Thursday, January 21, 2016

German taxpayer was subject to regular U.S. income tax and covered expatriate tax.


Experienced Tax Accountant The Tax Court has held that a taxpayer with connections to Germany, including a German passport, who had a U.S. green card for many years, was not a German resident, and was therefore subject to U.S. taxation as a nonresident. It also found that he was subject to the Code Sec. 877A tax on covered expatriates.

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/KfO0_kmz7qc
Amare Berhie, Senior Tax Accountant
(651) 300-4777, (612)424-1540, (651) 621-5777

Wednesday, January 20, 2016

2016 Standard Mileage Rates for Business, Medical and Moving Announced

Experienced Tax Accountant The Internal Revenue Service today issued the 2016 optional standard mileage rates used to calculate the deductible costs of operating an automobile for business, charitable, medical or moving purposes.
Beginning on Jan. 1, 2016, the standard mileage rates for the use of a car (also vans, pickups or panel trucks) will be:
54 cents per mile for business miles driven, down from 57.5 cents for 2015
19 cents per mile driven for medical or moving purposes, down from 23 cents for 2015
14 cents per mile driven in service of charitable organizations

The business mileage rate decreased 3.5 cents per mile and the medical, and moving expense rates decrease 4 cents per mile from the 2015 rates. The charitable rate is based on statute.

The standard mileage rate for business is based on an annual study of the fixed and variable costs of operating an automobile. The rate for medical and moving purposes is based on the variable costs.

Taxpayers always have the option of calculating the actual costs of using their vehicle rather than using the standard mileage rates.

A taxpayer may not use the business standard mileage rate for a vehicle after using any depreciation method under the Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System (MACRS) or after claiming a Section 179 deduction for that vehicle. In addition, the business standard mileage rate cannot be used for more than four vehicles used simultaneously.

These and other requirements for a taxpayer to use a standard mileage rate to calculate the amount of a deductible business, moving, medical or charitable expense are in Rev. Proc. 2010-51.  Notice 2016-01 contains the standard mileage rates, the amount a taxpayer must use in calculating reductions to basis for depreciation taken under the business standard mileage rate, and the maximum standard automobile cost that a taxpayer may use in computing the allowance under a fixed and variable rate plan.

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/KfO0_kmz7qc
Amare Berhie, Senior Tax Accountant

(651) 300-4777, (612)424-1540, (651) 621-5777

Tuesday, January 12, 2016

Recent developments that may affect your tax situation

Experienced Small Business Accountant The following is a summary of important tax developments that have occurred in the past three months that may affect you, your family, your investments, and your livelihood. Please call us for more information about any of these developments and what steps you should implement to take advantage of favorable developments and to minimize the impact of those that are unfavorable.

New tax legislation. While in the past, Congress has been chastised by some for being gridlocked, there was a flurry of new laws containing tax provisions in the last quarter of the year:

The Protecting Americans From Tax Hikes (PATH) Act (P.L. 114-113, 12/18/2015) retroactively extended 50 or so taxpayer-favorable tax “extenders”—temporary tax provisions that are routinely extended by Congress on a one- or two-year basis, that had been expired since the end of 2014. It made permanent more than a dozen of the extenders (including the enhanced child tax credit, American opportunity tax credit, and earned income tax credit; parity for exclusion from income for employer-provided mass transit and parking benefits; the deduction of State and local general sales taxes; the research credit; and 15-year straight-line cost recovery for qualified leasehold improvements, qualified restaurant buildings and improvements, and qualified retail improvements). It also contained a delay in the Affordable Care Act's 2.3% excise tax on medical devices and provisions on Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), IRS administration, the Tax Court and numerous other rules.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 114-113, 12/18/2015) included a delay of the Affordable Care Act's 40% excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored health coverage (i.e., the so-called “Cadillac” tax) and a one-year suspension of the annual fee on health insurance providers, in addition to the extension and phaseout of credits for wind facilities, the election to treat qualified facilities as energy property, the solar energy credit, and qualified solar electric and water heating property credits. It also contained a provision that gives independent oil refiners a favorable way of accounting for transportation costs in calculating their domestic production activities deduction.

The Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (P.L. 114-94, 12/4/2015) requires the Secretary of State to deny a passport (or renewal of a passport) to a seriously delinquent taxpayer (i.e., generally, a taxpayer with any outstanding debt for Federal taxes in excess of $50,000). It also requires the IRS to enter into qualified tax collection contracts with private debt collectors for the collection of inactive tax receivables and repealed a recently enacted provision that provided for a longer automatic extension of the due date for filing Form 5500.

The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-74, 11/2/2015) eliminated the TEFRA unified partnership audit rules (so-called because they were introduced in the Tax Equity And Fiscal Responsibility Act of '82) and the electing large partnership rules, and replaced them with streamlined partnership audit rules. The new rules are effective for returns filed for partnership tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2017, but taxpayers can elect to apply them earlier.

The Protecting Affordable Coverage for Employees Act (P.L. 114-60, 10/7/2015) revised the non-tax definition of small and large employers for purposes of the Affordable Care Act. This, however, also ended up modifying a benefits-related tax rule under Code Sec. 125(f)(3) permitting certain qualified health plans to be offered through cafeteria plans.

Tax season begins. Despite the last minute, year-end tax legislation described above, the IRS announced that tax season will begin as scheduled on Tuesday, January 19, 2016. The IRS will begin accepting individual electronic returns and paper returns on that date. The IRS noted that many tax software companies began accepting tax returns earlier in January and will submit them to the IRS on or after January 19. The IRS also noted that there is no advantage to people filing tax returns on paper before January 19, instead of waiting for e-file to begin.

Standard mileage rates down for 2016. The optional mileage allowance for owned or leased autos (including vans, pickups or panel trucks) decreased by 3.5¢ to 54¢ per mile for business travel after 2015. This rate can also be used by employers to provide tax-free reimbursements to employees who supply their own autos for business use, under an accountable plan, and to value personal use of certain low-cost employer-provided vehicles. The rate for using a car to get medical care or in connection with a move that qualifies for the moving expense decreased by 4¢ to 19¢ per mile.

Rules for ABLE accounts are liberalized. For tax years beginning after December 31, 2014, States can create “Achieving a Better Life Experience” (ABLE) programs, which provide for a new type of tax-advantaged account for disabled persons to save for disability-related expenses. In new guidance, having determined that certain requirements set out in recently issued proposed regulations would impose substantial administrative and cost burdens, the IRS has eliminated or significantly modified these requirements. Under the guidance, (1) ABLE programs aren't required to establish safeguards to categorize distributions (including identifying amounts distributed for housing expenses); however, designated beneficiaries will still need to categorize distributions to determine their federal income tax obligations; (2) ABLE programs will not be required to request the taxpayer identification number of contributors to the ABLE account at the time when the contributions are made, if the program has a system in place to reject contributions that exceed the annual contribution limits; and (3) a certification under penalty of perjury that the individual (or the individual's agent under a power of attorney or a parent or legal guardian of the individual) has a signed physician's diagnosis, and that the signed diagnosis will be retained and provided to the ABLE program or the IRS upon request, is adequate to satisfy certification requirements.

In addition, the PATH Act eliminated the residency requirement for ABLE programs (i.e., that the accounts could only be located in the State of residence of the beneficiary). Now, individuals setting up ABLE programs can choose the State program that best suits their needs.

Affordable Care Act information reporting deadlines are extended. Under the Affordable Care Act, insurers, self-insuring employers, and certain other providers of minimum essential coverage must file information returns with the IRS and furnish certain information to individuals. Information reporting is also required for applicable large employers (ALEs). In guidance, the IRS has extended the due dates for certain 2015 information reporting requirements under the Affordable Care Act. The IRS has also provided guidance to individuals who, as a result of these extensions, might not receive a Form 1095-B or Form 1095-C allowing them to establish that they had minimum essential coverage by the time they filed their 2015 tax returns.

Innocent spouse relief. The IRS issued proposed regulations that would make a number of significant changes to the existing innocent spouse rules. In general, a joint filer may obtain relief: (1) where the taxpayer did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the understatement of tax on a return; or (2) if no longer married to the other joint filer, by limiting his liability to his allocable portion of any deficiency; or (3) if ineligible for relief under the above two provisions, where, in view of all the facts and circumstances, it would be inequitable to hold the joint filer liable for any unpaid tax or any deficiency. Under the proposed regulations, when a taxpayer makes a request for relief on Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse Relief, he would not be required to elect or request relief under a specific provision of Code Sec. 6015. The proposed regulations would also provide guidance on the judicial doctrine of res judicata (i.e., when a prior court proceeding will be binding on the spouse) and detailed rules on credits and refunds in innocent spouse cases.

Health coverage tax credit. The IRS provided guidance on claiming the health coverage tax credit (HCTC) for tax years 2014 and 2015, with particular emphasis on circumstances in which the taxpayer also qualifies for the Code Sec. 36B premium tax credit. Eligibility for the HCTC is limited to displaced workers receiving allowances under the Trade Adjustment Assistance program and Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation pension recipients who are age 55 or older. For months in tax years beginning in 2014 or 2015, an individual enrolled in a qualified health plan who is both an eligible individual for purposes of the HCTC and the premium tax credit in a month may claim either credit for the month. But once the HCTC election is made for an eligible coverage month, the individual is ineligible to claim the premium tax credit tor the same coverage in that coverage month and for all subsequent months in the tax year for which the individual is eligible for the HCTC.

De minimis expensing safe harbor under capitalization regulations is increased. As an alternative to the general capitalization rule, regulations permit businesses to elect to expense their outlays for “de minimis” business expenses. The election is allowed where the amount paid for the property doesn't exceed $5,000 per invoice (or per item as substantiated by the invoice) if the taxpayer has an applicable financial statement (AFS), but a $500 limit applies where the taxpayer does not have an AFS. In new guidance, the IRS has increased, from $500 to $2,500, the de minimis safe harbor limit for taxpayers that don't have an AFS. The increase applies for costs incurred during tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2016, but use of the new limit won't be challenged by the IRS in tax years prior to 2016.

Deduction safe harbor for remodeling costs of retail and restaurant businesses. Taxpayers are generally allowed to deduct all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred in carrying on any trade or business, including repair and maintenance costs, but must generally capitalize amounts paid to acquire, produce, or improve property. Determining how these rules apply to the various components of a remodelling project can be a complex and difficult undertaking. In new guidance, the IRS has provided a safe harbor method that taxpayers engaged in the trade or business of operating a retail establishment or a restaurant may use to determine whether costs paid or incurred to refresh or remodel a qualified building are deductible or must be capitalized. Under the safe harbor, a qualified taxpayer treats 75% of its qualified costs paid as deductible and 25% as expenses that must be capitalized.

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

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