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.

"A thumb goes up, a car goes by…" Tax extenders remain a top contender for "hitching a ride" on November’s must-pass government funding bill.

"A thumb goes up, a car goes by…" Tax extenders remain a top contender for "hitching a ride" on November’s must-pass government funding bill.

Wolters Kluwer recently sat down with Jennifer Acuña, Principal, Federal Legislative and Regulatory Services, KPMG LLP, in Washington, D.C. to discuss over 30 temporary tax provisions known as "tax extenders," which have expired or will soon expire spanning from 2017 to 2019. Before joining KPMG, Acuña served as chief tax counsel for the Senate Finance Committee (SFC), and was previously tax counsel for the House Ways and Means Committee.

New Tax Extenders Climate on Capitol Hill
"There is an interesting dynamic going on with tax extenders on Capitol Hill. In the past, extenders were viewed as a priority item, and that has changed," Acuña said.

Generally, tax extenders have been viewed on Capitol Hill as a consistently bipartisan annual or biannual year-end legislative initiative. However, the fate of tax extenders is more uncertain than it has been in the past – in part because it is not clear yet whether there will be an opportunity for any further tax legislation to become law this year, Acuña observed.

Funding Bill Likely Driver for Tax Package
Lawmakers are revving up negotiations as Congress races against this year’s dwindling legislative calendar to reach an agreement on fiscal year (FY) 2020 appropriations. Government funding is scheduled to expire on November 21.

Given the political climate on Capitol Hill and Congress’s limited time left on the legislative calendar, a stand-alone tax package is considered unlikely to make its way through both chambers successfully. That said, November’s "must-pass" government funding bill could be the legislative vehicle for dozens of expired or soon-to-be expired tax extenders, as well as for any other tax provisions that may crop up during lawmakers’ negotiations.

SFC Chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., introduced their bipartisan Tax Extenders and Disaster Relief bill (Sen. 617) earlier this year. Subsequently, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., introduced his version of a similarly named tax extenders bill (HR 3301). However, Neal’s bill—which proposes undoing certain provisions related to estate taxes under 2017 tax reform as a "pay for"—was immediately deemed a nonstarter by Senate Republicans.

Notably, Acuña observed that House Democrats may be viewing their tax extenders bill as an opening offer, providing leverage for a larger tax policy negotiation. "In today’s climate it seems that some of the signaling that’s taking place is that House Democrats are trying to position tax extenders as a Republican priority to build up leverage for a larger tax policy negotiation," Acuña said. "Once you have a tax title on a big bill, there is no limit as to which tax provisions could actually be included in the bill," she added.

Larger Tax Package Could Emerge
In that vein, there has been talk among lawmakers that a larger, catch-all tax package could emerge from these negotiations. Any tax package that is unveiled in the coming weeks must have significant bipartisan support to make it to the president’s desk. That said, amidst the new climate surrounding tax extenders on Capitol Hill. several lawmakers have alluded that bipartisan negotiations could result in any number of tax provisions being added to the anticipated tax package, including technical corrections to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97).

Staking Ground on Extenders
"Right now, what is happening is that parties are staking their ground," Acuña said. While Neal’s bill was largely seen on Capitol Hill as an opening bid to these negotiations, "no one opens with their best offer," Acuña said. However, "there is common ground with respect to tax extenders," she added.

Additionally, Acuña noted that these temporary tax provisions benefit a broad range of constituents. "They have been extended historically without fail for a reason. And it is because there has typically been general bipartisan support for extenders; there is a little bit of something for everyone" she said.

However, as for which tax extenders will be renewed this year, as well as retroactively or all together forgotten, Grassley recently indicated that all eligible provisions will likely make the cut. "I would expect that as of right now, if there is an extenders package there won’t be anything left out," Grassley told reporters.

When asked if Grassley was likely referring to all expired or soon-to-be expired tax incentives spanning from 2017 to 2019, Acuña told Wolters Kluwer "that would seem to be the case." While discussing the possibility of yet another temporary extension, Acuña noted that it is hard to make policy calls on a temporary tax extenders package.

"If you want a drama free negotiation on temporary extensions, it’s a clean date change. It is easier – you do not have a policy debate," she said. "If there is an opportunity for a tax title to be attached to a larger bill this year, it is infinitely harder to include changes that some Members of Congress will not like than it is to just do what has been done in the past and kick the can down the road by temporarily extending everything."

In looking ahead, deciding which temporary tax provisions get the axe is a policy call that is unlikely to be made this year and will not easily be done on a bipartisan basis, according to Acuña.

To Pay For or Not to Pay For
As for tax extenders’ cost, the issue of pay-fors has not generally been a longwinded discussion among lawmakers. "In the past, there have been very short-lived debates on whether to pay for them," Acuña said, adding that extenders generally have not been paid for. "It is hard to find a way to raise the kind of money needed to pay for a tax extenders bill that would be politically palatable for both sides of the aisle."

However, cost can be a leading issue when Congress creates these tax breaks on a temporary rather than permanent basis, Acuña explained. "In theory, everyone might agree that a tax incentive is excellent tax policy, but because of revenue constraints, Congress will not or cannot pay for it on a permanent basis—and that is usually where Congress lands in this temporary tax policy pickle."

Additionally, Acuna highlighted that many of the individual tax cuts under the TCJA were enacted temporarily through 2025 due to budgetary reasons. "A lot of the TCJA provisions gave life to new expiring provisions," Acuña noted. Likening the TCJA’s individual provisions to the long list of tax extenders currently awaiting possible renewal, Acuña noted that tax policy is not usually made temporary "because the members viewed the underlying tax policy as unsound but because of other constraints."

The End for Tax Extenders?
Many Republican and Democratic lawmakers’ have called for an end to tax extenders, citing to the annual year-end dash to renew temporary tax provisions as bad tax policy overall. Indeed, five taskforces comprised of bipartisan SFC members recently reviewed these tax extenders and largely agreed that temporary tax policy in general is less than ideal. While many House lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, in this Congress and those before it, have agreed that enacting permanent tax invectives is better policy than doing so temporarily, actually getting there remains a challenge, even if just procedurally.

The IRS has issued a revenue procedure with a safe harbor that allows certain interests in rental real estate to be treated as a trade or business for purposes of the Code Sec. 199A qualified business income (QBI) deduction. The safe harbor is intended to lessen taxpayer uncertainty on whether a rental real estate interest qualifies as a trade or business for the QBI deduction, including the application of the aggregation rules in Reg. §1.199A-4.

The IRS has issued a revenue procedure with a safe harbor that allows certain interests in rental real estate to be treated as a trade or business for purposes of the Code Sec. 199A qualified business income (QBI) deduction. The safe harbor is intended to lessen taxpayer uncertainty on whether a rental real estate interest qualifies as a trade or business for the QBI deduction, including the application of the aggregation rules in Reg. §1.199A-4.

QBI Deduction and Rental Real Estate
Under Code Sec. 199A, certain noncorporate taxpayers can deduct up to 20 percent of the taxpayer’s QBI from each of the taxpayer's qualified trades or businesses, including those operated through a partnership, S corporation, or sole proprietorship. Certain relevant passthrough entities (RPEs) (partnerships, S corporations, trust funds) calculate the deduction and pass it along to their owners or beneficiaries. A qualified trade or business is generally any trade or business under Code Sec. 162, but not a specified service trade or business (SSTB) or a trade or business of performing services as an employee.

Rental or licensing of tangible or intangible property (i.e., rental activity) that is not a Code Sec. 162 trade or business is still treated as a trade or business for the QBI deduction if the property is rented or licensed to a trade or business conducted by the individual or a RPE which is commonly controlled under Reg. §1.199A-4 ( Reg. §1.199A-1(b)(14)).

Earlier this year, the IRS released a proposed revenue procedure with a safe harbor for treating a rental real estate enterprise as a trade or business under Code Sec. 199A ( Notice 2019-7, I.R.B. 2019-9, 740). The IRS has issued the new revenue procedure after considering public comments on Notice 2019-7.

Rental Real Estate Enterprise
The new safe harbor applies to a "rental real estate enterprise." This is an interest in real property held for the production of rents, and may consist of an interest in a single property or interests in multiple properties. The taxpayer or RPE must hold each interest directly or through a disregarded entity, and may either:

• treat each interest in similar property held for the production of rents as a separate rental real estate enterprise; or
• treat interests in all similar properties held for the production of rents as a single rental real estate enterprise.

Properties are similar if they are part of the same rental real estate category: either residential or commercial. Commercial real estate held for the production of rents can only be part of the same enterprise with other commercial real estate. Residential properties can only be part of the same enterprise with other residential properties.

A taxpayer or RPE that treats interests in similar properties as a single rental real estate enterprise must continue to treat interests in all similar properties, including newly acquired properties, as a single rental real estate enterprise if it continues to rely on the safe harbor. However, a taxpayer or RPE that chooses to treat its interest in each residential or commercial property as a separate rental real estate enterprise can choose to treat its interests in all similar commercial or all similar residential properties as a single rental real estate enterprise in a future year.

An interest in mixed-use property—a single building that combines residential and commercial units—can be treated as a single rental real estate enterprise, or bifurcated into separate residential and commercial interests. A mixed-use property interest that is treated as a single rental real estate enterprise cannot be treated as part of the same enterprise as other residential, commercial, or mixed-use property.

Safe Harbor Requirements
The safe harbor determination must be made annually. For a rental real estate enterprise to qualify for the safe harbor, all of the following requirements must be met during the tax year:

• Separate books and records are maintained to reflect income and expenses for each rental real estate enterprise. If an enterprise has more than one property, the requirement can be met if income and expense information statements for each property are maintained and then consolidated.
• For rental real estate enterprises in existence for less than four years, 250 or more hours of rental services are performed per year. For rental real estate enterprises in existence for at least four years, 250 or more hours of rental services are performed per year in any three of the five consecutive tax years that end with the tax year.
• The taxpayer maintains contemporaneous records (including time reports, logs, or similar documents) on the hours of all services performed, a description of all services performed, the dates when the services were performed, and who performed the services. For services performed by employees or independent contractors, the taxpayer may provide a description of the rental services, the amount of time generally spent performing the services, and the time, wage, or payment records for the employee or independent contractor. Records must be made available for inspection at the IRS's request. (The contemporaneous records requirement does not apply to tax years that begin before January 1, 2020.)
• For each tax year for which it relies on the safe harbor, the taxpayer or RPE must attach a statement to a timely filed original return (or an amended return for the 2018 tax year only) that includes: (i) a description (including the address and rental category) of all rental real estate properties in each rental real estate enterprise; (ii) a description (including the address and rental category) of rental real estate properties acquired and disposed of during the tax year; and (iii) a representation that the requirements of Rev. Proc. 2019-38 have been satisfied.

"Rental services" include, but are not limited to:

• advertising to rent or lease the real estate;
• negotiating and executing leases;
• verifying information contained in prospective tenant applications;
• collecting rent;
• daily operation, maintenance, and repair of the property, including purchasing materials and
• supplies;
• managing the real estate; and
• supervising employees and independent contractors.

Rental services does not include:

• financial or investment management activities, such as arranging financing;
• procuring property;
• studying and reviewing financial statements or reports on operations;
• improving property under Reg. §1.263(a)-3(d); or
• time spent traveling to and from the real estate.

If an enterprise fails to satisfy the safe harbor requirements, it can still be treated as a trade or business for the QBI deduction if it otherwise meets the trade or business definition in Reg. §1.199A-1(b)(14).

Property Excluded From Safe Harbor
The safe harbor does not apply to:

• real estate used by the taxpayer (including an owner or beneficiary of an RPE) as a residence under Code Sec. 280A(d);
• real estate rented or leased under a triple net lease, which includes a lease agreement that requires the tenant or lessee to pay taxes, fees, and insurance, and to pay for maintenance activities for a property in addition to rent and utilities;
• real estate rented to a trade or business conducted by a taxpayer or an RPE that is commonly controlled under Reg. §1.199A-4(b)(1)(i); or
• the entire rental real estate interest, if any portion of it is treated as an SSTB under Reg. §1.199A-5(c)(2).

Effective Date
The safe harbor applies to tax years ending after December 31, 2017. However, taxpayers and RPEs can rely on the prior safe harbor in Notice 2019-7 for the 2018 tax year.

The IRS has released cryptocurrency guidance and frequently asked questions (FAQs) on virtual currency.

The IRS has released cryptocurrency guidance and frequently asked questions (FAQs) on virtual currency. Under the cryptocurrency guidance:

• a taxpayer does not have gross income from a "hard fork" of the taxpayer's cryptocurrency if the taxpayer does not receive units of a new cryptocurrency; and
• a taxpayer has ordinary income as a result of an "airdrop" of a new cryptocurrency following a hard fork if the taxpayer receives units of the new cryptocurrency.

The IRS has posted the FAQs on its website ( https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/frequently-asked-questions-on-virtual-currency-transactions).

Virtual Currency and Cryptocurrency
Virtual currency is a digital representation of value that functions as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and a store of value other than a representation of the U.S. dollar or a foreign currency.

Cryptocurrency is a type of virtual currency that uses cryptography to secure transactions that are digitally recorded on a distributed ledger, such as a blockchain. Distributed ledger technology uses independent digital systems to record, share, and synchronize transactions, the details of which are recorded in multiple places at the same time with no central data store or administration functionality.

Hard Forks and Air Drops
A hard fork occurs when a cryptocurrency on a distributed ledger undergoes a protocol change resulting in a permanent diversion from the legacy or existing distributed ledger. A hard fork may result in the creation of a new cryptocurrency on a new distributed ledger in addition to the legacy cryptocurrency on the legacy distributed ledger. Following a hard fork, transactions involving the new cryptocurrency are recorded on the new distributed ledger, and transactions involving the legacy cryptocurrency continue to be recorded on the legacy distributed ledger.

An airdrop is a means of distributing units of a cryptocurrency to the distributed ledger addresses of multiple taxpayers. A hard fork followed by an airdrop results in the distribution of units of the new cryptocurrency to addresses containing the legacy cryptocurrency. Note, however, that a hard fork is not always followed by an airdrop.

Cryptocurrency from an airdrop generally is received on the date and at the time it is recorded on the distributed ledger. However, a taxpayer may constructively receive cryptocurrency prior to the airdrop being recorded on the distributed ledger. A taxpayer does not have receipt of cryptocurrency when the airdrop is recorded on the distributed ledger if the taxpayer is not able to exercise dominion and control over the cryptocurrency.

Gross Income
If the taxpayer did not receive units of new cryptocurrency from a hard fork, the taxpayer does not have an accession to wealth and does not have gross income as a result of the hard fork.

If the taxpayer receives units of new cryptocurrency from an airdrop following a hard fork, the taxpayer received a new asset. Therefore, the taxpayer has an accession to wealth and has ordinary income in the year in which the taxpayer receives the new cryptocurrency. The taxpayer includes in gross income the fair market value of the cryptocurrency received. The taxpayer’s basis in the new cryptocurrency is the amount of income recognized.

Schedule 1, Form 1040 for 2019
A draft of the 2019 Form 1040, Schedule 1, "Additional Income and Adjustments to Income," includes a question which asks: "At any time during 2019, did you receive, sell, send, exchange or otherwise acquire any financial interest in any virtual currency?" If an individual has engaged in any virtual currency transaction in 2019, he or she must check the “Yes” box next to the question.

If the taxpayer has disposed of any virtual currency that was held as a capital asset, he or she must use Form 8949 to figure the capital gain or loss and report it on Schedule D (Form 1040 or Form 1040-SR). If the taxpayer has received any virtual currency as compensation for services, or disposed of any virtual currency that he or she held for sale to customers in a trade or business, the taxpayer must report the income as he or she would report other income of the same type.

A district court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by four states’ against the federal government, ruling that the $10,000 state and local taxes (SALT) federal deduction cap is not unconstitutionally coercive.

A district court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by four states’ against the federal government, ruling that the $10,000 state and local taxes (SALT) federal deduction cap is not unconstitutionally coercive.

In 2018, New York, Connecticut, Maryland, and New Jersey filed suit against the IRS and Treasury alleging that the SALT cap violates the federalism principles that undergird the U.S. Constitution. Judge J. Paul Oetken of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled on September 30 that the SALT cap is not an unconstitutional infringement of state power.

The states’ primary concern stemmed from the claim that the introduction of the SALT cap could impair each of the states’ ability to pursue its own preferred tax policies. However, the court noted that Congress lawfully enacted the SALT cap pursuant to its broad tax powers under Article I, section 8 and the Sixteenth Amendment, and that the cap, like any federal tax provision, will affect some taxpayers more than others and, by extension, will affect some states more than others. However, the cap, like every other feature of the federal tax code, is a part of the landscape of federal law with which states make their decisions as to how they will exercise their own sovereign tax powers, according to Oetken. Because the states failed to plausibly allege that the cap, more so than any other major federal initiative, meaningfully constrains this decision-making process, the district court had no basis for concluding that the SALT cap is unconstitutionally coercive.

Background
In 2017, President Trump signed into law sweeping tax reform legislation informally known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), which made several substantial amendments to the federal tax code. Among other things, the TCJA placed an upper limit of $10,000 on the amount a taxpayer may deduct from their federal tax income to offset those sums they have paid toward certain state and local taxes (the "SALT cap"). As enacted, the SALT cap is scheduled to expire at the end of 2025.

Democrats on Capitol Hill Prepare to Move SALT Cap Repeal Bill
Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill are preparing to move a SALT cap repeal bill when Congress returns from its two-week recess. Specifically, Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J. has proposed repealing the SALT cap and raising the top income tax rate from 37 percent to 39.6 percent, where it previously sat. Additionally, Pascrell recently told reporters that House Democrats will likely propose a temporary repeal of the SALT cap as a "compromise."

At this time, however, any Democratic-backed measure to repeal or scale back the SALT cap is expected to fail in the Republican-controlled Senate.

New final regulations that address the allocation of partnership liabilities for disguised sale purposes revert back to prior regulations. Under the final regulations:

New final regulations that address the allocation of partnership liabilities for disguised sale purposes revert back to prior regulations. Under the final regulations:

• a partner’s share of a recourse liability of the partnership equals the partner’s share of the liability under the rules of Code Sec. 752 and the related regulations; and
• a partner’s share of a nonrecourse liability of the partnership is determined by applying the same percentage used to determine the partner’s share of the excess nonrecourse liability under Reg. §1.752-3(a)(3) ( Reg. §1.707-5(a)(2)).

Executive Order Triggers Reversion Back to Prior Disguised Sale Rules
In October 2016, the IRS issued final and temporary regulations (707 Temporary Regulations) under which a partnership would determine all partnership liabilities for disguised sales purposes—both recourse and nonrecourse—by applying the same percentage used to determine a partner’s share of excess nonrecourse liability under Reg. §1.752-3(a)(3) ( T.D. 9788).

In April 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13789 (E.O. 13789) on reducing tax regulatory burdens. In response, the IRS identified the final and temporary regulations in T.D. 9788 as implicating some of those regulatory burdens. In turn, in 2018 Proposed Regulations, the IRS proposed to withdraw the 707 Temporary Regulations and reinstate the regulations under Reg. §1.707-5(a)(2) described above. Now, the IRS has adopted the 2018 Proposed Regulations, thereby reinstating the Prior 707 rules.

Treasury and the IRS will continue to study the merits of the approach in the 707 Temporary Regulations and other approaches, including the final regulations, to determine which results in the most appropriate treatment of liabilities in the context of disguised sales.

Effective Dates
The final regulations apply to any transaction with respect to which all transfers occur on or after October 4, 2019, the date that the 707 Temporary Regulations expire. However, partnerships and their partners may apply the final regulations to any transaction where all transfers occur on or after January 3, 2017, the applicable date of the 707 Temporary Regulations.

The IRS has released final regulation on the election to take a loss resulting from a federally declared disaster in the year preceding the disaster. The final regulations adopt proposed regulations substantially without change.

The IRS has released final regulation on the election to take a loss resulting from a federally declared disaster in the year preceding the disaster. The final regulations adopt proposed regulations substantially without change.

Disaster Defined
The regulations provide definitions of:

• federally declared disaster;
• federally declared disaster area;
• disaster loss;
• disaster year; and
• preceding year.

Scope and Effect of Election
The election for a disaster loss attributable to a particular disaster applies to the entire loss sustained by the taxpayer from that disaster during the disaster year.

Making or Revoking Election
A taxpayer elects to deduct a disaster loss for the preceding year on:

• an original federal income tax return for the preceding year; or
• an amended federal income tax return for the preceding year.

The election is made in the manner specified by guidance issued pursuant to the regulations.

A taxpayer may not to take a disaster loss in the preceding year if the taxpayer claims a deduction (as a loss, as cost of goods sold, or otherwise) for the same loss for the disaster year.

If a taxpayer has claimed a deduction for a disaster loss for the disaster year and wants to elect the loss for the preceding year, the taxpayer must file an amended federal income tax return to remove the previously deducted loss on or before the date that the taxpayer makes the election for the preceding year loss.

If a taxpayer has claimed a deduction for a disaster loss for the preceding year and wants to revoke that election, the taxpayer must file an amended federal income tax return to remove the loss for the preceding year on or before the date the taxpayer files the federal income tax return or the amended federal income tax return for the disaster year that includes the loss.

Due Dates
The due date for making the election to deduct a disaster loss in the preceding year is six months after the due date for filing the taxpayer's federal income tax return for the disaster year (determined without regard to any extension of time to file).

Subject to the final regulation requirements, a taxpayer may revoke the election on or before the date that is 90 days after the due date for making the election.

Applicability Date
The final regulations apply to elections and revocations that are made on or after the date they are published in the Federal Register.

Proposed regulations provide guidance on the potential tax consequences of replacing the London interbank offered rates (LIBORs) with a new reference rate in contracts and agreements.

Proposed regulations provide guidance on the potential tax consequences of replacing the London interbank offered rates (LIBORs) with a new reference rate in contracts and agreements.

On July 27, 2017, the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority announced that all currency and term variants of the LIBORs may be phased out after 2021. On March 5, 2018, the Alternative Reference Rates Committee (ARRC) established that the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR) would replace the LIBOR within the United States.

Tax Implications
Because the LIBORs are being phased out, existing debt instruments and derivatives must be amended. Parties will either amend debt instruments or contracts to replace references to the LIBOR with the SOFR (if in the United States). Alternatively, parties may alter debt instruments or contracts to replace the LIBOR-referencing fallback rate with another fallback rate upon the cessation of the LIBOR.

The ARRC has expressed several concerns to the IRS about the potential tax consequences associated with these contract amendments:

• Modification of Terms of Debt and Non-Debt Instruments. Currently, there are no regulations under Code Sec. 1001 that address when a modification of a debt instrument, derivative, or other non-debt contract creates a realization event.
• Transactions and Hedges. Amending the LIBOR-referencing debt instrument or hedge may cause a deemed termination of the hedge, which could lead to undesirable tax consequences.
  
• Character of a One-Time Payment. Parties may need to agree to a one-time payment to address any differences between the LIBOR and the new rate, and it is unclear what the character of this payment would be.
• Grandfathered Agreements. Certain debt and non-debt instruments that are exempt from specific laws due to their grandfathered status may lose that status if they are modified to reflect the elimination of the LIBOR.
  
• OID and Qualified Floating Rates. The transition from the LIBOR to the SOFR (or other alternative rates) raises potential issues under the original issue discount (OID) rules.
• REMICs. The modification of the terms of the regular interest rate in a real estate mortgage investment conduit (REMIC) to deal with the elimination of the LIBOR could preclude the interest from being a regular interest.
• Interest in Foreign Corporations. The elimination of the LIBOR could prevent a foreign bank from taking advantage of the election under Reg. §1.882-5(d)(5)(ii)(B).

Modification of Debt Instruments, Non-Debt Contracts
Under Proposed Reg. §1.1001-6(a), if the terms of a debt instrument or non-debt contract are modified to replace, or to provide a fallback to, an LIBOR-referencing rate and the modification does not change the fair market value, there is no gain or loss under Code Sec. 1001. These rules apply regardless of whether the modification occurs by an amendment to the terms of the instrument or agreement or by replacing the existing debt instrument or contract with a new one.

Furthermore, altering the debt instrument’s terms to replace the LIBOR with a qualified rate is not treated as a modification and does not result in a deemed exchange of the debt instrument under Reg. §1001-3. Likewise, an alteration to a debt instrument’s terms to include a qualified rate (see below) as a fallback to an LIBOR referencing rate is not treated as a modification and therefore does not result in an exchange of the debt instrument for purposes of Reg. §1.1001-3.

Qualified Rate
Proposed Reg. §1.1001-6(b) provides the rules for determining whether a rate is a qualified rate. To be a qualified rate, Proposed Reg. §1.1001-6(b)(2)(i) requires that the fair market value of the debt instrument or non-debt contract after the modifications must be substantially equivalent to the fair market value before that alteration or modification. The proposed regulations provide that the fair market value of a debt instrument or derivative may be determined by any reasonable valuation method, as long as that method is applied consistently and takes into account any one-time payment made in lieu of a spread adjustment.

The proposed regulations provide two safe harbors to address the fair market value requirements. The debt instrument or non-debt contract are considered equivalent in value after the modification if:

• at the time of the modification, the historic average of the LIBOR-referencing rate is within 25 basis points of the historic average of the rate that replaces it; or
• the parties to the debt instrument or non-debt contract are not related and, through bona fide, arm’s length negotiations, determine that the fair market value of modified instrument or contract is substantially equivalent to the fair market value prior to the modification.

Transactions and Hedges
Proposed Reg. §1.1001-6(c) clarifies that a taxpayer can alter the terms of a debt instrument or modify one or more of the other components of an integrated or hedged transaction to replace a rate referencing an IBOR with a qualified rate without affecting the tax treatment of either the underlying transaction or the hedge. However, the integrated or hedged transaction as modified must continue to qualify for integration.

One-Time Payment
Under Proposed Reg. §1.1001-6(d), the source and character of a one-time payment that is made in connection with a modification described above will be the same as the source and character that would otherwise apply to a payment made by a payor with respect to the debt instrument or non-debt contract that is altered or modified.

Grandfathered Agreements
Because Proposed Reg. §1.1001-6(a) prevents debt instruments and non-debt contracts from being treated as reissued following a deemed exchange under Code Sec. 1001, the debt instrument or contract would not lose its grandfathered status as a result of any modifications made in connection with the elimination of an LIBOR.

OID and Qualified Floating Rate
Proposed Reg. §1.1275-2(m) stipulates three special rules for determining the amount and accrual of OID in the case of a variable rate debt instrument that provides both for interest at an LIBOR-referencing qualified floating rate and for a fallback rate that is triggered when the LIBOR becomes unavailable or unreliable.

• The LIBOR-referencing qualified floating rate and the fallback rate are treated as a single qualified floating rate for purposes of Reg. §1.1275-5.
• The possibility that the relevant LIBOR will become unavailable or unreliable is treated as a remote contingency for purposes of Reg. §1.1275-2(h).
• Occurrence of the event that triggers activation of the fallback rate is not treated as a change in circumstances.

REMIC Interests
Proposed Reg. §1.860G-1(e) permits an interest in a REMIC to retain its status as a regular interest despite certain alterations and contingencies.

Foreign Corporation Interests
The proposed regulations amend the election in Reg. §1.882-5(d)(5)(ii)(B) to allow a foreign corporation that is a bank to compute interest expense attributable to excess U.S.-connected liabilities using a yearly average SOFR in addition to the 30-day LIBOR. This amendment would allow the foreign corporation bank to make the election even after the LIBOR is phased out.

Applicability Date
The proposed regulations will apply to an alteration of the terms of a debt instrument or a modification to the terms of a non-debt contract that occurs on or after the date of publication of a Treasury Decision adopting those rules as final regulations in the Federal Register. A taxpayer may choose to apply the proposed regulations to alterations and modifications that occur before the regulations are finalized.

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.