amended return and, if necessary, amended returns for any subsequent affected year.

Background
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97) increased the bonus depreciation rate from 50 percent to 100 percent, effective for property acquired and placed in service after September 27, 2017. Many taxpayers filed returns for a 2016 or 2017 tax year that included September 27, 2017, before proposed bonus depreciation regulations ( REG-104397-18, August 8, 2018) were issued to explain the related bonus depreciation changes. Consequently, the IRS is granting relief to taxpayers, and disregarding the general rule that advance IRS permission must be obtained in a letter ruling to make a late election or revoke a prior election and that making or revoking an election is not an accounting method change.

Amended Returns
A late election or revocation of an election may be made on an amended return for the 2016 or 2017 tax year that includes September 28, 2017. However, according to the guidance, the amended return must be filed before the taxpayer files its federal return for the first tax year succeeding the 2016 or 2017 tax year, and must include the adjustment directly related to the late election or revocation as well as any collateral adjustments. Thus, for a calendar year taxpayer, an amended return for 2017 may be filed if the 2018 tax year return has not been filed. (e.g., if an October 15, 2019 filing extension was obtained).

Accounting Method Changes
Instead of filing an amended return, a taxpayer may file Form 3115, Application for Change in Accounting Method, with a taxpayer’s timely filed federal tax return for the first, second, or third tax year succeeding the 2016 or 2017 tax year that includes September 28, 2017, to make or revoke a covered election.

The automatic consent procedures apply. Accordingly, no fee is required. Multiple Forms 3115 do not need to be filed if more than one election or revocation is made.

Rev. Proc. 2018-31, I.R.B. 2018-22, 637, which lists all automatic accounting method changes, is modified to include this accounting method change.

Deemed Elections
A taxpayer who filed a timely 2016 or 2017 return that includes September 28, 2017, without following the formal election procedures in Rev. Proc. 2017-33, I.R.B. 2017-19, 1236, may be deemed to have made a valid election. Specifically, with respect to property placed in service after September 27, 2017, in a 2016 or 2017 tax year that includes September 28, 2017:

• An election to claim 100 percent bonus depreciation on a specified plant in the year of planting or grafting is considered made if the 100 percent rate was actually claimed on the return.
• An election not to claim bonus depreciation for a class of property is considered made if the taxpayer did not claim 100 percent bonus depreciation (or the elective 50 percent rate) for that class of property on the return.
• An election to claim the 50 percent bonus rate in lieu of the 100 percent bonus rate is considered made if the taxpayer claimed bonus depreciation on all qualified property using the 50 percent rate or on all specified plants in the year of planting or grafting.

These deemed elections may be revoked by filing an amended return or an accounting method change under the general rules above.

The IRS has granted a six-month extension to eligible partnerships to file a superseding Form 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership Income, and furnish corresponding Schedules K-1, Partner’s Share of Income, Deductions, Credits. For a calendar year partnership, the deadline to file Form 1065 and corresponding Schedules K-1 was March 15, which has now been extended to September 15.

The IRS has granted a six-month extension to eligible partnerships to file a superseding Form 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership Income, and furnish corresponding Schedules K-1, Partner’s Share of Income, Deductions, Credits. For a calendar year partnership, the deadline to file Form 1065 and corresponding Schedules K-1 was March 15, which has now been extended to September 15.

The relief is available to a partnership that satisfies the following eligibility requirements for the applicable tax year:

• the partnership has not elected the application of Code Sec. 6221(b) (Election Out for Certain Partnerships with 100 or Fewer Partners);
• it has timely filed Form 1065 and
• it has timely furnished all required Schedules K-1 (without regard to the extensions of time provided by the revenue procedure).

The extensions are available only to partnerships that timely filed Form 1065 and timely furnished Schedules K-1 and also file a superseding Form 1065 and furnish corresponding Schedules K-1 on or before the date that is six-months after the non-extended deadline. Further, the filing and furnishing extensions apply only to partnership tax years that ended prior to the issuance of the revenue procedure and for which the extended due date for the partnership tax year is after July 25, 2019.

The IRS is allowing the extensions because certain Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA) partnerships timely filed Form 1065 for the 2018 tax year and timely furnished Schedules K-1 to their partners but may have made errors, including not properly reporting all of the required information on the Schedules K-1. The relief is directed at partnerships that, having timely filed, did not request an extension of the deadline to file and, due to the restrictions on amending Schedules K-1 under Code Sec. 6031(a) may not amend the Schedules K-1, including for the 2018 tax year.

Eligible partnerships taking advantage of the extensions should file a superseding Form 1065 and furnish corresponding Schedules K-1 in the same manner as the original return and Schedules K-1 and write on the top of the superseding Form 1065 "SUPERSEDING FORM 1065 PURSUANT TO REVENUE PROCEDURE 2019-32."

Proposed regulations increase a vehicle’s maximum value for eligibility to use the fleet-average valuation rule or the vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rule. The increase to $50,000 is effective for the 2018 calendar year. The maximum value is adjusted annually for inflation after 2018. The proposed regulations provide transition rules for certain employers.

Proposed regulations increase a vehicle’s maximum value for eligibility to use the fleet-average valuation rule or the vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rule. The increase to $50,000 is effective for the 2018 calendar year. The maximum value is adjusted annually for inflation after 2018. The proposed regulations provide transition rules for certain employers.

Taxpayers may rely on the proposed regulations until final regulation amendments are published in the Federal Register.

Depreciation Limits Increased, Inflation Calculation Changed
The Tax Cuts and Job Act ( P.L. 115-97) substantially increased the maximum annual dollar limitations on the depreciation deductions for passenger automobiles. The new dollar limitations are based on the depreciation, over a five-year recovery period, of a passenger automobile with a cost of $50,000. As a result, the IRS issued Notice 2019-8, I.R.B. 2019-3, 354, providing that it intends to amend Reg. §1.61-21(d) and (e) to:

• incorporate a higher base value of $50,000 as the maximum value for use of the vehicle cents-per-mile and fleet-average valuation rules, effective for the 2018 calendar year; and
• adjust the $50,000 base value annually for inflation in 2019 and subsequent years.

Additionally, the Notice provides that the IRS will not publish separate maximum values for trucks and vans for use with the fleet-average and vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rules. For tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, inflation adjustments for these purposes are calculated using both the consumer price index (CPI) automobile component and the Chained Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (C-CPI-U) automobile component ( Code Sec. 280F(d)(7)(B)). The C-CPI-U automobile component does not currently have separate components for new cars and new trucks.

The IRS later issued Notice 2019-34, I.R.B. 2019-22, 1257, to:

• provide a 2019 inflation increase to $50,400 for these amounts; and
• announce it would revise Reg. §1.61-21(d) to provide a transition rule for certain employers.

Transition Rules
The proposed regulations include the following transition rules.

Fleet-average valuation rule. If an employer did not qualify to use the fleet-average valuation rule prior to January 1, 2018, because the automobile’s fair market value exceeded the inflation-adjusted maximum value requirement for the year the automobile was first made available to the employee for personal use, the employer may adopt the fleet-average valuation rule for 2018 or 2019, provided the fair market value of the automobile does not exceed $50,000 on January 1, 2018, or $50,400 on January 1, 2019.

Vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rule. An employer that did not qualify to adopt the vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rule for a vehicle first made available to an employee for personal use before calendar year 2018 may first adopt the vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rule for the 2018 or 2019 tax year for the vehicle if:

• the employer did not qualify to adopt the vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rule because the vehicle’s fair market value exceeded the inflation-adjusted limitation for the year the vehicle was first used by the employee for personal use; and
• the vehicle’s fair market value does not exceed $50,000 on January 1, 2018, or $50,400 on January 1, 2019.

Similarly, if the employer first used the commuting valuation rule, the employer may adopt the vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rule for the 2018 or 2019 tax year if:

• the employer did not qualify to switch to the vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rule on the first day on which the commuting valuation rule was not used because the vehicle’s fair market value exceeded the inflation-adjusted limitation for the year the commuting valuation rule was first not used; and
• the fair market value of the vehicle does not exceed $50,000 on January 1, 2018, or $50,400 on January 1, 2019.

COMMENT 
An employer that adopts the vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rule generally must continue to use the rule for all subsequent years in which the vehicle qualifies for it. However, the employer may use the commuting valuation rule for any year during which use of the vehicle qualifies for the commuting valuation rule.
 

The temporary nondiscrimination relief for closed defined benefit plans provided in Notice 2014-5, I.R.B. 2014-2, 276, is extended through plan years beginning in 2020. Notice 2014-5 provided temporary nondiscrimination relief for certain defined benefit pension plans that were "closed" before December 13, 2013. Notice 2014-5, I.R.B. 2014-2, 276, Notice 2015-28, I.R.B. 2015-14, 848, Notice 2016-57, I.R.B. 2016-40, 432, Notice 2017-45, I.R.B. 2017-38, 232, and Notice 2018-69, I.R.B. 2018-37, 426, are modified.

The temporary nondiscrimination relief for closed defined benefit plans provided in Notice 2014-5, I.R.B. 2014-2, 276, is extended through plan years beginning in 2020. Notice 2014-5 provided temporary nondiscrimination relief for certain defined benefit pension plans that were "closed" before December 13, 2013. Notice 2014-5, I.R.B. 2014-2, 276, Notice 2015-28, I.R.B. 2015-14, 848, Notice 2016-57, I.R.B. 2016-40, 432, Notice 2017-45, I.R.B. 2017-38, 232, and Notice 2018-69, I.R.B. 2018-37, 426, are modified.

Closed Defined Benefit Plans
Employers have been moving away from traditional defined benefit plans for rank and file employees. Existing plans are sometimes closed for new employees as of a specified date. These plans are referred to as "closed plans," and the employees who continue to earn pension benefits under the closed plan are often known as a "grandfathered group of employees."

Closed plans must continue to meet the coverage and nondiscrimination tests, but they may eventually find it difficult because the proportion of the grandfathered group of employees who are highly compensated employees compared to the employer’s total workforce increases over time. This occurs because grandfathered employees usually continue to receive pay raises and so may become highly compensated employees, while new employees who are generally nonhighly compensated employees are not covered by the closed plan.

Notice 2014-5 Relief
For plan years beginning before 2016, Notice 2014-5 provides testing relief for defined benefit/defined contribution plans that include a closed defined benefit plan that was closed before December 13, 2013. Under this relief the plan can demonstrate satisfaction of the nondiscrimination in amount requirement on the basis of equivalent benefits, even if the does not meet any of the existing eligibility conditions for testing on that basis.

This relief has been extended several times in anticipation of the IRS issuing final amendments to the Code Sec. 401(a)(4) regulations. Most recently the relief was extended until plan years beginning in 2019, and it is now extended for plan years beginning in 2020. The IRS issued proposed regulations in 2016 to provide a permanent fix ( NPRM REG-125761-14, Jan. 29, 2016). The IRS expects the final regulations will provide that the reliance granted in the preamble to the proposed regulations may be applied for plan years beginning before 2021.

The IRS has adopted final regulations with respect to the allocation by a partnership of foreign income taxes. The final regulations are intended to improve the operation of an existing safe harbor rule. This safe harbor rule, under Reg. §1.704-1(b)(4)(viii), determines whether allocations of creditable foreign tax expenditures (CFTEs) are deemed to be in accordance with the partners’ interests in the partnership.

The IRS has adopted final regulations with respect to the allocation by a partnership of foreign income taxes. The final regulations are intended to improve the operation of an existing safe harbor rule. This safe harbor rule, under Reg. §1.704-1(b)(4)(viii), determines whether allocations of creditable foreign tax expenditures (CFTEs) are deemed to be in accordance with the partners’ interests in the partnership.

The final regulations—

• clarify the effect of Code Sec. 743(b) adjustments on the determination of net income in a CFTE category;
• include special rules regarding how deductible allocations (that is, allocations that give rise to a deduction under foreign law) are taken into account for purposes of determining net income in a CFTE category;
• include special rules regarding how nondeductible guaranteed payments (that is, guaranteed payments that do not give rise to a deduction under foreign law) are taken into account for purposes of determining net income in a CFTE category; and
• include a clarification of the rules regarding the treatment of disregarded payments between branches of a partnership for purposes of determining income attributable to an activity included in a CFTE category.

A transition rule applies to partnerships whose agreements were entered into before February 14, 2012.

Transactions involving digital content and cloud computing have become common due to the growth of electronic commerce. The transactions must be classified in terms of character so that various provisions of the Code, such as the sourcing rules and subpart F, can be applied.

Transactions involving digital content and cloud computing have become common due to the growth of electronic commerce. The transactions must be classified in terms of character so that various provisions of the Code, such as the sourcing rules and subpart F, can be applied.

Digital Content Transactions
Existing Reg. §1.861-18 provides rules for classifying transactions involving computer programs. The proposed regulations broaden the scope of the rules to apply to all transfers of digital content. "Digital content" is defined as any content in digital format that is either protected by copyright law or is no longer protected due solely to the passage of time.

The proposed regulations clarify that a transfer of the mere right to public performance or display of digital content for advertising does not alone constitute a transfer of a copyright.

Additionally, the proposed regulations clarify the title passage rule. When there is a sale of a copyrighted article through an electronic medium, the sale will occur at the location of the download or installation onto the end user’s device, or, in the absence of that information, the location of the customer.

A sale of personal property occurs at the place where the rights, title, and interest of the seller in the property are transferred to the buyer. If bare legal title is retained by the seller, the sale occurs where beneficial ownership passes.

Cloud Computing Transactions
Cloud computing transactions are typically characterized by on-demand network access to computer resources. The proposed regulations classify a "cloud transaction" as either:

• a lease of property (i.e., computer hardware, digital content, or other similar resources); or
• a provision of services.

The proposed regulations provide a nonexhaustive list of factors for determining how a cloud transaction is classified. In general, application of the relevant factors will result in a transaction being treated as a provision of services, rather than a lease of property. The factors include both statutory factors under Code Sec. 7701(e)(1) and factors applied by the courts.

The IRS Large Business and International Division (LB&I) has withdrawn its directive to examiners that provided instructions on transfer pricing issue selection related to stock based compensation (SBC) in cost sharing arrangements (CSAs).

The IRS Large Business and International Division (LB&I) has withdrawn its directive to examiners that provided instructions on transfer pricing issue selection related to stock based compensation (SBC) in cost sharing arrangements (CSAs).

U.S. taxpayers that are cost sharing participants must include SBC as intangible development costs (IDCs), under Reg. §1.482-7A(d)(2) and Reg. §1.482-7(d)(3) if these costs are directly identified with, or reasonably allocable to, the intangible development activity of the CSA. In 2015, the Tax Court invalidated Reg. §1.482-7A(d)(2) in Altera Corp., 145 TC 91, Dec. 60,354. The IRS appealed Alteraand issued Directive LB&I-04-0118-005 on January 12, 2018, directing examiners to stop opening new examinations for issues related to SBC included in CSA IDCs until the outcome of the Altera appeal was known.

On June 7, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the Tax Court’s opinion (Altera Corp., CA-9, 2019-1 ustc ¶50,231). Based on the Ninth Circuit’s decision, LB&I has formally withdrawn LB&I-04-0118-005.

LB&I has instructed examiners to continue applying Reg. §§1.482-7A(d)(2) and 1.482-7(d)(3), including opening new examinations of CSA SBC issues when appropriate. Because the issues may be factually intensive, LB&I states that transfer pricing teams should develop the facts to support their analyses and conclusions. Finally, LB&I instructs issue teams to consider consulting the Practice Network and Counsel where appropriate, for support in developing the most reliable analyses of this issue.

LB&I will continue to monitor further developments related to the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

There are a number of advantages for starting a Roth IRA account, the most important being that all the investment earnings grow tax-free, and qualified distributions are tax-free. Additionally, you can continue to make contributions to your Roth after you turn 70 ½ and are not subject to the required minimum distribution rules. Currently, only individuals who have a modified adjusted gross income (AGI) of less than $100,000 and/or who do not file their return as "married filing separately" can convert their traditional IRA to a Roth.

However, beginning in 2010, everyone, no matter what their income level or filing status, will be able to have a Roth IRA. The question that remains to determine is when you should convert, if at all.

Spreading out your tax liability

A conversion is treated as a taxable distribution, but is not subject to the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty. However, taxpayers who convert to a Roth IRA in 2010 (and 2010, only) have the ability to pay taxes on the converted amount ratably over two years, in 2011 and 2012. Therefore, if you convert to a Roth in 2009, you must recognize the entire converted amount in income on your 2009 tax return.

Changes for 2010

In 2010, the $100,000 modified AGI cap that has prevented many individuals from converting from their traditional IRA to a Roth, is completely eliminated. Moreover, the filing status limitation will also be done away with, meaning that married couples filing separately will be able to convert to a Roth IRA as well. However, all other rules continue to apply, and any amount you convert to a Roth IRA will still be taxed as ordinary income at your marginal tax rate. The exception for 2010, of course is that you will have the choice of recognizing the conversion income in 2010 or averaging it over 2011 and 2012.

Example 1. You have $28,000 in a traditional IRA, which consists of deductible contributions and earnings. In 2010, you convert the entire amount to a Roth IRA. You do not take any distributions in 2010. As a result of the conversion, you have $28,000 in gross income. Unless you elect otherwise, $14,000 of the income is included in income in 2011 and $14,000 is included in income in 2012.

Example 2. On the other hand, if you currently meet the AGI and filing status requirements to convert to a Roth IRA (that is, your AGI for 2009 will be less than $100,000 and your filing status is not "married filing separately" you can also convert this year. But, you will recognize all the conversion income in 2009 instead of having it spread over two years. Therefore, if in the example above you convert the entire $28,000 to a Roth IRA in 2009, you will pay tax on the entire $28,000 conversion amount in 2009.

Taking advantage of lower tax rates

Currently, the income tax rates are at a historic low. But these rates are scheduled to revert to previously higher levels (and rise further for some taxpayers) after 2010. The Obama administration has proposed extending the lower individual marginal income tax rates but raising the two highest income tax brackets to 36- and 39.6-percent after 2010. This should be considered in your decision of when (and if) to convert to a Roth in 2010, or now in order to take advantage of the lower income tax rates, especially if you expect to be in one of the two highest income tax brackets after 2010.

Conversions in years after 2010 will be included in your income during the tax year in which you completed the conversion to a Roth IRA. While deferring tax is a traditional and beneficial part of tax planning, if you convert in 2010 the tax will be spread out ratably in 2011 and 2012, and therefore taxed at the rates in effect for 2011 and 2012 (which as mentioned could be higher for some taxpayers). Thus, if income tax rates go up, which they are anticipated to do, you may end up paying much more tax. Therefore, if you do not want to take this chance that your income rate will be higher in 2011 and 2012, you may want to elect to pay the full tax on the Roth conversion in your 2010 income tax return, at 2010 income tax rates.

So why would you accelerate a conversion? If you believe your IRA assets are currently valued on the low side, you might opt for a conversion if you are below the $100,000 AGI level for 2009. This reduces your tax liability on the conversion. Similarly, if you converted within the past year and the value of the assets has declined since then, you can elect to "undo" the conversion. Otherwise, you will have paid tax on the conversion when the assets were at a higher value.

Undoing the conversion later

If you convert to a Roth IRA, but later change your mind, you have until Oct. 15 of the year after the year of conversion to undue the transaction and go back to your traditional IRA. For example, if you convert in 2009, you will generally have until October 15, 2010 to recharacterize the transaction. However, to do this you must have filed your individual tax return by the normal filing deadline (April 15, generally) or if you obtained an extension, the extension due date.

For example, if the value of your Roth drastically declines after the conversion, and leaves you essentially with a Roth IRA value that is even less than the tax you paid to convert, this would be a good reason to undo the transaction. Recharacterizing the conversion would undo the tax consequences and therefore you'd get back the tax you paid on the larger amount that was converted to the Roth IRA.

Can you afford the conversion tax?

You will have to pay a conversion tax on the transaction, which can be a significant sum. In spite of all the advantages of a Roth IRA, a conversion is generally advisable if you can readily pay the tax generated in the year of the conversion. If the tax is paid out of a distribution from the converted IRA, that amount is also taxed; and if the distribution counts as an early withdrawal, it is also subject to an additional 10 percent penalty. For those planning to convert who may not already have the funds available, saving now in a regular bank or brokerage account to cover the amount of the tax in 2010 can return an unusually high yield if it enables a Roth IRA conversion in 2010 that might not otherwise take place.

Individuals who have been "involuntarily terminated" from employment may be eligible for a temporary subsidy to help pay for COBRA continuation coverage. The temporary assistance is part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (2009 Recovery Act), and is aimed at helping individuals who have lost their jobs in our troubled economy. However, not every individual who has lost his or her job qualifies for the COBRA subsidy. This article discusses what qualifies as "involuntary termination" for purposes of the temporary COBRA subsidy.

Background

The 2009 Recovery Act temporarily allows individuals involuntarily terminated from their employment between September 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009 to elect to pay 35 percent of their COBRA coverage and be treated as having paid the full amount. In most cases, the former employer pays the remaining 65 percent of the premium and is reimbursed by claiming a payroll tax credit.

Some individuals who are "qualified beneficiaries" may also be eligible for the COBRA subsidy. They include spouses and dependent children. However, domestic partners generally do not qualify for the COBRA subsidy.

Income limits

The COBRA subsidy is excludable from gross income. However, individuals with modified adjusted gross incomes (MAGI) between $125,000 and $145,000 ($250,000 and $290,000 for married couples filing jointly) must repay part of the subsidy. For individuals with MAGI exceeding $145,000 and married couples with MAGI exceeding $290,000, the full amount of the subsidy must be repaid as additional tax.

Coverage period

The COBRA subsidy applies as of the first period of coverage starting on or after February 17, 2009 (the effective date of the 2009 Recovery Act). For most plans this was March 1, 2009. The subsidy is available for nine months. However, the nine-month subsidy period may end earlier if the individual becomes eligible for Medicare or another group health plan (such as one sponsored by a new employer).

Involuntary termination

One of the most important questions for purposes of the COBRA subsidy is what is involuntary termination? The IRS has explained that involuntary termination is severance from employment due to an employer's unilateral authority to terminate the employment. However, the IRS stresses that whether an involuntary termination has occurred depends on all the facts and circumstances.

Involuntary termination can also occur when an employer:

• Declines to renew an employee's contract;
• Furloughs an employee;
• Reduces an employee's time to zero hours;
• Tells an employee to "resign or be fired;"
• Relocates its office or plant and an employee declines to relocate; or
• Locks out its employees.

Extended election

Moreover, individuals involuntarily terminated between September 1, 2008 and February 18, 2009, but who declined COBRA coverage, have a second chance under the 2009 Recovery Act. They may be eligible to re-elect COBRA coverage and receive the subsidy.

Small businesses

COBRA continuation coverage and the subsidy are generally unavailable to employees of small businesses (businesses with 20 or fewer employees). However, some states have mini-COBRA laws that extend COBRA continuation coverage and the subsidy to workers at small businesses. COBRA continuation coverage and the subsidy are also unavailable if the employer terminates its health plan.

If you would like to know more about the COBRA premium subsidy, please contact out offices. We can help determine your eligibility for this assistance.

While the past year has not been stellar for most investors, the tax law in many instances can step in to help salvage some of your losses by offsetting both present and future taxable gains and other income. Knowing how net capital gains and losses are computed, and how carryover capital losses may be used to maximum tax advantage, should form an important part of an investor's portfolio management program during these challenging times.

Net capital losses

Capital assets yield short-term gains or losses if the holding period is one year or less, and long-term gains or losses if the holding period exceeds one year. The excess of net long-term gains over net short-term losses is net capital gain.

Short-term capital losses, including short-term capital loss carryovers, are applied first against short-term capital gains. If the losses exceed the gains the net short-term capital loss is applied first against any net long-term capital gain from the 28-percent group (collectibles), then against the 25-percent group (recapture property), and last against the 15- (or zero) percent group. Long-term capital losses are similarly netted and then applied against the most highly taxed net gains that a taxpayer has.

If an investor's capital losses exceed capital gains for the year, he or she may offset losses against ordinary income to the extent of the lesser of: the excess capital loss; or $3,000 ($1,500 for married persons filing separate returns). Although several bills have been introduced to raise these dollar levels, which have not been adjusted for inflation for decades, none has yet to see the light of day.

Carryovers

Individuals may carry net capital losses to future tax years but not back to prior years. There is no limit on the number of years to which net capital losses may be carried over as there is with corporate taxpayers. Short-term and long-term capital losses are carried forward and retain their character. Capital loss carryovers that originate in several years are applied in the order in which incurred.

Dividend offsets. While qualified dividends are taxed at the net capital gains rate, they do not take part in the general computation of net capital gains and, therefore, are not reduced by capital losses, either in the same year or in carried forward years. Although your overall portfolio may have experienced a loss for the year, you must still pay tax on your dividend income.

If you need any advice on how to structure your portfolio over the next year to take advantage of current losses while protecting future gains from as much income tax as possible, please do not hesitate to call this office.

The IRS has released the numbers behind its activities from October 1, 2007 through September 30, 2008 in a publication called the 2008 IRS Data Book. This annually released information provides statistics on returns filed, taxes collected, and the IRS's enforcement efforts.

Examinations Data

For example, the IRS reported that its examinations totaled over 1.54 million during FY 2008, or 0.8 percent of the total returns filed during the previous calendar year. This amount was a 0.65-percent drop from returns examined during FY 2007. Of all the returns examined, a little over one-percent were individual income tax returns, a 0.507-percent increase from FY 2007.  

Within the category of individual income tax returns, the IRS examined 0.93-percent less taxpayers with under $200,000 of total positive income than the previous year; i.e. a total of all sources of income, excluding losses. This figure increased by 33.23-percent for taxpayers with total positive income between $200,000 and $1 million, but decreased by 30.3-percent for individuals with total positive income over $1 million from the previous year. Also, for the first time, the IRS delineated examination percentages during FY 2008 for individual income tax returns according to adjusted gross income as follows:

Decreased Tax Collection

The IRS also reported that, while it received over $2.7 trillion in gross collections during the Fiscal Year (FY) 2008, its net tax collections (after refunds) actually decreased by 3.34-percent from FY 2007. The IRS distributed more than 237 million total refunds in FY 2008 with over 118 million going to individual tax payers. Total FY 2008 tax refunds rose to over $425 billion, while over $270 billion (63.52-percent) alone went to individual filers. The IRS also reported that $95.7 billion in economic stimulus payments were made during the year, as mandated by the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008.

One major reason for these large refunds was the large increase in individual income tax returns filed during FY 2008 as a result of the one-time economic stimulus payments under the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008. While the number of individual income tax returns received by the IRS only increased by 3.7-percent for FY 2007, it increased 11.1-percent for FY 2008. The increase was even greater for Forms 1040NR, 1040NR-EZ, 1040PR, 1040-SS, and 1040CC; which increased by 36-percent for FY 2008 (as compared to 2.3-percent for FY 2007).

The IRS also reported that the economic stimulus payments generated an increase in electronically filed income tax returns as well. During FY 2008, taxpayers electronically filed over 101.5 million returns, 89.5 million of which were individual income tax returns. Of all individual income tax returns filed, 58-percent were filed electronically during the year.

On December 18, 2007, Congress passed the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007 (Mortgage Debt Relief Act), providing some major assistance to certain homeowners struggling to make their mortgage payments. The centerpiece of the new law is a three-year exception to the long-standing rule under the Tax Code that mortgage debt forgiven by a lender constitutes taxable income to the borrower. However, the new law does not alleviate all the pain of all troubled homeowners but, in conjunction with a mortgage relief plan recently announced by the Treasury Department, the Act provides assistance to many subprime borrowers.

Cancellation of debt income

When a lender forecloses on property, sells the home for less than the borrower's outstanding mortgage debt and forgives all, or part, of the unpaid debt, the Tax Code generally treats the forgiven portion of the mortgage debt as taxable income to the homeowner. This is regarded as "cancellation of debt income" (reported on a Form 1099) and taxed to the borrower at ordinary income tax rates.

Example. Mary's principal residence is subject to a $250,000 mortgage debt. Her lender forecloses on the property in 2008. Her home is sold for $200,000 due to declining real estate values. The lender forgives the $50,000 difference leaving Mary with $50,000 in discharge of indebtedness income. Without the new exclusion in the Mortgage Debt Relief Act, Mary would have to pay income taxes on the $50,000 cancelled debt income.

The Mortgage Debt Relief Act

The Mortgage Debt Relief Act excludes from taxation discharges of up to $2 million of indebtedness that is secured by a principal residence and was incurred to acquire, build or make substantial improvements to the taxpayer's principal residence. While the determination of a taxpayer's principal residence is to be based on consideration of "all the facts and circumstances," it is generally the one in which the taxpayer lives most of the time. Therefore, vacation homes and second homes are generally excluded.

Moreover, the debt must be secured by, and used for, the principal residence. Home equity indebtedness is not covered by the new law unless it was used to make improvements to the home. "Cash out" refinancing, popular during the recent real estate boom, in which the funds were not put back into the home but were instead used to pay off credit card debt, tuition, medical expenses, or make other expenditures, is not covered by the new law. Such debt is fully taxable income unless other exceptions apply, such as bankruptcy or insolvency. Additionally, "acquisition indebtedness" includes refinancing debt to the extent the amount of the refinancing does not exceed the amount of the refinanced debt.

The Mortgage Debt Relief Act is effective for debt that has been discharged on or after January 1, 2007, and before January 1, 2010.

Mortgage workouts

In addition to foreclosure situations, some taxpayers renegotiating the terms of their mortgage with their lender are also covered by the new law. A typical foreclosure nets a lender only about 60 cents on the dollar. When the lender determines that foreclosure is not in its best interests, it may offer a mortgage workout. Generally, in a mortgage workout the terms of the mortgage are modified to result in a lower monthly payment and thus make the loan more affordable.

More help

Recently, Treasury Department officials brokered a plan that brings together private sector mortgage lenders, banks, and the Bush Administration to help homeowners. The plan is called HOPE NOW.

Here's how it works: The HOPE NOW plan is aimed at helping borrowers who were able to afford the introductory "teaser" rates on their adjustable rate mortgage (ARM), but will not be able to afford the loan once the rate resets between 2008 and 2010 (approximately 1.3 million ARMs are expected to reset during this period). The plan will "freeze" these borrowers' interest rates for a period of five years. The plan, however, has some limitations that exclude many borrowers. Only borrowers who are current on their mortgage payments will benefit. Borrowers already in default or who have not remained current on their mortgage payments are excluded.

Under the HOPE NOW plan, borrowers may be able t

- Refinance to a new mortgage;

- Switch to a loan insured by the Federal Housing Authority (FHA);

- Freeze their "teaser" introductory rate for five years.

Without the Mortgage Debt Relief Act, a homeowner who modifies the terms of their mortgage loan, or has their interest rate frozen for a period of time, could be subject to debt forgiveness income under the Tax Code. This is why the provision of the Mortgage Debt Relief Act excluding debt forgiveness income from a borrower's income is a critical component necessary to make the HOPE NOW plan effective.

If you would like to know more about relief under the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007 and the Treasury Department's plan, please call our office. We are happy to help you navigate these complicated issues.

A: If you have the money, contributing to your IRA immediately on January 1^st or as soon thereafter as possible is the best strategy.  The #1 advantage of an IRA is that interest or other investment income earned on the account accumulates without tax each year. The sooner the money starts working at earning tax-free income, the greater the tax advantage. With a traditional IRA, that tax advantage means no tax until you finally withdraw the money at retirement or for a qualified emergency. In the case of a Roth IRA, the tax advantage comes in the form of the investment income that is never taxed.

While the earliest date to contribute to an IRA for a current year is January 1^st of that year, the latest date is 15 1/2 months later, on April 15^th of the next year when your tax return is due. (Because of the weekend-next business day rule that's April 16, 2007 for 2006 tax-year contributions.)

Although you may file for an extension to file your tax return, that extension does not extend the time you have to contribute to an IRA; April 15^th is the deadline. Another caveat: If you make a contribution after December 31^st it will be presumed to be made for the next year unless you designate it as relating back to the year just ended. Finally, until the due date for your return, you are allowed to withdraw any IRA contribution, plus earnings on that contribution.

Soon, the recently-passed Pension Protection Act of 2006 will give you another option: designating all or a portion of your tax refund for the year to be directly deposited into your IRA account. In fact, the IRS has moved quickly to provide several refund options, already announcing that new Form 8888 will be created to give all individual filers the ability to split their refunds in up to three financial accounts, such as checking, savings and retirement accounts.

In addition to knowing when to make IRA contributions, you also need to know how much you are able to contribute and whether a traditional or a Roth IRA makes more sense. For those who are already covered by a retirement plan, restrictions on contributing to deductible IRAs must be heeded. Nondeductible and "spousal" IRAs also are options to be considered. Please call our offices if you need further guidance on any of the IRA rules. They are worth using and can grow into a substantial additional nest egg for you at retirement.

When trying to maximize retirement savings contributions, you may find you have contributed too much to your IRA.  Typically, you either have too much income to qualify for a certain IRA or you can't recall what contributions you made until they are added up at tax time and you discover they were too much. There are steps you can take to correct an excess contribution.

What is an excess contribution?

An excess contribution is the amount by which your total contributions to one or more IRAs exceed the applicable dollar limit for the tax year. For tax years 2005 through 2007, the maximum annual combined contribution to a taxpayer's traditional IRAs and Roth IRA is $4,000. For those 50 years or older, an additional $500 is allowed in 2005, and $1,000 for 2006 and subsequent years.  

Your total contributions also include any rollover contributions completed more than 60 days after a distribution is received from a qualified plan or an IRA. If you contribute more than the allowable amount to all IRAs, the excess is subject to a six percent excise tax.

The six percent tax is nondeductible. The tax applies in each subsequent year if excess is not withdrawn or eliminated by treating it as allowable contribution in a future year. The excise tax is also imposed on excess contributions to a Roth IRA. This tax is reported on Form 5329, Additional Taxes Attributable to IRAs, Other Qualified Retirement Plans, Annuities, Modified Endowment Contracts, and medical savings accounts (MSAs).

Steps to take

The IRS treats an amount distributed from an IRA to the individual making the contribution, before the due date (including extensions) of the individual's tax return, as not contributed to the IRA.  If your excess contribution was made by mistake, you can avoid the excise tax on excess contributions (and premature withdrawals) by withdrawing the contribution and any earnings on the contribution, on or before the due date, including extensions, of your return. 

Keep in mind that IRA contributions can only be made up to the due date of the return excluding extensions. The "corrective distribution" can be made up to the due date of the return including extensions.

If you withdraw the contribution in a timely manner, you don't have to include the contribution in your gross income if no deduction is allowed and the interest attributable to the contribution is returned. The interest, however, must be included in your income for the year the contribution was made.

It's very important that you make certain that contributions to your IRA do not exceed the allowable limits. Otherwise, you could be paying the six percent excise tax.  Fortunately, there are remedies. If you discover that you have over-contributed to your IRA, please contact our office immediately. We can help you correct your excess contribution.