Posts Tagged ‘real estate’

2012 American Taxpayer Relief Act — Overview

Friday, January 4th, 2013 by Moore McLaughlin

After weeks, indeed months of proposals and counter-proposals, seemingly endless negotiations and down-to-the-wire drama, Congress has passed legislation to avert the tax side of the so-called “fiscal cliff.” The American Taxpayer Relief Act permanently extends the Bush-era tax cuts for lower and moderate income taxpayers, permanently “patches” the alternative minimum tax (AMT), provides for a permanent 40 percent federal estate tax rate, renews many individual, business and energy tax extenders, and more. In one immediately noticeable effect, the American Taxpayer Relief Act does not extend the 2012 employee-side payroll tax holiday.

 

The American Taxpayer Relief Act is intended to bring some certainty to the Tax Code. At the same time, it sets stage for comprehensive tax reform, possibly in 2013.

 

Individuals

 

Unlike the two-year extension of the Bush-era tax cuts enacted in 2010, the debate in 2012 took place in a very different political and economic climate. If Congress did nothing, tax rates were scheduled to increase for all taxpayers at all income levels after 2012.  President Obama made it clear that he would veto any bill that extended the Bush-era tax cuts for higher income individuals. The President’s veto threat gained weight after his re-election.  Both the White House and the GOP realized that going over the fiscal cliff would jeopardize the economic recovery, and the American Taxpayer Relief Act is, for the moment, their best compromise.

 

Tax rates.  The American Taxpayer Relief Act extends permanently the Bush-era income tax rates for all taxpayers except for taxpayers with taxable income above certain thresholds:

$400,000 for single individuals, $450,000 for married couples filing joint returns, and $425,000 for heads of households.  For 2013 and beyond, the federal income tax rates are 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, 35, and 39.6 percent.  In comparison, the top rate before 2013 was 35 percent.  The IRS is expected to issue revised income tax withholding tables to reflect the 2013 rates as quickly as possible and provide guidance to employers and self-employed individuals.

 

Additionally, the new law revives the Pease limitation on itemized deductions and personal exemption phaseout (PEP) after 2012 for higher income individuals but at revised thresholds. The new thresholds for being subject to both the Pease limitation and PEP after 2012 are $300,000 for married couples and surviving spouses, $275,000 for heads of households, $250,000 for unmarried taxpayers; and $150,000 for married couples filing separate returns.

 

Capital gains.  The taxpayer-friendly Bush-era capital gains and dividend tax rates are modified by the American Taxpayer Relief Act. Generally, the new law increases the top rate for qualified capital gains and dividends to 20 percent (the Bush-era top rate was 15 percent). The 20 percent rate will apply to the extent that a taxpayer’s income exceeds the $400,000/$425,000/$450,000 thresholds discussed above. The 15 percent Bush-era tax rate will continue to apply to all other taxpayers (in some cases zero percent for qualified taxpayers within the 15-percent-or-lower income tax bracket).

 

Payroll tax cut.  The employee-side payroll tax holiday is not extended. Before 2013, the employee-share of OASDI taxes was reduced by two percentage points from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent up the Social Security wage base (with a similar tax break for self-employed individuals).  For 2013, two percent reduction is no longer available and the employee-share of OASDI taxes reverts to 6.2 percent. The employer-share of OASDI taxes remains at 6.2 percent. In 2012, the payroll tax holiday could save a taxpayer up to $2,202 (taxpayers earning at or above the Social Security wage base for 2012).  As a result of the expiration of the payroll tax holiday, everyone who receives a paycheck or self-employment income will see an increase in taxes in 2013.

 

AMT. In recent years, Congress routinely “patched” the AMT to prevent its encroachment on middle income taxpayers. The American Taxpayer Relief Act patches permanently the AMT by giving taxpayers higher exemption amounts and other targeted relief. This relief is available beginning in 2012 and going forward. The permanent patch is expected to provide some certainty to planning for the AMT. No single factor automatically triggers AMT liability but some common factors are itemized deductions for state and local income taxes; itemized deductions for miscellaneous expenditures, itemized deductions on home equity loan interest (not including interest on a loan to build, buy or improve a residence); and changes in income from installment sales. Our office can help you gauge if you may be liable for the AMT in 2013 or future years.

 

Child tax credit and related incentives.  The popular $1,000 child tax credit was scheduled to revert to $500 per qualifying child after 2012.  Additional enhancements to the child tax credit also were scheduled to expire after 2012.  The American Taxpayer Relief Act makes permanent the $1,000 child tax credit. Most of the Bush-era enhancements are also made permanent or extended. Along with the child tax credit, the new law makes permanent the enhanced adoption credit/and income exclusion; the enhanced child and dependent care credit and the Bush-era credit for employer-provided child care facilities and services.

 

Education incentives.  A number of popular education tax incentives are extended or made permanent by the American Taxpayer Relief Act.  The American Opportunity Tax Credit (an enhanced version of the Hope education credit) is extended through 2017.  Enhancements to Coverdell education savings accounts, such as the $2,000 maximum contribution, are made permanent.  The student loan interest deduction is made more attractive by the permanent suspension of its 60-month rules (which had been scheduled to return after 2012). The new law also extends permanently the exclusion from income and employment taxes of employer-provided education assistance up to $5,250 and the exclusion from income for certain military scholarship programs.  Additionally, the above-the-line higher education tuition deduction is extended through 2013 as is the teachers’ classroom expense deduction.

 

Charitable giving.  Congress has long used the tax laws to encourage charitable giving.  The American Taxpayer Relief Act extends a popular charitable giving incentive through 2013:  tax-free IRA distributions to charity by individuals age 70 ½ and older up to maximum of $100,000 for qualified taxpayer per year.  A special transition rule allows individuals to recharacterize distributions made in January 2013 as made on December 31, 2012.  The new law also extends for businesses the enhanced deduction for charitable contributions of food inventory.

 

Federal estate tax.  Few issues have complicated family wealth planning in recent years as has the federal estate tax.  Recent laws have changed the maximum estate tax rate multiple times. Most recently, the 2010 Taxpayer Relief Act set the maximum estate tax rate at 35 percent with an inflation-adjusted exclusion of $5 million for estates of decedents dying before 2013. Effective January 1, 2013, the maximum federal estate tax will rise to 40 percent, but will continue to apply an inflation-adjusted exclusion of $5 million. The new law also makes permanent portability between spouses and some Bush-era technical enhancements to the estate tax.

 

Businesses

 

The business tax incentives in the new law, while not receiving as much press as the individual tax provisions, are valuable. Two very popular incentives, bonus depreciation and small business expensing, are extended as are many business tax “extenders.”

 

Bonus depreciation/small business expensing.  The new law renews 50 percent bonus depreciation through 2013 (2014 in the case of certain longer period production property and transportation property). Code Sec. 179 small business expensing is also extended through 2013 with a generous $500,000 expensing allowance and a $2 million investment limit.  Without the new law, the expensing allowance was scheduled to plummet to $25,000 with a $200,000 investment limit.

 

Small business stock.  To encourage investment in small businesses, the tax laws in recent years have allowed noncorporate taxpayers to exclude a percentage of the gain realized from the sale or exchange of small business stock held for more than five years.  The American Taxpayer Relief Act extends the 100 percent exclusion from the sale or exchange of small business stock through 2013.

 

Tax extenders.  A host of business tax incentives are extended through 2013.  These include:

Research tax credit

Work Opportunity Tax Credit

New Markets Tax Credit

Employer wage credit for military reservists

Tax incentives for empowerment zones

Indian employment credit

Railroad track maintenance credit

Subpart F exceptions for active financing income

Look through rules for related controlled foreign corporation payments

 

Energy

 

For individuals and businesses, the new law extends some energy tax incentives.  The Code Sec. 25C, which rewards homeowners who make energy efficient improvements, with a tax credit is extended through 2013.  Businesses benefit from the extension of the Code Sec. 45 production tax credit for wind energy, credits for biofuels, credits for energy-efficient appliances, and many more.

 

Looking ahead

 

The negotiations and passage of the new law are likely a dress rehearsal for comprehensive tax reform during President Obama’s second term.  Both the President and the GOP have called for making the Tax Code more simple and fair for individuals and businesses.  The many proposals for tax reform include consolidation of the current individual income tax brackets, repeal of the AMT, moving the U.S. from a worldwide to territorial system of taxation, and a reduction in the corporate tax rate. Congress and the Obama administration also must tackle sequestration, which the American Taxpayer Relief Act delayed for two months. All this and more is expected to keep federal tax policy in the news in 2013.

Rhode Island: Amount of Homestead Exemption Protected From Attachment Increased

Wednesday, July 11th, 2012 by Moore McLaughlin

For Rhode Island property tax purposes, legislation is enacted that increases the amount of the homestead exemption protected from attachment from $300,000 to $500,000. The legislation provides that the exemption extends to an owner of a home or an individual who rightfully possesses the premises by lease, as a life tenant, or as a beneficiary of a revocable or irrevocable trust who occupies or intends to occupy the home as his or her principal residence. An exemption, freeze of tax rates and/or valuation granted to any individual created by a public law or municipal ordinance would not be affected by the transfer of an ownership interest in property if the transferor: (1) retains a life estate in the property; (2) transfers an ownership interest while leasing the property back, but only where the lessee was the owner of the property prior to the transfer to the lessor; or (3) transfers the property to a revocable or irrevocable living trust. The individual must reside in the property, and the individual or a trustee must be legally obligated to pay property tax on the property by contract, agreement, the terms of the trust instrument, or otherwise by law. These provisions are applicable to any such transfer, regardless of when the transfer is made. Effective June 21, 2012.

IRS Issues Tax Tips: Mortgage debt forgiveness

Wednesday, February 29th, 2012 by Moore McLaughlin

Mortgage Debt Forgiveness: 10 Key Points

Canceled debt is normally taxable to you, but there are exceptions. One of those exceptions is available to homeowners whose mortgage debt is partly or entirely forgiven during tax years 2007 through 2012.

The IRS would like you to know these 10 facts about Mortgage Debt Forgiveness:

1. Normally, debt forgiveness results in taxable income. However, under the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007, you may be able to exclude up to $2 million of debt forgiven on your principal residence.

2. The limit is $1 million for a married person filing a separate return.

3. You may exclude debt reduced through mortgage restructuring, as well as mortgage debt forgiven in a foreclosure.

4. To qualify, the debt must have been used to buy, build or substantially improve your principal residence and be secured by that residence.

5. Refinanced debt proceeds used for the purpose of substantially improving your principal residence also qualify for the exclusion.

6. Proceeds of refinanced debt used for other purposes – for example, to pay off credit card debt – do not qualify for the exclusion.

7. If you qualify, claim the special exclusion by filling out Form 982, Reduction of Tax Attributes Due to Discharge of Indebtedness, and attach it to your federal income tax return for the tax year in which the qualified debt was forgiven.

8. Debt forgiven on second homes, rental property, business property, credit cards or car loans does not qualify for the tax relief provision. In some cases, however, other tax relief provisions – such as insolvency – may be applicable. IRS Form 982 provides more details about these provisions.

9. If your debt is reduced or eliminated you normally will receive a year-end statement, Form 1099-C, Cancellation of Debt, from your lender. By law, this form must show the amount of debt forgiven and the fair market value of any property foreclosed.

10. Examine the Form 1099-C carefully. Notify the lender immediately if any of the information shown is incorrect. You should pay particular attention to the amount of debt forgiven in Box 2 as well as the value listed for your home in Box 7.

For more information about the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007, visit www.irs.gov . IRS Publication 4681, Canceled Debts, Foreclosures, Repossessions and Abandonments, is also an excellent resource.

You can also use the Interactive Tax Assistant available on the IRS website to determine if your cancelled debt is taxable. The ITA takes you through a series of questions and provides you with responses to tax law questions.

Finally, you may obtain copies of IRS publications and forms either by downloading them from www.irs.gov or by calling 800-TAX-FORM (800-829-3676).

2011 Tax Law Signed

Sunday, December 19th, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin

At about 3:50 p.m. on Friday, December 17, 2010, President Obama signed into law the “Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010.” This new law is a sweeping tax package that includes, among many other items, an extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for two years, estate tax relief, a two-year “patch” of the alternative minimum tax (AMT), a two-percentage-point cut in employee-paid payroll taxes and in self-employment tax for 2011, new incentives to invest in machinery and equipment, and a host of retroactively resuscitated and extended tax breaks for individuals and businesses. Here’s a look at the key elements of the package:

  • The current income tax rates will be retained for two years (2011 and 2012), with a top rate of 35% on ordinary income and 15% on qualified dividends and long-term capital gains.
  • Employees and self-employed workers will receive a reduction of two percentage points in Social Security payroll tax in 2011, bringing the rate down from 6.2% to 4.2% for employees, and from 12.4% to 10.4% for the self-employed.
  • A two-year AMT “patch” for 2010 and 2011 will keep the AMT exemption near current levels and allow personal credits to offset AMT. Without the patch, an estimated 21 million additional taxpayers would have owed AMT for 2010.
  • Key tax credits for working families that were enacted or expanded in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 will be retained. Specifically, the new law extends the $1,000 child tax credit and maintains its expanded refundability for two years, extends rules expanding the earned income credit for larger families and married couples, and extends the higher education tax credit (the American Opportunity tax credit) and its partial refundability for two years.
  • Businesses can write off 100% of their equipment and machinery purchases, effective for property placed in service after September 8, 2010 and through December 31, 2011. For property placed in service in 2012, the new law provides for 50% additional first-year depreciation.
  • Many of the “traditional” tax extenders are extended for two years, retroactively to 2010 and through the end of 2011. Among many others, the extended provisions include the election to take an itemized deduction for state and local general sales taxes in lieu of the itemized deduction for state and local income taxes; the $250 above-the-line deduction for certain expenses of elementary and secondary school teachers; and the research credit.
  • After a one-year hiatus, the estate tax will be reinstated for 2011 and 2012, with a top rate of 35%. The exemption amount will be $5 million per individual in 2011 and will be indexed to inflation in following years. Estates of people who died in 2010 can choose to follow either 2010′s or 2011′s rules.
  • Omitted from the new law: Repeal of a controversial expansion of Form 1099 reporting requirements.
  • Also not included: Extension of the Build America Bonds program, which permits state and localities to issue federally-subsidized municipal bonds.

Watch for upcoming posts containing more detail on this new law.  In the meantime, feel free to contact us with any questions you may have.

Additional IRS reporting to be required by real estate owners

Friday, September 24th, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin

On September 23, the House by a vote of 237 to 187 passed without change H.R. 5297, the Small Business Lending Funding Act, as approved by the Senate on September 16.President Obama is expected to sign the measure into law any day now. The tax title of this bill is the “Small Business Jobs Act of 2010” (the Act) but is generally referred to as the “2010 Small Business Act”  The name is a bit of a misnomer because the legislation carries many tax provisions affecting large as well as small businesses, plus changes that affect individuals, such as eased Roth IRA rules.

However, one of the most egregious portions of this new law will require persons receiving rental income from real property to file information returns to IRS and to service providers reporting payments of $600 or more during the year for rental property expenses. These new rules apply for payments beginning in 2011.  Exceptions are provided for individuals temporarily renting their principal residences (including active members of the military), taxpayers whose rental income does not exceed an IRS-determined minimal amount, and those for whom the reporting requirement would create a hardship (under IRS regulations).

In addition, the new tax law increases the penalties for those who fail to file these new forms with the IRS. For information returns required to be filed after December 31, 2010, the 2010 Small Business Act increases the penalties for failure to timely file information returns to IRS. The first-tier penalty increases from $15 to $30, and the calendar year maximum increases from $75,000 to $250,000. The second-tier penalty increases from $30 to $60, and the calendar year maximum increases from $150,000 to $500,000. The third-tier penalty increases from $50 to $100, and the calendar year maximum increases from $250,000 to $1,500,000. For small business filers, the calendar year maximum increases from $25,000 to $75,000 for the first-tier penalty, from $50,000 to $200,000 for the second-tier penalty, and from $100,000 to $500,000 for the third-tier penalty. The minimum penalty for each failure due to intentional disregard increases from $100 to $250.

The new law also increases the penalties for failure to furnish a payee statement. The penalty for failure to furnish a payee statement is revised to provide tiers and caps similar to those applicable to the penalty for failure to file the information return. A first-tier penalty will be $30, subject to a maximum of $250,000; the second-tier penalty will be $60 per statement, up to $500,000, and the third-tier penalty will be $100, up to a maximum of $1,500,000. Limitations will apply on penalties for small businesses and increased penalties for intentional disregard that parallel the penalty for failure to furnish information returns.

All of these changes are characterized as revenue raisers by Congress, inserted to pay for the other provisions.

Deduction denied to property developer where access to land was challenged in court

Thursday, July 1st, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin

The Tax Court has held in D.L. White Construction, Inc., TC Memo. 2010-141 that a corporation engaged in the business of residential real estate construction could not claim the cost of acquiring unimproved real estate as the cost of goods sold or alternatively deduct that amount as a Code Sec. 165(a) business loss where its easement to access the property through adjacent land was challenged in the courts.Real Estate Development

Background on cost of goods. In a manufacturing, merchandising, or mining business, gross income means total sales less the cost of goods sold, plus any income from investments and from incidental or outside operations or sources. (Reg. § 1.61-3(a)) The amount that a taxpayer claims as cost of goods sold is not subject to the limitations on deductions found in Code Sec. 162 (ordinary and necessary trade or business expense) and Code Sec. 274 (substantiation requirements). Rather, it is treated as a subtraction from gross sales to arrive at a qualifying business’ gross income. (Metra Chem Corp. (1987), 88 TC 654) As a general rule, where the production, purchase, or sale of merchandise of any kind (inventory) is an income-producing factor, inventory on hand at the beginning and end of the year is taken into account in computing the taxable income for the year. If a taxpayer must use an inventory, a taxpayer ordinarily is required to use the accrual method. (Reg. § 1.446-1 , Reg. § 1.471-1) Real property is not generally merchandise for purposes of inventory accounting. (W.C. & A.N. Miller Dev. Co. (1983), 81 TC 619)

Background on business loss deduction. Under Code Sec. 165(a), a taxpayer may deduct a loss sustained during the tax year and not compensated for by insurance or otherwise. To be allowable under Code Sec. 165(a) , the loss must be evidenced by a closed and completed transaction, fixed by identifiable events, and actually sustained during the tax year. If a taxpayer has a claim for reimbursement on which there’s a reasonable prospect of recovery, that “reimbursable” loss can’t be deducted until it’s reasonably certain the reimbursement will or will not be made. This may be ascertained by, among other things, settlement, adjudication or abandonment of the claim. (Code Sec. 165(a), Reg. § 1.165-1(d))

Facts. D.L. White Construction, Inc. (White Construction), is a C corporation that uses the cash method of accounting and a fiscal year ending on September 30. It’s in the business of residential real estate construction. During its 2002 tax year, it bought four parcels of adjoining land in northern Idaho (the Blossom Mountain property), totaling approximately 80 acres, for $290,000 ($90,000 of which was financed through a promissory note). It planned to build four homes on the Blossom Mountain property and sell the homes at a profit. However, to reach the Blossom Mountain property, White Construction used an access road that crossed an adjoining property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Akers. On January 10, 2002, the Akerses filed suit against White Construction in the Idaho district court for negligence and trespass and to quiet title.

White Construction filed its Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return, for the 2002 tax year. It included the $220,000 it spent on the Blossom Mountain property in its cost of goods sold. Although the Akerses’ lawsuit was still ongoing when it filed its Form 1120, White Construction claimed the $220,000 amount because it didn’t have legal access to the Blossom Mountain property and contended that the property was worthless.

The Blossom Mountain litigation was protracted. On January 3, 2003, the Idaho district court found that White Construction did not have a complete easement over the Akerses’ property, had trespassed, was negligent, and had engaged in malicious conduct. On April 1, 2004, the district court reheard the case, again finding against White Construction. This decision was appealed, and the Idaho Supreme Court remanded the case to the district court. On October 6, 2006, the district court again found against White Construction. This decision was appealed, and the case was once again remanded to the district court. On January 22, 2009, the Idaho Supreme Court withdrew its latest decision to remand, and, affirming the district court in part and vacating its judgment in part, once more remanded the case for further proceedings.

After the Idaho district court issued its April 1, 2004 decision, White Construction’s title company’s insurer issued White Construction a $200,000 check.

On audit of the 2002 tax year, IRS reduced White Construction’s cost of goods by $220,000. White Construction sought relief in court, where it acknowledged that its deduction for cost of goods sold might have been incorrect, but argued that it nevertheless should be able to deduct the $220,000 amount as a Code Sec. 165 business loss.

Decision on cost of goods argument. The Tax Court concluded that even if the Blossom Mountain property were properly classified as inventory, White Construction would not be entitled to include the cost of the property in its cost of goods sold.

After first noting the oddness of the fact that White Construction apparently used an inventory in its business even though it claimed to be a cash basis taxpayer, the Court assumed for the sake of argument that merchandise was an income-producing factor in its business and that it was required to use an inventory. That being the case, the Court concluded that White Construction failed to prove that the Blossom Mountain property was merchandise properly includable in calculating its cost of goods sold. White Construction also failed to prove that the Blossom Mountain property, even if properly classified as merchandise includable in inventory, should not have been included in closing inventory for purposes of calculating its cost of goods sold. White Construction continued to own the property on September 30, 2002, and failed to show that it was worthless as of that date.

Decision on business deduction argument. The Court found that White Construction failed to prove any of the elements for a deduction under Code Sec. 165. Its claimed loss for the Blossom Mountain property was not evidenced by a closed and completed transaction, fixed by identifiable events. As of the close of White Construction’s 2002 tax year, the Idaho district court had not issued its first opinion in the lawsuit-a lawsuit that the Court noted was still unresolved. Further, White Construction failed to show that the claimed loss was actually sustained during its 2002 tax year or in any other year. While contending that the Blossom Mountain property was worthless because there was not any access to the property, White Construction continued to own the property. There was no credible evidence that White Construction could not acquire access to the property in some other way or that the property had become worthless as of September 30, 2002. In addition, even if it did establish that it sustained a $220,000 loss with respect to the Blossom Mountain property during the tax year 2002, it still could not deduct the loss because it had a reasonable prospect of recovery as of the end of the year since it had a claim under its title insurance policy. Indeed, White Construction actually received reimbursement of $200,000 for its loss.

For more information about this case or tax planning for real estate developers, contact Moore McLaughlin, Esq. at MMcLaughlin@McLaughlinQuinn.com or by phone at 401-421-5115 ext. 212.

Tax consequences of debt discharge income

Sunday, February 14th, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin

Many financially distressed borrowers may have had some or all of their debts cancelled or forgiven by their lender last year. As tax time approaches, these individuals may not realize that they may have to report the canceled debt as income on their 2009 tax returns. McLaughlin & Quinn, LLC partners Moore McLaughlin, Esq., CPA and Thomas P. Quinn, Esq. are apprising existing and prospective clients of how discharged debts can trigger income unless one of numerous exceptions or exclusions applies.  Note that even if there is not an exception or exclusion in a given case, the taxable amount can be reduced if the amount reported from the lender can be shown to be incorrect.

In these troubled economic times, many financially distressed borrowers may have had some or all of their debt cancelled or forgiven by their lender last year. While such relief was no doubt welcome to people who received it, what they may not have realized is that debt forgiveness may have tax consequences. Specifically, debt forgiven in 2009 may have to be included as income on your 2009 return. However, not all canceled debts trigger taxable income. And, even if there is no exception or exclusion in a particular case, that may not be the last word. The tax bite may be reduced or eliminated if you can show that the amount reported by the lender is incorrect.Cancellation of debt

General rule. The tax laws specifically include income from the discharge of indebtedness in gross income. However, there are several exceptions to this rule. In addition, there are numerous exclusions from gross income for certain types of forgiven debts.

Exceptions. If the cancellation of debt by a private lender, such as a relative or friend, is intended as a gift, there is no income. Likewise, a debt cancelled by a private lender’s Last Will and Testament triggers no income to the borrower.

There is also an exception for certain student loans. For example, doctors, nurses, and teachers agreeing to serve in rural or low income areas in exchange for cancellation of their student loans will not have income from the cancellation if they meet certain conditions.

Also keep in mind that there is no income from cancellation of deductible debt. For example, if a lender cancels home mortgage interest that could have been claimed as an itemized deduction on Schedule A of Form 1040, there is no tax problem to contend with.

Price adjustment. There is no income if an individual purchases property and the seller later reduces the price. The purchaser’s basis (yardstick for measuring gain or loss on a later sale) in the property, however, is reduced by the amount of the purchase price adjustment.

Exclusions. In addition to the above exceptions, there are exclusions from the general rule for reporting canceled debt as income for:

  • discharge of debt through bankruptcy,
  • discharge of debt of an insolvent taxpayer,
  • discharge of qualified farm debt,
  • discharge of qualified real property business debt, and
  • discharge of qualified principal residence debt.

These exclusions are quite complicated and a detailed discussion of them is beyond the scope of this post. However, it is worth pointing out that the qualified principal residence debt exclusion applies where individuals restructure their acquisition debt on a principal residence, lose their principal residence in a foreclosure, or sell a principal residence in a short sale (where the sales proceeds are insufficient to pay off the mortgage and the lender cancels the balance). Also, the exclusions require certain tax attributes to be reduced and must be reported to the IRS on its Form 982.

Repurchased business debt. Income from certain repurchased business debt can be stretched out over several years. Although all of the deferred debt discharge income will eventually be recognized, you benefit from the deferral of tax to later years.

Form 1099-C, Cancellation of Debt. A taxpayer should receive a Form 1099-C from a federal government agency, financial institution, or credit union that forgives a debt of $600 or more. The amount of the canceled debt is shown in box 2. Any forgiven interest included in the amount of canceled debt in box 2 will also be shown in box 3. As noted above, if the interest would otherwise be deductible, it does not have to be included in income.

An individual who does not agree with the amount shown on Form 1099-C should contact the lender in writing and request it to issue a corrected Form 1099-C showing the proper amount of canceled debt. Even if the lender refuses to issue a corrected report, there still may be recourse if you have adequate documentation to show that the lender incorrectly reported the amount canceled.

If you had a debt forgiven last year, we can determine how it may affect your 2009 taxes, make sure you gain maximum advantage from any exception or exclusion that may apply, and guide you through various choices that may be available to you, depending on the specific circumstances of your situation. We also may be able to help you to resolve any discrepancy concerning the amount reported by the lender.

Contact Moore McLaughlin, Esq, CPA by e-mail at mmclaughlin@mclaughlinquinn.com or Thomas P. Quinn, Esq. by e-mail at tquinn@mclaughlinquinn.com, or either of them by phone at 401-421-5115.

Preparing for more permissive IRA-to-Roth-IRA conversion rules in 2010

Wednesday, August 12th, 2009 by Moore McLaughlin

2010 will be a pivotal one for retirement planning, as it will be the first year in which taxpayers will be able to convert funds in regular IRAs (as well as qualified plan funds) to Roth IRAs regardless of their income level. The tax attorneys at McLaughlin & Quinn, LLC are currently advising clients and CPAs on these new rules.  This new conversion option poses significant tax planning challenges and opportunities for 2009, 2010 and 2011. The following takes a look at the new conversion option, and explains how to prepare for it.

Conversions to Roth IRAs. For 2009, taxpayers (other than married persons filing separately) with modified adjusted gross income (AGI) of $100,000 or less may convert IRA-to-Roth Conversionamounts in a traditional IRA to amounts in a Roth IRA. Amounts from a SEP-IRA or a SIMPLE IRA also may be converted to a Roth IRA, but a conversion from a SIMPLE IRA may be made only after the 2-year period beginning on the date on which the taxpayer first participated in any SIMPLE IRA maintained by the taxpayer’s employer.

For purposes of conversions to Roth IRAs, AGI is defined as it is for traditional IRA purposes except that it does not include income resulting from the conversion from a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA. AGI-for purposes of determining conversion eligibility only-does not include any required minimum distribution from an IRA under Code Sec. 408(a)(6) and Code Sec. 408(b)(3).

(more…)

Self-Directed IRAs

Saturday, May 16th, 2009 by Moore McLaughlin

irafotolia_1775827_m_20204751_stdI recently attended a seminar sponsored by PENSCO, one of the leaders in self-directed IRA custodians. I was amazed at how many ways self-directed IRAs are being used. I knew about direct real estate investments and direct loans, but self-directed IRAs are being used for so much more.

A self-directed IRA is merely an IRA with the ability to invest in any types of qualified investment. Most IRAs have restrictions on the types of investments that are allowed. These restrictions are in place because the custodian of the IRA, for a variety of reasons, does not want to allow these alternative investments, even though the law clearly allows them.

The only restriction on the type of investment found in the law is that an IRA cannot invest in collectibles, life insurance or own stock of an S corporation. Other than that, it is wide open. People are investing in LLCs that buy leveraged real estate, run start-up companies and buy tax lien certificates.

Care must be taken to avoid so-called prohibited transactions and dealings with disqualified persons, but if these can be avoided, investors can realized enormous returns on thier investments, on an after-tax basis.

I will be writing more about self-directed IRAs in the near future in an attempt to spread the word. Like with 1031 exchanges a few years ago, a signficant number of professionals and investors are still not aware of this very powerful tool.