Monday, January 11, 2016

No charitable deduction for taxpayers who obtained appraisal but failed to include with return

Experienced Small Business Accountant The Tax Court has upheld IRS's disallowance of a charitable contribution deduction for a conservation easement because the taxpayers, despite obtaining an appraisal, failed to include it with their return. The Court also found that the taxpayers were liable for 40% gross valuation misstatement penalties.

Background. In general, Code Sec. 170(f)(3) bars a charitable contribution deduction for a contribution of an interest in property that is less than the taxpayer's entire interest in the property, but an exception is made for a qualified conservation contribution, i.e., the contribution of a qualified real property interest exclusively for conservation purposes. (Code Sec. 170(h))

A contribution of a qualified real property interest that's a restriction relating to the exterior of a building located in a registered historic district and certified as being of historic significance to the district (e.g., a façade easement) must meet several requirements in order to be considered to be “exclusively for conservation purposes.” One such requirement is that the taxpayer include, with his return for the tax year of the contribution, a qualified appraisal of the qualified property interest. (Code Sec. 170(h)(4)(B)(iii))

Facts. Mr. and Mrs. Gemperle live in a “certified historical structure” in a historic district of Chicago. They learned about the availability of conservation easement charitable contribution deductions at a 2002 or 2003 presentation by Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois (Landmarks) and, several years later, decided to pursue the creation of a façade easement on their house and contribution of the façade easement to Landmarks. The taxpayers selected an appraiser, Ms. Fiorenzo, from a list provided by Landmarks. Ms. Fiorenzo performed two appraisals (the second correcting errors that were in the first) that valued the easement at $108,000. The Gemperles also made a cash contribution to Landmarks of $10,800—10% of the anticipated deduction amount.

The taxpayers claimed a deduction for the easement on their professionally prepared 2007 return ($69,186 for 2007, with $38,814 carried over to 2008), but failed to include the appraisal. They attached an incomplete Form 8283, Noncash Charitable Contributions, which clearly stated both on the form itself as well as in the instructions that an appraisal was required.

IRS disallowed the easement deduction in its entirety and asserted that the taxpayers were liable for accuracy-related penalties either under Code Sec. 6662(h) (40% penalties for a gross valuation misstatement) or, in the alternative, Code Sec. 6662(a) (20% penalties for negligence or disregard of rules and regs).

At trial, the Tax Court granted IRS's motion to bar the taxpayers from asserting that Ms. Fiorenzo's appraisals qualify as evidence of the value of the façade easement because they failed to produce Ms. Fiorenzo as a witness who could be cross-examined on the appraisals' content and conclusions. The witnesses who were called by the taxpayers at trial weren't qualified experts in appraising real estate and failed to establish a value for the façade easement. IRS, on the other hand, produced two expert witnesses, one of whom testified that the real value of the easement was somewhere between zero and $35,000.

No deduction. The Tax Court agreed with IRS that the taxpayers weren't entitled to any deduction for their contribution because they failed to include a copy of a qualified appraisal with their 2007 return as required by Code Sec. 170(h)(4)(B)(iii)(I). The Court found that this conclusion was supported both by the language of the statute as well as the underlying legislative history, which expressly states that a failure to obtain and attach an appraisal “results in disallowance of the deduction.”

The Court also upheld IRS's imposition of accuracy-related penalties under both Code Sec. 6662(a) and Code Sec. 6662(h). With respect to the Code Sec. 6662(a) penalties, the Court easily concluded that the Gemperles didn't exercise reasonable diligence in ensuring the correctness of their return, noting that Form 8283 and its instructions clearly require inclusion of an appraisal. With respect to the Code Sec. 6662(h) penalties, the Court found that the taxpayers failed to establish that their easement had any determinable value—and certainly didn't show that the value exceeded the $35,000 maximum valuation set out by IRS's expert. Accordingly, accepting $35,000 as its value, the Court found that the Gemperles' claimed $108,000 valuation exceeded the actual $35,000 valuation by more than 200%, rendering them liable for the 40% substantial valuation misstatement penalties.

If you have any questions on this topic or would like to discuss some planning strategies with me, please call. I look forward to hearing from you. Click this link to view our YouTube video http://youtu.be/EYJdQtbPZAI
Amare Berhie, Senior Tax Accountant

(651) 621-5777

Friday, January 8, 2016

DOCTOR'S DEDUCTION FOR USE OF MOBILE OFFICE REDUCED

The Tax Court in Cartwright, TC Memo 2015-212 , held that a taxpayer was not entitled to depreciation and Section 179 expense deductions greater than the IRS allowed for the business use of a vehicle he used as a mobile office.

The taxpayer, an orthopedic surgeon, operated a medical practice and was also an on-call physician and staff surgeon at a hospital. As an on-call physician, the taxpayer was required to work a 24-hour period three days a month from Friday through Sunday. If he was notified to report to the hospital in emergency situations, he was required to arrive within one hour. In certain instances, he was instructed to respond to pages within 20 minutes and “stat” pages within five minutes. The taxpayer's home was 25 miles from the hospital.

In 2008, the taxpayer purchased a Navigator. He drove it from his home to the hospital when he reported for on-call duty. He parked in the hospital parking lot near its emergency room so that he could rest and sleep in the Navigator when he was not needed at the hospital. Because the taxpayer suffers from very serious and chronic medical conditions, he thought that the Navigator would help him better service his patients. In the Navigator, he reviewed charts on his computer and referred to medical books. He did not treat patients in the Navigator. The taxpayer and his wife maintained mileage logs for their business and personal use of the vehicle in 2008 and 2009.

The taxpayer and his wife jointly filed timely returns. They reported business expense deductions for depreciation and Section 179 expenses for the business use of the Navigator for 2008 and 2009 in the respective amounts of 85% and 100%. They did not explain how they determined these percentages.

The IRS issued a deficiency notice in which it determined the taxpayer's business use percentages to be 19.42% or 948 miles for 2008 and 22.23% or 663.68 miles for 2009. The IRS found that according to the taxpayer's logs, the Navigator was used mostly for personal reasons. The IRS contended that the allowable depreciation deductions and Section 179 expenses for the Navigator should have been allocated between business and personal use.

The taxpayer argued that the Navigator was used as a mobile office for 85% of the time he was performing on-call duties in 2008 and 100% of the time for such periods in 2009. He testified that because of his health problems, he was better able to serve his patients by using the Navigator, and it saved the cost of renting an office near the hospital. However, the court was not convinced that he was entitled to allocate 85% and 100% of the vehicle's use for his business. The evidence showed that his business use of the Navigator was 27 days for 2008 and 36 days in 2009 and that both he and his wife used it for personal purposes for the remainder of the time. The court found that the IRS's determinations were fair, reasonable, and correct. Therefore, it sustained the IRS's business use percentages for the Navigator.

If you have any questions on this topic or would like to discuss some planning strategies with me, please call. I look forward to hearing from you. Click this link to view our YouTube video http://youtu.be/EYJdQtbPZAI
Amare Berhie, Senior Tax Accountant

(651) 621-5777

Thursday, December 31, 2015

When to retire under the social security system.

Experienced Small Business Accountant Some people dream of retiring early. Others prefer to continue working and saving money until they are age 65, or even past age 65. Although other issues—such as benefits available from an employer—factor into a decision about when to retire, a worker has three options under the social security system:
·         (1)  Retire before full social security retirement age, with a reduced benefit.
·         (2)  Retire with a full benefit at full social security retirement age.
·         (3)  Continue working past full social security retirement age and earn additional benefits for each year of work until reaching age 70.
Although most people think of 65 as the “magic” age for retirement—the age at which a worker can stop working and receive a full social security benefit—this was true only if the worker reached age 65 before 2003. If born in 1938 or later, a worker is not eligible to retire with full benefits until he reaches the age indicated in the following table:
                    Full Social Security
Year of Birth           Retirement Age
===========================================
1937 or earlier             65
1938                  65 and 2 months
1939                  65 and 4 months
1940                  65 and 6 months
1941                  65 and 8 months
1942                  65 and 10 months
1943-1954                   66
1955                  66 and 2 months
1956                  66 and 4 months
1957                  66 and 6 months
1958                  66 and 8 months
1959                  66 and 10 months
1960 and after              67
 Observation Year 2003 was the first year in which the phased-in increase to full social security retirement age applied to individuals electing to receive full social security retirement benefits, because individuals born in 1938 attained age 65 in 2003. Because individuals born in 1938 reached age 62 in 2000, an increased reduction in benefits imposed for persons electing to begin receiving benefits more than 36 months before reaching full social security retirement age first applied in 2000, when individuals born in 1938 first became eligible to elect to receive early social security retirement benefits.
 Observation Although full social security retirement age has increased for individuals born after 1937, the eligibility age for Medicare currently is not scheduled to increase above age 65.
 Recommendation Before making a decision to take social security benefits, it is important to have a good understanding of how much the benefit would be at different ages.
Coordinating retirement decisions with a spouse. The decision of when to retire and start receiving social security benefits can be more complicated for married couples. For example, a decision to retire and take a reduced benefit at age 62 that may seem appropriate for a single beneficiary may not be financially sound for a married beneficiary with shortened life expectations, since this decision could serve as a cap on the surviving spouse's payout.
When both spouses are eligible social security benefits, financial advisors have suggested a variety of methods for maximize benefits over their lifetimes, strategies that depend on their respective ages and earnings records. For example, one strategy would be for a spouse with the lower earnings record (usually the wife) to claim benefits at age 62 and for the other spouse (usually the husband) to delay filing until almost 70. Another strategy would be for the wife to file for her reduced benefit before age 66 and for the husband, at age 66, to file for just a spousal benefit based on his wife's earnings. Then, at age 70, the husband files for full benefits (with the delayed retirement credit) on his earnings history.
If you have any questions on this topic or would like to discuss some planning strategies with me, please call. I look forward to hearing from you. Click this link to view our YouTube video http://youtu.be/EYJdQtbPZAI
Amare Berhie, Senior Tax Accountant

(651) 621-5777

Wednesday, July 22, 2015

CFO Services / Interim CFO / Part Time CFO / Virtual CFO Services / AB T...



Our CFO Services are fully customizable to your business needs and can be packaged into an easy monthly budget fee

Friday, July 10, 2015

Tax breaks for travelers who mix some pleasure with their business travel

Virtual CFO Services - Although video conferencing has made inroads in the ranks of business travelers, there still are situations where it's necessary to travel away-from-home overnight for face-to-face meetings with staff, management, or customers. In the current vacation season, businesspeople or professionals who must travel for work reasons should keep in mind that they may be able to qualify for a travel bargain by piggybacking a short vacation onto an out-of-town business trip. The traveler gets to deduct his vacation airfare if the trip is set up the right way. And if the travel is undertaken for an employer, a properly set up reimbursement arrangement for the business portion of the trip will be income- and payroll-tax-free.
Overview. Travel that takes the taxpayer outside of the U. S. is treated the same way as travel within the U.S., (covered in detail at Weekly Alert ¶  5  07/09/2015) if:
(1)  the trip is undertaken solely for business reasons (50% of meals, and 100% of other costs, are deductible, or are treated as tax-free to a reimbursed traveler if the accountable plan rules are met); or
(2)  the trip is undertaken primarily for personal reasons, but there is some business done during the trip (only business-related lodging, and 50% of business-related meals, are deductible as travel expenses, or are treated as tax-free to a reimbursed traveler if the accountable plan rules are met). (Reg. § 1.162-2(b); Reg. § 1.274-4(a))
The foreign business travel rules diverge from those for domestic business travel when the taxpayer undertakes a trip primarily for business reasons, but also takes some personal days while abroad. In this situation, the transportation expenses are fully deductible—despite the personal days—if one of four tests, explained below, are met. If none of the four tests are met, transportation expenses must be allocated under special rules between (deductible) business and (nondeductible) personal activities.
AB Tax Accounting observation: The allocation rules for foreign business travel apply only to transportation expenses—the cost of getting there and back. The other costs are subject to the usual rules: lodging expenses and 50% of meals while on business status are deductible (and are tax-free to a traveling employee if the accountable-plan rules are met). Purely personal expenses are nondeductible by a self-employed taxpayer or an unreimbursed employee, may be deductible as compensation by an employer that reimburses the expenses, and are taxed to a reimbursed traveler.
Fully deductible foreign transportation costs. When an individual goes on a foreign business trip, the full cost of the round-trip transportation is treated the same way as for a domestic business trip as long as the travel meets any of the following four tests.
AB Tax Accounting observation: This means that the entire cost of the round-trip transportation is deductible (and tax-free to an employee if the accountable plan rules are met) even if some vacation time is taken at the foreign destination.
Test #1—no substantial control over arranging trip. To meet this test, the traveler must have no substantial control over arranging the trip outside the U.S., considering all the facts and circumstances. (Reg. § 1.274-4(f)(5)(i)) An employee who travels outside the U.S. for his employer under a reimbursement or other expense allowance arrangement is considered not to have substantial control over arranging the trip if he isn't a managing executive of the employer (someone who can make his own travel plans and doesn't need someone else's OK), or related to the employer (within the meaning of Code Sec. 267(b), but using a 10% test). Just because a person can control the timing of the trip doesn't mean he has substantial control. (Reg. § 1.274-4(f)(5)(i))
A self-employed person generally can't meet the “no substantial control” test. (IRS Publication 463, 2014, pg. 7)
Test #2—away one week or less. This test is met if the traveler is outside the U.S. for a week (seven consecutive days) or less. For purposes of this test, the day of departure from the U.S. isn't counted, but the day of arrival back in the U.S. is counted. (Reg. § 1.274-4(b)(2); Reg. § 1.274-4(c))
When figuring the 1-week period, any travel between U.S. points is not counted. (Reg. § 1.274-4(e)) For this purpose, the “U.S.” is defined as the 50 States and the District of Columbia. (Reg. § 1.274-4(a))
AB Tax Accounting illustration Bob lives and works in Denver and takes a business trip to Paris. Bob leaves Denver on Tuesday and flies to New York. On Wednesday, he flies nonstop from New York to Paris, arriving the next morning. He has business meetings on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday and sightsees from Sunday until Tuesday. He flies back to New York, arriving Wednesday afternoon. On Thursday, he flies to Denver. Result: the cost of the round trip from Denver to Paris is deductible. Bob was away from Denver for more than a week. But because the day of departure doesn't count, and because the travel between U.S. points doesn't count, Bob was outside the U.S. for exactly seven days.
Test #3—less than 25% on personal matters. Even if the foreign trip lasts longer than one week, there's no allocation of round-trip transportation costs if less than 25% of the time outside the U.S. was spent on personal matters. (Reg. § 1.274-4(b); Reg. § 1.274-4(d)(1) ) Here, the travel days—both the day of departure from the U.S. and the day of return to the U.S.—are counted. (Reg. § 1.274-4(c); IRS Publication 463, 2014, pg. 7)
When applying this test, any travel between U.S. points is not counted. (Reg. § 1.274-4(e)) Similar to the above, for this purpose, the “U.S.” is defined as the 50 States and the District of Columbia. (Reg. § 1.274-4(a))
Test #4—vacation not a major consideration. Even if one of the three other tests doesn't apply, a full deduction for foreign transportation cost is still available if the taxpayer can show that vacationing was not a major consideration in making the trip, even if the traveler has substantial control over arranging the trip. (Reg. § 1.274-4(f)(5)(ii); IRS Publication 463, 2014, pg. 7 )
AB Tax Accounting illustration John, chief executive officer of International Co., Inc., must fly to Frankfurt to meet with German regulators. He spends a week on business, plus four days on vacation. His round-trip transportation costs, plus meals (at 50%) and lodging during the business days, may be deductible.
Partially deductible foreign transportation costs. If foreign travel doesn't meet one of the four full-deductibility tests, above, the nondeductible portion of the transportation expenses—the cost of getting there and back—generally is determined by using a day-to-day allocation formula. Under this formula, total travel expenses are multiplied by the ratio of the total number of non-business days spent outside the U.S. to the total number of days spent outside the U.S. (Reg. § 1.274-4(f)(1)) For purposes of this allocation, the days of departure from, and return to, the U.S. generally are treated as business days spent outside the U.S. (Reg. § 1.274-4(d)(2)(i))
AB Tax Accounting illustration Ruth, a partner in an international law firm based in New York, takes a business trip to Zurich. She spends seven days on business and seven days skiing, and her round-trip air-fare cost is $1,600. Test #3 doesn't apply because she spends more than 25% of her time on personal matters. If Ruth isn't protected by either Test #1, Test #2, or Test #4, she determines the nondeductible part of her transportation cost as follows: 7 personal days ÷ 14 total days × $1,600 = $800. The cost of the 7-day business stay (lodging, 50% of meals) is deductible; the cost of the personal stay is not.
While the nondeductible part of foreign travel costs is generally determined under the above formula, the regs allow taxpayers to use other allocation formulas if they more clearly reflect the period of foreign travel attributable to personal matters. (Reg. § 1.274-4(d)(2))
Special rules apply where the pleasure part of a trip is not located at or near the foreign location where business is transacted. If the pleasure part of the trip takes place beyond the business destination, then the airfare to be allocated in part to business travel and in part to personal travel is figured on the basis of a round trip from the U.S. location to the business location. (Reg. § 1.274-4(f)(2))
AB Tax Accounting illustration Henry, a 20% shareholder-employee of U.S. Co., Inc., schedules a 5-day business trip to London from New York. From London, he proceeds to Paris for a 13-day vacation. U.S. Co. reimburses him for the entire trip after he accounts in full for the expenses. The round-trip cost from New York to London is $1,000.
Roughly $278 of the New York-to-London air fare (5/18ths of $1,000) is tax free. So is the cost of 50% of his meals and all of his lodging while in London. The balance of the airfare, and the cost of his meals and lodging in Paris, are taxable to him as compensation income. U.S. Co. treats the business part of the air fare ($278) and the London meals (at 50%) and lodging costs as deductible business expenses. The balance of the corporation's cost is deductible as compensation (assuming the executive's total compensation package is “reasonable”).
If the pleasure part of the trip takes place en route to or from the business destination, then the allocation of the nondeductible airfare is figured on the round trip from the U.S. departure point to the non-business destination. (Reg. § 1.274-4(f)(3))
Illustration Alice, a New Yorker, flies to Paris on August 4 to attend a business conference that begins on August 5. The conference ends at noon on August 14. That evening she flies to Dublin where she visits with friends until the afternoon of August 21, when Alice flies directly home to New York. The primary purpose for the trip is to attend the conference. If Alice did not stop in Dublin, she would arrive home the evening of August 14. She doesn't qualify for any of the exceptions that would allow her to consider her travel entirely for business.
August 4 through 14 (11 days) are business days and August 15 through 21 (7 days) are nonbusiness days. Alice can deduct the cost of her meals (subject to the 50% limit), lodging, and other business-related travel expenses while in Paris, but can't deduct her expenses while in Dublin. She also cannot deduct 7/18 of what it would cost her to travel round-trip between New York and Dublin. Alice pays $750 to fly from New York to Paris, $400 to fly from Paris to Dublin, and $700 to fly from Dublin back to New York. Round-trip air-fare from New York to Dublin would be $1,250. She figures the deductible part of her air travel expenses by subtracting 7/18 of the round-trip fare and other expenses she would have had in traveling directly between New York and Dublin ($1,250 × 7/18 = $486) from her total expenses in traveling from New York to Paris to Dublin and back to New York ($750 + $400 + $700 = $1,850). Her deductible air travel expense is $1,364 ($1,850 − $486). (IRS Publication 463, 2014, pg. 8)
Non-business days may be treated as business days. If allocation of foreign travel costs is required because of non-business activities, every day the traveler is treated as having spent on business increases the deduction for transportation costs.
There are five instances where a “non-business” day is treated as a “business” day for expense allocation purposes. (Reg. § 1.274-4(d)(2))
(1)  Generally, the departure date and return date are considered business days. So if a traveler leaves the U.S. on a Wednesday night and returns early on a Friday morning, both days count as full business days. There are exceptions for indirect routes or substantial nonbusiness diversions along the way.
(2)  The taxpayer's presence is required at a particular place for a specific and bona fide business purpose. If an employer requires an employee to be present at a particular date and place for business reasons, the day is a business day even though, because of the scheduled length of the meeting, the employee spends more time on nonbusiness activity (e.g., sightseeing) than on business.
(3)  As long as an individual does business during working hours, other personal activities, like an evening out on the town, won't turn the business day into a personal day.
(4)  Days when doing business is prevented due to circumstances beyond the individual's control (for example, bad weather, or a client cancels a business meeting) are business days.
(5)  Weekend days and reasonably necessary standby days between business meetings are treated as business days, no matter what the individual does with his or her time.
AB Tax Accounting illustration Tina is sent by her employer to Mexico City on business. She is scheduled to participate in business conferences on Wednesday, Friday, and Monday. Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday are business days, not personal days, no matter what she does with her time. But if there had been no business meeting scheduled in Mexico City after Friday, then Saturday and Sunday would count as personal days.
Please call me if you have any questions about these rules. Together we can make sure that you'll get all the deductions to which you're entitled come next filing deadline. I look forward to hearing from you. Click this link to view our YouTube video http://youtu.be/EYJdQtbPZAI
Amare Berhie
(651) 621-5777, (952) 583-9108, (612) 224-2476, (763) 269-5396