Posts Tagged ‘Internal Revenue Service’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Two Tax Court Decisions Clarify When Long-Term Care Expenses Are Deductible

Thursday, July 28th, 2011 by Moore McLaughlin

Long-term care can be very expensive, but many long-term care expenses can be deducted from your taxes. Two important recent decisions by the U.S. Tax Court provide guidance on when caregiving services are deductible. In one decision, the court ruled that payments to non-medical caregivers are still deductible as medical expenses; in the other, the court held that a written agreement is required in order for a deceased woman’s estate to deduct more than $1 million in care that her son allegedly provided her.

In the first case, Estate of Lillian Baral v. Commissioner, Lillian Baral suffered from dementia and her doctor recommended that she get 24-hour-a-day care. Her brother hired caregivers to assist Ms. Baral with daily activities. On her tax return, Ms. Baral included a deduction for medical expenses for the payments to the caregivers. The IRS said the expenses were not deductible and asked for more money. Following Ms. Baral’s death, her estate appealed the matter to the U.S. Tax Court.

Under tax law, expenses for medical care may be claimed as an itemized deduction if they exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income. (Note that this threshold will rise to 10 percent of adjusted gross income in 2012.) The definition of medical expenses includes the cost of long-term care if a doctor has determined you are chronically ill. “Chronically ill” means you need help with activities like eating, going to the bathroom, bathing, and dressing, or you require substantial supervision due to a severe cognitive impairment.

The Tax Court agreed with Ms. Baral that the payments to the caregivers for assisting and supervising Ms. Baral are deductible medical expenses. The expenses qualified as long-term care services even though the caregivers were not medical personnel because a doctor had found that the services provided to Ms. Baral were necessary due to her dementia.

In the second case, Estate of Olivio v. Commissioner, New Jersey resident Anthony Olivo provided nearly full-time care to his mother from 1994 to 2003, during which time he largely abandoned his practice as an attorney. After his mother died, Mr. Olivo became administrator of her estate.

Mr. Olivo filed a tax return for the estate and claimed a deduction of $1.24 million as a debt he said the estate owed him for the care he had provided his mother over the years. He claimed he had an oral agreement with his mother that after she died she would compensate him for his services. The IRS disallowed the deduction and Mr. Olivo filed a petition with the Tax Court.

The U.S. Tax Court agreed with the IRS that the estate is not entitled to the deduction. Applying the law in New Jersey, which presumes that services to a family member living in the same household are given for free (many states have similar laws), the court ruled that without a written agreement between Ms. Olivo and her son, it must assume that Mr. Olivo provided the services without any expectation he would be repaid.

Check with your CPA to determine if your long-term care expenses are deductible.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning, IRS and state tax collections, Tax Current Events and News, Tax planning

Who Gets Copies of the Will After a Person Dies?

Monday, June 20th, 2011 by Moore McLaughlin

Many movies and television shows have a scene where a family gathers around a big table after a relative has died to listen to the reading of the will. While this is a great dramatic scene, it doesn’t usually happen like that in the real world. There is no requirement that a will be read out loud to anyone. So what does happen with the will?

Once the will is located, it should be given to the estate’s attorney. Instead of reading the will out loud, the estate’s attorney sends copies of the will to anyone who may have an interest in it. Obviously the person who is named as executor or personal representative is entitled to a copy of the will. He or she is in charge of applying for probate, managing the decedent’s property, and making sure the instructions in the will get carried out.

The estate attorney will also send a copy of the will to anyone who is named as a beneficiary. If any minor children or incapacitated individuals are named as beneficiaries, then their guardians should receive a copy of the will. In addition, if there is the possibility of a legal challenge to the will, the attorney may want to send a copy to any legal heirs, close family relatives, or previous beneficiaries who aren’t included in the will, so that they have notice. This will limit the time frame for them to file a will contest.

Another person who may be entitled to a copy of the will is the estate’s accountant, and if the estate is taxable, then the IRS may get a copy of the will as well. If the will funds a revocable trust, then the successor trustee of the trust is entitled to a copy of the will. Note that once a will is probated, it is available to the public and anyone can read it.

For more information on estate administration, contact Attorney Jill E. Sugarman at 401-421-5115 or by e-mail at JSugarman@McLaughlinQuinn.com.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning, Tax planning

Be Sure To Update Your Estate Plan When Your Finances Change

Monday, June 20th, 2011 by Moore McLaughlin

In the recent economic downturn, many homes have lost considerable value and stock portfolios have plummeted. If this is the case for you, do you need to change your will? What if your income and assets have increased significantly? If your finances have changed markedly since you wrote your will, you should check your estate plan to see if you need to make any changes.

If your will or estate plan divides your estate into percentages for beneficiaries, then changes in value won’t affect how your estate is distributed. However, if you include specific bequests in your will, a fall or rise in your estate could have consequences. For example, if your estate plan gives $50,000 to your favorite charity and the rest of your estate to your children, a reduction in the value of your estate could mean your children won’t get as much as you intended.

A change in value of assets could also affect your estate plan if you intended to treat your children equally by giving them assets of equal value. For example, suppose your will gives your house worth $500,000 to your daughter and your stock worth $500,000 to your son. If the value of either the house or the stock portfolio increases or decreases significantly in value, your children will no longer receive equal gifts. It is also important to update your estate plan if the overall nature of your assets has changed. For example, if you sold the stock and bought real estate instead, this will affect the distributions to your children.

In addition, if your estate has significantly increased in value, it is important to reassess whether your estate will be subject to estate taxes. In 2008, estates worth more than $2 million are subject to federal estate taxes. In 2009, estates subject to federal taxes must be worth more than $3.5 million. After that, it isn’t clear what the estate tax will be, so it is important to be prepared for any eventuality.

Contact Attorney Jill E. Sugarman at 401-421-5115 or by e-mail at JSugarman@McLaughlinQuinn.com for more information.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning, Tax planning

Tax Tips from the IRS on Capital Gains

Wednesday, June 8th, 2011 by Moore McLaughlin
Ten Important Facts About Capital Gains and Losses
 
IRS Tax Tip 2011-35

Did you know that almost everything you own and use for personal or investment purposes is a capital asset? Capital assets include a home, household furnishings and stocks and bonds held in a personal account. When a capital asset is sold, the difference between the amount you paid for the asset and the amount you sold it for is a capital gain or capital loss.

Here are ten facts from the IRS about gains and losses and how they can affect your Federal income tax return.

1. Almost everything you own and use for personal purposes, pleasure or investment is a capital asset.

2. When you sell a capital asset, the difference between the amount you sell it for and your basis – which is usually what you paid for it – is a capital gain or a capital loss.

3. You must report all capital gains.

4. You may deduct capital losses only on investment property, not on property held for personal use.

5. Capital gains and losses are classified as long-term or short-term, depending on how long you hold the property before you sell it. If you hold it more than one year, your capital gain or loss is long-term. If you hold it one year or less, your capital gain or loss is short-term.

6. If you have long-term gains in excess of your long-term losses, you have a net capital gain to the extent your net long-term capital gain is more than your net short-term capital loss, if any.

7. The tax rates that apply to net capital gain are generally lower than the tax rates that apply to other income. For 2010, the maximum capital gains rate for most people is 15%. For lower-income individuals, the rate may be 0% on some or all of the net capital gain. Special types of net capital gain can be taxed at 25% or 28%.

8. If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income, such as wages, up to an annual limit of $3,000, or $1,500 if you are married filing separately.

9. If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.

10. Capital gains and losses are reported on Schedule D, Capital Gains and Losses, and then transferred to line 13 of Form 1040.

For more information about reporting capital gains and losses, see the Schedule D instructions, Publication 550, Investment Income and Expenses or Publication 17, Your Federal Income Tax. All forms and publications are available at http://www.irs.gov or by calling 800-TAX-FORM (800-829-3676).
No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Current Events, Tax Current Events and News, Tax planning

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)

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, IRS and state tax collections, Tax Current Events and News, Tax planning

Statutory glitch reduces portable estate tax exclusion for some surviving spouses

Thursday, March 31st, 2011 by Moore McLaughlin

Effective 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.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning, Tax Current Events and News, Tax planning

IRS explains how DC’s Emancipation Day can affect filing and payment deadlines

Monday, February 21st, 2011 by Moore McLaughlin

The 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).

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in 1031 Exchanges, Current Events, IRS and state tax collections, Tax Current Events and News, Tax planning

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.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Current Events, IRS and state tax collections, Tax Current Events and News, Tax planning

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »