The American Institute of CPAs in a March 31 letter to House of Representatives voiced its “strong support” for a series of tax administration bills passed in recent days.

The American Institute of CPAs in a March 31 letter to House of Representatives voiced its “strong support” for a series of tax administration bills passed in recent days.

The four bills highlighted in the letter include the Electronic Filing and Payment Fairness Act (H.R. 1152), the Internal Revenue Service Math and Taxpayer Help Act (H.R. 998), the Filing Relief for Natural Disasters Act (H.R. 517), and the Disaster Related Extension of Deadlines Act (H.R. 1491).

All four bills passed unanimously.

H.R. 1152 would apply the “mailbox” rule to electronically submitted tax returns and payments. Currently, a paper return or payment is counted as “received” based on the postmark of the envelope, but its electronic equivalent is counted as “received” when the electronic submission arrived or is reviewed. This bill would change all payment and tax form submissions to follow the mailbox rule, regardless of mode of delivery.

“The AICPA has previously recommended this change and thinks it would offer clarity and simplification to the payment and document submission process,” the organization said in the letter.

H.R. 998 “would require notices describing a mathematical or clerical error be made in plain language, and require the Treasury Secretary to provide additional procedures for requesting an abatement of a math or clerical adjustment, including by telephone or in person, among other provisions,” the letter states.

H.R. 517 would allow the IRS to grant federal tax relief once a state governor declares a state of emergency following a natural disaster, which is quicker than waiting for the federal government to declare a state of emergency as directed under current law, which could take weeks after the state disaster declaration. This bill “would also expand the mandatory federal filing extension under section 7508(d) from 60 days to 120 days, providing taxpayers with additional time to file tax returns following a disaster,” the letter notes, adding that increasing the period “would provide taxpayers and tax practitioners much needed relief, even before a disaster strikes.”

H.R. 1491 would extend deadlines for disaster victims to file for a tax refund or tax credit. The legislative solution “granting an automatic extension to the refund or credit lookback period would place taxpayers affected my major disasters on equal footing as taxpayers not impacted by major disasters and would afford greater clarity and certainty to taxpayers and tax practitioners regarding this lookback period,” AICPA said.

Also passed by the House was the National Taxpayer Advocate Enhancement Act (H.R. 997) which, according to a summary of the bill on Congress.gov, “authorizes the National Taxpayer Advocate to appoint legal counsel within the Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS) to report directly to the National Taxpayer Advocate. The bill also expands the authority of the National Taxpayer Advocate to take personnel actions with respect to local taxpayer advocates (located in each state) to include actions with respect to any employee of TAS.”

Finally, the House passed H.R. 1155, the Recovery of Stolen Checks Act, which would require the Treasury to establish procedures that would allow a taxpayer to elect to receive replacement funds electronically from a physical check that was lost or stolen.

All bills passed unanimously. The passed legislation mirrors some of the provisions included in a discussion draft legislation issued by the Senate Finance Committee in January 2025. A section-by-section summary of the Senate discussion draft legislation can be found here.

AICPA’s tax policy and advocacy comment letters for 2025 can be found here.

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

The Tax Court ruled that the value claimed on a taxpayer’s return exceeded the value of a conversation easement by 7,694 percent. The taxpayer was a limited liability company, classified as a TEFRA partnership. The Tax Court used the comparable sales method, as backstopped by the price actually paid to acquire the property.

The Tax Court ruled that the value claimed on a taxpayer’s return exceeded the value of a conversation easement by 7,694 percent. The taxpayer was a limited liability company, classified as a TEFRA partnership. The Tax Court used the comparable sales method, as backstopped by the price actually paid to acquire the property.

The taxpayer was entitled to a charitable contribution deduction based on its fair market value. The easement was granted upon rural land in Alabama. The property was zoned A–1 Agricultural, which permitted agricultural and light residential use only. The property transaction at occurred at arm’s length between a willing seller and a willing buyer.

Rezoning

The taxpayer failed to establish that the highest and best use of the property before the granting of the easement was limestone mining. The taxpayer failed to prove that rezoning to permit mining use was reasonably probable.

Land Value

The taxpayer’s experts erroneously equated the value of raw land with the net present value of a hypothetical limestone business conducted on the land. It would not be profitable to pay the entire projected value of the business.

Penalty Imposed

The claimed value of the easement exceeded the correct value by 7,694 percent. Therefore, the taxpayer was liable for a 40 percent penalty for a gross valuation misstatement under Code Sec. 6662(h).

Ranch Springs, LLC, 164 TC No. 6, Dec. 62,636

State and local housing credit agencies that allocate low-income housing tax credits and states and other issuers of tax-exempt private activity bonds have been provided with a listing of the proper population figures to be used when calculating the 2025:

State and local housing credit agencies that allocate low-income housing tax credits and states and other issuers of tax-exempt private activity bonds have been provided with a listing of the proper population figures to be used when calculating the 2025:

• calendar-year population-based component of the state housing credit ceiling under Code Sec. 42(h)(3)(C)(ii);
• calendar-year private activity bond volume cap under Code Sec. 146; and
• exempt facility bond volume limit under Code Sec. 142(k)(5)

These figures are derived from the estimates of the resident populations of the 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, which were released by the Bureau of the Census on December 19, 2024. The figures for the insular areas of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands are the midyear population figures in the U.S. Census Bureau’s International Database.

Notice 2025-18

The value of assets of a qualified terminable interest property (QTIP) trust includible in a decedent's gross estate was not reduced by the amount of a settlement intended to compensate the decedent for undistributed income.

The value of assets of a qualified terminable interest property (QTIP) trust includible in a decedent's gross estate was not reduced by the amount of a settlement intended to compensate the decedent for undistributed income.

The trust property consisted of an interest in a family limited partnership (FLP), which held title to ten rental properties, and cash and marketable securities. To resolve a claim by the decedent's estate that the trustees failed to pay the decedent the full amount of income generated by the FLP, the trust and the decedent's children's trusts agreed to be jointly and severally liable for a settlement payment to her estate. The Tax Court found an estate tax deficiency, rejecting the estate's claim that the trust assets should be reduced by the settlement amount and alternatively, that the settlement claim was deductible from the gross estate as an administration expense (P. Kalikow Est., Dec. 62,167(M), TC Memo. 2023-21).

Trust Not Property of the Estate

The estate presented no support for the argument that the liability affected the fair market value of the trust assets on the decedent's date of death. The trust, according to the court, was a legal entity that was not itself an asset of the estate. Thus, a liability that belonged to the trust but had no impact on the value of the underlying assets did not change the value of the gross estate. Furthermore, the settlement did not burden the trust assets. A hypothetical purchaser of the FLP interest, the largest asset of the trust, would not assume the liability and, therefore, would not regard the liability as affecting the price. When the parties stipulated the value of the FLP interest, the estate was aware of the undistributed income claim. Consequently, the value of the assets included in the gross estate was not diminished by the amount of the undistributed income claim.

Claim Not an Estate Expense

The claim was owed to the estate by the trust to correct the trustees' failure to distribute income from the rental properties during the decedent's lifetime. As such, the claim was property included in the gross estate, not an expense of the estate. The court explained that even though the liability was owed by an entity that held assets included within the taxable estate, the claim itself was not an estate expense. The court did not address the estate's theoretical argument that the estate would be taxed twice on the underlying assets held in the trust and the amount of the settlement because the settlement was part of the decedent's residuary estate, which was distributed to a charity. As a result, the claim was not a deductible administration expense of the estate.

P.B. Kalikow, Est., CA-2

An individual was not entitled to deduct flowthrough loss from the forfeiture of his S Corporation’s portion of funds seized by the U.S. Marshals Service for public policy reasons. The taxpayer pleaded guilty to charges of bribery, fraud and money laundering. Subsequently, the U.S. Marshals Service seized money from several bank accounts held in the taxpayer’s name or his wholly owned corporation. 

An individual was not entitled to deduct flowthrough loss from the forfeiture of his S Corporation’s portion of funds seized by the U.S. Marshals Service for public policy reasons. The taxpayer pleaded guilty to charges of bribery, fraud and money laundering. Subsequently, the U.S. Marshals Service seized money from several bank accounts held in the taxpayer’s name or his wholly owned corporation. The S corporation claimed a loss deduction related to its portion of the asset seizures on its return and the taxpayer reported a corresponding passthrough loss on his return.

However, Courts have uniformly held that loss deductions for forfeitures in connection with a criminal conviction frustrate public policy by reducing the "sting" of the penalty. The taxpayer maintained that the public policy doctrine did not apply here, primarily because the S corporation was never indicted or charged with wrongdoing. However, even if the S corporation was entitled to claim a deduction for the asset seizures, the public policy doctrine barred the taxpayer from reporting his passthrough share. The public policy doctrine was not so rigid or formulaic that it may apply only when the convicted person himself hands over a fine or penalty.

Hampton, TC Memo. 2025-32, Dec. 62,642(M)

Gain or loss is not recognized when property held for productive use in a trade or business or for investment is exchanged for like-kind property. Instead, the taxpayer's basis and holding period in the property transferred carries over to the property acquired in the exchange. Deferring taxable gain, always a good strategy, makes more sense than ever after the recent rise in tax rates for many taxpayers under the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012. In particular, Code Section 1031 like-kind exchanges deserve a close second look by many businesses and investors.

Gain or loss is not recognized when property held for productive use in a trade or business or for investment is exchanged for like-kind property. Instead, the taxpayer's basis and holding period in the property transferred carries over to the property acquired in the exchange. Deferring taxable gain, always a good strategy, makes more sense than ever after the recent rise in tax rates for many taxpayers under the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.  In particular, Code Section 1031 like-kind exchanges deserve a close second look by many businesses and investors.

Flexibility

More than two properties can be exchanged and more than two parties can participate in a transaction that qualifies for non-recognition treatment. Intermediaries may be used to purchase other property before completing like-kind exchange. Taxpayers can participate in acquisition of other property and qualify for like-kind treatment if there is no actual or constructive receipt of cash proceeds from sale of their property.
It is not required that the properties be given up and received on the same day. However, if the exchange of properties is not simultaneous, the property to be received must be identified within 45 days after the date the relinquished property is transferred. In addition, the identified property must be received within 180 days after the date of transfer or the due date for the return for the tax year in which the transfer occurred, whichever date is earlier.

Certain limitations

Property not qualifying for this treatment includes inventory, securities, foreign real estate and foreign personal property. In an otherwise qualifying exchange, the receipt of boot, in the form of cash, relief from liability, or other non-qualifying property, results in the recognition of realized gain or loss to the extent of the boot received. However, gain so recognized can be postponed if the installment sale rules apply. Depreciation recapture may also result from a like-kind exchange. Losses are not recognized on the acquisition of like-kind property. To recognize a loss, the transaction must be arranged so that the non-recognition provision does not apply.

Literal conformity to the requirements of the non-recognition provisions may not be sufficient to prevent recognition of gain. The substance of the transaction must also satisfy the underlying purpose of the statute. Continuity of investment purpose continues to be emphasized as the primary rationale for non-recognition in a like-kind exchange.

Latest success story

IRS Chief Counsel just this past month approved a taxpayer's exchange of properties as tax-free under Code Sec. 1031 even though the taxpayer used proceeds from the sale of relinquished property to pay down its liabilities. In CCA 201325011, Chief Counsel determined that such use did not trigger constructive receipt. Although taking a look at this winning arrangement may get a bit technical, it is worthwhile if only to provide another example of how like-kind exchange transactions can help your business's tax expenses.

The arrangement. The taxpayer rents equipment to customers. The taxpayer has implemented a like-kind exchange (LKE) program to defer gain from the sales of its rental equipment. The taxpayer has engaged in multiple exchanges under a Master Exchange Agreement (MEA) with a qualified intermediary (QI). Under the MEA, the taxpayer transfers relinquished property to the QI. The QI transfers the relinquished property and acquires replacement property, which it transfers to the taxpayer.

The taxpayer maintains two lines of credit, which are used to purchase replacement property. The taxpayer also uses the lines of credit for general business operations. The lines of credit are secured by the taxpayer's rental properties, accounts receivable, and new equipment sold to customers. The full value of the rental property secures the entire balance on the lines of credit.

The QI must deposit sales proceeds from relinquished property into a joint taxpayer/QI account, and must use the proceeds to pay down the line-of-credit balances. The QI does not use proceeds from the account receivables or the new equipment sales to pay down the lines of credit. The taxpayer then uses borrowed funds to acquire replacement property and complete its exchange. The taxpayer finances the acquisition with new debt in an amount that equals or exceeds the debt that encumbered the relinquished property. Under the MEA, the taxpayer does not have the right to receive, pledge, borrow or otherwise use the money held by the QI.

Chief Counsel's analysis.  The IRS field attorney argued that the debt pay-down arrangement gives the taxpayer actual or constructive receipt of the proceeds from the relinquished property before the deadline for the taxpayer to obtain replacement property. IRS Chief Counsel's Office, however, disagreed. It concluded that the taxpayer was not in constructive receipt of the proceeds received for the relinquished property. This conclusion was not affected by the use of the debt to purchase replacement property and for general business operations, or the QI's use of the proceeds to pay down the lines of credit.
If a taxpayer receives, in part, non-like-kind property, the taxpayer must recognize gain (boot) for the amount of this property. The assumption of a liability, or the transfer of property subject to a liability, is treated as boot. If the relinquished property and the replacement property are both subject to a liability (such as a mortgage), the liabilities are netted and the difference is boot to the party being relieved of the larger mortgage.

Chief Counsel concluded that the taxpayer's transaction was permitted by the regulations where the taxpayer is relieved of debt on the transfer of relinquished property and incurs debt on the acquisition of the replacement property. Under the boot netting rules, there is no gain to the taxpayer.

If you would like further information on how like-kind exchanges might work within your business operations, please do not hesitate to contact our offices.

The government continues to push out guidance under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Several major provisions of the law take effect January 1, 2014, including the employer mandate, the individual mandate, the premium assistance tax credit, and the operation of health insurance exchanges. The three agencies responsible for administering PPACA - the IRS, the Department of Labor (DOL), and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) - are under pressure to provide needed guidance, and they are responding with regulations, notices, and frequently asked questions.

The government continues to push out guidance under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Several major provisions of the law take effect January 1, 2014, including the employer mandate, the individual mandate, the premium assistance tax credit, and the operation of health insurance exchanges. The three agencies responsible for administering PPACA - the IRS, the Department of Labor (DOL), and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) - are under pressure to provide needed guidance, and they are responding with regulations, notices, and frequently asked questions.

The health law provisions interact. Individuals are supposed to carry health insurance or pay a tax. Employers are supposed to offer coverage or pay a tax. The exchanges will provide information about the availability of different health care plans and will certify individuals eligible for the premium assistance tax credit. Individuals who cannot obtain affordable coverage may purchase insurance through an exchange and may be entitled to a premium assistance tax credit.

Exchanges

The DOL, in a technical release, provided temporary guidance to employers about their obligation to notify their employees of the availability of health insurance through an exchange and of the potential to qualify for the premium assistance tax credit if they purchase insurance through an exchange. Exchanges will begin operating January 1, 2014 and will provide open enrollment for their coverage beginning October 1, 2013. DOL provided model notices for employers to send out beginning October 1, 2013. Notices must be issued to all employees, whether or not the employer offers insurance and whether or not the employee enrolls in the employer's insurance.

Employer mandate

As part of the regulatory process, the IRS recently held a hearing on proposed regulations regarding the employer mandate, which imposes a penalty on employers who fail to provide adequate health insurance coverage in certain circumstances. The employer mandate takes effect January 1, 2014. Twenty different groups testified on relevant issues, including: the definition of a large employer subject to the penalty, the definition of a full-time employee who must be offered coverage, and the determination whether the coverage is affordable.

Minimum value

The IRS issued proposed regulations to clarify the minimum value requirement for employer-provided health insurance. The regulations provide additional guidance on how to determine whether an individual is eligible for the premium assistance tax credit. Taxpayers will not be eligible for the credit if they are eligible for other "minimum essential (health insurance) coverage" (MEC). MEC includes employer-sponsored coverage that is affordable and that provides minimum value. Employer coverage fails to provide minimum value if the employer pays less than 60 percent of the cost of plan benefits. Taxpayers may rely on the proposed regulations for years ending before January 1, 2015.

Medical loss ratio (MLR)

The IRS issued proposed regulations on MLRs. Insurance companies must provide premium rebates to their customers if they fail to spend at least 80 percent (85 percent for large companies) of their premiums directly on health care, as opposed to executive salaries and other expenses. The provision took effect in 2012; and the first round of MLR rebates was distributed in 2012. The IRS issued several notices to implement the program; the proposed regulation would apply to tax years beginning after December 31, 2013.

Annual limits on benefits

PPACA generally prohibits group health plans and health insurance issuers that offer group or individual health insurance from imposing annual or lifetime limits on the value of essential health benefits. Although some limits are allowed for plan years beginning before January 1, 2014, HHS regulations provide that HHS may waive the limits if they would cause a significant decrease in benefits or significant increase in premiums. IRS, DOL, and HHS issued frequently asked questions (FAQs) to clarify that plan or issuer receiving a waiver may not extend the waiver to a different plan or policy year.

Summary of benefits and coverage

PPACA generally requires insurers, employers and other health care plan providers to give a Summary of Benefits and Coverage (SBC) to participants and other affected individuals. In recent FAQs, the three government agencies advised that an updated SBC template and a sample SBC are available on the DOL's website. These documents can be used for coverage beginning in 2014. The agencies also extended certain enforcement relief. The agencies issued final regulations in 2012, and indicated that providers can continue to use coverage examples in current guidance, without adding new examples to their SBC.

Employer reporting

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) issued a recent report on some of the new information reporting requirements that PPACA has imposed on employers. For example, health insurance providers must report information for each individual who receives coverage. Large employers must report details about the coverage offered to employees and their dependents, including the premiums and the employer's share of costs. Employers must also report the cost of coverage to employees on their Forms W-2. The IRS will use these reports to administer PPACA's requirements.

PPACA is a complicated law. Many of its most important provisions take effect in 2014. The IRS and other responsible federal agencies continue to issue guidance and to take comments on the administration of the law.

If you have any questions about PPACA and what strategies you or your business might adopt, please contact our office.

President Obama recently said that he wants a tax reform/deficit reduction package by August and lawmakers have many proposals to consider. The President has introduced a $3.77 trillion budget for fiscal year (FY) 2014 with a host of tax reform proposals, the House and Senate Budget Committees have approved competing deficit reduction and tax reform blueprints, other committees are exploring ideas for tax reform, and private groups, most notably authors of the Simpson-Bowles Plan, are also making proposals. Whatever proposals are adopted, the outcome is sure to impact your tax strategy and planning.

President Obama recently said that he wants a tax reform/deficit reduction package by August and lawmakers have many proposals to consider. The President has introduced a $3.77 trillion budget for fiscal year (FY) 2014 with a host of tax reform proposals, the House and Senate Budget Committees have approved competing deficit reduction and tax reform blueprints, other committees are exploring ideas for tax reform, and private groups, most notably authors of the Simpson-Bowles Plan, are also making proposals. Whatever proposals are adopted, the outcome is sure to impact your tax strategy and planning.

All of the proposals have one common goal: reduce the federal government's approximate $16 trillion federal budget deficit. To reduce the budget deficit, many of the plans propose to cut spending and raise revenues. Lawmakers and the White House also want to replace sequestration (across-the-board spending cuts for many federal agencies) for FY 2014 and beyond. Replacing sequestration will require spending cuts, new revenue or a combination of both. Let's take a look at how some of the tax proposals would affect individuals, businesses and others.

Individuals

The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA), signed into law on January 2, 2013, set the individual tax rates at 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, 35 and 39.6 percent for 2013 and beyond. The House GOP budget blueprint would consolidate the current seven individual income tax rate brackets into two rates. The lower rate would be 10 percent with the goal of a top rate of 25 percent. The Simpson-Bowles plan also calls for lower rates but does not specify the amounts; however, lower rates would be contingent on eliminating certain tax credits and deductions, possibly some popular ones such as the home mortgage interest deduction. President Obama has not proposed any changes to the current individual income tax rates.

President Obama has, however, proposed a minimum 30 percent tax on individuals with incomes over $1 million (full phase in at $2 million).  This was known as the "Buffett Rule" (now called the Fair Share Tax).  President Obama would also limit the tax rate at which higher income individuals can reduce their tax liability to a maximum of 28 percent. This limit would apply to all itemized deductions; foreign excluded income; tax-exempt interest; employer sponsored health insurance; retirement contributions; and selected above-the-line deductions. Another proposal would limit contributions and accruals on tax-favored retirement accounts, including IRAs, qualified plans, tax-sheltered annuities, and deferred compensation plans.

The budget blueprint put forward by Senate Democrats makes similar proposals. The Senate plan would impose across-the-board limits on itemized deductions claimed by the top two percent of income earners, by capping the rate at which itemized deductions and other tax preferences reduce tax liability, a percentage of income cap, or a specific dollar cap.  The Senate plan also proposes to change, without giving details, unspecified itemized deductions into tax credits.

Not surprisingly, the House plan, written by the GOP, does not include these proposals.  Along with consolidating the individual tax rates, the House blueprint would repeal the 3.8 percent net investment income (NII) surtax and the 0.9 percent Additional Medicare Tax, both of which took effect in 2013. The House plan also calls for repealing the alternative minimum tax (AMT). The House plan also calls for tax simplification but does not give details.

Another proposal endorsed by the President but which will be a difficult sale in Congress is to increase the federal estate tax. ATRA "permanently" extended the estate tax at a maximum rate of 35 percent with a $5 million exclusion (indexed for inflation).  President Obama wants to raise the maximum rate to 45 percent with a $3.5 million exclusion (not indexed for inflation) after 2017. 

Businesses

Reducing the U.S. corporate tax rate is a common goal of many of the tax reform proposals but they take different approaches. President Obama has said he would support lowering the corporate tax rate in exchange for businesses giving up unspecified tax preferences. These could include tax incentives for fossil fuels, the Code Sec. 199 deduction and more. The House blueprint would reduce the top corporate tax rate to 25 percent, paid for by tax savings elsewhere. The Simpson-Bowles plan also calls for a reduction in the corporate tax rate, contingent on businesses relinquishing unspecific tax preferences.

President Obama and the House and Senate budgets also propose a number of incentives to encourage business spending and job creation. These include:

• Enhanced small business expensing (Obama and House but at different amounts);
• Permanent research tax credit (Obama, House and Senate);
• Temporary tax credit for increasing payrolls (Obama); and
• Special incentives for manufacturing in the U.S. (Obama).

Another key difference among the competing proposals: the House budget plan would repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, including all of its business tax-related provisions, such as employer-shared responsibility provisions, the medical device excise tax, and more.  The Senate approved a non-binding resolution to repeal the medical device tax but is not expected to go along with repeal of the entire Affordable Care Act.

Internet sales tax

In May, the Senate is expected to approve the Marketplace Fairness Act (H.R. 743). The bill gives states the authority to compel online merchants, no matter where they are located, to collect sales tax at the time of a transaction.  However, states would be able to compel collection of sales tax only after they have simplified their sales tax laws, such as by adopting the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement.  The bill has the support of President Obama. However, the bill may not pass in the House, where many lawmakers view it as a tax increase.

Discussion drafts

The two Congressional tax writing committees – House Ways and Means and Senate Finance – are engaged in discussions among their members over tax reform.  Ways and Means has produced three detailed discussion drafts exploring possible approaches to reforming the taxation of financial products, the taxation of small businesses and moving the U.S. to a territorial system of taxation. Ways and Means Chair Dave Camp, R-Mich., has promised to introduce tax reform legislation this year. Senate Finance has also produced four discussion drafts, less detailed than the House drafts, on simplifying the Tax Code, business taxation and education, and infrastructure, energy and natural resources. Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus, D-Mont., has pledged his commitment to seeing tax reform through before his retirement, which he announced would start at the end of 2014.

Looking ahead

Tax reform coupled with deficit reduction is starting to gain momentum. Whether this will lead to legislation this summer or before year-end is unclear. As long as the key players continue their discussions, there is the chance of tax reform.

Our office will keep you posted of developments. Please contact our office if you have any questions about the tax reform proposals we have reviewed.

Did you owe tax on your 2012 tax return? Did you receive a sizeable refund? Or, conversely, did you receive a smaller refund than you expected? If so, take another look at your tax return from this past year. It is quite possible that by making a few changes, you could put more money in your pocket in the short term. And by examining your investments as they are reported on your tax return, you may be able to strategize for the long-term future. Trying to implement this type of plan may seem difficult at first. However, just by looking at your tax return, you can start the critical planning that can lead you to broader goals of financial independence and a comfortable retirement.

Did you owe tax on your 2012 tax return? Did you receive a sizeable refund? Or, conversely, did you receive a smaller refund than you expected? If so, take another look at your tax return from this past year. It is quite possible that by making a few changes, you could put more money in your pocket in the short term. And by examining your investments as they are reported on your tax return, you may be able to strategize for the long-term future. Trying to implement this type of plan may seem difficult at first. However, just by looking at your tax return, you can start the critical planning that can lead you to broader goals of financial independence and a comfortable retirement.

Federal withholding

If you received a large tax refund, it might be time for you to adjust the amount of tax the federal government withholds from your paycheck. Although next year your refund check may not be as large, you will have the advantage of seeing a larger sum deposited directly into your pocket every month. To adjust your withholding, fill out and sign a Form W-4, and submit it to your employer. You would want to do this in cases where your adjustments to income, exemptions, and deductions remain relatively steady from year-to-year, and where the government consistently is required to give you a large refund.

If you do not change your withholding allowances, the government essentially is holding your money for a year without paying any interest on it. You may lose some potential investment opportunity or, at the very least, the ability to increase your monthly discretionary income. On the other hand, many taxpayers prefer to receive the large refund check after tax filing season because it is a no-hassle way to ensure large savings at the end of the year.

Conversely, many taxpayers may want to change their withholding allowances because they owe the government a significant amount of money at the end of the year. Taxpayers who expect to owe at least $1,000 in tax for the 2013 tax year, after subtracting withholding and any refundable credits, and who also expect their 2013 withholding and credits to be significantly less than the projected tax owed for 2013, may need to file estimated taxes. Failure to do so could result in penalties. Alternatively, taxpayers should consider making quarterly estimated tax payments, especially if they anticipate a significant amount of investment gains for the year or other income unrelated to wage compensation.

State withholding

Some people are entirely exempt from state tax, but it is withheld from their paychecks nevertheless. At the end of each year, they may include the amount of their state taxes in their itemized deductions, but then receive a refund which they have to declare as income in the next year. This problem particularly applies to active duty military families, many of whom are posted in states other than their state of residency. Military families can check with their state income tax authority to see if there is an appropriate form that can be completed and filed, which would exempt them from withholding. A higher adjusted gross income (AGI), even if it is subsequently reduced by itemized deductions, can erode other adjustments to income, such as a deduction for student loans, IRA contributions, higher education expenses, and more because of certain AGI caps on these benefits.

Tax rates and adjusted gross income

As you may have heard, Congress allowed the Bush-era tax cuts to expire for higher-income earners. That means joint filers with more than $450,000 of adjusted gross income ($400,000 for single individuals) are now in the 39.6-percent tax bracket. Taxpayers at this level of income or above are also subject to a higher long-term capital gains tax rate: 20 percent, up from 15 percent paid by other taxpayers.

In addition, for tax years beginning in 2013, the 33-percent tax bracket for individual taxpayers ends at $398,350 for married individuals filing joint returns, heads of households, and single individuals. If you were hovering near the bottom of the 35-percent bracket for the 2012 tax year, then you might want to see if you can readjust your income so that you fall within the 33-percent category.

Higher-income taxpayers also have two new taxes to worry about for 2013 and beyond. Joint-filing taxpayers with modified adjusted gross income of $250,000 ($200,000 for single filers) are also subject to the 3.8-percent surtax on net investment income and a .9-percent Additional Medicare Tax. Look at your adjusted gross income for last year. Does it approach these figures? Is it on the edge of the income brackets? Will stock market increases this year put you over the top of those income thresholds? If so, it may be time to find ways to reduce your income for 2013.

Investments

At some point in your efforts over the years to accumulate a savings nest egg, you will need to consider diversification, the process of putting your money in the right kind of investment vehicles to satisfy your personal risk strategy and achieve your goals. Looking at your tax return will help you decide whether the investments you now have are the right ones for you. For example, if you are in a high tax bracket and need to diversify away from common stocks, investing in tax-exempt bonds might help, especially if you have state income taxes to worry about, too.

Reviewing the Schedule D and Form 8949, which cover Capital Gains and Losses from last year's return and from the past three or four years, can be an eye-opener for many. Did you hold stocks long enough to be entitled to the long-term capital gains rate? Did you try to balance short-term gains with short-term losses? Are you bouncing from one investment trend to another without a long-term investment plan that achieves long-term needs? Are your mutual funds "tax smart"? Become familiar with different types of banking institutions and their products. Find out about CDs, money-market funds, government securities, mutual funds, index funds, and sector funds and how they interrelate with the determination of your tax liability each year. You may want to put that knowledge to work in your investment strategy.

Medical costs

Should you be taking advantage of the medical expense deduction? Many people assume that with the 10 percent adjusted gross income floor on medical expenses now imposed for tax years starting in 2013 (7.5 percent for seniors) that it doesn't pay for them to keep track of expenses to test whether they are entitled to itemize. But with the premiums for certain long-term care insurance contracts now counted as a medical expense, some individuals are discovering that along with other health insurance premiums, deductibles and timing of elective treatments, the medical tax deduction may be theirs for the taking.

Retirement planning

Don't forget to protect for eventualities. Are you maximizing the amount that Uncle Sam allows you to save tax-free for retirement? A look at your W-2 for the year, and at the retirement contribution deductions allowed in determining adjusted gross income should tell you a lot. Should your spouse set up his or her own retirement fund, too? Are you over-invested in tax-deferred retirement plans? If so, you may lose a significant amount of your nest egg to tax after retirement.  

When you are reviewing last year's tax return, it may help to review some of what you've learned from it. This could foster an important conversation with your tax advisor about how to establish or modify your plan for your financial future. If you would like to review last year's completed tax return with future planning in mind, please feel free to give us a call and set up a time when we can meet and discuss this matter.

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), small employers can claim a credit for providing health insurance for employees and their families. Health insurance includes not only basic medical and hospital care, but dental or vision, long-term care, and coverage for specific diseases or illness. Self-funded plans do not qualify; the insurance must be provided through a third party.

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), small employers can claim a credit for providing health insurance for employees and their families. Health insurance includes not only basic medical and hospital care, but dental or vision, long-term care, and coverage for specific diseases or illness. Self-funded plans do not qualify; the insurance must be provided through a third party.

For 2010-2013, for-profit employers can claim a credit of 35 percent of the employer's nonelective contributions, increasing to 50 percent for 2014 and 2015. Nonprofit employers can claim a credit of 25 percent through 2013, and 35 percent for the two succeeding years. Beginning in 2012, the credit for nonprofit employers is limited to the payroll taxes paid by the employer.

Small employers

Employers can claim the full credit if their full-time equivalent (FTE) employees are 10 or less, and their average annual wages per employee are $25,000 or less. FTEs are determined by figuring total hours of service for all employees and dividing the total by 2,080.

The credit is phased out for employers with 11 to 25 employees or with average wages between $25,000 and $50,000. The credit percentage is reduced 6.67 percent per "excess" employee (over 10) and four percent for each $1,000 of average wages in excess of $25,000.

To determine the amount of the credit, employers must add up the total premiums they paid on behalf of their employees during the year, subject to the state average premium limit. This total is then multiplied by the applicable percentage (25 or 35 percent for 2013, minus any phase-out). The credit is then reduced for FTEs in excess of 10, and for average annual wages (in units of $1,000) over $25,000. The result is the total credit that the employer can claim.

Other requirements

Under current law, employers must pay at least 50 percent of the insurance costs and must pay a uniform percentage for all employees. The credit is reduced if the employer premiums exceed the state's average premium for small group markets.

In its proposed fiscal year 2014 budget, the Obama administration would modify or eliminate some of these requirements. The credit phase-out would apply to employers with 21-50 employees, rather than 11-25. The phase-out rate would also be more gradual. Furthermore, the administration would eliminate the requirement that employers make a uniform contribution for each employee, and would eliminate the limit for state average premiums.

Reports indicate that the small business health insurance credit is being underutilized, with many businesses leaving this tax money on the table without claiming it or arranging their affairs to do so.

If you have any questions about how you might be able to position your business to claim this credit or claim a larger credit, do not hesitate to call this office for an update.