A "phase two" tax reform outline could be unveiled by House GOP tax writers by August. Republicans have started to increase their tax meetings related to the effort, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Tex., told reporters on June 13.

A "phase two" tax reform outline could be unveiled by House GOP tax writers by August. Republicans have started to increase their tax meetings related to the effort, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Tex., told reporters on June 13.

Tax Reform "2.0" Timeline

The precise timing of a "phase two" tax reform bill or discussion draft release remains "to-be-determined," a House Ways and Means Committee spokesperson told Wolters Kluwer on June 14. However, Brady told reporters he expects to see a legislative package outlined before the House’s August recess.

Previously, White House Legislative Affairs Director Marc Short predicted a late-summer release of the House’s tax bill. Further, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., has predicted that the House will approve the measure before midterm elections in November.

Individual Tax Cuts

Brady reiterated to reporters that "phase two" will focus on the individual side of the tax code. Moreover, making permanent the individual tax cuts enacted under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) will be the "centerpiece" of a " phase two" bill, Brady reportedly said. Additionally, Republican tax writers are considering proposals that would streamline the retirement savings process, a Ways and Means spokesperson previously told Wolters Kluwer.

Phase Two Fate Uncertain

The next major tax bill’s fate in the Senate remains uncertain. At least nine Democratic votes will be needed to reach the Senate’s 60-vote threshold. Brady has said he is hopeful for Democratic support.

However, Democratic lawmakers in the House and Senate remain largely opposed to the TCJA. Democrats have criticized the TCJA for primarily benefiting corporations. However, House Republicans are hopeful for bipartisan support on a new measure that focuses primarily on individual tax cuts.

A bipartisan group of House and Senate lawmakers have introduced companion Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit (HTC) bills. The measure aims to strengthen the HTC by encouraging investment and minimizing administrative burdens, according to the lawmakers.

A bipartisan group of House and Senate lawmakers have introduced companion Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit (HTC) bills. The measure aims to strengthen the HTC by encouraging investment and minimizing administrative burdens, according to the lawmakers.

Rehabilitation Credit

As amended by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), the rehabilitation credit under Code Sec. 47 is limited to 20 percent of qualified rehabilitation expenditures (QREs) of the taxpayer for qualified rehabilitated buildings. The credit is claimed ratably over a five-year period beginning in the tax year in which the rehabilitated building is placed in service. A "qualified rehabilitated building" (QRB) is a building and its structural components for which depreciation is allowable, and that has been substantially rehabilitated and placed in service before the beginning of the rehabilitation. The building must be a certified historic structure, but any expenditure attributable to rehabilitation of the structure is not a QRE unless it is a certified rehabilitation.

Property is considered substantially rehabilitated only if the expenditures during an elected 24-month measurement period (60-month period for phased rehabilitations) ending with or within the tax year are greater than the adjusted basis of the property or $5,000.

Basis-Adjustment Requirement

The bipartisan Historic Tax Credit Enhancement Bill, introduced June 13, would eliminate the existing basis-adjustment requirement. Eliminating this requirement would "bring the HTC in line with other tax credits claimed over multiple years," according to a joint press release by the bill’s sponsors.

The measure was introduced by Sens. Bill Cassidy, R-La., Ben Cardin, D-Md., and Susan Collins, R-Me., and Reps. Darin LaHood, R-Ill., and Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore. "Protecting this credit was one of my top priorities in tax reform, and I’m glad there is bipartisan support for making it even better," Cassidy said in the joint press release. Cardin praised the measure for helping to create economic growth.

Improved HTC

Likewise, Collins said the bill would make the HTC easier to use as well as create economic development across the country. Additionally, an improved HTC would create jobs, according to Blumenauer. "Strengthening the Historic Tax Credit will further revitalize American cities while creating local jobs and spurring economic development in communities large and small," Blumenauer said.

House tax writers have moved two bills through committee. The bills focus on IRS hiring and the tax treatment of mutual ditch irrigation companies. The House Ways and Means Committee approved the measures in a June 21 markup.

House tax writers have moved two bills through committee. The bills focus on IRS hiring and the tax treatment of mutual ditch irrigation companies. The House Ways and Means Committee approved the measures in a June 21 markup.

IRS Hiring

The Ensuring Integrity in the IRS Workforce bill (HR 3500) would set certain restrictions on the IRS’s hiring policy. The bipartisan bill would amend Code Sec. 7804 to prohibit the rehiring of any employee previously dismissed for certain misconduct issues.

The bill comes after two Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) reports noted that the IRS rehired hundreds of former employees with conduct violations. Over 200 of the more than 2,000 former employees rehired between January 2015 and March 2016 were previously terminated from the IRS for a substantiated conduct or performance issue, according to a July 2017 TIGTA report. Inspector General J. Russell George previously told lawmakers that the particular IRS hiring process is "bad decision making."

The bill, sponsored by Reps. Kristi Noem, R-S.D., and Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., originally passed the House with bipartisan support in the 114th Congress. However, the Senate never took up the measure. Also, Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., introduced a related bill in the Senate.

"If a person is fired for falsifying information or mishandling sensitive taxpayer data, it’s common sense that individuals should not be rehired," Noem said in a June 21 press release. "Nonetheless, the IRS has done this repeatedly."

Agriculture Tax Reform

Additionally, the Ways and Means Committee approved the Water and Agriculture Tax Reform bill (HR 519). The bill aims to facilitate water leasing and transfers to promote conservation and efficiency. HR 519 would amend the "tax treatment of mutual water storage and delivery companies so that they can maintain their nonprofit status even if more than 15 percent of their revenue comes from nonmembers," according to a June 21 press release by the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo.

HR 519 and HR 3500 are now headed to the House floor.

The American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Taxation has expressed concerns to top Senate tax writers about certain congressional IRS reform efforts. The ABA Section of Taxation sent a June 6 letter to Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Chairman Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah and ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., regarding the House-approved bipartisan Taxpayer First Act (HR 5444).

The American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Taxation has expressed concerns to top Senate tax writers about certain congressional IRS reform efforts. The ABA Section of Taxation sent a June 6 letter to Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Chairman Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah and ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., regarding the House-approved bipartisan Taxpayer First Act (HR 5444).

IRS Reform

"The administrative reforms included in the House bills are a welcome step forward," Hatch previously told Wolters Kluwer. The House passed a package of bills in April, which aims to restructure the IRS for the first time in 20 years. Hatch told Wolters Kluwer that he is looking forward to working with his colleagues to find a path forward that reflects both House and Senate views on IRS reform.

While the SFC considers the House’s IRS reform package, the ABA Section of Taxation has asked Senate tax writers to consider certain suggestions to enhance IRS restructuring efforts. "We appreciate that Congress has turned its attention to the relationship between taxpayers and the agency charged with the assessment and collection of taxes," the letter said. The ABA Section of Taxation agrees with most of the House-proposed changes but has concerns with certain aspects of the bill, the letter noted.

Appeals

The House bill, HR 5444, proposes the establishment of an independent Office of Appeals along with a "generally available" right to appeal for taxpayers. While the letter to Hatch and Wyden supports a statutory right to appeals, among other things, it expresses concern that the IRS could limit certain taxpayer’s access to an appeal. "To the extent that the Service wishes to deny appeal rights to taxpayers, it should be required to articulate objective standards for when appeals will not be available, so that any Service determination to deny appeal rights can be measured against those standards," the letter said.

Additionally, the letter proposes that Congress remove certain limiting words from the bill’s provisions that discuss taxpayers’ rights to access case files. Currently, the bill states that only "specified taxpayers" will automatically be provided access to their case files. The ABA Section of Taxation urges Congress to allow all taxpayers access to information in their case file, regardless of income thresholds.

Senate Timeline

As for when the SFC will release its anticipated amendments to the House-approved IRS reform package remains unclear. The Senate’s legislative efforts toward restructuring the IRS are expected among lawmakers to be bipartisan.

The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that nonqualified employee stock options are not taxable compensation under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act (RRTA). The term "money remuneration" in the Act unambiguously excludes "stock."

The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that nonqualified employee stock options are not taxable compensation under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act (RRTA). The term "money remuneration" in the Act unambiguously excludes "stock."

Background

Several railroads filed a refund claim for overpaid Railroad Retirement taxes. The railroads claimed they overpaid their taxes because they included the value of employee stock options when calculating the tax.

The IRS denied the refund request. The IRS argued that stock options were taxable "money remuneration" under the RRTA because stock can be easily converted into money.

The railroads replied that stock options are not money. Moreover, they argued that when Congress passed the RRTA, it sought to mimic existing industry pension practices. Generally, those practices ignored in-kind benefits like food, lodging, and railroad tickets.

Stock Options Not Money

When Congress adopted the RRTA in 1937, it understood "money" as "currency issued by a recognized authority as a medium of exchange." Stock options do not fall within this definition.

Further, while stock can be bought or sold for money, it is not usually considered a medium of exchange. Few people value goods and services using stock, or buy groceries or pay rent with stock.

Also, adding the word remuneration did not alter the meaning of the word money. Thus, "any form of money remuneration" indicated that Congress wanted to tax money compensation. It did not indicate that Congress wanted to tax things, like stock, that are not money.

Statutory Context

Moreover, the broader statutory context pointed to the same conclusion. For example, the 1939 Internal Revenue Code treated money and stock differently. However, the Federal Insurance Contribution Act taxes all remuneration, including benefits paid in a medium other than cash.

Further, a contemporaneous IRS rule explained that the RRTA taxed all money compensation. The rule lists examples like salaries, wages, commissions and bonuses. It also included things that could be used as money, like scrip. However, the rule did not suggest that stock was taxable compensation.

Thus, Congress knew the difference between money and other forms of compensation. The choice of Congress to use the narrower term for railroad pensions had to be respected.

Reversing and remanding CA-7, 2017-2 ustc ¶50,295.

A member of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida had to pay federal income tax on distributions of gaming income that she and her family received from the tribe. The payments were taxable income under the Indian Gaming Revenue Act, rather than Indian general welfare benefits that were excluded from tax under Code Sec. 139E. Both the taxpayer and the tribe were bound by the decision.

A member of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida had to pay federal income tax on distributions of gaming income that she and her family received from the tribe. The payments were taxable income under the Indian Gaming Revenue Act, rather than Indian general welfare benefits that were excluded from tax under Code Sec. 139E. Both the taxpayer and the tribe were bound by the decision.

Tribal Distributions

The Miccosukee Tribe distributed income to its members in quarterly payments. Historically, these payments were in the $20 to $25 range. In 1990, however, the tribe opened a gaming center that offered high-stakes bingo, poker, and video pull-tab machines. The tribe’s income, and its distributions to its members, increased substantially.

Each quarter, the tribe used the revenue of the gaming activities to fund per capita distributions to its members. But the tribe disregarded its federal tax obligations on these distributions. It neither reported the distributions nor withheld taxes on them. The tribe also told its members not to discuss the payments with outsiders, not to report them to credit card agencies, and not to cash the distribution checks in places that would report them to the IRS.

For the tax year at issue, the taxpayer received a total of $272,000, which represented payments for herself, her husband, and her two children. She did not file a tax return or pay any income tax for that year.

After the IRS assessed tax, interest and penalties against her, the taxpayer attempted to file a late return that reported the $272,000 as nontaxable income. She did not pay any of her assessment. The tribe intervened in her case as a matter of right.

District Court Decision

The District Court agreed with the IRS that the payments were distributions of gaming income that were fully taxable to the taxpayer. Most of the funds came from the gaming operation. The taxpayer and the tribe did not show what portion may have come from other, nontaxable sources.

Although the $272,000 included payments on behalf of the taxpayer’s husband and children, the taxpayer was responsible for tax on the entire amount. The tribe was structured as a matriarchy. Thus, the taxpayer was the head of her household, and the payments were all made available to her. She also spent all of the payments on household expenses, and she had reported all of the payments as her income when she tried to file a late return.

IGRA vs GWEA

The main issue on appeal was whether the tribe’s distributions were covered by the Indian Gaming Revenue Act or the Tribal General Welfare Exclusion Act.

The Indian Gaming Revenue Act (IGRA) was passed in 1988. It allows an Indian tribe to engage in gaming and distribute the revenue to members on a per capita basis. It also explicitly includes those distributions in a tribe member’s taxable income.

Code Sec. 139E was enacted in 2014 as part of the Tribal General Welfare Exclusion Act (GWEA). It excludes from federal taxation any payment made or services provided to or on behalf of an Indian tribe member under an Indian tribal government program. To be excludible, benefits provided under the program must be for the promotion of general welfare.

The court held that the exemption for Indian general welfare benefits under Code Sec. 139Edoes not apply to the per capita payments an Indian tribe makes from gaming revenue.

The taxpayer and the tribe claimed that GWEA effectively amended IGRA because it was more recent. The court disagreed, clarifying that IGRA applied only to gaming income, while GWEA was a law of general application. Thus, under the rules of statutory construction, IGRA continued to apply to distributions of gaming income because it was more specific than GWEA.

The court also rejected the characterization of the payments as distributions of the tribe’s tax revenues rather than its gaming income. The tax did not affect the nature of the gaming income. Instead, it was merely a mechanism to collect the income and distribute it to members.

The distributions also were not nontaxable income from Indian land, because they did not come directly from the use of the reservation land or its resources. Instead, the distributions came from improvements and related business activities–that is, gambling in the casino.

Effect on the Tribe

The tribe argued that it should not be included in the District Court’s judgment. However, the tribe had intervened as a matter of right because, if the court determined the payments were taxable, the tribe would have to report them and withhold income tax from them.

As an intervenor, the tribe had the same status as an original party. It also fully participated in the trial by arguing motions, attending depositions, presenting evidence, and examining witnesses. Thus, it was bound by the District Court’s judgment.

Affirming a DC Fla. decision, 2016-2 ustc ¶50,474.

An individual shareholder of an S corporation restaurant operator was not allowed to claim FICA tip credits under Code Sec. 45B that the S corporation did not claim. The shareholder could not unilaterally and retroactively nullify the S corporation’s election to deduct FICA tip taxes.

An individual shareholder of an S corporation restaurant operator was not allowed to claim FICA tip credits under Code Sec. 45B that the S corporation did not claim. The shareholder could not unilaterally and retroactively nullify the S corporation’s election to deduct FICA tip taxes.

Background

The restaurants owned by the S corporation had hired “tipped employees” whose earnings came partly from customer tips. The S corporation was required to pay taxes on these tips as part of its FICA tax payments. For the two tax years at issue, the S corporation did not claim any FICA tip credits. Instead, the S corporation deducted its payments of the FICA tip taxes on its Forms 1120S, and did not later amend those returns.

On his amended Forms 1040 for those tax years, the shareholder claimed he was entitled to flowthrough FICA tip credits with respect to his interest in the S corporation.

FICA Tip Credit

Code Sec. 45B allows an employer working in the food and beverage industry to claim business tax credits for the portion of the FICA taxes—i.e., social security and Medicare taxes—that it paid on employee tips in excess of the minimum wage. The employer must have employees who receive tips from customers for providing food or beverages for consumption, and must be deemed to have paid FICA taxes on the tips in excess of the minimum wage. The employer must not have already claimed a deduction for the FICA tax payment. An employer claims its FICA tip credits on Form 8846.

Here, when the S corporation chose to deduct its FICA tax payments, it had made an election not to claim any FICA tip credits. The S corporation never claimed or intended to claim FICA tip credits. Based on this reporting position, the shareholder was not entitled to any flowthrough FICA tip credits for either tax year.

S Corporation Elections

Under Code Sec. 1363(c) and its regulations, elections that affect the computation of items derived from an S corporation generally must be made by the S corporation, not separately by its shareholders. There are two exceptions: the shareholder claims any elections (1) for the deduction and recapture of certain mining exploration expenditures, and (2) for foreign tax credits.

In this case, the shareholder argued in effect that the S corporation’s election to deduct FICA tax payments could be changed unilaterally by his request, made in his capacity as a shareholder, that the S corporation amend its returns to claim the FICA tip credit. The shareholder’s position was rejected based on the plain text of Code Sec. 1363(c), and of Code Sec. 45B(d), which states that the credit does not apply to a taxpayer if the taxpayer elects to have the credit provision not apply.

Further, the Tax Court stated that it refused to create a new precedent that would give each individual shareholder the power to change an S corporation’s tax election unilaterally. Such a change, stated the court, would not only affect the tax liabilities of the requesting shareholder, but could also affect the tax liabilities of the shareholders who have not consented to the change.

The Treasury Department and the IRS have issued final regulations that:

• prevent a corporate partner from avoiding corporate-level gain through transactions with a partnership involving equity interests of the partner or certain related entities;
• allow consolidated group members that are partners in the same partnership to aggregate their bases in stock distributed by the partnership for purposes of limiting the application of rules that might otherwise cause basis reduction or gain recognition; and
• require certain corporations that engage in gain elimination transactions to reduce the basis of corporate assets or to recognize gain.

The Treasury Department and the IRS have issued final regulations that:

• prevent a corporate partner from avoiding corporate-level gain through transactions with a partnership involving equity interests of the partner or certain related entities;
• allow consolidated group members that are partners in the same partnership to aggregate their bases in stock distributed by the partnership for purposes of limiting the application of rules that might otherwise cause basis reduction or gain recognition; and
• require certain corporations that engage in gain elimination transactions to reduce the basis of corporate assets or to recognize gain.

The Treasury Decision adopts as final certain rules set forth in proposed regulations issued in 2015, under Code Sec. 337(d) (with only minor, nonsubstantive clarifications) ( NPRM REG-149518-03), and Code Sec. 732(f) ( NPRM REG-138759-14).

The final regulations affect partnerships and their partners, and apply to transactions occurring on or after June 12, 2015. The regulations are effective on June 8, 2018.

Acquisition of Interest in Stock to Avoid Gain on Appreciated Property

A corporation that distributes appreciated property to its shareholders has to recognize gain under Code Secs. 311(b) and 336(a) as if the property were sold to the shareholders for its fair market value. However, taxpayers have tried to postpone or avoiding the recognition of that gain.

For example, if a corporation exchanges appreciated property for its own stock, the corporation would recognize gain on the exchange. But corporations have tried to avoid recognizing that gain by, for example, taking these steps:

• the corporation enters into a partnership and contributes appreciated property;
• the partnership acquires stock of that corporate partner; then
• the partnership makes a liquidating distribution of the stock to the corporate partner.

The final regulations under Code Sec. 337(d) aim to prevent a corporate partner from avoiding gain recognition when it acquires or increases its interest in stock held by a partnership in exchange for appreciated property. Under the final regulations, a corporate partner may recognize gain when it is treated as acquiring or increasing its interest in stock of the corporate partner held by a partnership in exchange for appreciated property in a manner that avoids gain recognition under Code Sec. 311(b) or Code Sec. 336(a). The final regulations also provide exceptions under which a corporate partner is not required to recognize gain.

Limit on Basis Reduction or Gain Recognition for Consolidated Group Members

The final regulations limit rules that cause basis reduction or gain recognition for consolidated group members that are partners in the same partnership. Code Sec. 732(f)limits the basis of a distributed corporation’s property if—

• a corporate partner receives a distribution from a partnership of stock in another corporation (distributed corporation);
• the corporate partner has control of the distributed corporation, defined as ownership of stock meeting the requirements of Code Sec. 1504(a)(2), immediately after the distribution or at any time thereafter (control requirement); and
• the partnership’s basis in the stock immediately before the distribution exceeded the corporate partner’s basis in the stock immediately after the distribution.

Under these circumstances, the basis of the distributed corporation’s property must be reduced by this excess. Further, the corporate partner must recognize gain to the extent that the basis of the distributed corporation’s property cannot be reduced.

In applying this rule, the final regulations allow the bases of consolidated group members to be aggregated if when two conditions are met: (1) two or more of the corporate partners receive a distribution of stock in a distributed corporation from the partnership; and (2) the distributed corporation is or becomes a member of the distributee partners’ consolidated group after the distribution.

Elimination Transactions

Final regulations restrict corporate partners from entering into gain elimination transactions. They focus on attempts to eliminate gain in the stock of a distributed corporation while avoiding the effects of a basis step-down in transactions. Under the regulations, in the event of a gain elimination transaction, Code Sec. 732(f) will apply as though the corporate partner acquired control of the distributed corporation immediately before the gain elimination transaction.

Future Proposed Regs?

The Treasury and IRS are considering publishing a new notice of proposed rulemaking to propose more substantive amendments to the final 337(d) regulations, and to allow for additional public comment with respect to proposals in response to certain comments received, further reflection by the Treasury IRS, and concerns raised by practitioners.

Participants in the Son of BOSS tax shelter have maintained their perfect losing record in the Tax Court. Thus, another Son-of-Boss deal has failed to produce its promised loss deductions.

Participants in the Son of BOSS tax shelter have maintained their perfect losing record in the Tax Court. Thus, another Son-of-Boss deal has failed to produce its promised loss deductions.

Son-of-BOSS Arrangements

Son-of-BOSS is a variation of a slightly older tax shelter known as the "bond and options sales strategy," or BOSS. Son-of-BOSS transactions take many forms, but they all have one thing in common: Assets that are encumbered by significant liabilities must always be transferred to a partnership. The goal is to increase basis in that partnership or in the assets themselves.

The liabilities are usually obligations to buy securities. However, they are typically not completely fixed when they are transferred to the partnership.

This contingency is supposed to let the partnership treat the liabilities as uncertain. This, in turn, is supposed to let the partnership ignore the liabilities in computing basis. The result is supposed to give the partners basis in the partnership or in the assets themselves. This increased basis is supposed to translate into large loss deductions for the partners, all with no actual economic losses.

The Tax Court has yet to fall for the scheme.

Invalid Partnerships

The court has used several theories to reject Son-of-Boss losses. In this case, the court once again relied on the fact that the two partnerships involved in the transactions did not actually exist.

The partnerships were invalid because they were created only to carry out tax avoidance schemes. Thus, their members never intended to run any business through them.

The partnerships also failed the “prongified” test for determining whether the parties intended to, and did in fact, join together for the present conduct of an undertaking or enterprise. One managed to scrupulously adhere to the formal requirements for looking like a partnership. However, it did not display any objective indication of a mutual combination for the conduct of an ongoing enterprise.

The second partnership barely even went through the motions. It filed partnership returns and issued K-1s to its purported partners. However:

• There was no evidence the purported partners made any contributions to the partnership;
• The partnership did not have a formal operating agreement;
• The partnership did not conduct any business in its own name;
• There was no real profit for the partners to control or withdraw; and
• The partnership did not keep any books or records.

Since the partnerships were invalid, they were simply disregarded. Thus, the purported partners were treated as directly engaging in the partnerships’ activities and directly owning the partnerships’ property. This meant that the supposedly separate long and short options that were the heart of the transaction were actually a single-option spread. Thus the options were part of one contract, and they could not be separated to produce artificial losses.

The IRS recently announced that inflation is increasing many dollar amounts in the Tax Code for 2012.  For taxpayers, the inflation adjustments may help reduce their overall tax liability in 2012.

Inflation adjustments

Many provisions in the Tax Code are required to be adjusted annually for inflation. These include various deductions, exemptions and exclusion amounts.  The tax law also requires that the individual income tax brackets be adjusted annually for inflation.  Low inflation in 2009 and 2010 resulted in many of the provisions experiencing no increases for 2010 and 2011.

Next year is different. In October, the IRS announced that inflation is running at just over 3.8 percent. In response, the IRS adjusted a number of amounts in the Tax Code upward for 2012.

Retirement accounts

401(k) plans. For 2012, the maximum amount an individual can contribute tax-free to a 401(k) plan increases $500 from $16,500 to $17,000.  However, some 401(k) plans limit maximum contributions to levels below the ceiling in the Tax Code.

IRAs. The deduction for taxpayers making contributions to a traditional IRA is phased out for single individuals and heads of households who are covered by a workplace retirement plan and whose modified adjusted gross incomes fall within certain ranges. For 2012, the income phaseout range starts at $58,000 and ends at $68,000, up from $56,000 and $66,000, respectively, for 2011.  For married couples filing jointly, in which the spouse who makes the IRA contribution is covered by a workplace retirement plan, the income phaseout range for 2012 starts at $92,000 and ends at $112,000, up from $90,000 and $110,000, respectively, for 2011.  For an IRA contributor who is not covered by a workplace retirement plan and is married to someone who is covered, the deduction is phased out for 2012 if the couple’s income is between $173,000 and $183,000, up from $169,000 and $179,000, respectively, for 2011.

Roth IRAs are subject to similar rules. The AGI limit for maximum Roth IRA contributions for a married couple filing a joint return for 2012 is $173,000, an increase of $4,000 from 2011. The AGI limitation for all other taxpayers (other than married taxpayers filing separate returns) increases from $107,000 for 2011 to $110,000 for 2012.

Saver’s credit.  The Code Sec. 25B credit rewards eligible individuals with a tax credit for contributing to a retirement plan or an IRA.  For 2012, the AGI limit for the “saver’s credit” increases for single individuals to $28,750, an increase of $500 from 2011. The AGI limit for married couples filing joint returns increases from $56,500 for 2011 to $57,500 for 2012.

Individual income tax brackets

Inflation also impacts the individual income tax rate brackets (which are 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent, respectively, for 2011 and 2012).  Indexing of the income tax rate brackets effectively lowers tax bills by including more of an individual’s income in lower brackets.

More inflation adjustments

Standard deduction. Taxpayers who elect not to itemize deductions use the standard deduction amount. The standard deduction increases by $500 for married couples filing a joint return from $11,400 for 2011 to $11,900 for 2012.   The standard deduction for single individuals increases from $5,700 for 2011 to $5,950 for 2012.

Personal exemption.  Taxpayers may claim a personal exemption deduction (and an exemption deduction for each person they claim as a dependent). The amount of the personal exemption and the dependency exemption increases from $3,700 for 2011 to $3,800 for 2012.  The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010 (2010 Tax Relief Act) repealed the personal exemption phaseout for higher income taxpayers for 2011 and 2012.

Estate tax.  The 2010 Tax Relief Act provided that the basic exclusion amount for determining the amount of the unified credit against estate tax for estates of decedents dying after December 31, 2009 is $5 million. The $5 million amount is adjusted for inflation for tax years beginning after December 31, 2011. For 2012, the inflation-adjusted amount is $5,120,000.

Gift tax exclusion.  For 2012, you can give up to $13,000 to any person without incurring gift tax. Married couples can gift up to $26,000 tax-free to any person. There is no limit on the number of individuals you can make the $13,000 ($26,000) gift. The $13,000 and $26,000 amounts are unchanged from 2011.

If you have any questions about these or other inflation adjustments, please contact our office.

Charitable contributions traditionally peak at the end of the year-end. While tax savings may not be your prime motivator for making a gift to charity, your donation could help your tax bottom-line for 2015. As with many tax incentives, the rules for tax-deductible charitable contributions are complex, especially the rules for substantiating your donation. Also important to keep in mind are some enhanced charitable giving incentives scheduled to expire at the end of 2015.

Year-end charitable giving can benefit your 2015 tax bottom-line

Charitable contributions traditionally peak at the end of the year-end. While tax savings may not be your prime motivator for making a gift to charity, your donation could help your tax bottom-line for 2015. As with many tax incentives, the rules for tax-deductible charitable contributions are complex, especially the rules for substantiating your donation. Also important to keep in mind are some enhanced charitable giving incentives scheduled to expire at the end of 2015.

Tips

The IRS has posted tips for deducting charitable contributions on its website. The tips are a good refresher of the fundamental rules for deducting charitable contributions:

• To be tax-deductible, a contribution must be made to a qualified organization.
• To deduct a charitable contribution, you must file Form 1040 and itemize deductions on Schedule A.
• If you receive a benefit because of your contribution such as merchandise, tickets to a ball game or other goods and services, then you can deduct only the amount that exceeds the fair market value of the benefit received.
• Donations of clothing and household items must generally be in good used condition or better to be tax-deductible.
• Special rules apply to donations of motor vehicles.
• Many donations must be substantiated; the substantiation rules vary for different donations.

Qualified organizations

Some individuals are surprised to learn that their donation is not tax-deductible because the recipient is not a qualified charitable organization. Generally, churches, temples, synagogues, mosques, and other religious organizations are qualified charitable organizations. Nonprofit community service, educational, and health organizations are also generally qualified charitable organizations. Special rules apply to foreign charities. If you have any questions whether the organization is a qualified charitable organization, please contact our office.

Substantiation rules

Unless a charitable contribution is properly substantiated, the IRS may deny your deduction.

Regardless of the amount, to deduct a contribution of cash, check, or other monetary gift, you must maintain a bank record, payroll deduction records or a written communication from the organization containing the name of the organization, the date of the contribution and amount of the contribution. Remember, this rule applies to all cash contributions, even contributions of small monetary amounts. The IRS will not accept certain personal records. For example, you cannot substantiate a contribution by reference to a diary or notes made at the time of the donation.

In recent years, text message donations have grown in popularity. For text message donations, a telephone bill will meet the record-keeping requirement if it shows the name of the receiving organization, the date of the contribution, and the amount given.

To claim a deduction for contributions of cash or property equaling $250 or more you must have a bank record, payroll deduction records or a written acknowledgment from the qualified organization showing the amount of the cash and a description of any property contributed, and whether the organization provided any goods or services in exchange for the gift.

One document may satisfy both the written communication requirement for monetary gifts and the written acknowledgement requirement for all contributions of $250 or more. If your total deduction for all noncash contributions for the year is over $500, you must complete and attach IRS Form 8283, Noncash Charitable Contributions, to your return.

Additional rules apply for donations valued at more than $5,000. These donations generally require an appraisal and you must advise the IRS of that appraisal by filing a special form.

Expiring provisions

Under current law, certain IRA owners can directly transfer tax-free, up to $100,000 annually from the IRA to a qualified charitable organization. The benefit is limited. The IRA owner must be age 70 ½ or older. Additionally, the contribution does not qualify for the deduction for charitable donations. To qualify, the IRA funds must be contributed directly by the IRA trustee to the qualified charitable organization. You can also take advantage of this tax incentive if you itemize or do not itemize deductions.

Unless extended, this incentive will have officially expired after December 31, 2014. It is unclear if Congress will extend the incentive retroactively for 2015 or beyond. If you are considering a charitable contribution from your IRA, please contact our office so we can review the rules in detail.

Several other enhanced charitable giving incentives will no longer be available for the 2015 tax year and beyond. They include special rules for contributions of food inventory.

Clothing and household items

Cleaning out your closet can help generate year-end tax savings. However, not all charitable contributions of clothing and household items are deductible. Generally, clothing and household items donated to a charitable organization must be in good used or better condition. Other rules also apply to donations of clothing and household items. Properly valuing the items to withstand any IRS examination is also important.

Motor vehicles and other types of donations

The tax deduction for a motor vehicle, boat or airplane donated to charity is fraught with complexity. The substantiation requirements depend on the amount of your claimed deduction. If you are considering donating a motor vehicle, boat or airplane to charity, please contact our office so we can help you navigate the substantiation rules to maximize your tax benefits.

The rules for donations of conservation easements, intellectual property and other items likewise require expert planning. Otherwise, you could miss the tax benefit.

Limitations

The Tax Code includes a number of provisions limiting tax-deductible contributions. Limitations may be based on the individual’s income, the type of donation and the nature of the recipient organization. Our office can describe how these limitations may impact you.

As in past years, a provision known as the limitation on itemized deductions applied to higher-income individuals. This provision reduces the total amount of a higher-income individual's allowable deductions; however, some deductions are not impacted. For purposes of the limitation on itemized deduction, a taxpayer's total, itemized deductions do not include deductions for medical expenses, investment interest expenses, casualty or theft losses, and allowable wagering losses; charitable deductions do count, however.

If you have any questions about the mechanics of tax-deductible charitable contributions, please contact our office.

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.

2011 year end tax planning for individuals lacks some of the drama of recent years but can be no less rewarding.  Last year, individual taxpayers were facing looming tax increases as the calendar changed from 2010 to 2011; particularly, increased tax rates on wages, interest and other ordinary income, and higher rates on long-term capital gains and qualified dividends.

Thanks to legislation enacted at the end of 2010, tax rates are stable for 2011 and 2012, although the uncertainty will return as 2013 approaches, as political pressure in Washington builds to do something quickly for the economy. Ordinary income tax rates for individuals currently are 10, 15, 25, 28, 33 and 35 percent; capital gains rates are zero and 15 percent.

President Obama has proposed to preserve these tax rates for taxpayers with income below $200,000 (individuals) and $250,000 (married couples filing jointly) and to raise the rates for taxpayers in these higher-income brackets. If Congress is gridlocked and takes no action, everybody’s rates will rise, but again, not until 2013.

Expiring tax breaks

Unfortunately, not all is quiet on the tax front despite no dramatic rate changes until 2013. There are some specific tax provisions that will terminate at the end of 2011, unless Congress and the President agree to extend them. These include the tuition and fees above-the-line deduction for high education expenses, which can be as high as $4,000. Another expiring provision is the deduction for mortgage insurance premiums, which covers premiums paid for qualified mortgage insurance.

Several other benefits (“extenders”) are also scheduled to expire after 2011:

• The state and local sales tax deduction;
• The classroom expense deduction for teachers;
• Nonbusiness energy credits;
• The exclusion for distributions of up to $100,000 from an IRA to charity;
• A higher deduction limit for charitable contributions of appreciated property for conservation purposes.

Retirement accounts

An old standby that makes sense from year-to-year is maximizing contributions to an IRA. The contribution is deductible up to $5,000 ($6,000 for taxpayers over 50), depending on some specific taxpayer income levels and circumstances. Taxpayers in a 401(k) plan can reduce their income by contributing to their employer plan, for which the limit in 2011 is $16,500.

In 2010, it was particularly important to consider whether to convert a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA, because the income realized on conversion could be recognized over two years. While a conversion continues to be worthwhile to consider (because distributions from a Roth IRA are not taxable), there are no longer any special break to defer a portion of the income from the conversion.

 Alternative minimum tax

The AMT has been “patched” for 2011. The exemptions have been temporarily increased from the normal statutory levels to the “patched” levels:

• From $33,750 to $48,450 for single individuals;
• From $45,000 to  $74,450 for married couples filing jointly and surviving spouses; and
• From $22,500 to $37,335 for married couples filing separately.

The amounts return to the “normal levels” of $33,750/$45,000/$22,500, respectively, in 2012 unless Congress takes action to maintain the patch. Elimination of the AMT is a goal of long-term tax reform, but the loss of revenue has been considered too high in the past. Without  the “patch,” the Congressional Budget Office estimates that an additional 20 million middle-class taxpayers would suddenly become subject to an AMT once designed only for millionaires.

While planning for the AMT is difficult, taxpayers may want to consider realizing AMT income, such as capital gains, in 2011, when the patch is higher, rather than in 2012.

Conclusion

Taxpayers can take advantage of 2011 provisions to realize last-minute tax benefits. Some of these benefits may not be available in 2012.  It is worthwhile to look at these planning opportunities as part of an overall year-year financial strategy.

Many tax benefits for business will either expire at the end of 2011 or become less valuable after 2011. Two of the most important benefits are bonus depreciation and Code Sec. 179 expensing. Both apply to investments in tangible property that can be depreciated. Other sunsetting opportunities might also be considered.

Bonus depreciation

Bonus depreciation is 100 percent for 2011. A business can write-off, in the first year, the entire cost of its investment in new depreciable property. Under current law, bonus depreciation will decrease to 50 percent in 2012 and will terminate after 2012. (These deadlines are extended one year for certain transportation property and property with a longer production period). President Obama has proposed to extend 100 percent bonus depreciation through 2012. Normally, this would have a good chance of being approved, but with the focus on deficit reduction and the linking of tax benefits to tax increases, it is not at all clear what will happen.

So, if a business has income in 2011 and plans to invest in depreciable property, it is worthwhile to consider making that investment in 2011, while the available write-off is at its highest. Under normal depreciation rules, a business will still be able to claim accelerated write-offs, but this may be 50 percent or less of the cost of the property, with the balance written-off over several years, instead of all in one year.

Planning for bonus depreciation is important because the property must satisfy placed-in-service and acquisition date requirements. Property is placed in service when it is in a condition or state of readiness on a regular ongoing basis for a specifically assigned function in a trade or business. The acquisition date rules may vary. For 2011, property is acquired when the taxpayer incurs or pays its cost. This could occur when the property is delivered, but it could also be when title to the property passes. For 2012, property is acquired when the taxpayer takes physical possession of the property.

Code Sec. 179 expensing

Code Sec. 179 expensing (first-year writeoff) has been around for awhile, but at higher amounts more recently. While there is no limit on bonus depreciation, expensing is limited to a statutory amount. For 2011, this amount is $500,000. It is scheduled to drop to $125,000 in 2012 and to $25,000 after 2012 (adjusted for inflation). Moreover, the cap is reduced for the amount of total investment in Code Sec. 179 property. The phaseout threshold is $2 million for 2011, dropping to $500,000 for 2012 and $200,000 for 2013 and subsequent years. For businesses who want to invest in depreciable property, the payoff is definitely greater in 2011. Taxpayers taking advantage of expensing should write off assets that would otherwise have the longest recovery periods.

Other 2011 benefits

Some other important benefits expire at the end of 2011 or become less valuable. A significant benefit in 2011 is the 100 percent exclusion for small business stock. After 2012, the normal exclusion rate will drop to 50 percent, although it has been 75 percent in recent years. The exclusion is based on the year the stock is acquired; the stock must be held for five years before sold and satisfy other requirements.

Another important benefit is the 20 percent research credit. The credit has been extended one year at a time for a long period, so it is likely to be extended again. Nevertheless, until Congress acts, there is some uncertainty for research expenses incurred after 2011.

Conclusion

To maximize the benefits of 2011 year-end tax planning, a business must be proactive in determining what upcoming capital investments might be accelerated into this year and what investments become cost effective because of the immediate tax benefits that they offer. Some business-related tax benefits will be less valuable after 2011; for others, it is not clear what Congress and the administration will do in terms of surprising taxpayers with a year-end tax bill. Please contact this office if you have any questions over how year-end tax strategies that begin now and continue through December can help maximize tax benefits for your business.

Autumn 2011 in Washington, D.C. is expected to be a season of contentious debates over tax reform, and at the heart of the debate is the amount of taxes paid by higher-income individuals.  President Obama wants Congress to raise taxes on higher-income individuals to help reduce the federal government’s budget deficit and to pay for a jobs program.  Many lawmakers, especially Republicans, are opposed to any tax increases. The two sides appear far apart but the need to cut the nation’s deficit could encourage compromise.

Bush-era tax cuts

In 2001, Congress enacted the Economic Growth and Tax Reconciliation Act (EGTRRA), which set in motion a gradual decrease in the individual marginal income tax rates and the federal estate tax, along with marriage penalty relief, the introduction of a new 10 percent tax bracket and more.  The Jobs and Growth Tax Act of 2003 accelerated the reductions in the individual tax rates and also reduced capital gains and dividend tax rates (currently taxed at 15 percent for taxpayers in tax brackets above 15 percent and at zero percent for or all other taxpayers).  All of these tax cuts are collectively known as the Bush-era tax cuts.

In 2010, Congress passed, and President Obama signed, the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act. The 2010 Tax Relief Act extended the Bush-era tax cuts through the end of 2012. The extension proved especially valuable for higher-income taxpayers.  Without the extension, the top two individual income tax rates would have risen from 33 and 35 percent to 36 and 39.6 percent, respectively, after December 31, 2010.

White House proposals

President Obama released a Deficit Reduction Plan on September 19 and proposed to allow the Bush-era tax cuts to expire for higher-income taxpayers and to return the federal estate tax to its 2009 parameters.  The White House broadly defines higher-income taxpayers for purposes of the Bush-era tax cuts as individuals with annual incomes over $200,000 and families with annual incomes over $250,000.

The President’s Deficit Reduction Plan would:

--Allow the Bush-era high-income tax cuts to expire

--Return the federal estate tax to its 2009 levels

--Reduce the value of itemized deductions and other tax preferences to 28 percent for families with incomes over $250,000

All of these changes would apparently take place after 2012.

Keep in mind that if Congress does nothing before 2013, the Bush-era tax cuts are scheduled to automatically expire after 2012. Tax rates would not only rise for higher-income individuals but for all taxpayers.  The federal estate tax would return to its pre-EGTRRA levels (with some minor modifications) and capital gains/dividends would be taxed at much less taxpayer-friendly rates than under current law.

Additionally, higher-income individuals will pay more in taxes after 2012 because of existing laws. An additional 0.9 percent Medicare tax on wages and self-employment income and a 3.8 percent Medicare contribution tax on unearned income are scheduled to take effect after 2012 for higher-income taxpayers.

Buffett Rule

President Obama has asked Congress to enact legislation to provide that no household making over $1 million annually should pay a smaller share of its income in taxes than middle-income families. President Obama calls this tax treatment, the “Buffett Rule” after billionaire investor Warren Buffett, who said that his effective tax rate is lower than the tax rate of his secretary.

The White House has been deliberately vague on the mechanics of the Buffet Rule. In his Deficit Reduction Plan, President Obama said that the Buffett Rule would be enacted as part of overall tax reform, which increases the progressivity of the Tax Code. 

The Buffett Rule could take the shape of increased taxes on capital gains and dividends.  Higher-income individuals typically have a significant portion of their income from investment activity. The Buffett Rule could also reform the alternative minimum tax (AMT). The AMT was originally enacted to prevent very wealthy taxpayers from avoiding taxes. Because the AMT was not indexed for inflation, and for other reasons, the AMT has encroached on middle income taxpayers.

Payroll tax cuts

The 2010 Tax Relief Act enacted a temporary payroll tax holiday. The employee-share of OASDI taxes is reduced from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent for calendar year 2011 up to the Social Security wage base ($106,800 for 2011). An individual with earnings at or above $106,800 in 2011 receives a $2,136 tax benefit. Self-employed individuals receive a comparable tax benefit.  Under current law, the payroll tax holiday ends after December 31, 2011 and the employee-share of OASDI taxes is scheduled to revert to 6.2 percent.

President Obama has proposed to extend and enhance the payroll tax cut for calendar year 2012.  The employee-share of OASDI taxes for 2012 would be reduced from 6.2 percent to 3.1 percent, under the President’s proposal.

The President’s proposal has a reasonably good chance of being enacted.  Taxpayers have become accustomed to the two percent reduction in effect for 2011. Moreover, lawmakers are reluctant to raise taxes in an election year.  However, opponents of any extension question its impact on the long-term health of Social Security.

If you have any questions about the proposals being debated in Washington, please contact our office.

Adoptive parents may be eligible for federal tax incentives. The Tax Code includes an adoption tax credit to help defray the costs of an adoption.  Recent changes to the adoption tax credit make it very valuable.

Temporary increase

In 2010, Congress temporarily increased the dollar limitation for the adoption tax credit (and the income exclusion for employer-provided adoption expenses) by $1,000 (from $12,170 to $13,170 for 2010 and indexed for inflation for tax years beginning after December 31, 2010). Congress also made the adoption tax credit refundable for 2010 and 2011. These enhancements, however, are scheduled to expire after December 31, 2011 unless Congress extends them.

Your income is another factor to take into account. You may not receive the full amount of the adoption tax credit for 2010 if your modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) is $182,520 or more. The adoption tax credit is completely phased out if your MAGI is $222,520 or more. These amounts may be adjusted for inflation by the IRS in 2011.  Additionally, to prevent double benefits, the adoption tax credit is coordinated with the exclusion for employer-provided adoption assistance

Qualified expenses

A number of adoption-related expenses may qualify for the tax credit. These expenses include, but are not limited to, reasonable and necessary adoption fees, travel expenses, fees paid to attorneys, and court costs.  The IRS has identified on its website some expenses that are excluded, such as expenses related to the adoption of the child of a taxpayer’s spouse, the costs of a surrogate parenting arrangement, and expenses that violate state or federal law.  Additionally, expenses related to a foreign adoption qualify only if the taxpayer actually adopts the child.  That rule is different if a domestic adoption is unsuccessful.

Eligible child

An eligible child for purposes of the adoption tax credit is an individual who has not attained the age of 18 at the time of the adoption, or is physically or mentally incapable of caring for himself or herself. A child has special-needs if the child otherwise meets the definition of eligible child, the child is a U.S. citizen or resident, a state determines that the child cannot or should not be returned to his or her parent's home, and  a state determines that the child probably will not be adopted unless assistance is provided. 

Form 8839

Taxpayers file Form 8839, Qualified Adoption Expenses, to claim the adoption tax credit.  At this time, Form 8839 cannot be filed electronically; it must be filed on paper because the IRS requires you to attach supporting documentation.

The IRS requires different documents if the adoption is foreign or domestic, final or not final, and if the adoption is of a child with special needs. The IRS has issued special safe harbor rules for certain foreign adoptions. The home country of the child may be included in the safe harbors which streamline some of the documentation requirements.

The IRS recommends that taxpayers keep the following records: Receipts for qualified adoption expenses, final decree, certificate or order of adoption, home study by an authorized placement agency, child placement agreements or court orders, and determination of special needs status by a State or the District of Columbia.

Processing Form 8839 can take some time. One of the most common mistakes taxpayers make is failing to attach supporting documents.   After the IRS conducts an initial review of Form 8839, it notifies taxpayers explaining any additional steps they need to take, such as providing certain documentation to establish whether they are eligible for the credit.

If you have any questions about the adoption tax credit, please contact our office.

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.