"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.

House and Senate lawmakers have started their August recess, leaving pending tax legislation for after Labor Day. In past years, September has been a busy month for tax legislation and this year is likely to be the same. Before leaving Capitol Hill, lawmakers took actions in several areas related to tax reform.

House and Senate lawmakers have started their August recess, leaving pending tax legislation for after Labor Day. In past years, September has been a busy month for tax legislation and this year is likely to be the same. Before leaving Capitol Hill, lawmakers took actions in several areas related to tax reform.

House action

In the House, the  Budget Committee approved along party lines a fiscal year (FY) 2018 budget resolution. The resolution calls for:

• Simplifying the tax code to promote fairness for American families and businesses;
• Lowering tax rates for individuals and consolidating the seven tax brackets into fewer brackets;
• Repealing the alternative minimum tax (AMT); and
• Reducing the corporate tax rate.

The budget resolution does not set out specific tax changes or include legislative language. Rather, according to GOP leaders in the House, the budget resolution will serve as the vehicle for tax legislation at a future date.  House Budget Committee Chair Diane Black, R-Tennessee, predicted that tax reform will be "deficit neutral" and will "reduce tax rates and simplify the tax code." Budget Committee Ranking Member John Yarmuth, D-Kentucky, said that the resolution "adopts the worst extremes of the President's proposals by cutting taxes for millionaires and billionaires at the expense of everyone else."

Administration discussions

Since May, White House and Treasury Department officials have been meeting with business leaders, representatives of business and taxpayer groups, and other stakeholders in "listening sessions" about changes to the tax code. In July, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, after meeting with representatives from the agriculture sector, predicted that tax reform "would be done this year." Mnuchin said that "tax reform is one of our most important areas of focus.”

Bipartisan bills

Meanwhile, some stand-along tax bills have either passed committee or have been introduced. In July, the House Ways and Means Committee approved bipartisan legislation to overhaul the IRS's forfeiture authority. The Clyde-Hirsch-Sowers RESPECT Bill (HR 1843) was sponsored by Ways and Means Tax Policy Subcommittee Chair Peter Roskam, R-Illinois, and Democratic Caucus Chair Joe Crowley, D-New York. The RESPECT Act generally prohibits the IRS from seizing funds relating to a structuring transaction unless the  property to be seized is from an illegal source.

In the Senate, the Senate Finance Committee may take up a bipartisan bill to encourage retirement savings by enhancing growth of S corporations owned by employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs). The Promotion and Expansion of Private Employee Ownership Bill was introduced by Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Maryland, and Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kansas. The lawmakers explained that their bill would amend the tax code to eliminate barriers that business owners face in establishing or expanding S corporation ESOPs. Similar bipartisan legislation is pending in the House.

Other pending tax bills include:

• HR 3068, which would enhance the research tax credit for domestic manufacturers.
• HR 3126, which would provide a tax credit to individuals for legal expenses paid  to establish guardianship of a family member with disabilities.
• HR 3138, which would generally treat Native American governments in the same manner as state governments for certain federal tax purposes.

Treasury tax position

The Treasury Department's top tax professional is the assistant secretary for tax policy. That position has been vacant since January 20. In July, the Senate Finance Committee unanimously approved President Trump’s nomination of David Kautter to serve as Treasury assistant secretary for tax policy. "This position is particularly important in the current environment as the administration is engaging with Congress on comprehensive tax reform," SFC Chair Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said. Ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, said "it’s my hope that Mr. Kautter can help to bring Democrats and Republicans together." Kautter has worked at several major accounting firms over the past 30 years.

Please contact our office if you have any questions about tax legislation.

Taxpayers that plan to operate a business have a variety of choices. A single individual can operate as a C corporation, an S corporation, a limited liability company (LLC), or a sole proprietorship. Two or more individuals can form a partnership, a corporation (C or S), or an LLC.

Taxpayers that plan to operate a business have a variety of choices. A single individual can operate as a C corporation, an S corporation, a limited liability company (LLC), or a sole proprietorship. Two or more individuals can form a partnership, a corporation (C or S), or an LLC.

Nontax considerations

State law and nontax considerations are an important consideration in choosing the form of the business and may play a decisive role. A general partner of a partnership has unlimited liability for the debts of the business. This can be modified by using a limited partnership (LP), which must have at least one general partner and at least one limited partner. The general partner still have unlimited liability, but a limited partner's liability is limited to its contribution to the partnership. A corporation has limited liability; shareholders generally are not responsible for the liabilities of the corporation beyond their contributions to the entity.

Federal tax considerations

At the same time, it is crucial to consider federal tax requirements and consequences when choosing the form of business entity. A primary federal tax consideration is avoiding a double layer of tax on business income. This can be accomplished by operating as a passthrough entity, such as a partnership or S corporation. Income is not taxed at the entity level. It passes through to partners and shareholders and is taxed at their rates.

In contrast, C corporations are taxable entities. Furthermore, when a C corporation pays a dividend to its shareholders, this generally is taxable to the shareholder. It must be noted that income of a passthrough entity is allocable and taxable to its owners, whether or not the income is actually distributed to the partner or shareholder. Dividends are not taxed unless there is an actual distribution.

While a partnership is organized under state law, an S corporation is a creature of the federal tax system. The S corporation is a regular corporation for state law purposes.

Advantages of partnerships

Unlike an S corporation shareholder, anyone or any entity can be a partner. S corporations are limited to 100 shareholders; only certain individuals, estates and trusts are eligible to be shareholders. C corporations and nonresident aliens cannot be shareholders of an S corporation.

S corporations are limited to a single class of stock; income and losses must be allocated on the same basis to each shareholder. Having only one class of stock may affect the corporation's ability to raise capital. A partnership can have different classes of partners and has more flexibility for allocating income and losses to different types of partners.

Partnership liabilities can increase a partner's basis in the partnership, offsetting distributions of cash and reducing their taxation. The increased basis allowed partners to use losses generated by the partnership. Liabilities of an S corporation do not create stock basis; separate bases in stock and debt must be calculated. This lack of basis may limit the use of losses generated by the S corporation.

Contributions of appreciated property by a partner to the partnership generally are not taxable, even if the partner is not part of a group controlling the partnership. Contributions by a shareholder to a corporation are tax-free only if the shareholders are part of a group controlling 80 percent of the corporation after the contribution. However, a partnership must follow special allocation rules for handling built-in gain on contributed property, whereas S corporations do not have special allocation rules in this circumstance.

Conclusion

In general, a partnership offers more flexibility than an S corporation in the treatment of taxes. However, S corporation shareholders do have limited legal liability, while general partners are not insulated from the partnership's debts and liabilities.

Since 2009, the IRS has operated an Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP) for U.S. taxpayers who have failed to disclose foreign assets or report foreign income from those assets to the IRS or Treasury. The program provides reduced penalties and other benefits, thus giving taxpayers an opportunity to address their past noncompliance and "become right" with the government.

Since 2009, the IRS has operated an Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP) for U.S. taxpayers who have failed to disclose foreign assets or report foreign income from those assets to the IRS or Treasury. The program provides reduced penalties and other benefits, thus giving taxpayers an opportunity to address their past noncompliance and "become right" with the government.

The IRS reports that 45,000 taxpayers have made voluntary disclosures since 2009 and have paid $6.5 billion in back taxes, interest, and penalties. In 2014, the IRS made important changes to the OVDP, with the expectation that the revised program will lead to a significant increase in the number of U.S. taxpayers who participate in the OVDP and report their undisclosed foreign assets.

Reporting obligations

U.S. taxpayers, including U.S. citizens living abroad, must report and pay taxes on their worldwide income, including income from foreign assets. Taxpayers must report foreign accounts on Form 1040, Schedule B; if their value exceeds certain thresholds, they must report on Form 8938, Statement of Foreign Financial Accounts. Taxpayers with accounts worth more than $10,000 must report the accounts on the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR), which is filed with Treasury (not the IRS).

The IRS provided temporary OVDPs in 2009 and 2011. In 2012, it opened another OVDP that it continues to offer. Under the 2012 program, taxpayers must enter into a closing agreement with the IRS, provide updated returns for the prior eight years, and pay a penalty as high as 27.5 percent. In return, the IRS agrees not to pursue criminal penalties against taxpayers who may have willfully failed to report their foreign assets and/or income. In 2012, the IRS also unveiled a "streamlined procedures" program, with lighter penalties for U.S. taxpayers residing abroad who were nonwillful evaders.

2014 revisions

The revised streamlined procedures program has been expanded to taxpayers living in the United States. Participants are no longer required to have an unpaid tax balance of $1,500 or less per year. Participants self-certify that their noncompliance was not willful; the IRS will review their circumstances. Taxpayers must pay taxes on any unreported income from the past three years and must file required FBAR reports for the previous six years. Participants living abroad pay no penalty, while U.S. residents pay a miscellaneous offshore penalty of five percent.

The OVDP program for potentially willful evaders has been tightened. Taxpayers must provide increased information and must pay the 27.5 percent penalty at the time of application. In light of the expanded streamlined program, the IRS eliminated reduced penalties (five and 12.5 percent) that had been offered to nonwillful OVDP participants. To increase the pressure on nonfilers, the IRS increased the penalty from 27.5 percent to 50 percent for taxpayers who used a foreign financial institution or a facilitator that the IRS or Justice Department publicly acknowledges to be under investigation.

Taxpayers are advised to consult with their tax adviser about these programs and choose carefully. A taxpayer cannot participate in both the streamlined and the OVDP programs; it is an either/or proposition. If a taxpayer is confident that his or her noncompliance was not willful, the streamlined program is a reasonable choice. However, this program provides no protection from criminal prosecution, further audits, or proposed tax increases, if the IRS decides that the taxpayer acted willfully.

In 2012, many taxpayers will have additional considerations when analyzing whether to sell investments before the end of the year or retain them in 2013. First, the Bush-era tax cuts are scheduled to expire at the end of 2012. This affects ordinary income rates, as well as rates on capital gains and dividends. Second, under the health care law, a new 3.8 percent Medicare tax on unearned income, including interest, dividends and capital gains, will take effect in 2013. Together, these real and potential changes may add up to hefty new taxes in 2013, unless Congress takes action otherwise.

In 2012, many taxpayers will have additional considerations when analyzing whether to sell investments before the end of the year or retain them in 2013. First, the Bush-era tax cuts are scheduled to expire at the end of 2012. This affects ordinary income rates, as well as rates on capital gains and dividends. Second, under the health care law, a new 3.8 percent Medicare tax on unearned income, including interest, dividends and capital gains, will take effect in 2013. Together, these real and potential changes may add up to hefty new taxes in 2013, unless Congress takes action otherwise.

Income tax rates

Current income tax rates continue through the end of 2012.  These include the overall individual income tax rates, currently at 10, 15, 25, 28, 33 and 35 percent. If Congress does not take any action, these rates revert to the higher rates that used to apply: 15, 28, 31, 36, and 39.6 percent. Republicans favor retaining all of the Bush-era rates. President Obama and many Democrats support retaining the 10, 15, 25, and 28 percent rates for lower- and middle-income taxpayers, while reinstating the 36 and 39.6 percent rates for taxpayers with income over $200,000 (single taxpayers) or $250,000 for joint filers.

Additionally, there are calls for tax reform and for an overall lowering of income tax rates, in exchange for ending unspecified tax deductions and benefits. For example, House Republicans have called for replacing current income tax rates with two brackets, of 10 and 25 percent.

Capital gains and dividends

Current income tax rates that extend through the end of 2012 also include the 15 percent rate on capital gains and qualified dividends for qualified taxpayers. If Congress does not act, these rates revert to much higher ordinary income rates, in the case of dividends, and to the 20 percent rate that formerly applied to capital gains. Again, the President and the Republicans would both extend the current rates, but disagree on whether to apply the extensions to all taxpayers (the Republicans) or only to lower- and middle-income taxpayers under the $200,000/$250,000 thresholds (the President).

3.8 percent tax

Adding to the mix is the impending 3.8 percent tax on unearned income. Under the health care law, this tax will apply to 2013 income (and beyond) of single taxpayers with income exceeding $200,000 and joint filers with income exceeding $250,000. The tax is imposed on the lesser of net investment income or the excess of adjusted gross income about the $200,000/$250,000 thresholds.

Net investment income also includes rents, royalties, gain from disposing of property used in a passive activity, and income from a trade or business that is a passive activity. The tax does not apply to distributions from retirement plans and IRAs. Taxpayers cannot necessarily avoid the tax by moving assets to a trust, because the tax will apply if trust income exceeds a threshold currently set at only $11,200.

Sell or hold

Generally, taxpayers should make investment decisions based on economics, holding on to a "good" investment and selling a "bad" investment. This involves looking at past performance and perhaps gazing into a crystal ball. Taxpayers that are debating whether to sell appreciated assets or assets that pay qualified dividends may want to act in 2012, when income tax rates are lower and before the 3.8 percent tax takes effect. Taxpayers considering the sale of declining assets may want to consider holding off until 2013, when losses can offset more highly-taxed gains and reduce the income potentially subject to the 3.8 percent tax.

Because the 3.8 percent tax does not apply to tax-free income, such as municipal bonds and distributions from a Roth IRA, taxpayers may want to shift some of their investments to yield nontaxable income. While the income from converting a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA would be included in the income calculations, qualifying distributions after the conversion would not be included.

Again, the decision must make economic sense. If the taxpayer expects an asset to continue to decline in value during 2012, he or she should sell the asset soon and not wait until 2013. Another consideration is the bunching of income. Taxpayers that sell substantial capital gains assets in 2013 may push their income up to the $200,000/$250,000 thresholds that trigger higher taxes. If the taxpayer is considering a sell-off of assets, it may make more sense to sell assets before 2013.

If a taxpayer wants to shift to more conservative investments, income yields may decline, but so will the incidence of the dividend, capital gains, and unearned income taxes described above. On the other hand, taxpayers looking at more speculative investments should understand that a successful investment may generate income taxed at higher rates in 2013.

Please contact our office if you have any questions.

Stock is a popular and valuable compensation tool for employers and employees. Employees are encouraged to stay with the company and to work harder, to enhance the value of the stock they will earn. Employers do not have to make a cash outlay to provide the compensation, yet they still are entitled to a tax deduction.

Stock is a popular and valuable compensation tool for employers and employees. Employees are encouraged to stay with the company and to work harder, to enhance the value of the stock they will earn. Employers do not have to make a cash outlay to provide the compensation, yet they still are entitled to a tax deduction.

Employers may make a direct transfer of stock to an employee as compensation for services performed. In the simplest case, the employee's rights in the stock are vested upon receipt. Under Code Sec. 83, the employee has income, equal to the fair market value of the stock, less any amount paid for the stock. The employer can take a compensation deduction under Code Sec. 162 for the amount included in the employee's income.

Risk of forfeiture

The employer may decide to impose certain conditions on the employee's right to the stock (such as a requirement that the employee continue to work for the company for two years before the stock "vests"). In this situation, the stock is subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture (or is "nonvested") until the two-year period elapses. After two years, the stock vests, and the employee recognizes income for the excess of the stock's value (at the time of vesting) over the amount paid. If the employee leaves the company within two years, the employee forfeits the stock.

An employee who receives stock subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture may anticipate that he or she will stay with the company for the required two years. The employee may also anticipate (or at least hope) that the stock will appreciate in value. Rather than wait two years and have to recognize income when the stock vests, an employee may elect under Code Sec. 83(b) to treat the property as vested upon receipt and to recognize compensation income (if any) at the time of receipt.

83(b) election

The employee may be required to pay for the stock when received. If the employee paid the fair market value of the stock, making a Code Sec. 83(b) election is particularly advantageous, because the employee will not recognize any income on the election.

Example.  Widget Corporation transfers 10 shares of its common stock to Hal, an employee, subject to a requirement that Hal work for two years before the stock vests. The stock is worth $5 a share. Hal is required to pay $5 a share upon receipt of the stock. By making a Code Sec. 83(b) election, Hal will not recognize any income, because the value and the cost of the stock are the same. If Hal did not have to pay any money for the shares, and made an election, Hal would have $50 of compensation income (10 shares times $5 a share).

After making an election, if the employee then works for two years, and the stock appreciates, the employee does not recognize any further compensation income, because the employee has already been taxed under Code Sec. 83.  By making the election, the employee is treated as owning the stock. When the employee sells the stock, the employee will recognize capital gain or loss, measured by the difference between the amount received and the value of the stock when it vested.

Election formalities

To make an election under Code Sec. 83(b), an employee must file a statement with the IRS, within 30 days of the transfer of the property to the employee. The statement must be filed with the Internal Revenue Service Center where the employee would file his or her income tax return. A copy of the statement must be provided to the employer, who is entitled to a compensation deduction when the election is made. A copy must also be attached to the employee's income tax return.

IRS regulations prescribe the requirements for an election. In Rev. Proc. 2012-29, the IRS also provided sample language for employees to use to make the election. The IRS advised that the sample language is not required. The election must identify the taxpayer, the property being transferred, the date of the transfer, the restrictions on the property, the property's value at the time of transfer (generally determined without the restrictions), the amount paid by the employee, and the amount of compensation income (the value minus the amount paid). The employee must also sign the election.

The election cannot be revoked without the IRS's consent. The IRS will not ordinarily grant consent unless there has been a mistake of fact as to the underlying transaction.

If you have any questions about making a Code Sec. 83(b) election, please contact our office.

Some individuals must pay estimated taxes or face a penalty in the form of interest on the amount underpaid. Self-employed persons, retirees, and nonworking individuals most often must pay estimated taxes to avoid the penalty. But an employee may need to pay them if the amount of tax withheld from wages is insufficient to cover the tax owed on other income. The potential tax owed on investment income also may increase the need for paying estimated tax, even among wage earners.

Some individuals must pay estimated taxes or face a penalty in the form of interest on the amount underpaid. Self-employed persons, retirees, and nonworking individuals most often must pay estimated taxes to avoid the penalty. But an employee may need to pay them if the amount of tax withheld from wages is insufficient to cover the tax owed on other income. The potential tax owed on investment income also may increase the need for paying estimated tax, even among wage earners.

The trick with estimated taxes is to pay a sufficient amount of estimated tax to avoid a penalty but not to overpay. The IRS will refund the overpayment when you file your return, but it will not pay interest on it. In other words, by overpaying tax to the IRS, you are in essence choosing to give the government an interest-free loan rather than invest your money somewhere else and make a profit.

When do I make estimated tax payments?

Individual estimated tax payments are generally made in four installments accompanying a completed Form 1040-ES, Estimated Tax for Individuals. For the typical individual who uses a calendar tax year, payments generally are due on April 15, June 15, and September 15 of the tax year, and January 15 of the following year (or the following business day when it falls on a weekend or other holiday).

Am I required to make estimated tax payments?

Generally, you must pay estimated taxes in 2012 if (1) you expect to owe at least $1,000 in tax after subtracting tax withholding (if you have any) and (2) you expect your withholding and credits to be less than the smaller of 90 percent of your 2012 taxes or 100 percent of the tax on your 2011 return.  There are special rules for higher income individuals.

Usually, there is no penalty if your estimated tax payments plus other tax payments, such as wage withholding, equal either 100 percent of your prior year's tax liability or 90 percent of your current year's tax liability. However, if your adjusted gross income for your prior year exceeded $150,000, you must pay either 110 percent of the prior year tax or 90 percent of the current year tax to avoid the estimated tax penalty. For married filing separately, the higher payments apply at $75,000.

Estimated tax is not limited to income tax. In figuring your installments, you must also take into account other taxes such as the alternative minimum tax, penalties for early withdrawals from an IRA or other retirement plan, and self-employment tax, which is the equivalent of Social Security taxes for the self-employed.

Suppose I owe only a relatively small amount of tax?

There is no penalty if the tax underpayment for the year is less than $1,000. However, once an underpayment exceeds $1,000, the penalty applies to the full amount of the underpayment.

What if I realize I have miscalculated my tax before the year ends?

An employee may be able to avoid the penalty by getting the employer to increase withholding in an amount needed to cover the shortfall. The IRS will treat the withheld tax as being paid proportionately over the course of the year, even though a greater amount was withheld at year-end. The proportionate treatment could prevent penalties on installments paid earlier in the year.

What else can I do?

If you receive income unevenly over the course of the year, you may benefit from using the annualized income installment method of paying estimated tax. Under this method, your adjusted gross income, self-employment income and alternative minimum taxable income at the end of each quarterly tax payment period are projected forward for the entire year. Estimated tax is paid based on these annualized amounts if the payment is lower than the regular estimated payment. Any decrease in the amount of an estimated tax payment caused by using the annualized installment method must be added back to the next regular estimated tax payment.

Determining estimated taxes can be complicated, but the penalty can be avoided with proper attention. This office stands ready to assist you with this determination. Please contact us if we can help you determine whether you owe estimated taxes.

On June 28, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited landmark decision on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) and its companion law, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (HCERA). In a 5 to 4 decision of historic proportions, the nation's highest court upheld the law – except for a certain Medicaid provision involving state funding.  Key to the Court's approval of President Obama's signature health care law was the finding that the linchpin individual mandate was constitutional.  The requirement under the individual mandate that individuals pay a penalty if they fail to carry minimum essential health insurance coverage was declared within the Constitution based upon Congress's power to tax.

The Supreme Court's decision preserves all of the far-reaching tax provisions and health insurance reforms that were part of the overall health care reform legislation as passed in 2010. In coming months, lawmakers and legal scholars will examine all of the nuances of the Court's highly complex decision.  More immediately, individuals and businesses are concerned about what steps they need to take next.

Role of taxes

To a large extent, the Obama administration's health care law is driven by tax provisions, to provide the carrot, the stick and adequate funding in alternating quantities. The role played by taxes in the new health care provisions is also underscored by the predominate part that the IRS will play in its administration.

Under the health care law, a number of tax provisions are scheduled to take effect in 2013 and beyond. The court's decision allows the numerous tax provisions within the health care laws to move forward on schedule. Some important provisions have already taken effect; others will take effect in 2013 and 2014. One provision, the excise tax on high-cost employer-sponsored coverage, will not take effect until 2018.

Main provisions/effective dates

PPACA and HCERA include the following tax provisions (not a complete list):

• Small employer Sec. 45R credit, effective for tax years beginning in 2010 – the government will provide a credit of 35 percent of health insurance premiums to small employers (25 percent for tax-exempt organizations. The credit expires after 2015.
• Economic substance doctrine, effective after March 30, 2010 – the economic substance test was codified as a two-prong test, requiring that the transaction change the taxpayer's economic position in a meaningful way, and that the taxpayer has a substantial business purpose for the transaction.
• Over-the-counter limitations for health accounts, effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2010 – health accounts, such as flexible spending arrangements, health reimbursement arrangements, health savings accounts, and Archer Medical Savings Accounts, can only reimburse expenses for medicine and drugs if the item is a prescription drug (or insulin).
• Indoor tanning services excise tax, effective on or after July 1, 2010 – amounts paid for indoor tanning services are subject to a 10-percent excise tax. Tanning salons must collect the tax and pay it quarterly.
• Itemized deduction for medical expenses, effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2012 – the threshold for deducting medical expenses as an itemized deduction is raised from 7.5 percent to 10 percent of adjusted gross income.
• Additional 0.9% Medicare tax, effective after December 31, 2012 – an additional 0.9 percent Medicare tax is imposed on wages and self-employment income of higher-income individuals: individuals – above $200,000; married filing jointly – above $250,000; married filing separately – above $125,000.
• 3.8% Medicare contribution tax, effective after December 31, 2012 – a 3.8 percent Medicare tax is imposed on unearned income for higher-income individuals, including interest, dividends, annuities, royalties, rents and other passive income.
• Medical device excise tax, effective for sales after December 31, 2012 – a 2.3 percent excise tax is imposed on sales of certain medical devices by manufacturers, producers and importers. Retail items such as eyeglasses are excluded from the tax.
• Employer shared responsibility, effective after December 31, 2013 – the "employer mandate": an applicable large employer (50 or more full-time employees) must make a payment if any full-time employee can receive the premium tax credit. The payment is required if the employer does not offer minimum essential coverage, or offers coverage that is not affordable.
• Branded prescription drug fees, effective for calendar years beginning after December 31, 2010 – an annual fee imposed on manufacturers and importers with receipts from branded prescription drug sales.
• Sec. 36B premium assistance credit, effective for tax years ending after December 31, 2013 – lower-income individuals who obtain health insurance coverage through an insurance exchange may qualify for the credit, unless they are eligible for other minimum essential coverage.
• Excise tax on high-dollar insurance, effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017 – employer-sponsored health coverage whose cost exceeds a threshold amount ($10,200 for self-on coverage; $27,500 for other coverage) will be subject to a 40-percent excise tax.

Looking ahead

Employers, taxpayers – indeed everyone – must prepare for sweeping changes in health care in coming years.  Many of the provisions in the PPACA have already been implemented or are in the process of being implemented.  Other provisions, as the above list indicated, are scheduled to take effect after 2012.  The Supreme Court's upholding of the PPACA clears the way for full implementation of the new law (unless a future Congress votes to repeal the law, which at this point would be an uphill battle). Our office will keep you posted of developments and the steps you need to take in the coming months.

In light of the IRS’s new Voluntary Worker Classification Settlement Program (VCSP), which it announced this fall, the distinction between independent contractors and employees has become a “hot issue” for many businesses. The IRS has devoted considerable effort to rectifying worker misclassification in the past, and continues the trend with this new program.  It is available to employers that have misclassified employees as independent contractors and wish to voluntarily rectify the situation before the IRS or Department of Labor initiates an examination.

The distinction between independent contractors and employees is significant for employers, especially when they file their federal tax returns. While employers owe only the payment to independent contractors, employers owe employees a series of federal payroll taxes, including Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment, and federal tax withholding. Thus, it is often tempting for employers to avoid these taxes by classifying their workers as independent contractors rather than employees.

If, however, the IRS discovers this misclassification, the consequences might include not only the requirement that the employer pay all owed payroll taxes, but also hefty penalties. It is important that employers be aware of the risk they take by classifying a worker who should or could be an employee as an independent contractor.

“All the facts and circumstances”

The IRS considers all the facts and circumstances of the parties in determining whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. These are numerous and sometimes confusing, but in short summary, the IRS traditionally considers 20 factors, which can be categorized according to three aspects: (1) behavioral control; (2) financial control; (3) and the relationship of the parties.

Examples of behavioral and financial factors that tend to indicate a worker is an employee include:

• The worker is required to comply with instructions about when, where, and how to work;
• The worker is trained by an experienced employee, indicating the employer wants services performed in a particular manner;
• The worker’s hours are set by the employer;
• The worker must submit regular oral or written reports to the employer;
• The worker is paid by the hour, week, or month;
• The worker receives payment or reimbursement from the employer for his or her business and traveling expenses; and
• The worker has the right to end the employment relationship at any time without incurring liability.

In other words, any existing facts or circumstances that point to an employer’s having more behavioral and/or financial control over the worker tip the balance towards classifying that worker as an employee rather than a contractor. The IRS’s factors do not always apply, however; and if one or several factors indicate independent contractor status, but more indicate the worker is an employee, the IRS may still determine the worker is an employee.

Finally, in examining the relationship of the parties, benefits, permanency of the employment term, and issuance of a Form W-2 rather than a Form 1099 are some indicators that the relationship is that of an employer–employee.

Conclusion

Worker classification is fact-sensitive, and the IRS may see a worker you may label an independent contractor in a very different light. One key point to remember is that the IRS generally frowns on independent contractors and actively looks for factors that indicate employee status.

Please do not hesitate to call our offices if you would like a reassessment of how you are currently classifying workers in your business, as well as an evaluation of whether IRS’s new Voluntary Classification Program may be worth investigating.

Under a flexible spending arrangement (FSA), an amount is credited to an account that is used to reimburse an employee, generally, for health care or dependent care expenses. The employer must maintain the FSA. Amounts may be contributed to the account under an employee salary reduction agreement or through employer contributions.

Use-it or lose-it

The general rule is that no contribution or benefit from an FSA may be carried over to a subsequent plan year. Unused benefits or contributions remaining at the end of the plan year (or at the end of a grace period) are forfeited. This is known as the “use it or lose it” rule. The plan cannot pay the unused benefits back to the employee, and cannot carry over the unused benefits to the following calendar year.

Example. An employer maintains a cafeteria plan with a health FSA. The plan does not have a grace period. Arthur, an employee, contributes $250 a month to the FSA, or a total of $3,000 for the calendar year. At the end of the year (December 31), Arthur has incurred medical expenses of only $1,200 and makes claims for those expenses. He has $1,800 of unused benefits. Under the “use it or lose it” rule, Arthur forfeits the $1,800. 

Grace period

Because the “use it or lose it” rule seemed harsh, the IRS gave employers the option to provide a grace period at the end of the calendar year. The grace period may extend for 2½ months, but must not extend beyond the 15^th day of the third month following the end of the plan year. Medical expenses incurred during the grace period may be reimbursed using contributions from the previous year.

Example. Beulah contributes $3,000 to her health FSA for 2010. The FSA is on January 1 through December 31 calendar year.  On December 31, 2010, Beulah has $1,800 of unused contributions. Her employer provides a grace period through March 15, 2011. On January 20, 2011, Beulah incurs $1,500 of additional medical expenses. Because these expenses were incurred during the grace period, Beulah can be reimbursed the $1,500 from her 2010 contributions. On March 15, 2011, she has $300 of unused benefits from 2010 and forfeits this amount.

Exceptions

There are other exceptions to the prohibition against deferred compensation within the operation of an FSA. A cafeteria plan is permitted, but not required, to reimburse employees for orthodontia services before the services are provided, even if the services will be provided over a period of two years or longer. The employee must be required to pay in advance to receive the services. 

Another exception is provided for durable medical equipment that has a useful life extending beyond the health FSA’s period of coverage (the calendar year, plus any grace period). For example, a health FSA is permitted to reimburse the cost of a wheelchair for an employee.

If you have any questions on setting up an FSA, whether as an employer or an employee, and which benefits must be covered and which are optional, please do not hesitate to call this office.

Job-hunting expenses are generally deductible as long as you are not searching for a job in a new field. This tax benefit can be particularly useful in a tough job market. It does not matter whether your job hunt is successful, or whether you are employed or unemployed when you are looking.

Expenses directly connected with a job search are deductible as a miscellaneous itemized deduction. You can deduct job-hunting expenses if the amount of all your so-called miscellaneous itemized deductions exceeds two percent of your adjusted gross income. However, if you claim the standard deduction, you cannot deduct job-hunting expenses. Therefore, as a practical matter for many job seekers, job hunting expenses do not materialize as a tax deduction.

For those who are able to use job seeking expenses as a deduction, it can be difficult to determine what a new field is. A professional photographer who pursues a job in the retail industry clearly is searching in a new field and cannot deduct any of his or her job-hunting expenses. But there are exceptions. The IRS has allowed persons who retired from the military to search for jobs in new fields and claim their job-hunting expenses. Taking a temporary job while searching for permanent employment in your current field will not be considered a job change that disqualifies your job-hunting expenses.

Persons entering the job market for the first time, such as college students, and persons who have been out of the job market for a long period of time, such as parents of young children, cannot deduct their job-hunting expenses. However, a college student who worked in a particular field while in school may be able to deduct job-hunting expenses.

Deductible expenses include typing, printing and mailing a resume. Long-distance phone calls are also deductible. You can deduct travel costs for going on a job search or an interview, including air transportation, railroad, or car expenses. The standard rate for car expenses for business is 55 cents per mile for 2012. Amounts you pay to a job counselor, employment agency or job referral service are all deductible.

It is important to keep records of your costs. While your individual expenses may not be substantial, your total expenses can add up to a significant amount.

A limited liability company (LLC) is a business entity created under state law. Every state and the District of Columbia have LLC statutes that govern the formation and operation of LLCs.

The main advantage of an LLC is that in general its members are not personally liable for the debts of the business. Members of LLCs enjoy similar protections from personal liability for business obligations as shareholders in a corporation or limited partners in a limited partnership. Unlike the limited partnership form, which requires that there must be at least one general partner who is personally liable for all the debts of the business, no such requirement exists in an LLC.

A second significant advantage is the flexibility of an LLC to choose its federal tax treatment. Under IRS's "check-the-box rules, an LLC can be taxed as a partnership, C corporation or S corporation for federal income tax purposes. A single-member LLC may elect to be disregarded for federal income tax purposes or taxed as an association (corporation).

LLCs are typically used for entrepreneurial enterprises with small numbers of active participants, family and other closely held businesses, real estate investments, joint ventures, and investment partnerships. However, almost any business that is not contemplating an initial public offering (IPO) in the near future might consider using an LLC as its entity of choice.

Deciding to convert an LLC to a corporation later generally has no federal tax consequences. This is rarely the case when converting a corporation to an LLC. Therefore, when in doubt between forming an LLC or a corporation at the time a business in starting up, it is often wise to opt to form an LLC. As always, exceptions apply. Another alternative from the tax side of planning is electing "S Corporation" tax status under the Internal Revenue Code.

Estimated tax is used to pay tax on income that is not subject to withholding or if not enough tax is being withheld from a person's salary, pension or other income. Income not subject to withholding can include dividends, capital gains, prizes, awards, interest, self-employment income, and alimony, among other income items. Generally, individuals who do not pay at least 90 percent of their tax through withholding must estimate their income tax liability and make equal quarterly payments of the "required annual payment" liability during the year.

Estimated tax is used to pay tax on income that is not subject to withholding or if not enough tax is being withheld from a person's salary, pension or other income. Income not subject to withholding can include dividends, capital gains, prizes, awards, interest, self-employment income, and alimony, among other income items. Generally, individuals who do not pay at least 90 percent of their tax through withholding must estimate their income tax liability and make equal quarterly payments of the "required annual payment" liability during the year.

Basic rules

The "basic" rules governing estimated tax payments are not always synonymous with "straightforward" rules. The following addresses some basic rules regarding estimated tax payments by corporations and individuals:

Corporations. For calendar-year corporations, estimated tax installments are due on April 15, June 15, September 15, and December 15. If any due date falls on a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, the payment is due on the first following business day. To avoid a penalty, each installment must equal at least 25 percent of the lesser of:

• 100 percent of the tax shown on the corporation's current year's tax return (or of the actual tax, if no return is filed); or
• 100 percent of the tax shown on the corporation's return for the preceding tax year, provided a positive tax liability was shown and the preceding tax year consisted of 12 months.

A lower installment amount may be paid if it is shown that use of an annualized income method, or for corporations with seasonal incomes, an adjusted seasonal method, would result in a lower required installment.

Individuals. For individuals (including sole proprietors, partners, self-employeds, and/or S corporation shareholders who expect to owe tax of more than $1,000), quarterly estimated tax payments are due on April 15, June 15, September 15, and January 15. Individuals who do not pay at least 90 percent of their tax through withholding generally are required to estimate their income tax liability and make equal quarterly payments of the "required annual payment" liability during the year. The required annual payment is generally the lesser of:

• 90 percent of the tax ultimately shown on your return for the 2015 tax year, or 90 percent of the tax due for the year if no return is filed;
• 100 percent of the tax shown on your return for the preceding (2014) tax year if that year was not for a short period of less than 12 months; or
• The annualized income installment.

For higher-income taxpayers whose adjusted gross income (AGI) shown on your 2014 tax return exceeds $150,000 (or $75,000 for a married individual filing separately in 2015), the required annual payment is the lesser of 90 percent of the tax for the current year, or 110 percent of the tax shown on the return for the preceding tax year.

Adjusting estimated tax payments

If you expect an uneven income stream for 2015, your required estimated tax payments may not necessarily be the same for each remaining period, requiring adjustment. The need for, and the extent of, adjustments to your estimated tax payments should be assessed at the end of each installment payment period.

For example, a change in your or your business's income, deductions, credits, and exemptions may make it necessary to refigure estimated tax payments for the remainder of the year. Likewise for individuals, changes in your exemptions, deductions, and credits may require a change in estimated tax payments. To avoid either a penalty from the IRS or overpaying the IRS interest-free, you may want to increase or decrease the amount of your remaining estimated tax payments.

Refiguring tax payments due

There are some general steps you can take to reconfigure your estimated tax payments. To change your estimated tax payments, refigure your total estimated tax payments due. Then, figure the payment due for each remaining payment period. However, be careful: if an estimated tax payment for a previous period is less than one-fourth of your amended estimated tax, you may be subject to a penalty when you file your return.

If you would like further information about changing your estimated tax payments, please contact our office.

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) enacted in March 2010, small employers may be eligible to claim a tax credit of 35 percent of qualified health insurance premium costs paid by a taxable employer (25 percent for tax-exempt employers). The credit is designed to encourage small employers to offer health-insurance to their employees.

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) enacted in March 2010, small employers may be eligible to claim a tax credit of 35 percent of qualified health insurance premium costs paid by a taxable employer (25 percent for tax-exempt employers). The credit is designed to encourage small employers to offer health-insurance to their employees.

Employees and wages

An employer can claim the maximum 35 percent credit if it has no more than 10 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees receiving average annual wages of $25,000 or less. The credit is phased out as the number of FTEs increases to 25 and as average annual wages increase to $50,000.  An employer with 25 or more employees, or paying average annual wages of $50,000 or more per employee, will not receive a credit.

In counting FTEs, the employer should not include owners and family members.  Seasonal employees are not counted unless they work at least 120 days during the year. In determining average annual wages, employers must count all wages, bonuses, commissions or other compensation, including sick leave and vacation leave.

Applicable years

The credit took effect in 2010.  It did not expire at the end of 2010 but can be claimed from year to year.  The credit applies at the 35/25 percent levels for four years, through 2013. After 2013, the maximum credit increases to 50 percent for for-profit employers and 35 percent for tax-exempt employers, but only for two years. Thus, the credit can be claimed every year for the six years from 2010 and 2015.  The credit is recalculated every year based on the total health insurance premiums paid. Only non-elective employer premiums are counted; salary reduction contributions paid through a cafeteria plan or other arrangement are not counted.

Premiums

An employer must pay at least 50 percent of the premium cost of health insurance coverage, and must pay the same uniform percentage of costs for each employee who obtains health insurance through the employer. A transition rule for 2010 treats an employer as satisfying the uniformity rule as long as the employer pays at least 50 percent of the coverage costs of each employee, based on the cost of employee-only (single) coverage, even if the employer does not pay the same percentage of costs for each employee.

The premiums must be paid for qualified health insurance, such as a hospital or medical service plan or health maintenance organization. It includes coverage for dental, vision, long-term care, nursing home care, and coverage for a specified disease or illness.  Coverage does not accident insurance, disability income insurance, and workers' compensation.

Claiming the credit

The credit is determined on Form 8941, Credit for Small Employer Health Insurance Premiums. For-profit employers report the amount of the credit on Form 3800, General Business Credit, and attach the forms to their income tax return. As a general business credit, any unused credit (in excess of taxable income) can be carried back one year (except for a credit arising in 2010, the first year) or carried forward 20 years.  For-profit employers deduct the credit from the premiums paid for health insurance, when computing the deduction for health insurance premiums.

Tax-exempt employers report the credit on Form 990-T, Exempt Organization Business Income Tax Return, regardless of whether the organization is subject to tax on unrelated business income. The credit is refundable for tax-exempt employers, provided it does not exceed the employer’s income tax withholding and Medicare taxes. The credit is not refundable if the employer does not claim the credit on Form 990-T.

The IRS is moving quickly to alert employers about a new tax credit for health insurance premiums. The recently enacted health care reform package (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010) created the small employer health insurance tax credit. The temporary credit is targeted to small employers that offer or will offer health insurance coverage to their employees. The credit, like so many federal tax incentives, has certain qualifications. Please contact our office and we can arrange to review in detail how the credit may cut the cost of your business's health insurance premiums. The dollar benefits of the credit are substantial and they apply immediately to 2010 premium costs.

Outreach

The IRS is sending postcards to more than four million small businesses in coming weeks. The postcards briefly describe the new tax credit and are just one part of the IRS's outreach campaign to educate employers about the credit. The IRS has also created a special page on its web site on the credit along with a fact sheet and frequently asked questions and answers.

Maximum credit

The new health care credit is effective immediately so employers need to plan now to take advantage of it. The credit, which is available over the next five years, also rises over time but the enhanced credit comes with some additional requirements.

For tax years beginning in 2010 through 2013, the maximum credit reaches 35 percent of qualified premium costs paid by for-profit employers. The maximum credit is 25 percent of qualified premium costs paid by tax-exempt employers.

The maximum credit climbs to 50 percent of qualified premium costs paid by for-profit employers (35 percent for tax-exempt employers) for tax years beginning in 2014 through 2015. However, Congress imposed some additional requirements. An employer may claim the credit only if it offers one or more qualified health plans through a state insurance exchange. The health care reform package requires states to create insurance exchanges by January 1, 2014.

Example. ABC Co. employs nine individuals with average annual wages of $23,000 for each employee in 2010. ABC pays $72,000 in health care premiums for its employees. This amount does not exceed the average premium for the small group market in the state in which ABC offers coverage and ABC otherwise meets the requirements for the credit. ABC's credit for 2010 is $25,200 (35 percent x $72,000).

Tax-exempt employers have additional limitations. If the amount of their credit exceeds the amount of payroll taxes of the tax-exempt employer during the calendar year in which the tax year begins, the credit is limited to the amount of payroll taxes.

FTEs

The maximum credit is available to qualified employers with no more than 10 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees paying average annual wages of $25,000 or less. The credit completely phases out if an employer has 25 or more FTEs or pays $50,000 or more in average annual wages. Effectively, a small employer can have exactly 25 FTEs or pay average annual compensation of exactly $50,000 and not receive a credit under the phase-out rules. The monetary amounts are adjusted for inflation after 2013.

The health care reform package explains how to calculate the number of FTEs. The number of an employer's FTEs is determined by dividing the total hours for which the employer pays wages to employees during the year (but not more than 2,080 hours for any employee) by 2,080. The result, if not a whole number, is rounded to the next lowest whole number. Lawmakers selected 2,080 hours because 2,080 hours comprise the number of hours in a 52-week assuming a 40-hour work week. Any hours beyond 2,080, such as overtime hours, are not taken into account when calculating FTEs.

Example. ABC Co has nine employees. ABC pays Aidan, Bonnie, Catherine, David, and Eddie wages for 2,080 hours each for 2010. ABC pays Francine, Gary and Harry wages for 1,040 hours each for 2010. ABC pays Kieran wages for 2,300 hours for 2010. The total hours not exceeding 2,080 per employee is the sum of: --10,400 hours for the five employees paid for 2,080 hours each (5 x 2,080) plus --3,120 hours for the three employees paid for 1,040 hours each (3 x 1,040) plus --2,080 hours for the one employee paid for 2,300 hours (lesser of 2,300 and 2,080), which add up to 15,600 hours.

To calculate the number of FTEs, 15,600 is divided by 2,080, which results in 7.5, rounded to the next lowest whole number.

Average annual wages

A formula is also used to calculate average annual wages. The amount of average annual wages is determined by first dividing the total wages paid by the employer to employees during the employer's tax year by the number of the employer's FTEs for the year. The result is then rounded down to the nearest $1,000 (if not otherwise a multiple of $1,000).

Example. ABC Co. pays $224,000 in wages and has 10 FTEs. ABC's average annual wages are $224,000 divided by 10 which equals $22,400, and is rounded down to the nearest $1,000 for a final number of $22,000

Owners and family members

Some individuals are excluded from the calculation of FTEs and average annual wages. These include a sole proprietor, a partner in a partnership, a shareholder owning more than two percent of an S corporation, and any owner of more than five percent of other businesses. Certain family members of these individuals are also excluded from the calculation of FTEs and average annual wages. These include a child, a parent, a sibling, and others. This list is not exhaustive. Please contact our office for more details about who is excluded from these calculations.

Premium deduction

Employers generally may deduct the cost of health insurance premiums paid on behalf of employees. The health care reform package does not change this general rule. However, the amount of premiums that an employer may deduct is reduced by the amount of the small employer health care tax credit.

Qualifying arrangement

Only premiums paid by the employer under a qualifying arrangement are counted in calculating the credit. Under a qualifying arrangement, the employer pays premiums for each employee enrolled in health care coverage offered by the employer in an amount equal to a uniform percentage (not less than 50 percent) of the premium cost of the coverage. The IRS is developing transition relief for 2010.

Additionally, the amount of an employer's premium payments is capped in relation to the average premium for the small group market. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will determine the average premium for the small group market in a state.

Congress is currently reviewing the costs of premiums. The health care reform package includes a requirement, effective in 2011, that insurance companies spend at least 80 percent of premium revenue on actual health care. Additionally, the health care reform package establishes a process for the annual review of premium increases prior to their use along with public disclosure of how premium rates are determined.

Claiming the credit

Qualified for-profit employers will claim the credit on their annual income tax return. The IRS is expected to advise how tax-exempt employers will claim the credit. Our office will keep you posted of developments.

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, a qualified small business can choose to start offering health insurance coverage to employees in 2010 and be eligible for the credit. If you are considering providing insurance coverage to your employees, please contact our office. If you have already been paying premiums, don't leave maximizing the new credit to chance; we can help you navigate the many federal rules that come into play.

As always, please contact our office if you have any questions about the new small employer health insurance tax credit.

Long-term care premiums are deductible up to certain amounts as itemized medical expense deductions. The amount is based upon your age. Unfortunately, most taxpayers do not have enough other medical expense deductions to exceed the non-deductible portion equal to the first 7 1/2 percent of adjusted gross income (10 percent if you are subject to alternative minimum tax (AMT)). Furthermore, more taxpayers now take the standard deduction rather than itemize, making even those medical expenses useless as a tax deduction.

A tax bill has been before Congress for several years now to allow long-term care premiums to be deductible "above the line," that is, by anyone irrespective of whether you itemize. The impetus behind this recommendation is that encouraging individuals to fund their own eventual eldercare is preferable to having federal Medicare payments to so. So far, however, Congress has not brought the matter to a vote. Some state income tax laws already allow such an above-the-line deduction.

Long-term care premiums. Long-term care insurance premiums are deductible in figuring itemized medical expense deductions up to the following amounts:

- Age 40 or younger: $290 in 2007; $310 in 2008;

- Over 40 but not older than 50: $550 in 2007; $580 in 2008;

- Over 50 but not older than 60: $1,110 in 2007; $1,150 in 2008;

- Over 60 but not older than 70: $2,950 in 2007; $3,080 in 2008; and

- Over 70: $3,680 in 2007; $3,850 in 2008.