| Ten Important Facts About Capital Gains and Losses | |
|
| About Us |
| Our Professionals |
McLaughlin & Quinn, LLC - Providence | Boston
Experience. Service. Results.
Call us at: 401.421.5115 - 617.426.5877
Archive for the ‘Tax planning’ Category
Tax Tips from the IRS on Capital Gains
Wednesday, June 8th, 2011 by Moore McLaughlin
No Comments »
Resolving Conflicts Between Co-Agents on a Power of Attorney
Wednesday, April 20th, 2011 by Moore McLaughlinHaving power of attorney over a family member is a big responsibility and sometimes it makes sense to share that responsibility with someone else. But when two people are named co-agents under a power of attorney, conflicts can arise. Unfortunately, if the conflict can’t be resolved, it may be necessary to get a court involved.
A power of attorney allows a person to appoint someone called an “agent or “attorney-in-fact” — to act in his or her place for financial purposes when and if the person ever becomes incapacitated. A power of attorney can name one agent or it can require two or more agents to act together.
If you are acting as a co-agent under a power of attorney, but you and your fellow agent disagree on a course of action or one party has stopped participating in decision making, what can you do? The first thing is to check the wording of the power of attorney document to see if it sets up a procedure for resolving disputes. If the power of attorney itself doesn’t help, you should contact an elder law attorney. The attorney can tell you if your state’s power of attorney laws offer any guidance. There may be a state statute that deals with disputes.
If the dispute still cannot be resolved, the final step may be to file a petition in probate court to let the court decide it. Or if the court finds that one of the agents is not acting according to the incapacitated person’s best interests, it can revoke the agent’s authority. Unfortunately, taking the matter to court takes time and money.
If you are creating a power of attorney and want more than one agent to share responsibility, but want to minimize conflict, you can name two agents and let the agents act separately. Naming more than two agents can get cumbersome and make communication difficult. An alternative to naming co-agents is for the power of attorney document to name agents in sequence. The first-named agent acts alone, but if she cannot serve for some reason, the next person on the list will serve.
Congress passes bill repealing expanded 1099 information reporting requirements
Wednesday, April 6th, 2011 by Moore McLaughlin
On April 5, the Senate by a vote of 87-12 approved H.R. 4, the “Comprehensive 1099 Taxpayer Protection and Repayment of Exchange Subsidy Overpayments Act of 2011.” The measure, which retroactively repeals expanded Form 1099 information reporting rules added by recent legislation, was passed by the House on March 3 by a vote of 314-112. Thus, H.R. 4 (the Act) is cleared for the President’s expected signature.
Here are highlights of the tax changes in the Act.
Original information reporting rules. Before amendment by the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-240) and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, P.L. 111-148), Code Sec. 6041 generally required payments totaling at least $600 in a single calendar year to a single recipient to be reported to IRS. Reporting on Form 1099 was required only when the payor was considered to be engaged in a trade or business and has made the payment in connection with that trade or business. The type of payment that most commonly triggered the reporting requirement was payment for services.
There were a number of exemptions from Code Sec. 6041 ‘s reporting requirements under prior law, notably including payments to corporations (which were exempt under Reg. § 1.6041-3(p)(1)).
Pre-Act law—changes made by 2010 legislation. Beginning in 2012, Sec. 9006 of PPACA added payments of amounts in consideration for any type of property and gross proceeds—i.e., it added payments for goods or other property—to the list of payments subject to information reporting.
Sec. 9006 of PPACA further provided that, beginning in 2012, payments to non-tax-exempt corporations—which had previously been exempt from the reporting requirement—would be subject to information reporting.
Additionally, for payments made after 2010, the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 provided that, subject to limited exceptions, a person receiving rental income from real estate would be treated as engaged in the trade or business of renting property for information reporting purposes. In particular, rental income recipients making payments of $600 or more to a service provider (for example, a painter or plumber) in the course of earning rental income would have to provide an information return to the service provider and IRS.
New law. For payments made after December 31, 2011, the Act repeals the provisions in Sec. 9006 that impose a reporting requirement for payments to corporations and payments for goods or other property. (Code Sec. 6041(a), Code Sec. 6041(i), and Code Sec. 6041(j), as amended by Act Sec. 2) And for payments made after December 31, 2010, the Act also repeals application of the information reporting requirements to recipients of rental income from real estate who are not otherwise considered to be engaged in the trade or business of renting property. (Code Sec. 6041(h), as repealed by Act Sec. 3)
In other words, under the Act, the information reporting rules effectively revert to the way they read before enactment of PPACA and the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010.
Revenue offset. The Act provides an offset for the lost revenue from repealing the new information reporting provisions, estimated at $21.9 billion. It increases the amount of “excess advance payments” of the premium assistance credit (enacted as part of the 2010 health care reform legislation to help lower-income individuals acquire affordable health insurance coverage) that a taxpayer must repay under Code Sec. 36B(f)(2) for tax years ending after December 31, 2013. The credit is available for a taxpayer who does not receive health insurance through his employer (or his spouse’s employer) and whose income falls between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty line (FPL), based on the most recently filed tax return.
Under pre-Act law, if the taxpayer’s income increases such that the credit exceeds that to which his current income level actually entitles him to, but his income is still under 500% of FPL, he had to repay some credit amounts. The limit on amounts he had to repay were capped and ranged from $600 to $3,500.
New law. Under the Act, for tax years ending after December 31, 2013, the repayment caps are increased for taxpayers with household income of at least 200% but less than 400% of FPL, and full repayment is required for taxpayers whose incomes exceed 400% of FPL. (Code Sec. 36B(f)(2)(B)(i), as amended by Act Sec. 4)
Responsibility for a Deceased Relative’s Debts
Friday, April 1st, 2011 by Moore McLaughlin
The loss of a loved one is tough to begin with, but if the loved one left debts behind, it can be even tougher. Family members generally should not have to pay for a decedent’s debts, but it is important to know your rights because collection agencies may target the decedent’s relatives.
Usually the loved one’s estate is responsible for paying any debts. If the estate does not have enough money, the debts will go unpaid. The debt collectors may not collect payment from relatives (unless they were co-signers or guarantors). However, if you are the spouse of the decedent, you may have responsibility for any debts that were jointly held. Depending on state law, some assets — such as a house or car — may be exempt from debt collection. You should talk to an attorney to determine your responsibility, if any.
If a debt collector contacts you, give the collector the contact information for the personal representative (also called the “executor”) who is handling the estate. It is the personal representative’s responsibility to make sure all bills are paid. Whatever you do, do not give any personal information to debt collectors. Scam artists sometimes pose as debt collectors to prey on relatives.
If a debt collector won’t stop contacting you, send a certified letter to the collector saying you do not want to be contacted again. Once the collector receives the letter, the collector can contact you only to tell you that there will be no further contact or to inform you of a lawsuit. Report any problems with debt collectors to your state’s attorney general or to the Federal Trade Commission.
Statutory glitch reduces portable estate tax exclusion for some surviving spouses
Thursday, March 31st, 2011 by Moore McLaughlinEffective for estates of decedents dying after 2010 and before 2013, the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (2010 Tax Relief Act) allows a deceased spouse’s unused estate tax exclusion to be shifted to the surviving spouse. The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) has released an errata sheet pointing out an error in the statutory language defining “deceased spousal unused exclusion amount.” As explained below, the current statutory language may result in a lower-than-intended exclusion for the surviving spouse of an individual who was previously married and received a portable estate tax exclusion from his or her former spouse. The JCT says a technical correction may be needed to fix the defect.
Background. A credit (the “unified credit”) is allowed against the estate tax imposed on U.S. citizens and residents. The credit is equal to the tentative tax on the “applicable exclusion amount,” determined under the estate tax rate schedule.
Pre-2010 Tax Relief Act law did not allow for any unused portion of a decedent’s applicable exclusion amount to be used by the estate of the decedent’s surviving spouse.
Portable exclusion. Under the 2010 Tax Relief Act, for estates of decedents dying after 2010 and before 2013, the applicable exclusion amount is the sum of (1) the “basic exclusion amount” and (2) in the case of a surviving spouse, the “deceased spousal unused exclusion amount.”
The basic exclusion amount is $5 million with an adjustment for inflation after 2011.
The “deceased spousal unused exclusion amount” is the lesser of:
(1) the basic exclusion amount, or
(2) the excess of the basic exclusion amount of the last deceased spouse dying after December 31, 2010, of the surviving spouse, over the amount on which the tentative tax on the estate of the deceased spouse is determined.
A deceased spousal unused exclusion amount may not be taken into account by a surviving spouse unless the executor of the estate of the deceased spouse files an estate tax return on which the amount is computed, and makes an election on the return that the amount may be taken into account by the surviving spouse. The election, once made, is irrevocable. No election may be made if the estate tax return of the deceased spouse is filed after the due date (including extensions) for filing the return.
A surviving spouse may use the deceased spousal unused exclusion amount in addition to his or her own $5 million exclusion for taxable transfers made during life or at death.
Illustration 1: Husband 1 dies in 2011, having made taxable transfers of $3 million and having no taxable estate. An election is made on his estate tax return to permit Wife to use his deceased spousal unused exclusion amount. As of his death, Wife has made no taxable gifts. Thereafter, Wife’s applicable exclusion amount is $7 million (her $5 million basic exclusion amount plus $2 million deceased spousal unused exclusion amount from Husband 1), which she may use for lifetime gifts or for transfers at death. (Committee Report)
If a surviving spouse is predeceased by more than one spouse, the amount of unused exclusion that is available for use by the surviving spouse is limited to the lesser of $5 million or the unused exclusion of the last deceased spouse. This so-called “last deceased spouse” limitation applies whether or not the last deceased spouse has any unused exclusion, and whether or the estate of the last deceased spouse makes a timely election to allow the surviving spouse to use the deceased spousal unused exclusion amount.
Illustration 2: Assume the same facts as in illustration (1), except that Wife subsequently marries Husband 2. He predeceases Wife, having made $4 million in taxable transfers and having no taxable estate. An election is made on his estate tax return to permit Wife to use his deceased spousal unused exclusion amount. Although the combined amount of unused exclusion of Husband 1 and Husband 2 is $3 million ($2 million for Husband 1 and $1 million for Husband 2), only Husband 2′s $1 million unused exclusion is available for use by Wife because the deceased spousal unused exclusion amount is limited to the lesser of the basic exclusion amount ($5 million) or the unused exclusion of the last deceased spouse of the surviving spouse. Thereafter, Wife’s applicable exclusion amount is $6 million (her $5 million basic exclusion amount plus $1 million deceased spousal unused exclusion amount from Husband 2), which she may use for lifetime gifts or for transfers at death. (Committee Report)
Remarried surviving spouses who predecease new spouse. The following illustration, based on an example in the Committee Report, says that if a surviving spouse remarries, and then dies survived by a new spouse, the deceased spousal unused exclusion amount included for the surviving spouse’s estate is determined by taking into account the deceased spouse’s applicable exclusion amount and not just the basic exclusion amount.
Illustration 3: Assume the same facts as in Illustrations 1 and 2, except that Wife predeceases Husband 2. Following Husband 1′s death, Wife’s applicable exclusion amount is $7 million (her $5 million basic exclusion amount plus $2 million deceased spousal unused exclusion amount from Husband 1). Wife made no taxable transfers and has a taxable estate of $3 million. An election is made on Wife’s estate tax return to permit Husband 2 to use Wife’s deceased spousal unused exclusion amount, which is $4 million (Wife’s $7 million applicable exclusion amount less her $3 million taxable estate). Under the provision, Husband 2′s applicable exclusion amount is increased by $4 million, i.e., the amount of Wife’s deceased spousal unused exclusion amount. (Committee Report)
This view does not seem to reflect Code Sec. 2010(c)(4), which states that the deceased spousal unused exclusion amount equals the lesser of the basic exclusion amount (i.e., $5 million), or the excess of the basic exclusion amount of the last deceased spouse of such surviving spouse over the amount on which the tentative estate tax is determined under Code Sec. 2001(b)(1) on the estate of such deceased spouse. Rather, under the current statutory language, Husband 2′s applicable exclusion amount would seem to be increased by only $2 million.
The JCT Errata sheet confirms that the current statutory language does not support the conclusion in Illustration 3. It does so by adding a footnote to the example in the Committee Report on the 2010 Tax Relief Act. The footnote states that a technical correction may be necessary to replace the reference to the basic exclusion amount of the last deceased spouse of the surviving spouse with a reference to the applicable exclusion amount of such last deceased spouse, so that the statute reflects Congressional intent.
Under the technical correction, Husband 2′s applicable exclusion amount would be increased by $4 million.
Under the technical correction, it would be possible for the new spouse’s applicable exclusion amount to exceed $10 million, the combined amount of the basic exclusion amount of the surviving spouse and the new spouse. For example, if, in Illustration 3, the Wife’s taxable estate were only $1 million, then Husband 2′s applicable exclusion amount would be increased by $6 million (Wife’s applicable exclusion amount of $7 million less $1 million of taxable transfers). Thus, Husband 2′s applicable exclusion amount would be $11 million (Wife’s spousal unused exclusion amount of $6 million, plus Husband 2′s basic exclusion amount of $5 million).
Allowing a surviving spouse to wind up with a more than $10 million applicable exclusion amount is somewhat inconsistent with the last spouse limitation. That’s because the last spouse limitation prevents a spouse who survived two or more deceased spouses from getting an applicable exclusion amount that exceeds the combined basic exclusion amounts of a husband and wife. This combined figure presently is $10 million, but could exceed $10 million with inflation adjustments after 2011.
There is no word on when this or any other technical corrections may be forthcoming. Hopefully, IRS will address the matter when it provides guidance on the new portable exclusion.
Failure to use qualified escrow account in attempted 1031 exchange resulted in taxable gain
Tuesday, March 1st, 2011 by Moore McLaughlin
The Tax Court has recently determined that taxpayers’ failure to use a qualified escrow account in an attempted like-kind exchange rendered them ineligible for nonrecognition of gain under Code Sec. 1031. As a result, they wound up with taxable gain on the surrendered property. Ralph E. Crandall, Jr. and Dene E. Dulin, TC Summary Opinion 2011-14.
Background. A taxpayer generally recognizes gain or loss upon the sale or exchange of property. However, neither gain nor loss is recognized under Code Sec. 1031 on an exchange of property if:
- … the taxpayer exchanges property held for productive use in a trade or business or for investment for other property to be held for productive use in a trade or business or for investment;
- … the relinquished property and the replacement property are of “like kind”; and
- … the replacement property is identified and the exchange is completed within statutory time limits.
If a two-party like-kind exchange is impractical or undesirable, a taxpayer may still be able to get the benefits of Code Sec. 1031 by arranging a multi-party deferred exchange. In a deferred exchange, the replacement property must be (i) identified within 45 days after the taxpayer transfers the relinquished property, and (ii) received by the earlier date of 180 days after the taxpayer transfers the old property or the due date of the taxpayer’s return for the year (including extensions).
To qualify as a deferred exchange, the transaction must be an exchange of property, not a transfer of property for money. The reinvestment of the proceeds from a cash sale of one property into a second property of like-kind will not qualify as a Code Sec. 1031 exchange.
The taxpayer isn’t treated as actually or constructively receiving money or other property before he receives like-kind replacement property solely because the obligation of the transferee to transfer replacement property to the taxpayer is secured by cash or its equivalent, provided the security is held in a qualified escrow account or qualified trust. An escrow account is “qualified” if the escrow holder is not the taxpayer (or a disqualified person) and the escrow agreement expressly limits the taxpayer’s rights to receive, pledge, borrow or otherwise obtain the cash or its equivalent held in the account.
Facts. Ralph E. Crandall, Jr. and Dene D. Dulin owned an undeveloped parcel of property in Arizona. The property was held for investment purposes and had a basis of $8,500. They wanted to own investment property closer to their California residence, so they decided to sell the Arizona property and purchase new property with the intention of executing a tax-free exchange.
On March 4, 2005, the taxpayers sold the Arizona property for $76,000. The buyers of the property paid petitioners $10,000, and the remaining $66,000 was placed in an escrow account with Capital Title Agency, Inc. (Capital Title). At the taxpayers’ direction, $61,743.25 was held in the escrow account, and $4,256.75 was released to the taxpayers.
The taxpayers made a series of payments to an escrow account with Chicago Title Co. (Chicago Title) from January–March of 2005. Neither the Capital Title nor the Chicago Title escrow agreements mentioned a like-kind exchange under Code Sec. 1031 or expressly limited the taxpayers’ right to receive, pledge, borrow, or otherwise obtain the benefits of the funds.
Parties’ arguments. IRS contended that, since the Capital Title escrow agreement didn’t restrict the taxpayers’ access to and use of the funds held in the escrow account, it wasn’t a “qualified escrow account.” Thus, the taxpayers were in constructive receipt of the proceeds from the sale of the Arizona property. The disposition of the Arizona property was a taxable sale, and recognized gain should have been reported on the taxpayers’ 2005 return.
The taxpayers claimed that the funds in the Capital Title escrow account were held solely for the purchase of the California property and that they received no proceeds from the sale of the Arizona property.
Conclusion. The Tax Court agreed with IRS that the disposition of the Arizona property was a sale, the proceeds of which were constructively received by the taxpayers upon deposit into the Capital Title escrow account. Although the taxpayers in fact used the funds in the Capital Title escrow account to purchase the California property, they failed to comply with the Code Sec. 1031 requirements for nonrecognition. The Capital Title escrow account wasn’t a “qualified escrow account” within the meaning of the Regulations due to the lack of express limitations on the taxpayers’ use of the funds. As a result, the taxpayers had taxable gain in 2005 from the sale of the Arizona property.
For more information about this case or 1031 exchanges in general, contact Partner F. Moore McLaughlin, IV, Esq., CPA at 401-421-5115 ext. 212 or by e-mail at mmclaughlin@mclaughlinquinn.com.
IRS announces major changes to lien process to help taxpayers get a fresh start
Tuesday, March 1st, 2011 by Moore McLaughlin
The IRS announced on February 23, 2011 new policies and programs to help taxpayers pay back taxes and avoid tax liens. The IRS’s goal is to help individuals and small businesses meet their tax obligations, without adding an unnecessary burden to taxpayers.
Background on liens. When a taxpayer fails to pay a tax liability after notice and demand, a lien arises that attaches to all the taxpayer’s property and rights to property. The IRS is authorized to seize and sell the taxpayer’s property and rights to property subject to a federal tax lien. Thus, IRS may seize any property or property right (unless it’s exempt) of a delinquent taxpayer (whether held by him or someone else), sell it, and apply the proceeds to pay the unpaid taxes. Seized property may be real, personal, tangible, or intangible, including receivables, bank accounts, evidences of debt, securities, and salaries, wages, commissions or compensation.
Background on installment agreements. The IRS may enter into written agreements with any taxpayer. IRS must enter into an installment agreement requested by an individual whose aggregate tax liability (without interest, penalties, additions to tax, and additional amounts) is not more than $10,000, and who has not failed to file or to pay income tax, or entered into another installment agreement, during any of the preceding five tax years, if IRS determines that the taxpayer is financially unable to pay the liability in full when due (and the taxpayer submits information that IRS may require to make this determination). The agreement must require full payment within three years, and the taxpayer must agree to comply with all Code provisions while it’s in effect.
Background on OICs. The IRS will consider an offer in compromise (OIC)—i.e., an agreement between a taxpayer and the IRS that settles the taxpayer’s tax liabilities for less than the full amount owed—where: (1) the taxpayer is unable to pay the tax; (2) there is doubt as to the taxpayer’s liability for the tax; or (3) a compromise would promote effective tax administration because collection of the full amount of tax would cause economic hardship for the taxpayer, or compelling public policy or equity considerations provide a sufficient basis for compromising the liability. The IRS looks at the taxpayer’s income and assets to make a determination regarding the taxpayer’s ability to pay.
New procedures. After a review of collection operations which IRS Commissioner Shulman launched last year, as well as input from the Internal Revenue Service Advisory Council and the National Taxpayer Advocate, IRS has determined that the following changes will lessen the negative impact on taxpayers:
- Higher dollar threshold for issuing liens. IRS will significantly increase the dollar thresholds at which liens are generally filed to take account of inflationary changes since the number was last revised. Currently, liens are automatically filed at certain dollar levels for people with past-due balances. IRS expects to review the results and impact of the lien threshold change in about a year.
- Easier lien withdrawals after payment. IRS will modify procedures so as to make it easier for taxpayers to obtain lien withdrawals. Liens will now be withdrawn once full payment of taxes is made if the taxpayer requests it. IRS will streamline its internal procedures to better allow collection personnel to withdraw the liens.
- Withdrawing liens after DDIA. IRS will now allow lien withdrawals for taxpayers with unpaid assessments of $25,000 or less where: (1) a taxpayer enters into a Direct Debit Installment Agreement (DDIA); (2) a taxpayer on a regular Installment Agreement converts to a DDIA; and (3) a taxpayer on an existing DDIA requests the withdrawal. Liens will be withdrawn after a probationary period demonstrating that direct debit payments will be honored. IRS notes that this lowers user fees and saves the government money from mailing monthly payment notices. Taxpayers can use the Online Payment Agreement application on IRS.gov to set up a DDIA.
- Easier access to Installment Agreements for small businesses. IRS will make streamlined Installment Agreements available to more small businesses by raising the dollar limit to allow small businesses with $25,000 or less in unpaid tax to participate. Currently, only small businesses with under $10,000 in liabilities can participate. Small businesses that file either as an individual or as a business will have 24 months to pay. Small businesses with an unpaid assessment balance greater than $25,000 can qualify for a streamlined Installment Agreement if they pay down their balance to $25,000 or less. Small businesses will need to enroll in a DDIA to participate.
- Expanding streamlined OIC program. IRS will expand a new streamlined OIC program to cover a larger group of struggling taxpayers. The streamlined OIC will allow taxpayers with annual incomes up to $100,000 to participate. Participants must have tax liability of less than $50,000, doubling the current limit of $25,000 or less.
McLaughlin & Quinn, LLC partner Thomas P. Quinn, Esq. says “These changes are significant and will help many of our clients immediately. We welcome this practical improvement to the collection system. We represent clients on a daily basis who face these thresholds. Those clients will now be able to better manage their affairs and settle their outstanding tax obligations.”
For more information on these changes, and IRS collections matters generally, contact Tom Quinn, Esq. at 401-421-5115 ext. 218 or by e-mail at TQuinn@McLaughlinQuinn.com.
IRS explains how DC’s Emancipation Day can affect filing and payment deadlines
Monday, February 21st, 2011 by Moore McLaughlinThe IRS had earlier announced that because of the Emancipation Day holiday in the District of Columbia (DC), the due date of Form 1040 for 2010 is April 18, 2011, instead of April 15, 2011. Now, in Notice 2011-17, the IRS has explained the mechanics of this deferral, and how it may apply in other years.
Background. Under Code Sec. 6072(a), income tax returns must be filed on April 15. When April 15 falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, a return is considered timely filed if filed on the next succeeding day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, defined as legal holiday in DC.
Under DC law, Emancipation Day, April 16, is a legal holiday. The twists and turns in DC law regarding this holiday produce the following results for filing deadlines for all tax forms and payments that must be filed or completed on or before April 15, including the Form 1040 series tax returns:
- When April 16 falls on Saturday, then Friday, April 15, is the observed date for Emancipation Day and the filing deadline for all tax forms and payments required to be filed or completed on or before April 15, is Monday, April 18.
That’s the situation this year, when April 16 falls on a Saturday, which means Emancipation Day will be observed on Friday, Apr. 15, 2011. Thus, the filing deadline for all tax forms and payments required to be filed or completed on or before April 15 will be Monday, April 18, 2011.
- When April 16 falls on Sunday, then Monday, April 17, is the observed date for Emancipation Day, and the filing deadline for all tax forms and payments required to be filed or completed on or before April 15 is Tuesday, April 18.
- When April 16 falls on Monday, then that day is the observed date for Emancipation Day, and the filing deadline for all forms and payments required to be filed or completed on or before April 15 is Tuesday, April 17.
The last time this happened was in 2007.
IRS said it will widely publicize the Emancipation Day rules in affected years to remind the public that the filing deadline is extended.
In all likelihood, the new Notice was issued in response to a flood of questions about why the filing deadline was deferred to April 18, even though April 15 will fall on a Friday this year.
The deadline deferral to April 18, 2011, applies to a host of deadlines for filing and paying, including:
… Requests for an automatic six-month tax-filing extension on an individual return for calendar-year 2010.
… Tax-year 2010 balance-due payments.
… For calendar-year taxpayers, individual estimated tax payments for the first quarter of 2011.
… For calendar-year taxpayers, tax-year 2010 contributions to a Roth or traditional IRA.
… Corporation income tax returns, including S corporations, for a fiscal year ending on January 31, 2011, and any balance due.
… For calendar-year corporations, the estimated tax payment for the first quarter of 2011.
… Calendar-year estate and trust income tax returns (Form 1041) and any balance due.
… Calendar-year 2010 partnership returns (Form 1065).
Ways and Means OKs two competing bills to repeal new 1099 requirements
Monday, February 21st, 2011 by Moore McLaughlin
On February 17, the House Ways and Means Committee by a vote of 21-15 approved. H.R. 705, the Comprehensive 1099 Taxpayer Protection and Repayment of Exchange Subsidy Overpayment Act of 2011. Upon passage of H.R. 705, the text of a competing bill (H.R. 4, the Small Business Paperwork Mandate Elimination Act of 2011), which was approved by voice vote earlier in the day, was incorporated into H.R. 705. There were no other amendments adopted to H.R.705.
Both bills seek to modify or repeal the new requirements imposed by Sec. 9006 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), which provides that payments for goods and payments made to corporations (that are not tax-exempt) will be subject to information reporting beginning in 2012. H.R. 705 also seeks to repeal Code Sec. 6041(h), which was added by the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 and which treats recipients of rental income from real estate as engaged in the trade or business of renting property for information reporting purposes beginning in 2011. However, H.R. 705 provides an offset for the estimated $21.9 billion cost of repeal, whereas H.R. 4 does not.
Also on February 17, the Senate by a vote of 92-2 invoked cloture (i.e. voted to cut off debate) on S. 223, the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act, which includes a provision to repeal the Sec. 9006 reporting requirements. Unless time is yielded back, there remains 30 hours of debate on the bill before a vote on final passage of the measure.
IRS Set To Launch New Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program
Thursday, February 3rd, 2011 by Moore McLaughlin
The IRS is putting the finishing touches on a new offshore voluntary disclosure program, according to several agency officials quoted in news reports. The new program will have some similarity to the previous voluntary disclosure program that ended in October 2010, but is expected to offer different terms regarding possible penalties. Many observers foresee the new initiative offering terms less generous than those in the previous program. At an American Bar Association gathering on Janury 21, Steven Miller, IRS deputy commissioner for services and enforcement, put the tax professional community on notice that another initiative was in the works. Other agency officials have since indicated that the details of the program would soon be forthcoming.
Stay tuned to our Blog, or contact Partner Moore McLaughlin, Esq. for more information at mmclaughlin@mclaughlinquinn.com or by phone at 401-421-5115 ext 212.