Friday, May 3, 2013

Are you a likely tax audit target? Sequester just might save you

Kay Bell for Don't Mess With Taxes writes: You'd think judging by the size of the check I had to write the U.S. Treasury this year, my tax audit risk would be zero.
Audit risk for our 2012 tax returnBut, according to my tax software, there's still a tiny bit of a chance that the Internal Revenue Service might have some questions about my 2012 filing.
The likely reason is that I'm anindependent contractor. So one of the attachments to my Form 1040 is Schedule C
In many cases, at least some of the income that is entered on the Profit or Loss From Business form isn't verified by a corresponding third-party document such as a 1099-MISC. So the IRS must trust the earnings amounts, as well as the deductions, that we sole proprietors enter on Schedule C. 
And the agency has made it clear that it doesn't really want to take our word for it. The IRS believes that Schedule C filers are major contributors to the tax gap, meaning tax personnel look more closely at these filings. Consider yourself warned.
Also, I work from home and I claim a home office deduction. That's not as big an audit red flag as it once was, but it's still another item that could be fudged.
Plus, the hubby and I itemize and we were able to swing an unusually large charitable contribution, and deduction, this year.
So IRS processors might take a little extra time with our 2012 return.
But I'm hopeful that the audit risk meter is right. I'm also banking on the fact that our itemized deductions fell within the average ranges for our income level.
What's the DIF? These average deduction amounts are officially known as the Discriminate Information Function, or DIF, that the IRS uses as a first cut in deciding whether to look more closely at a return.
Each tax return is compared to a computer model and is given a DIF score rating the probability that it contains inaccurate information. Essentially, if your return's itemized claims vary greatly from those of your fellow taxpayers, you're probably going to be asked to explain why.
Returns that earn a high DIF score are pulled and reviewed by actual IRS employees who decide whether substantial additional taxes can be collected, or at least assessed.
The IRS acknowledges the existence of the DIF system, but it won't disclose the actual numbers. The tax information publisher CCH, however, crunches numbers to come up with its own DIF version. The figures below are based on 2010 IRS data; remember, it takes a while for the agency to accumulate complete figures.
CCH notes that these figures are for illustrative purposes only. But they can give you an idea of where you might stand in the great tax audit possibility line.
And even if your Schedule A claims are a bit off, don't freak out. If your deduction is legitimate, take it. Just make sure you have the documentation to back it up.
So how do your numbers match up with CCH's estimates?
Sequester could limit audits: If you're now a bit concern that you might be hearing from an IRS examiner, you might have an unexpected anti-audit ally.
Yep, I'm talking the sequester.
The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse says that IRS audit rates already are down substantially in 2013, and that's without taking into account the effect of sequestration.
When furloughs close IRS doors for five, and maybe seven, days this summer, some of the work that won't get done is audits.
That's the assessment of both the acting and a former IRS commissioner.
"Without a change in the current budget environment, the American people will see erosion in our ability to serve them, and the federal government will see fewer receipts from our enforcement activities," Acting IRS Commissioner Steven T. Miller testified April 9 before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government.
Just in case you're not clear, "fewer receipts from our enforcement activities" means fewer audits.
Former IRS Commission Mark Everson confirmed that.
"Of course this has an impact on the number of audits," Everson told CNN Money. "If you have someone working on 20 audits, if they're not working as many days it's going to take longer to finish those and they're not starting new ones."
And that's the ultimate Catch-22. Sequester cuts spending. But by cutting IRS spending, it reduces the amount of money that the federal tax collector could be bringing in.
Thanks, again, Congress for nothing.
Posted on 8:06 AM | Categories:

How the ‘3 screen challenge’ taxes personal finance sites / Delivering acceptable Finance Web performance across three screens—desktop, tablet and smartphone: Freshbooks vs Outright vs Mint

Aaron Rudger, Web Performance Evangelist at Keynote writes for VentureBeat.com:  Editor’s note: Keynote Systems’ Startup Shootout Index provides some insight into the three-screen challenge now facing anyone with a web presence. It’s the first website performance index to measure load times and completion percentages on desktops, smartphones, and tablets simultaneously. VentureBeat is Keynote’s exclusive media partner, so we’ll be bringing you a fresh set of data from Keynote every month. Check out previous Startup Shootout results.

This month’s Keynote Startup Shootout Index continues to demonstrate that early-stage companies struggle to understand or address the challenges of delivering acceptable Web performance across three screens—desktop, tablet and smartphone. Across the Index, social networking companies offer the most robust performances across all three screens while social retailers lag behind.  With Tax Day just behind us, we thought we’d also look at performance across three screens for early-stage online tax and personal finance companies.

Keynote set up some custom testing for FreshbooksOutright, and Mint.com specifically to see how these sites performed in the run-up to April 15. We took home page measurement averages from April 1-16 and instead of measuring the smartphone and tablet experience over a 3G wireless connection (as we do for the regular the Startup Index), we assumed that most users would be looking up their tax-related financials over a high speed connection like Wi-Fi.
Here’s what we saw.

Freshbooks

On the desktop, Freshbooks clocked in at a respectable 1.85 seconds and 99.82% availability. On the iPhone it was 2.61 seconds, and 99.90% availability, and on the iPad 3.78 seconds and 99.93% availability. Not a bad overall performance at all, especially on the iPhone. Freshbooks actually redirects iPhone users to a unique smartphone-optimized site, which helps deliver great performance without compromising on content.

Outright

Outright does an acceptable job across all three screens. On the desktop, it’s running at 2.45 seconds and 99.94% availability. It’s a little slower on the iPhone and iPad at 4.57 seconds/99.73% availability and 4.59 seconds/99.76% availability respectively. This is despite the fact that Outright has implemented a responsive Web design for both the smartphone and tablet, as well as a “splash” or interstitial page encouraging first-time iPhone/iPad visitors to download their on-device app.

Mint

Mint offers a decent desktop performance – loading in 4.51 seconds with 99.78% availability—but still above the recommended threshold of three seconds. Performance suffers though on the smartphone and tablet, dropping to almost twice the time to a lengthy 9.91 seconds/99.69% availability and 9.89 seconds/99.59% availability respectively. Keynote research studies have found that most mobile Web users expect a mobile site to download in less than four seconds.

Conclusion

The challenges of optimizing your site for the three screens always poses a prioritization problem, but without such tailoring you can see vastly different levels of performance. Overall it looks as though Freshbooks appears to be paying the most attention to these differences, and is getting the best performance as a result.

As we compare these personal finance sites to the whole Keynote Startup Shootout Index, we see they fare better than social retail sites. Credit should be given to the personal finance sites for doing a better overall job of three-screen optimization.
To view the full range of Keynote Indices, visit here.

Keynote tests the sites in the index hourly and around the clock from four locations over the three largest U.S. wireless networks, emulating the browsers of three different devices. Data is collected from San Francisco and New York and then aggregated to provide an overall monthly average in terms of both performance and availability.
Posted on 8:05 AM | Categories:

Pro-rata rule and your IRA: Taxed twice?

Dan Moisand for MarketWatch.com writes: Managing income taxes is a critical part of planning for retirement. Sometimes, it can get tricky. This week I discuss a few ways the "pro-rata rule" can trip us up and I answer a reader question about getting some Social Security off an ex-spouse's earnings record.


Q. Having just read your article "Converting your 401(k) to a Roth,” I am concerned about my ability to contribute $6,500 to my nondeductible Traditional IRA and then immediately convert to my Roth with no tax consequences as I have done for several years. My income does not allow me to contribute directly to my Roth. Here is my question: Since I am more than 59 1/2. I wish to rollover $250k from my 401(k) to my traditional IRA. Does the pro-rata rule mean I will be taxed on my $6,500 even though it is already post-tax money? If so, does that $250k balance in my Traditional IRA doom me to the same efforts year after year after year? Thanks. — D.S.
A. I have two concerns here. First, I hope you have not had any other IRAs than what you described. If you have other non-Roth IRA accounts, a SIMPLE IRA, or a SEP-IRA, you have been underreporting the taxable income on your conversions and have underpaid your taxes. To understand why, one must understand the pro-rata rule.
There is no need to be concerned about taxing the $6,500 twice. Because the $6,500 has already been taxed, no taxes will be due on that again. However, the pro rata rule can prevent you from simply converting just the $6,500. When the pro rata rule applies, it will determine how much of the $6,500 can be used to reduce the taxable portion of a conversion and how much of the $6,500 remains for use to offset taxable distributions in the future.
To calculate how much of a conversion would be tax-free, step one is to determine the total of after tax contributions to all your IRA accounts, including SIMPLE IRAs, SEP IRAs, and traditional IRAs. You do not count amounts converted to a Roth. You should have been filing a Form 8606 to track these contributions.
In step two, you total the balances of all your IRA accounts, including SIMPLE IRAs, SEP IRAs, and traditional IRAs as of Dec. 31 of the year in which you make your conversion. Again, you do not count Roth IRAs. This is the source of my concern about underpayment of taxes.
Step three is to figure the ratio of the total of the after-tax contributions to the total balances of the IRAs is the percentage or pro rata amount of the conversion that is not taxed. Therefore, if you have owned the IRAs listed, those balances needed to be included in the calculation even if all the after-tax contributions only went into one IRA account.
Likewise, even without any other non-Roth IRAs, rolling the 401(k) to an IRA would have a profound effect. If you do not own any other non-Roth IRAs, contribute $6,500 on an after-tax basis to a traditional IRA, convert the $6,500 to a Roth, and rollover the $250,000 401(k) in the same tax year, the tax-free amount of the conversion is only $164.72 ($6,500/($6,500+$250,000). In future years, the remaining $6,335.28 becomes part of the calculation in step one above.
My second concern relates to the technique of making nondeductible contributions to a traditional IRA and immediately converting to a Roth. This so-called "backdoor Roth" has gained some popularity since the tax code changed allowing anyone, regardless of income, to convert money in a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA. I believe your approach to be unnecessarily aggressive.
There is no income limit for allowing nondeductible contributions to an IRA. Further, there is no income limit for allowing Roth conversions. So what's the issue? There is a little thing in the tax law called the "step transaction doctrine" which when invoked, treats a series of independent steps as a single action for tax purposes.
There are a few ways the IRS looks at a series of transactions but the one that could apply here is the "end result test.” Here the steps are viewed as predetermined steps toward an overall outcome that is not permitted. As you stated, you could not just contribute $6,500 into a Roth IRA, yet that is the end result from what you describe. While, I have yet to see any cases where the IRS invoked the step transaction doctrine, I think you may have some vulnerability.
There is some debate in the adviser community as to how a backdoor Roth could be implemented less aggressively. One common solution I hear is to put some time between the nondeductible contribution and the conversion. The suggestions range from a few days to months to waiting to convert until the tax year following the tax year of the contribution. Another common suggestion is to wait for the contribution to earn some interest so something is taxable upon the conversion. Congress lifted the income limitations that prevented high income taxpayers from converting because they wanted to generate revenue from the conversions. Your aggressive implementation isn't resulting in any taxes for Uncle Sam. Proceed with caution.
Q. I cannot receive Social Security (even though I have paid into it and am fully vested) due to my retiring with a state pension. My question is: can I claim any of my ex-wife's Social Security? I am 60 my ex is 56 and receives half my state pension. — F.D.
A. Generally, you can receive benefits on your ex-wife's record, even if she has remarried, if all of the following apply:
  • Your marriage lasted 10 years or longer,
  • You are unmarried,
  • You are age 62 or older,
  • Your ex-spouse is entitled to Social Security retirement or disability benefits (if she hasn't applied, but is qualified, you need to be divorced more than two years)
  • The benefit you are entitled to receive based on your own work is less than the benefit you would receive based on your ex-spouse's work.
However, since you aren't getting Social Security payment now due to your pension, it is likely that if you met all the above criteria, any benefits from your ex-spouse's record would similarly be subject to offset.
Posted on 8:05 AM | Categories:

Income Tax Planning: What Estate Planners Need to Know

The Estate Planning Law Group writes: The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (which became law on January 2, 2013) made permanent the temporary estate/gift/generation-skipping transfer tax exemptions established in December 2010, increased the rate on non-exempt estates/gifts/generation-skipping transfers to 40% and introduced substantial new income tax burdens on high income taxpayers and trusts. In addition, 2013 is the year in which both of the Medicare surtaxes of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (sometimes referred to as “Obamacare”) kick in. As a result, many wealth planning professionals will be doing more income tax planning, and estate tax planning will become less of a driving force.
In this edition of The Wealth Counselor, we will examine some of the new income tax provisions clients will face in 2013 and beyond and potential planning opportunities that remain in light of these provisions, as well as some different ideas to consider.
Classic Income Tax Planning
Classic strategies for income tax planning have long included:
* Maximize deductions
* Reduce ordinary income to achieve capital gain
* Invest to achieve tax exempt income
* Shift deductible expenses and income to other taxpayers
* Defer taxes to the future
* Offset taxable income with tax losses
With these new tax laws, some review and new approaches will need to be considered for non-grantor trusts and high income taxpayers.
* For high income taxpayers, the new tax law takes away part of each deduction. Up to 80% of a deduction can thus be eroded. This can make the timing of when to take deductions especially important.
* Under the new law and with the Obamacare surtaxes, capital gain and ordinary income rates have moved closer together.
* Delaying paying income taxes on earned income by funneling it into a 401(k) or into IRAs is not the automatic best choice anymore. For some clients, it may be better to recognize income now to achieve future tax-free growth (e.g., by doing a Roth conversion or paying life insurance premiums) since it does not appear that either federal or state income tax rates are likely to come down any time soon. For example, for Californians the top combined income tax rate now exceeds 54% and in New York City the combined total top rate for federal, state and city income tax exceeds 56%.
* Limited liability companies (LLCs) or other family entity/partnerships can be used to shift income from the founding generation to younger family members who are in lower tax brackets.
* Medical insurance is 100% deductible at the entity level but can be eroded by the 7.5% or 10% floor and the percentage reduction in deductions at the individual level.
* Long-term care and disability insurance premiums, too, are 100% deductible at the entity level but subject to up to 80% erosion at the individual level. Plus, entity plans for providing this kind of insurance can be discriminatory.
Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) Is Key
The application of the deduction limitation is determined by the taxpayer’s adjusted gross income (AGI), not taxable income. AGI is the last line on page one of the Form 1040 or 1041 tax return. It includes wages and salaries, capital gains, income from business entities that are reported on Schedule C, and income reported on K-1s and 1099s. The Medicare surtaxes application is determined by a slightly modified AGI (MAGI). AGI and MAGI can be driven up dramatically by a one-time event (such as the sale of a business, investment property or farmland), and can push a client who usually has average income to the highest tax rates and deduction limitations.
Individual Income Tax Rates
The new tax law made permanent individual income tax rates of 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35% for taxpayers with AGI at or below $450,000 for joint filers and $400,000 for single filers and non-grantor trusts with non-distributed income of less than $11,950. These thresholds are all indexed for inflation after 2013.
* The 39.6% rate applies above the income threshold amounts.
* The 3.8% Medicare surtax on investment income and the 0.9% Medicare surtax on earned income have a $250,000 joint/$200,000 single/$11,950 trust or estate MAGI threshold.
Planning Tip: There are different thresholds for head of household and married filing separately taxpayers.
Capital Gain and Dividend Rates
The new tax law made permanent individual capital gain and dividend tax rates of 15% maximum (0% for taxpayers in the 10% and 15% tax rate brackets) for taxpayers with AGI at or below $450,000 for joint filers and $400,000 for single filers.
* A new 20% rate applies to capital gains and dividends to the extent they plus other taxable income exceeds these AGI threshold amounts.
* The 3.8% Medicare Surtax applies on the lesser of (a) total investment income and (b) MAGI over $250,000 joint, $200,000 single and $11,950 trusts and estates.
Planning Tip: As with the income tax rates, there are different capital gains and dividend tax thresholds for unmarried head of household and married filing separately taxpayers.
Planning Tip: The increase in the top capital gain and dividend tax rate from 15% to 20% is a 5% increase in the tax rate, but results in a 33% increase in the amount of the tax. Adding in the 3.8% Medicare surtax bumps the combined tax rate to 23.8%. That is an 8.8% increase in the tax rate and a 59% increase in the amount of the tax.
Itemized Deductions Phase Out
At least as significant for high income taxpayers as the rate increases and surtaxes is the itemized deduction phase-out. For taxpayers with AGI over $300,000 joint ($250,000 single), itemized deductions are reduced by 3% of AGI over the threshold level, up to a maximum of 80%total reduction. The phase out applies to deductions other than medical expenses, investment interest expenses, casualty losses (which have severe restrictions) and gambling losses (which can only be offset against gambling income).
NOTE: Mortgage interest and charitable deductions are included in the phase out.
Planning Tip: As with the income, capital gains, and dividend tax rates, there are different phase-out thresholds for unmarried head of household and married filing separately taxpayers.
Planning Tip: The timing of the deduction now becomes more important for the high income taxpayer. A client may want to delay a substantial charitable gift to a year in which his AGI is lower in order to fully utilize the deduction.
Planning Tip: The itemized deduction phase out makes the direct IRA to charity transfer doubly important to eligible (i.e., over 70.5) high income taxpayers. Amounts so transferred do not increase AGI and are not subject to the itemized deduction phase-out.
Medical Expense Deduction Floor Increase
This is a change that affects all taxpayers who itemize deductions. The floor on deductibility of medical expenses has increased from 7.5% of AGI to 10% of AGI for taxpayers under age 65. For the others, the new floor takes effect starting in 2017. Previously, a family with $100,000 AGI would have to have medical expenses of more than $7,500 before being able to take any as an itemized deduction; now they would have to have more than $10,000.
Phase Out of Personal Exemptions
There’s good news and bad news about the personal exemption. The good news is that it is increased for 2013 from $3,800 to $3,900. The bad news is that, similar to the phase out of itemized deductions, personal exemptions are phased out if AGI is over the $300,000 joint ($250,000 single) threshold. The phase-out rate is 2%/$2,500 of above-threshold AGI.
Planning Tip: There are different thresholds and phase-out rates for unmarried head of household and married filing separately taxpayers.
Medicare Surtax on Investment Income
The Obamacare Medicare surtax on net investment income (NII) applies for tax years starting after December 31, 2012. The surtax is 3.8% of the lesser of (a) total NII; and (b) MAGI in excess of $200,000 for single filers, $250,000 for joint filers, $125,000 for married taxpayers filing separately and $11,950 for estates and trusts.
Planning Tip: Previously, investment (also called “passive”) income was taxed at a lower rate than earned or “active” income and could be offset against deductions on real estate. Examples of passive income would include payouts to a participant in an LLC who is not involved in management or to a former business owner who is now in a limited partner role.
Medicare Earned Income Surtax
There has been a lot of publicity about the 3.8% Medicare surtax, but it is not the only Medicare surtax in Obamacare. Obamacare also includes a 0.9% Medicare surtax on wages and self- employment income. This surtax is on the amount by which wages and self-employment income minus MAGI exceeds $200,000 for single filers, $250,000 for joint filers and $125,000 for married taxpayers filing separately. It, too, is effective for tax years starting after December 31, 2012.
Summary of Major Tax Rate and Deduction Changes for Ordinary Income
Thresholds                                                Single             Head             M file Joint         M file Sep
.9% Medicare Earned Income Surtax $200,000       $200,000    $250,000           $125,000
Phase Out of Deductions                        250,000         275,000       300,000            150,000
Personal Exemption Phase-out             250,000        275,000        300,000            150,000
39.6% Rate                                               400,000        425,000        450,000            225,000
Top Cumulative Marginal Rate                   43.4%             43.4%        43.4%                43.4%
Planning Tip: Remember that state and local income taxes are in addition to the federal income tax. These taxes, which can exceed 11%, are also subject to the itemized deduction phase out.
Planning Tip: Income tax planning does not focus on the client’s average tax rate, which is the cumulative effect of the various tax brackets and the combined deductions and credits. Tax planners look at the client’s highest marginal rate. Deductions that can be taken and income that can be deferred/offset/eliminated saves at the marginal rate. A lot of people think they are in a lower tax bracket than they actually are and are surprised to learn their marginal tax rate.
Summary of Tax Rates on Investment Income
Thresholds                                     Single        Head                 M File Joint               M File Sep
3.8% Medicare NII Surtax         $200,000 $200,000            $250,000               $125,000
Phase Out of  Deductions             250,000    275,000               300,000                150,000
Personal Exemption Phase Out  250,000      275,000               300,000                150,000
20% Capital Gains/Dividend       400,000    425,000               450,000                 225,000
Top Cumulative Marginal Rate    24.592%      24.592%                24.592%                24.592%
Income Tax Minimization Strategies for Non-Estate Tax Clients
* Charitable trust planning can create a partially taxable income stream for the philanthropic. Charitable remainder trusts are more attractive now with the higher capital gains tax rates, but some or all of the deduction may be lost due to deduction phase-out for high AGI taxpayers. Non-grantor charitable lead trusts can be more attractive for these taxpayers because the deduction is taken over the term of the charitable distributions rather than at the trust’s inception.
Annuities remain attractive for the right client in this environment. A 70-year-old client with a 16-year life expectancy can place $1 million into a single premium immediate annuity (SPIA) and receive about $70,000 a year in guaranteed cash flow. A good amount of this annuity’s cash flow income is tax-free because it is a return of the client’s own capital. For the rest, the income tax on the growth inside the annuity is deferred to the year in which the distribution is received, which can be after the client’s retirement. An annuity can be coupled with a life insurance contract held in an irrevocable life insurance trust to provide for the family in the event the client becomes incapacitated or does not live long enough to collect the full annuity payments.
The Alaska Community Property Trust provides a way for married taxpayers resident in any of the non-community-property states to get the double stepped-up basis on the first death that was formerly available only to residents of the 9 community property states. An Alaska community property trust can save a married couple a considerable amount in capital gain taxes. The right type of client for an Alaska community property trust has assets with high value and low basis and is in a long-term stable marriage.
Family income shifting through family entities. This was mentioned earlier in the classic strategies. If the client has enough money to live on, he can hire a family member to manage the assets in a family entity and shift income to someone in a lower tax bracket.
Installment sales of real estate and business assets or entities. Instead of taking a lump sum payout and increasing AGI greatly for one year, taking the payout over time will help to keep AGI at more reasonable levels.
Tax-free cash value and guaranteed growth of life insurance held in an accessible grantor retirement trust. Because growth in a life insurance policy is tax free if the policy is held to maturity and policy cash value growth is subject to a guarantee, life insurance is more and more often thought of as an asset class.
Remove or reduce IRA and 401(k) assets from owner and beneficiary income taxes. Eventually someone will have to pay the taxes on these tax-deferred assets, and the beneficiary may be in a higher tax bracket than the owner. Also, often the smallest tax to pay is the soonest tax to pay and instead of continuing to put money in, some clients may be better off to pay the taxes now and take money out or, better still, convert the account to a Roth.
Planning Tip: Use IRA annuitization combined with an ILIT. The client can buy a single premium annuity within an IRA (it’s part of the investment, not a distribution). The annuity then provides a guaranteed cash flow stream that can be distributed and used to make gifts to an ILIT to pay life insurance policy premiums. This can result in paying the least amount of income taxes and providing a greater benefit, especially in the case of the premature death of the insured.
Planning Tip: Use a retirement trust for maximum IRA stretch out over the beneficiary’s lifetime to save income taxes. Ideal is a beneficiary with the least amount of income (lowest tax rate) and longest life expectancy.
* Potential IRA/401(k) Roth conversions. Start timing these conversions to start sooner rather than later. Remember, it is better to pay a little tax now to avoid a larger tax later.
* Intra-family loans and sales. Money can be loaned or property sold for an installment note with 3 – 9 year rates as low as 1% in May 2013 (1.2% Section 7520 rate). This makes now an ideal time for intra-family loans and sales.
Planning Tip: Loans can go the other direction as well. A child with substantial income can loan money to a parent at the applicable federal rate instead of investing it, thereby lowering the child’s income tax rate.
Business Tax Extensions (Opportunities)
For clients who changed from a C Corporation to an S Corporation between 2003 and 2009 and have gain in real estate assets that are trapped in the C Corporation, 2013 is a great year in which to sell those assets. That is because for 2013 the S Corporation recognition holding period is reduced from 10 to 5 years. Carryforward and installment sale rules are also clarified.
Also, there is a 100% exclusion for capital gain from sale of qualified small business stock extended for stock acquired before January 1, 2014, if the stock was owned longer than five years. (The AMT preference rules also do not apply.)
Endangered Strategies
President Obama’s 2014 budget proposal released in April mentions several estate planning tax strategies, which puts them on the endangered list. While no action has been taken on the budget or any of the strategies yet, the fact that the President included them in his 2014 budget proposal gives us some insight into possible future estate tax changes.
* Grantor trusts still avoid estate tax, including intentionally defective grantor trusts (IDGTs) and irrevocable life insurance trusts (ILITs).
* Discounts are still allowed on non-business interests or for transfers to minority interests.
* The ten-year minimum term for grantor retained annuity trusts (GRATs) was not enacted. Two-year rolling GRATs remain available.
* No 90-year limit on the GST tax exemption was adopted. Dynasty trusts are still possible.
* Proposed $3.4 million limitation on 401(k)s and retirement plans.
Conclusion
With the enactment of the new Tax Act, income taxes have taken a sharp hike, deductions are being reduced, and everything hinges on adjusted gross income. The advisor who understands this is in a unique position to help clients reduce AGI and save taxes, and will be an invaluable member of the advisory team.
To comply with the U.S. Treasury regulations, we must inform you that (i) any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this newsletter was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of avoiding U.S. federal tax penalties that may be imposed on such person and (ii) each taxpayer should seek advice from their tax adviser based on the taxpayer’s particular circumstances.
Posted on 8:04 AM | Categories:

Softwarefit.com Announces Comprehensive Intacct vs NetSuite Software Comparison Paper

Softwarefit, a business helping companies choose CRM, ERP and marketing automation software, introduced a new comparison white paper on Intacct versus NetSuite. Both Intacct and NetSuite are market leaders in the world of cloud based accounting solutions.
In a time when increasing amounts of companies are seeking software as a service (SaaS), both Intacct and NetSuite are at the forefront of ERP software in the cloud. In Softwarefit’s whitepaper, they are evaluated individually and on their key differences.
Intacct boasts over 6,000 satisfied customers and has a long standing reputation of exceeding the expectations of their clients. Intacct provides specialized finance and accounting software that is needed to improve financial performance and business decisions. Intacct users are able to better handle the day to day operational issues and the complex challenges businesses encounter. Intacct is a cloud-based, award-winning finance and accounting software for a variety of diverse industries.
NetSuite, on the other hand, is the world's most deployed cloud ERP solution. It provides proven financial management and ERP that easily integrates with broader sales and service processes. NetSuite also combines both ERP and CRM into their solution, taking businesses beyond traditional accounting software by streamlining back-office processes equipping companies with the visibility needed to make more educated decisions efficiently.
Due to the nature of both software solutions, this white paper is useful for small, mid-sized and enterprise companies interested in learning more about cloud ERP. Both Intacct and NetSuite offer respected ERP solutions that make businesses financials more efficient and effective. To read the complete, feature for feature comparison of “Intacct vs. NetSuite”, click on the following link.
Softwarefit builds software comparison white papers from a neutral standpoint, seeking to highlight all the pros and cons of individual solutions on their merits with an un-biased approach. The site delivers a catalogue of comprehensive business software reviews for small, mid and enterprise sized companies. Softwarefit provides business people from around the world with a consultative, unbiased approach to the software selection process.
Softwarefit.com is packed with reviews of premier CRM software, ERP software and marketing automation software like Salesforce.com, Microsoft Dynamics CRM and Microsoft Great Plains, SAP, SugarCRM, HubSpot, Pardot, SalesFUSION, Net-Results, QuickBooks, Acumatica, SageCRM, Eloqua, SalesLogix, Oracle CRM On Demand, ACT!, and InBOX25.
To see other informative white papers that help in the software selection process, you can visit the resource center of the site here. Visitors to softwarefit.com can submit amazon style star reviews with their own comments of the products listed on the site - these reviews create an open source of discussion for current and future software users.
Posted on 8:04 AM | Categories:

QuickBooks Online Worth Considering, But Missing The Best Of Cloud Accounting

Slate Accounts in Australia writes: Intuit’s well regarded accounting software QuickBooks Online (QBO) is worth considering if you are looking at cloud accounting software and need some of its unique features. It has a built in inventory system which is very simple, but if sufficient, would be easier and cheaper than using Xero with an add-on. It also has purchase orders which can be important. The other clincher for QBO is that you can’t bring historical transactions when converting a QuickBooks Desktop file to Xero without manually re-entering them. Not surprisingly, you can automatically do this when converting from QuickBooks Desktop to QBO.
Apart from that, we’re still recommending Xero which is better on a number of fronts, at least for the time being.
In most respects QBO is great software, it’s serious and works well. There are a few functionality gaps when compared with Xero, for example, it doesn’t have bank rules, ABA files, integrated payroll or multiple invoice templates. But these aside, and more importantly, Xero has properly embraced the opportunities of cloud and it’s paying off, most obviously with two fundamental advantages:
  • Collaboration – Xero is better structured for collaboration, a major benefit of using cloud accounting software. Expense claims, the “discuss tab” and invoice approving are examples of where different people in a business process can get online and work together efficiently inside the accounting software. QBO just doesn’t have that feel to its design, and it’s pricing increases with more users, which discourages collaboration.
  • Partner integration – Xero appears far more future proof with its vast and growing network of add-on and integrated software partners offering everything from web site integration, project management, time billing, CRM, inventory and point of sale to reporting & analysis and consolidation. QBO had just four partners at last look.
Intuit have been working hard to build their Australian presence, with road shows and advertising nationally (though no local support as yet). As a software agnostic bookkeeping firm, we’re keen to see QBO develop and use it where it best solves problems for clients. With millions of QuickBooks desktop users globally, you’d think QBO has a strong future so we hope Intuit continues to develop and innovate for the benefit of businesses everywhere!
Posted on 8:03 AM | Categories:

IRS Tax consequences of renting your vacation home : Three scenarios

Norm Grill for the Fairfield Citizen writes: If you are thinking about renting out your vacation home, you need to be aware of the tax consequences. To find out what they are, we'll follow husband and wife Max and Erica as they meet with their financial adviser.
Three scenarios
Max and Erica's adviser said that whichever of three scenarios applies will determine the tax consequences of renting out their vacation property:
1. They use the home for 14 days or less or for less than 10 percent of the days during which the property is rented. The home will be considered a rental property. They'll have to report the rental income, but they may be allowed to deduct rental expenses, including depreciation, subject to the passive activity loss rules. They won't be able to deduct their personal portion of expenses against the rental income, although they may be able to take an itemized deduction for certain personal expenses.
2. They use the home for more than 14 days or for 10 percent or more of the days during which it's rented and rent it for 15 days or more. The property will be considered a personal residence. The couple will have to report the rental income, although they could still take itemized deductions for their personal portion of mortgage interest and property taxes, and, perhaps, other expenses.
They may also still deduct the rental portion of their expenses up to the amount of their rental income. If rental expenses exceed their rental income, however, they cannot deduct the loss against other income. They can, however, carry forward the excess rental expenses.
3. They rent out the home for less than 15 days. They won't have to report any rental income. But they won't be able to deduct any rental expenses, either.
Strict distinction
Their adviser warned that the IRS draws strict distinctions between personal use and rental use.
Any time spent by Max and Erica, their children, other relatives, home exchange partners or anyone who doesn't pay fair-market rent will count as personal use. There is an exception for full days spent on repairs and maintenance. Even if family members pay fair-market rent, the IRS will likely deem it personal use.
Meticulous planning
This is not intended as specific advice to anyone. Each situation is different. Always discuss important financial decisions with a qualified adviser before taking any actions.
Posted on 8:02 AM | Categories:

Wealth Planning Across the Ages / How to minimize the “kiddie tax” impact

John Napolitano for Wealth Management writes:  For every action, there’s an equal and opposite reaction–This is a well-established law of physics that seems to have strong applicability within the realm of tax planning with wealth management aims. One excellent example of this can be found in the so-called “kiddie tax,” which essentially was set in reaction to a common tax reduction strategy among high-net-worth (HNW) families of shifting investment assets into one’s children’s names to pay less in taxes.
Under the kiddie tax rules, children under age 20 and full time students living with the parents will pay income taxes at the parents highest marginal tax bracket on all unearned income above $2,000 in 2013.  This tax rule isn’t new–it was first created during the 1980s–but it has even greater impact under the higher rates we all will pay on unearned income and capital gains starting this year.
Unearned Income
First and foremost, let’s clarify the facts: Unearned income includes any type of investment income, whether from banks, equities, debt or real estate.  On the first $1,900 in 2012 and $2,000 in 2013, these children will pay taxes at their own, presumably lower tax bracket.  But for any unearned amounts in excess of the threshold amounts, the tax due will be calculated at the parents’ top marginal tax bracket.  That could be as high as 44 percent in 2013.  Any income the child in question earns from employment will be taxed at the normal income tax rate for that child.
Minimizing the Tax
The central question for HNW families and their wealth advisors is:  How do you minimize or avoid altogether the so-called kiddie tax?
The Internal Revenue Service tends to be one of the organs of the federal government that’s very effective at its roles and responsibilities, and predictably, avoiding or minimizing the kiddie tax is indeed very difficult.  That said, there are a few strategies HNW families and their advisors may wish to consider:
·       Work within the numbers.  The first and simplest tactic is to make sure that the unearned income that each child receives doesn’t exceed $1,900.  Advise HNW families to do this by assiduously tracking the dollar value of assets given to their children each year and strictly limiting gifts to children to those assets that are non-interest bearing or dividend paying.  There are plenty of securities that don’t pay dividends and plenty of other asset classes.  These include raw land, which creates no income.  Using the example of non-income generating raw land, the underlying reasoning here is that any possible future appreciation may be taken in the form of lower taxed gains on the child’s return up to $2,000, while under the age limit.  After the age limit, the child can sell whatever he wants and pay at his own rate.
·       Create 529 savings accounts.  If the assets to be gifted are for future college expenses, consider the use of a 529 savings account.  In these accounts, all gains and income are tax-deferred and then tax-free, if used to pay for qualified educational expenses.  A further benefit of the 529 account is that the grantor can control the assets, leaving the child as the beneficiary, but not in control of the assets.  In short, there’s added reassurance that assets being gifted will be utilized strictly for the designated purposes.1
·       Purchase U.S. savings Bonds.  They may sound unexciting, but U. S. savings bonds may have a similar tax benefit.  The income tax on the interest from U. S. savings bonds can be deferred until the bonds are redeemed.  If the redemption occurs after the age threshold is reached, the bonds can be cashed in at the adult child’s own tax bracket.  Of course, currently there’s the issue of nearly non-existent interest rate returns.  One solution would be a tax-deferredannuity.  But that poses other problems, such as a penalty for withdrawals prior to age 59½.2
Trusts
Ultimately, all the wealth transfer tactics in the world can’t supersede the importance of being aware of the risk of having assets in a child’s name:  When that child reaches age 18 or 21, he’s free to do what he wants with the money.  Obviously, this may be too tempting for some children to pass up, and care should be taken to protect the assets from poor judgment and bad behavior.  Under these circumstances, HNW families should strongly consider the use of a trust with the parent or some other mature individual as the trustee.  That way, the parent controls the flow of the money and the associated tax consequences of any distributions to the child.
The type of trust to use would be one in which the grantor –grandpa or mom, for instance – controls the assets with the child as the beneficiary.  This allows the trustee to balance the intricate blend of trust assets.  The trustee will coordinate investment, spending, tax savings, and avoiding the kiddie tax will be a priority as needed throughout the life of the trust.
Blocking and tackling around taxes through transfers of assets between family generations can be an effective strategy.  But, as with all tax planning tactics that are geared around wealth management goals, it’s important to take a conservative approach and emphasize control and discipline in all that you do.
Endnotes
1. Prior to investing in a 529 plan, investors should consider whether the investor’s or designated beneficiary’s home state offers any state tax or other benefits that are only available for investments in such state’s qualified tuition program.  Tax treatment at the state level may vary.
2. Annuities are long-term investment vehicles designed for retirement purposes.  Gains from tax-deferred investments are taxable as ordinary income upon withdrawal.  Guarantees are based on the claims paying ability of the issuing company. Surrender charges may apply.
Posted on 8:02 AM | Categories:

The Smartest Thing I Ever Did Was Tap Into My Retirement Savings Early

Jim BlankenshipCredit.com/Business Insider writes: We're taught to think of retirement savings as a source of last resort -- money that we shouldn't touch until all other resources have been used up.
However, given the way the tax rules work in combination with the nature of Social Security benefits, it can often be in your best interest to use your retirement savings (IRAs, 401(k) accounts, and the like) to allow you to delay and maximize your Social Security benefits. Below is a version of a situation that I recently worked through with a client.
Tom, age 60 and recently retired, was in a unique position. He plans to relocate to New Mexico in retirement, and will be purchasing a home there. Tom has a pension of $18,000 with no cost of living adjustments and his needs for income (beyond housing purchase) will be $30,000 per year. Tom's Social Security benefit is estimated at $12,000 per year if he delays taking the benefit until full retirement age, or $9,000 if he starts at age 62. Delaying his Social Security to age 70 would result in a total benefit of $15,840 per year.
Although Tom hasn't picked out a home in New Mexico, he's anticipating that the new home will cost something on the order of $200,000, with a mortgage of approximately $180,000. He's planning to maintain his home in Ohio, in order to have a place to stay when he visits family, which will be a regular occurrence.
Tom's Original Plan
Tom also has an IRA worth $300,000. His plan has always been to use the IRA when necessary for living expenses, and pass along the remainder of the account, if any, to his siblings. With the above facts, here's what Tom had originally planned:
Tom takes out a mortgage on his new home in the amount of $180,000. He can get a 25-year mortgage at a rate of approximately 3.5%, which would add approximately $10,813 to his annual expenses for the payments. Since he doesn't have a large enough income from his pension to cover his other living expenses, he'll need to augment the pension with disbursements from his IRA, in the amount of $12,000. When you add the cost of the mortgage, he will need to withdraw a total of $22,813 from his IRA each year. When Tom reaches age 62 he will file for Social Security, and he can reduce the amount of his IRA disbursements annually by the $9,000 that his Social Security benefit replaces.
The Updated Plan
A much better result can be found for Tom if he takes a different tack -- one that sees his IRA as more expendable and which maximizes the Social Security benefit that he'll receive, while at the same time reducing his interest costs for the mortgage. This is a dramatic departure from conventional wisdom -- shortening the length of a very low-cost mortgage, and using IRA funds in a much quicker fashion.
We'll see a bit later that the mortgage and the IRA aren't the critical components -- this updated plan is a much more tax-efficient use of the available resources. Here's how the numbers play out for this option:
Tom can take out a 10-year mortgage on his home, at a cost of approximately 2.5%, which results in payments of $20,362 per year. Again, since he can't cover his total living expense requirement with his pension, Tom must augment his income with IRA withdrawals to cover both the expenses and his mortgage payment, so he'll need to withdraw approximately $32,362 from his IRA each year. In addition, Tom will delay filing for his Social Security benefit in order to maximize it -- he won't file for benefits until age 70, for a benefit of $15,840 per year.
The Results
So -- if we assume that the IRA grows by a rate of 5% per year, at the end of ten years when Tom is 70, using the first method he will (upon reaching 70½) have to take Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs) from the IRA that are larger than his needs. His IRA will have a balance of roughly $287,665, and the first RMD would be almost $17,000, when he only needs $13,813. This excessive withdrawal requirement will be fully taxed as ordinary income; he can invest the remainder in a taxable account (if there is any after taxes).
Using the second method, Tom's IRA is down to $81,618 by age 70½, so his RMD is much, much smaller, approximately $3,961. On top of that, he has now paid off his mortgage, so the only amount he needs for expenses is the $30,000. With his pension and the maximized Social Security he has $33,840 coming in, so he has an excess of $7,801 ($3,840 Social Security and $3,961 from his IRA), which he uses to pay his income taxes and invests the remainder in a taxable account.
But here's the really cool part -- because Tom's RMD is so small, it keeps a large portion of his income at very low tax rates, and much of his Social Security is not taxed at all! Under the current rules, only approximately $2,440 of his benefit is taxed, and that portion is only 50% taxed. As a result, Tom's total income is only 65% taxed -- and his effective tax rate is 2.76%. Under the original plan, more than two-thirds of Tom's Social Security benefit is taxed, and his effective tax rate is 7.65% at that stage. Plus, he still has 15 more years of interest to pay on his mortgage!
The favorable tax treatment of Tom's Social Security benefit continues throughout his life -- at this stage he'll wind up paying something around or less than 3% in income tax for the rest of his life. On the other hand, since the first plan resulted in a much larger amount of his reduced Social Security benefit being taxed, and the preserved IRA forces him to recognize additional income that he doesn't need (but is taxed on, nonetheless!), he will continue to pay taxes at effective rates ranging up to approximately 8.7% for the rest of his life. This doesn't even address the additional interest he's paying over the additional 15 years (at a higher rate) for the longer-term mortgage.
The Takeaway
With some shrewd planning, Tom winds up paying $60,000 less in interest, $22,000 less in income taxes, and still has $245,000 left in the combination of his IRA and his taxable account at age 85. By comparison, after paying the additional taxes and interest, Tom would have approximately $251,000 in his IRA at age 85 -- and in both cases his home is now paid off. The difference is that his future income will continue to be taxed at nearly triple the rate under the original plan as it is with the revised plan. Tom can enjoy his paid-off home much earlier, and at the same time enjoy nearly tax-free income, and still leave a legacy for his siblings.
Note: the cost-of-living adjustments (inflation and Social Security COLAs) have not been factored in the calculations above. In addition, only the current tax tables (2013) were used for projecting taxation, and the current rules for Social Security benefit taxation have been used. This was done to keep from confusing the process and to preserve clarity. The primary place that inflation, COLAs and tax rates would impact the calculations is in the amount of taxation of the Social Security benefit, but the expectation is that inflation, COLAs and tax tables will increase in tandem, more or less at the same rates over time. The affect is that the second method would still result in lower costs of interest and lower taxes in the long run, but the future numbers are bound to be different from the projections.
Posted on 8:01 AM | Categories: