Linda D. Cosgray, Inc.

The IRS has announced a significant increase in enforcement actions for syndicated conservation easement transactions. This is a "priority compliance area" for the agency.

Throughout the IRS, coordinated examinations are being conducted in the Small Business and Self-Employed (SB/SE) Division, Large Business and International (LB&I) Division, and Tax Exempt and Government Entities (TE/GE) Division. The IRS Criminal Investigation (CI) Division has also been initiating investigations. The audits and investigations cover billions of dollars of potentially inflated deductions, as well as hundreds of partnerships and thousands of investors.

"We will not stop in our pursuit of everyone involved in the creation, marketing, promotion and wrongful acquisition of artificial, highly inflated deductions based on these aggressive transactions. Every available enforcement option will be considered, including civil penalties and, where appropriate, criminal investigations that could lead to a criminal prosecution," said IRS Commissioner Charles "Chuck" Rettig. "Our innovation labs are continually developing new, more extensive enforcement tools that employ advanced techniques. If you engaged in any questionable syndicated conservation easement transaction, you should immediately consult an independent, competent tax advisor to consider your best available options. It is always worthwhile to take advantage of various methods of getting back into compliance by correcting your tax returns before you hear from the IRS. Our continued use of ever-changing technologies would suggest that waiting is not a viable option for most taxpayers," he added.

Syndicated Conservation Easements

The IRS issued Notice 2017-10, I.R.B. 2017-4, 544, in 2016, which designated certain syndicated conservation easements as listed transactions. In these types of transactions, investors in pass-through entities receive promotional material which offer the possibility of a charitable contribution deduction worth at least two-and-a-half times their investment. The deduction taken in many transactions has been significantly higher than 250 percent of the investment.

Syndicated conservation easements were included on the IRS’s 2019 "Dirty Dozen" list of tax scams to avoid.

Not only do these transactions grossly overstate the value of the easement that was purportedly donated to charity, they often also fail to comply with the basic requirements for claiming a charitable deduction for a donated easement.

Taxpayers may avoid the imposition of penalties for improper contribution deductions if they fully remove the improper contribution and related tax benefits from their returns by timely filing a qualified amended return or timely administrative adjustment request.

Enforcement Actions

The IRS has prevailed in many cases involving the charitable deduction basic requirements, and has established a body of law that it believes supports disallowance of the deduction in a significant number of pending conservation easement cases. The IRS will soon be moving the Tax Court to invalidate the claimed deductions in all cases where the transactions fail to comply with the basic requirements, leaving only the final penalty amount to be determined.

In addition to auditing participants in syndicated conservation easement transactions, the IRS is pursuing investigations of promoters, appraisers, tax return preparers and others, and is evaluating numerous referrals of practitioners to the IRS Office of Professional Responsibility. The IRS will develop and assert all appropriate penalties, including:

penalties for participants (40 percent accuracy-related penalty);
penalties for appraisers (penalty for substantial and gross valuation misstatements attributable to incorrect appraisals);
penalties for promoters, material advisors, and accommodating entities (penalty for promoting abusive tax shelters, and penalty for aiding and abetting understatement of tax liability); and
penalties for return preparers (penalty for understatement of taxpayer’s liability by a tax return preparer).

Rettig, Desmond Highlight Heightened Focus

Rettig and IRS Chief Counsel Michael J. Desmond have each highlighted the IRS’s heightened, agency-wide focus on syndicated conservations easements.

While speaking at the American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) 2019 National Tax Conference in Washington, D.C., Rettig and Desmond both separately underscored the IRS’s increased enforcement efforts toward abuses of certain tax-advantaged land transactions under Code Sec. 170(h).

"We appreciate the value of conservation easements," Rettig said. "We do not appreciate the activities that have gone on with respect to the syndicated conservation easements—there are some artificial appraisals there… some fatal flaws."

Reiterating the IRS’s tough stance on the matter, Rettig said that the IRS is not going to "stand down." The information in IR-2019-182 issued on November 12 was "fair warning," Rettig said.

Likewise, Desmond stressed that the challenges surrounding syndicated conservation easements are an "institutional concern" for the IRS, "one that we will be responding to," he emphasized.

Close

Treasury and the IRS are expected to release proposed rules in "early 2020" that would clarify certain limitations on the carried interest tax break, according to David Kautter, Treasury’s assistant secretary for tax policy. Kautter briefly addressed the proposed regulations’ timeline while speaking at the American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) 2019 National Tax Conference in Washington, D.C.

Carried Interest Limitation

The forthcoming regulations are expected to restrict S corporations from taking advantage of a carried interest exemption provision under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97). The TCJA requires certain money managers to hold investments for at least three years before becoming eligible for the lower, 20 percent capital gains rate. However, it exempted corporations from this holding period, which Treasury and many lawmakers on Capitol Hill say resulted in an unintended "loophole."

The proposed regulations are expected to clarify the law’s intent that S corporations are subject to the three-year holding period for carried interest, according to Treasury’s last press release on the matter issued in March 2018 (see "Treasury, IRS Issue Guidance On Carried Interest," at https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm0302).

Legal Questions May Arise

Most notably, however, the TCJA does not expressly contain this limitation on S-corporations, which has left some on Capitol Hill questioning Treasury and the IRS’s authority to implement such a restriction via regulations. The IRS on November 15 directed Wolters Kluwer to Treasury for confirmation on this anticipated rule and projected timeline. As of press time, Treasury had not responded to Wolters Kluwer’s request for comment.

Close

Hopes for a year-end tax extenders package appear to be dwindling on Capitol Hill.

Tax Extenders Need a Legislative Vehicle

Over 30 expired or soon-to-be expired tax breaks known as tax extenders were originally considered a top contender for hitching a ride on a larger, must-pass government funding bill. Considering the lack of time left on the legislative calendar this year, a stand-alone tax bill has been considered an unlikely initiative. Thus, a must-pass appropriations bill was seen by several lawmakers as the likely legislative vehicle for tax extenders and other tax items such as technical corrections to Republicans’ 2017 tax reform law.

However, a spokesperson for Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, confirmed to Wolters Kluwer on October 28 that Grassley believes there is "no hope" for action this year on a tax extenders package if lawmakers do not move quickly with respect to its legislative driver. Many within the practitioner community following these developments have said that the chances of providing taxpayers with certain tax breaks retroactively significantly decrease if Congress moves into next year leaving them expired.

Another Stopgap Spending Bill Appears Likely

Currently, the federal government is operating on a stopgap spending bill temporarily extending fiscal year (FY) 2019 funding levels through November 21. Previously, several lawmakers, in particular Grassley, had hoped that a tax extenders package would be attached to a larger, more comprehensive appropriations bill next month. However, Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Richard Shelby, R-Ala., told reporters that another short-term stopgap spending bill is the more likely option to keep the government open after November 21. "Unless a miracle happens around here with the House and Senate, we will have to put forth another [continuing resolution] CR," Shelby told reporters.

Notably, another short-term government funding bill is considered unlikely to have any policy riders. Generally, stop gap spending bills are usually considered "clean," for the most part. Also playing a role in tax extenders’ fate is whether President Trump would sign a more comprehensive appropriations bill. At this time, his support for a larger FY 2020 funding bill, apart from tax policy reasons, remains unclear.

Close

Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and other top Senate tax writers are calling for Senate action on the bipartisan Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Secure bill (HR 1994) (SECURE Act). The House-approved, bipartisan retirement savings bill has remained stalled in the Senate since May.

SECURE Act’s Route to Senate Floor Remains Unclear

Grassley’s communications director Michael Zona told Wolters Kluwer on October 21 that it remains "unclear at this point" whether the SECURE Act will move through committee, reach the Senate floor by unanimous consent, or be attached to a larger, year-end tax package. "Grassley supports the House-passed SECURE Act. There are several holds on the bill, and he is working to get them lifted," Zona said.

The SECURE Act cleared the House on May 23 by a 417-to-3 vote. The bipartisan measure, which proposes sweeping changes to retirement savings tax policy, was originally expected to quickly clear the Senate after its approval in the House. However, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex., blocked the bill from reaching the Senate floor. Cruz blocked the bill in protest of House Democrats’ 11th hour-removal of a provision from the original bill that would have expanded tax-advantaged Section 529 education savings plans to include homeschooling and certain elementary and secondary expenses. Cruz and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., are reportedly still holding up the measure from reaching the Senate floor.

Catch-All Tax Package

However, the SECURE Act, among other bipartisan tax-related items including tax extenders, could be attached to a catch-all tax package that is expected on Capitol Hill to hitch a ride on a year-end government funding bill. A "must-pass" appropriations bill, like the one currently being negotiated to keep the government open after funding expires on November 21, could serve as the tax package’s legislative vehicle, thus fast tracking its approval.

"As the economy continues to change, the way we approach retirement savings must change as well. Otherwise, too many Americans will be left behind," Grassley said on October 21, noting that the SECURE Act is under "active consideration."

Similar to Grassley’s push, Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., led a letter sent to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., urging immediate Senate consideration of the SECURE Act. "This bipartisan legislation would expand access to retirement plans for millions of Americans, allow older workers and retirees to contribute more to their retirement accounts, increase 401(k) coverage to part-time employees, prevent as many as 4 million people in private-sector pension plans from losing future benefits, protect 1,400 religiously affiliated organizations whose access to their defined contribution retirement plans is in jeopardy, and do the right thing for Gold Star families," according to Scott.

Close

The Senate blocked a Democratic resolution on October 23 to overturn Treasury rules preventing certain workarounds to the $10,000 state and local tax (SALT) federal deduction cap.

SALT Cap Workaround

Senate Democrats’ resolution, S.J. Res. 50, forced a vote on Wednesday to nullify Treasury regulations that block taxpayers from circumventing the SALT cap through certain states’ programs that convert state and local taxes into fully deductible charitable contributions. The resolution failed by a largely party-line vote of 43-to-52.

Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., voted against the Democratic measure while Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., supported it. While the resolution would not repeal the SALT cap itself, House Democrats are reportedly crafting legislation to do so. Democrats and some Republicans, particularly from high-tax states, have criticized the SALT cap since its enactment in 2017 under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97).

Debate on SALT Cap, Treasury Rules

"Without any clear authority to do so, the Treasury Department reversed a long-standing IRS position that had allowed taxpayers a full deduction for charitable contributions to state tax credit programs," Senate Finance Committee (SFC) ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said on the Senate floor before the vote. "My view is the Treasury Department should not be putting its thumb on the scale on behalf of Republican interests, and it shouldn’t be using phony regulatory justifications to fix Republicans’ extraordinarily poorly drafted law."

However, several Republicans cited to a recent report from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), which estimated that repealing the SALT cap beginning in 2019 would result in over $40 billion of the associated tax cut going to taxpayers with incomes of at least $1 million ( JCX-35-19).

"It’s bad enough that my Democratic colleagues want to unwind tax reform, but it’s downright comical that their top priority is helping wealthy people in blue states find loopholes to pay even less," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said from the Senate floor on October 23. "Repealing the SALT cap would give millionaires an average tax cut of $60,000. Meanwhile, the average tax cut for taxpayers earning between $50,000 and $100,000 would be less than ten dollars."

Vaping Tax

In other news, the House Ways and Means Committee approved a bipartisan vaping tax bill, ( HR 4742), on October 23 by a 24-to-15 vote. The bill would establish a $27.81 tax per gram of nicotine used in vaping devices.

Close

Treasury and the IRS on October 31 announced the release of a new, draft form implementing certain reporting requirements under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Opportunity Zone program.

The proposed Form 8996 for Qualified Opportunity Funds (QOFs) comes after numerous calls on Capitol Hill for more transparency within the Opportunity Zone program. "The form is designed to collect information on the amount of investment by opportunity funds in business property by census tract," according to a Treasury press release.

Opportunity Zones’ Architect Applauds Treasury’s Steps Toward Reporting Requirements

Ken Farnaso, press secretary for Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., chief architect of the TCJA’s bipartisan Opportunity Zone program, told Wolters Kluwer on October 31 that reporting requirements, "an important piece of the puzzle," were, in fact, originally in the bill. "Unfortunately, during the tax reform process, Senate Democrats blocked these requirements from being included in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Since then, Senator Scott has continued working to restore those reporting requirements," Farnaso said.

Additionally, Farnaso told Wolters Kluwer that Scott applauds Treasury’s steps to ensure a clearer picture of the impact the Opportunity Zones initiative can have on the country. "Senator Scott will also continue to push for his current bill restoring robust reporting requirements to create a holistic picture of how the initiative is functioning," Farnaso said. "Overall, today is a good day for Opportunity Zones. We look forward to the more than $44 billion in currently anticipated investment being deployed in distressed communities across the nation, and that number growing even larger in the future."

Opportunity Zones Tax Incentive

The Opportunity Zone Program enacted under TCJA ( P.L. 115-97) is considered on Capitol Hill as one of the most generous and ambitious tax incentives for investors in distressed communities. Under Code Sec. 1400Z-2, investors may defer taxation of capital gains that are invested in a QOF.

Generally, the following investor tax benefits were created under the Opportunity Zone program:

a temporary tax deferral for capital gains realized on the sale of appreciated assets and reinvested within 180 days in a QOF;
the elimination of up to 10 or 15 percent of the tax on the capital gain that is invested in the QOF and held between five and seven years; and
the permanent exclusion of tax when exiting a qualified opportunity fund investment held for at least 10 years.

Draft IRS Form 8996

Specifically, the new, draft Form 8996 for the 2019 tax year requires QOFs to report the following information:

the Employer Identification Number (EIN) of each business in which the QOF has an ownership interest;
the census tract location of the tangible property of the business;
the value of the QOF’s investment; and
the value and census tract location of qualified business property directly owned or leased.

"This is an important step towards a thorough evaluation of the Opportunity Zone tax incentive," Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said. "We want to understand where Opportunity Zone investments are going and strengthening the economy so that investors and communities can learn from the successes of this bipartisan, pro-growth policy."

Generally, the collection of this information will play a role in allowing lawmakers and the public to evaluate the effects of the tax incentive and to understand why some locations may be more successful than others at attracting investment, according to Treasury.

Opportunity Zones Criticism

The Opportunity Zone program has not come to fruition without its share of criticism, however. Although lawmakers have called for reporting requirements related to QOFs since the TCJA’s enactment, the program has recently come under increased scrutiny and criticism. Senate Finance Committee (SFC) ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., has said that the lack of reporting requirements are "inexcusable."

"Requiring taxpayers to prove they’re actually following the rules of the Opportunity Zone program is a positive first step, but it’s one that should have been taken two years ago…," Wyden said in an October 31 statement. "The Opportunity Zone program has been operating without any effort to ensure compliance and that’s inexcusable."

Close

A California-based medical marijuana dispensary corporation’s motion for summary judgment challenging the constitutionality of Code Sec. 280E was denied. The Tax Court also addressed whether Code Sec. 280E applies to marijuana businesses legally operating under state (California) law, and whether the prohibition on deductions is limited to ordinary and necessary business expenses.

Section 280E

Congress enacted Code Sec. 280E after the court had allowed certain deductions for expenses incurred in connection with an illegal drug trade. Generally, Code Sec. 280E disallows any deductions attributable to a taxpayer’s illegal drug related trade or business. Taxpayers may reduce their income by the cost of goods sold (COGS), and Code Sec. 280E does not generally disallow deductions attributable to a taxpayer’s non-drug-related business.

Constitutionality

The Eighth Amendment of the Constitution prohibits excessive fines or penalties. The dispensary in this case claimed that Code Sec. 280E is a punitive provision that violates the Eighth Amendment. However, because Congress generally has the power to levy taxes under the Sixteenth Amendment, the Tax Court found that the law’s denial of certain deductions cannot be construed as a penalty.

Legality Under State Law

The dispensary also argued that its actions could not be considered "trafficking" for purposes of Code Sec. 280E because its activities were not illegal under California law. The court noted that because marijuana is still considered a Schedule I controlled substance and is banned under federal law, the application of Code Sec. 280E does not depend on the legality of marijuana sales under California law.

Additional Deductions

Finally, the dispensary argued that Code Sec. 280E only applies to deductions under Code Sec. 162, and that other deductions such as those under Code Secs. 164 and 167 should be permitted. However, the text of Code Sec. 280E broadly states that "no deduction or credit shall be allowed." It does not limit the deductions to those claimed under Code Sec. 162.

Dissenting Opinions

The Tax Court decision included several concurring and dissenting opinions, which primarily addressed the issue as to whether Code Sec. 280E is in fact a penalty provision that would violate the Eighth Amendment.

The dissenting opinions found that Code Sec. 280E is punitive in nature. One dissenter noted that rather than specify a narrow range of disallowed expenses, Code Sec. 280E attacks the entire marijuana industry with a broad denial of otherwise allowable deductions. The opinion stated that Congress passed Code Sec. 280E order to deter the sale of controlled substances and to penalize the drug trade. That intent was found to be "clearly in the nature of a penalty." Both dissents concluded with two additional questions, which the dissenters felt need to be addressed:

Is the punitive nature of Code Sec. 280E excessive to the point where it violates the Eighth Amendment?, and
Does the Eighth Amendment apply to corporation taxpayers?

Close

The IRS has proposed regulations that define an eligible terminated S corporation (ETSC), and provide rules relating to distributions of money by an ETSC after the post-termination transition period (PTTP). The proposed regulations also extend the treatment of distributions of money during the PTTP to all shareholders of the corporation, and update and clarify the allocation of current earnings and profits to distributions of money and other property.

Code Sec. 1371(f), as added by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97) extends the period during which C corporation shareholders can benefit from the corporation’s accumulated adjustment account (AAA) generated during its former status as an S corporation. Specifically, the provision allows the C corporation to source qualified distributions of money to which Code Sec. 301 would otherwise apply to in whole or part to AAA. The provision only applies if the corporation is an ETSC as defined in Code Sec. 481(d).

Under the proposed regulations, the revocation of S corporation status may be made during the two-year period beginning on December 22, 2017, even if the effective date for the revocation occurs after the conclusion of the two-year period.

Shareholder Identity Requirement

A former S corporation is not an ETSC unless the owners of its stock are the same owners (and in identical proportions) on December 22, 2017, and on the date of the S corporation revocation. The proposed regulations identify various categories of stock transfers that are not considered an ownership change for purposes of this rule.

ETSC Proration

A distributing ETSC’s AAA is allocated to qualified distributions and the distributions are chargeable to the ETSC’s accumulated earnings and profits (AE&P) based on the ETSC proration. The ETSC proration is implemented in a manner that facilitates the prompt distribution of AAA and full transition to C corporation status. Specifically, the proposed regulations:

specify the time at which amounts of AAA and AE&P are determined for purposes of the ETSC proration;
provide AAA and AE&P ratios used to the implement the proration; and
describe in detail the method of characterizing qualified distributions.

The proposed regulations adopt a "snapshot" approach under which amounts of AAA and AE&P are determined on a specified date. As a result, the same ETSC proration is applied to all qualified distributions. Under the proposed regulations, the determination date is the date when the S corporation revocation election is effective. A "dynamic" approach that recalculated the amounts before each qualified distribution was rejected as administratively cumbersome.

The proposed regulations provide two ratios for determining the part of a qualified distribution that is sourced from AAA and from AE&P. The AAA ratio is the ratio of historical AAA to the sum of historical AAA and historical AE&P. The AE&P ratio is the ratio of historical AE&P and the sum of historical AAA and historical AE&P. The qualified distribution is multiplied by these ratios to determine the amount sourced from AAA and AE&P.

The proposed regulations provide a priority rule under which ETSC proration first applies to qualified distributions during the tax year. The rules of Code Sec. 301 and allocation rules of Code Sec. 316 then apply to any nonqualified distributions that are not fully accounted for by the ETSC proration because the corporation’s AAA or AE&P are exhausted.

Effective Date

The proposed regulations will be effective in tax years beginning after the date they are published as final regulations. A taxpayer may apply the regulations in their entirely to tax years that begin on or before the date of publication as final regulations.

Close

The tax rules surrounding the dependency exemption deduction on a federal income tax return can be complicated, with many requirements involving who qualifies for the deduction and who qualifies to take the deduction. The deduction can be a very beneficial tax break for taxpayers who qualify to claim dependent children or other qualifying dependent family members on their return. Therefore, it is important to understand the nuances of claiming dependents on your tax return, as the April 18 tax filing deadline is just around the corner.

Dependency deduction

You are allowed one dependency exemption deduction for each person you claim as a qualifying dependent on your federal income tax return. The deduction amount for the 2010 tax year is $3,650. If someone else may claim you as a dependent on their return, however, then you cannot claim a personal exemption (also $3,650) for yourself on your return. Additionally, your standard deduction will be limited.

Only one taxpayer may claim the dependency exemption per qualifying dependent in a tax year. Therefore, you and your spouse (or former spouse in a divorce situation) cannot both claim an exemption for the same dependent, such as your son or daughter, when you are filing separate returns.

Who qualifies as a dependent?

The term "dependent" includes a qualifying child or a qualifying relative. There are a number of tests to determine who qualifies as a dependent child or relative, and who may claim the deduction. These include age, relationship, residency, return filing status, and financial support tests.

The rules regarding who is a qualifying child (not a qualifying relative, which is discussed below), and for whom you may claim a dependency deduction on your 2010 return, generally are as follows:

-- The child is a U.S. citizen, or national, or a resident of the U.S., Canada, or Mexico;

-- The child is your child (including adopted or step-children), grandchildren, great-grandchildren, brothers, sisters (including step-brothers, and -sisters), half-siblings, nieces, and nephews;

-- The child has lived with you a majority of nights during the year, whether or not he or she is related to you;

-- The child receives less than $3,650 of gross income (unless the dependent is your child and either (1) is under age 19, (2) is a full-time student under age 24 before the end of the year), or (3) any age if permanently and totally disabled;

-- The child receives more than one-half of his or her support from you; and

-- The child does not file a joint tax return (unless solely to obtain a tax refund).

Qualifying relatives

The rules for claiming a qualifying relative as a dependent on your income tax return are slightly different from the rules for claiming a dependent child. Certain tests must also be met, including a gross income and support test, and a relationship test, among others. Generally, to claim a "qualifying relative" as your dependent:

-- The individual cannot be your qualifying child or the qualifying child of any other taxpayer; -- The individual's gross income for the year is less than $3,650; -- You provide more than one-half of the individual's total support for the year; -- The individual either (1) lives with you all year as a member of your household or (2) does not live with you but is your brother or sister (include step and half-siblings), mother or father, grandparent or other direct ancestor, stepparent, niece, nephew, aunt, or uncle, or inlaws. Foster parents are excluded.

Although age is a factor when claiming a qualifying child, a qualifying relative can be any age.

Special rules for divorced and separated parents

Certain rules apply when parents are divorced or separated and want to claim the dependency exemption. Under these rules, generally the "custodial" parent may claim the dependency deduction. The custodial parent is generally the parent with whom the child resides for the greater number of nights during the year.

However, if certain conditions are met, the noncustodial parent may claim the dependency exemption. The noncustodial parent can generally claim the deduction if:

-- The custodial parent gives up the tax deduction by signing a written release (on Form 8332 or a similar statement) that he or she will not claim the child as a dependent on his or her tax return. The noncustodial parent must attach the statement to his or her tax return; or

-- There is a multiple support agreement (Form 2120, Multiple Support Declaration) in effect signed by the other parent agreeing not to claim the dependency deduction for the year.

Close

It is a common decision you may make every tax season: whether to take the standard deduction or itemize deductions. Most taxpayers have the choice of itemizing deductions or taking the applicable standard deduction amount, the choice resting on which figure will result in a higher deduction. Once you have determined the standard deduction amount that applies to you, the next step is calculating the amount of your allowable itemized deductions; not always a simple task.

Standard deduction basics

Nearly two out of three taxpayers take the standard deduction rather than itemizing deductions, according to the IRS. Moreover, favorable changes to the tax laws made in 2008 may make the standard deduction even more attractive to non-itemizers. Not all taxpayers can take the standard deduction, however. For example, a married taxpayer filing a separate return whose spouse elects to itemize his or her deductions can not take the standard deduction that year. And those who are dependents of another cannot take the full standard deduction.

The standard deduction amounts have increased for 2009 as a result of inflation adjustments. Additionally, marriage penalty relief continues to allow joint filers to take double the deduction amount as single filers. However, this benefit for married couples sunsets for tax years after December 31, 2010, unless Congress acts to extend marriage penalty relief.

The standard deduction amounts for the 2009 tax year are:

$11,400 for married couples filing a joint return (and surviving spouses);
$5,700 for singles and married individuals filing separately; and
$8,350 for heads of household.

Standard property tax deduction for non-itemizers. Non-itemizers can also increase their standard deduction for 2009 by the lesser of (1) the amount otherwise allowable to the individual as a deduction for state and local property taxes, or (2) $500 ($1,000 in the case of married individuals filing jointly).

Additional deduction for age and blindness. Taxpayers who are age 65 or older or who are blind receive an additional standard deduction amount that is added to the basic standard deduction (above). The additional amounts for 2009 are $1,400 for single filers and head of household, and $1,100 each, for married individuals (filing jointly or separately) and surviving spouses. Two additional standard deduction amounts can be taken by a taxpayer who is both over 65 and blind.

Itemizing deductions

A significant consideration when deciding whether to itemize your deductions is that total itemized deductions will be reduced if your adjusted gross income (AGI) is too high. For 2009, the itemized deductions of higher-income taxpayers are reduced by the lesser of:

3 percent of a taxpayer's AGI over $166,800 ($83,400 for married taxpayers filing separately); or
80 percent of the amount of the itemized deductions subject to the reduction, which are otherwise allowable for the tax year.

Note. There is no required reduction for deductions of medical expenses, investment interest, and casualty, theft or wagering losses. You may want to take steps to decrease your AGI this year, such as by deferring income or accelerating the deductions to a low AGI year.

Some itemized deductions may only be claimed if they exceed a certain percentage of your AGI (2% for miscellaneous itemized deductions, 7.5% for medical expenses, and 10% for casualty losses). Any increase in your AGI will reduce AGI-based itemized deductions leaving you with fewer deductions to offset your total income.

Common itemized deductions you may want to consider are:

Medical expenses;
Charitable contributions;
Sales taxes (in lieu of state and local income taxes);
State and local income taxes;
State and local property taxes;
Mortgage interest on a principal and secondary residence;
Investment interest;
Personal casualty losses;
Gambling losses of a nonprofessional gambler not in excess of winnings; and
"Miscellaneous" deductions.

Commonly claimed miscellaneous expenses (subject to the 2% AGI limit) include:

Expenses connected with managing your investment or income producing property
Tax advice and preparation fees
Appraisal fees connected to charitable contributions or casualty losses
Job hunting and moving expenses
Professional journal subscriptions
Home office expenses
Union or professional dues, and
Employee's unreimbursed expenses.

Planning tip. Those who are close to the cut off amount for being better off itemizing than taking the standard deduction might want to consider using a year-end planning technique that incorporates alternating between the standard deduction and itemizing deductions each year. The strategy is to accelerate or defer expenses that can boost itemized deductions all into a one year, then take the standard deduction for the other tax year.

Caution. To complicate matters, some deductions either are not permitted or are allowed only in a lower amount if you are subject to alternative minimum tax (AMT).

If you have questions about preparing your return, give our office a call. We can discuss your tax situation and help you navigate the complex maze of tax laws.

Close

In a period of declining stock prices, tax benefits may not be foremost in your mind. Nevertheless, you may be able to salvage some benefits from the drop in values. Not only can you reduce your taxable income, but you may be able to move out of unfavorable investments and shift your portfolio to investments that you are more comfortable with.

First, you should keep in mind that gain and loss on a sale of stock or mutual fund shares depends on the fair market value of the shares when sold or disposed of, compared to the cost basis of the stock. Your investments may have lost substantial value over recent periods. Nevertheless, if the stock's value when sold is higher than the basis, you still have a gain.

Example. You purchased X Corp stock in 2004, when it cost $5. At the end of 2007, the stock is worth $12. In November, 2008, you sell the stock when its value is $8 a share. Even though your investment has declined in value by 33 percent, you have a gain of $3 a share on the sale ($8 sales price less $5 cost).

The same tax-basis situation that may cause capital gain on the sale of shares that have dropped significantly in value over the past year also is causing many owners of mutual funds that have declined in value to be surprised with a capital gains distribution notice from their fund managers. If you own the mutual fund shares at the time of the capital gain distribution date, you must recognize the gain. Of course, that gain may be netted against your losses from stock or other capital asset sales.

If you realize a profit on a stock sale, the long-term capital gains tax is a maximum of 15 percent, while taxes on wages and other ordinary income can be taxed as high as 35 percent. For taxpayers in the 10 or 15 percent rate brackets, there is no capital gains tax. These reduced capital gains rates are scheduled to expire after 2010. Short-term capital gains (investments held for one year or less) are taxed at ordinary income rates up to 35 percent.

Capital losses can offset capital gains and ordinary income dollar for dollar. Capital gains can be offset in full, whether short-term or long-term. Ordinary income can be offset up to $3,000. If net capital losses (capital losses minus capital gains) exceed $3,000, the excess can be carried forward without limit and can offset capital gains and $3,000 of ordinary income in each subsequent year.

Because a capital loss can offset income taxed at the 35 percent rate, it can be advantageous to sell stock that yields capital gains in one year, while delaying the realization of capital losses until the following year.

Example. Mary has two assets. One asset would yield a $6,000 long-term capital loss when sold. The other would yield a $6,000 long-term capital gain. If Mary sells both assets in the same year, she has a net capital gain of zero. If she realizes the gain in 2008 and the loss in 2009 (by selling the assets in different years), she will increase her 2008 taxes by a maximum of $900 ($6,000 X 15 percent), but will reduce her taxes in 2009 and 2010 by a maximum of $2,100 ($3,000 X 35 percent X 2 years). She will reduce her taxes by $1,200 merely by shifting the timing of the sales.

Worthless securities. You can write off the cost of totally worthless securities as a capital loss, but cannot take a deduction for securities that have lost most of their value from stock market fluctuations or other causes if you still own them and they still have a recognizable value. You do not have to sell, abandon or dispose of the security to take a worthless stock deduction, but worthlessness must be evidenced by an identifiable event. An event includes cessation of the corporation's business, commencement of liquidation, actual foreclosure and bankruptcy. Securities become worthless if the corporation becomes worthless, even if the corporation has not dissolved, liquidated or ceased doing business.

If you would like to discuss these issues, please contact our office. We can help you consider your options.

Close

The IRS allows taxpayers with a charitable inclination to take a deduction for a wide range of donated items. However, the IRS does provide specific guidelines for those taxpayers contributing non-cash items, from the type of charity you can donate to in order to take a deduction to the quality of the goods you contribute and how to value them for deduction purposes. If your summer cleaning has led, or may lead, you to set aside clothes and other items for charity, and you would like to know how to value these items for tax purposes, read on.

Household items that can be donated to charitable, and for which a deduction is allowed, include:

Furniture;
Furnishings;
Electronics;
Appliances;
Linens; and
Similar items.

The following are not considered household items for charitable deduction purposes:

Food;
Paintings, antiques, and other art objects;
Jewelry; and
Collections.

Valuing clothing and household items

Many people give clothing, household goods and other items they no longer need to charity. If you contribute property to a qualified organization, the amount of your charitable contribution is generally the fair market value (FMV) of the property at the time of the contribution. However, if the property has increased in value since you purchased it, you may have to make some adjustments to the amount of your deduction.

You can not deduct donations of used clothing and used household goods unless you can prove the items are in "good," or better, condition; and in the case of equipment, working. However, the IRS has not specifically set out what qualifies as "good" condition.

Fair market value is the amount that the item could be sold for now; what you originally paid for the clothing or household item is completely irrelevant. For example, if you paid $500 for a sofa that would only get you $50 at a yard sale, your deduction for charitable donation purposes is $50 (the sofa's current FMV). You cannot claim a deduction for the difference in the price you paid for the item and its current FMV.

To determine the FMV of used clothing, you should generally claim as the value the price that a buyer of used clothes would pay at a thrift shop or consignment store.

Comment. In the rare event that the household item (or items) you are donating to charity has actually increased in value, you will need to make adjustments to the value of the item in order to calculate the correct deductible amount. You may have to reduce the FMV of the item by the amount of appreciation (increase in value) when calculating your deduction.

Good faith estimate

All non-cash donations require a receipt from the charitable organization to which they are donated, and it is your responsibility as the taxpayer, not the charity's, to make a good faith estimate of the item's (or items') FMV at the time of donation. The emphasis on valuation should be on "good faith." The IRS recognizes some abuse in this area, yet needs to balance its public ire with its duty to encourage legitimate donations. While the audit rate on charitable deductions is not high, it also is not non-existent. You must be prepared with reasonable estimates for used clothing and household goods, high enough so as not to shortchange yourself, yet low enough to prevent an IRS auditor from threatening a penalty.

In any event, if the FMV of any item is more than $5,000, you will need to obtain an appraisal by a qualified appraiser to accompany your tax form (which is Form 8283, Noncash Charitable Contributions). When dealing with valuables, an appraisal helps protect you as well as the IRS.

If you have questions about the types of items that you can donate to charity, limits on deductibility, or other general inquiries about charitable donations and deductions, please contact out office.

Close