Saturday, May 18, 2013

The Best Online Cloud Accounting Software Programs

Robert Farrington writes: A look at the best online cloud accounting software programs from http://www.entrepreneurshiplife.com. It includes brief reviews of QuickBooks Online, Kashoo, FreshBooks, Outright, Xero, Bean Cruncher, and Wave Accounting. If you're considering moving your business to the web, check out these cloud-based solutions.  Slide Show Below.
Slide Show Above, Presentation Transcript Below

  • 1. The Best Online Cloud-BasedAccounting Softwarehttp://www.entrepreneurshiplife.com
  • 2. Why Cloud-Based Accounting?• More companies are mobile – especiallyentrepreneurs and solopreneurs• Allows access to key company metricsanywhere• Many options allow mobile paymentprocessing• Syncing across multiple devices – desktop,laptop, tablet, phone
  • 3. QuickBooks OnlinePositives• Most robust onlineaccounting software• Solid payroll integration• Lots of additional add-onapplications (CRM, etc.)• Intuit – Industry leadingcompanyDrawbacks• Price: Cheapest optionstarts at $12.95/mo, or$155 per year. Cheapestoption with payroll is$63/mo
  • 4. FreshbooksPositives• Great online invoicingfeatures• Full accounting andpayment processingintegrated• Allows collaboration forteams• Automatically downloadsbank transactionsDrawbacks• Pricing is based on numberof clients – free versionallows 3 clients, up to 25clients is $19.95/mo, thenunlimited clients at$29.95/mo• Difficult to use for someorganizations due toreliance on invoicing
  • 5. KashooPositives• Automation – mostautomated of the onlinecloud accounting programs,in terms of downloadingform your bank• One of the best “free” levelsof accounting software• Native iPad and iPhone appsDrawbacks• No invoicing• Paid level for the “goodstuff” starts at $10/mo andpayroll processing at$20/mo• No built-in paymentprocessing
  • 6. OutrightPositives• Great automation (verysimilar to Kashoo)• Free option is very robust• Best pricing of thecompanies for paid optionsDrawbacks• Limits reporting to the paidoption (beyond basic profit& loss statements)• Pricing: $9.95/mo – but it istheir only level• No payroll or paymentprocessing
  • 7. Bean CruncherPositives• Newest Option – Learnsfrom other competitors• Solid, fast interface• Main dashboard isincredibly useful• Very robust accountingfeatures and reportingDrawbacks• Lack of integrated paymentprocessing and payroll• Price based on customers -$19 for up to 150customers, $39 for 500customers, and $99 forunlimited
  • 8. Xero Online AccountingPositives• This is the most comparableto QuickBooks (evendesktop Quickbooks)• Add-on features like CRM• Integration withaccountants andbookkeepers• Excellent training programs• Native apps for iPhone andAndroidDrawbacks• No built-in paymentprocessing• Price: $19 for 5 invoices permonth, $29 for 100s ofinvoices, and a multi-currency edition for $39
  • 9. Top Pick: Wave AccountingPositives• Free• Robust options, includinginvoicing• Built-in payment processingat a flat 2.9%• Automatic accountdownloads and integrationDrawbacks• Sometimes slow userinterface• Would like to see morereporting options
Posted on 6:24 AM | Categories:

How to tell if the IRS is eyeing you

Kelley Holland, CNBC / WRCB TV writes:  You consider yourself a law abiding citizen, and you are not starting a non-profit organization with conservative ties.  Even so, you may be a candidate for a tax audit—and you may have no clue what you have done to warrant the attention of the IRS.

The nation's tax collectors have long made it a practice to look for discrepancies, omissions and suspicious activity to uncover tax evasion and fraud. And lately, the IRS has expanded its monitoring to include social media.

The agency now keeps an eye out for online discussions about nonpayment or underpayment of taxes, and even sale prices of goods on sites like eBay that don't match what taxpayers report.

In a world where companies like Amazon can keep tabs on consumers' online activities, the shift by the IRS is reasonable, says Edward Zelinsky, a law professor at Cardozo Law School. "This was always known to people in the tax community that the IRS, like everybody else in the 21st century, was monitoring online."

But Zelinsky is just one expert concerned about the lack of transparency around the IRS' practices. The agency "is so secretive about what is going on that really erodes public confidence," he said.

The American Civil Liberties Union has also expressed qualms about IRS secrecy. That group filed a Freedom of Information Act request for documents explaining whether the IRS always obtains search warrants to read email and other electronic communications. "Unfortunately, while the documents we have obtained do not answer this question point blank, they suggest otherwise," wrote Nathan Freed Wessler, a staff attorney at the ACLU.

So how can you know if you are under scrutiny? You can't know exactly, but some moves are more likely than others to attract attention.

Noncash deductions are a prime example, according to several tax experts. If you donate a car to the American Lung Association, or a large quantity of clothing to the Salvation Army, make sure that the deduction you take is reasonable, and that you can document how you came to that amount.

Taxpayers who are self employed often appear to face more scrutiny as well. "If you are in business for yourself, or you work for someone who is, know that the IRS is watching," Frederick W. Dailey III, a tax lawyer and the author of "Stand Up to the IRS," said on his website.

The IRS also keeps an eye out for cash-based businesses, and for mismatches between what others file about you and what you file. For example, if you neglect to include a payment for some freelance work during the year, and the payer reports that as a business expense, you are likely to get some scrutiny. This would also hold true if you neglect to report gains from an investment account, and the investment firm reports them.

Wealthier taxpayers seem to be more likely to get chosen for audit, perhaps because that gives the IRS a greater chance to recover significant sums. (Every year the government collects only about 83 percent of what it is owed, a gap of several hundred billion dollars at a time when the budget deficit is a flashpoint.)

According to IRS data, taxpayers making $1 million or more are more than 12 times more likely than the rest of the population to be examined. In 2010, about one in 100 Americans were audited. The IRS audited 3.8 percent of returns for those making $200,000 or higher, versus 12.5 percent of returns for those making $1 million or more.

As for the online monitoring, Zelinsky says it may be simply the application of new tools to old agency search standards. So while he is deeply frustrated by the IRS' lack of transparency, he added, "If they are using social media to find cash based businesses, or looking for phony medical deductions or the other hot buttons, then I would applaud that."

There is no surefire way to prevent an audit. But experts say one practice definitely improves your odds: Don't do what the IRS does. Be open. About everything.

The agency declined to comment about this story.
Posted on 6:24 AM | Categories:

Financial Advice, Served Rare / Are You Rich Enough for a Family Office?

Now many family offices are courting the merely rich.
The price of admission is still steep, and having your own personal chief financial officer doesn't come cheap. But the help is worth considering.
Single-family offices gained popularity in the 1800s to manage the burgeoning fortunes of tycoons such as the Rockefellers. The offices offer many of the same services as top-tier private banks and wealth managers but are devoted to a single family.
The attention can cost $1 million or more per year, industry experts say, meaning family offices make financial sense mainly for families with at least $100 million in assets. There are about 5,000 such households in the U.S., according to the Family Wealth Alliance, a research and consulting firm in Wheaton, Ill, and Wealth-X, a wealth-research firm based in Singapore.
By contrast, there are about 100,000 households in the U.S. with between $5 million and $10 million in investible assets, says Tom Livergood, founder and chief executive of the Family Wealth Alliance. The figure is expected to grow, he says. Entrepreneurial wealth managers are starting "multifamily" offices, which handle a handful to hundreds of families as clients.

"Even though I may have had an interest in investments, I don't have time to think about it," says Bernard Morrey, an emeritus orthopedics professor at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. "You can't be an expert in very many disparate professions."
Dr. Morrey is a client of Abernathy Group II Family Office in New York, which grew out of a hedge fund and targets families with at least $5 million to invest. He says that working with a family office "is so important if you want to have a reasonable return on your assets. Their first role is to protect your assets, and then to grow them."
Most multifamily offices are open to clients with at least $20 million to invest, but the average client has $40 million to $50 million, says Mr. Livergood.
Some firms are using economies of scale to make a profit from less-wealthy families. More than a third of the multifamily offices in a survey released Monday by Mr. Livergood's firm have started marketing a specific set of services to a broader clientele. Those clients typically have $5 million to $10 million in investible assets.
Does your family qualify for a family office? Or would the sale of a business, inheritance or other windfall push you into that category?
Here's what you need to know.
Is It Worth It?
Sharing high-end wealth management services with other families can cost 0.25% to 1% of assets each year per family. There is usually a sliding scale, with families having more than $200 million in assets generally getting the lowest fees, says Carol Pepper, CEO and founder of multifamily office Pepper International in New York. Fees often include consolidated financial reports and investment management, but some firms charge more for estate planning.
For offices making overtures to those with fewer than $10 million, fees range between 0.75% and 1%, industry experts say.
On top of the basic fee, clients usually pay separate fees to outside fund managers or for any legal or accounting work done by an outside firm. Family offices will also generally accommodate any outside professionals a new client wants to keep, says Loraine Tsavaris, a managing director at Rockefeller & Co., a multifamily office in New York that also serves institutions and grew out of the original Rockefeller family office.
Clients of multifamily offices also pay less for staff salaries and other overhead by sharing the costs with other clients, says Michael Jacoby, a managing director atDeutsche Bank's DB +3.84% asset and wealth-management unit.
Family offices often can get the discounted fees charged to pension funds and endowments, Ms. Pepper says.
Jonathan Bergman, a managing director at TAG Associates, a multifamily office in New York with $7 billion in assets, says he negotiated a 19% decrease in the fee for clients investing in separately managed accounts.
Besides providing investment advice, family offices can provide a benefit that is tough to quantify: fostering family harmony by creating better communication among relatives. "I like that we provide an outlet for our clients where they don't have to be the bad guy," says Brian Luster, co-founder of Abernathy.
For example, instead of a father having to tell his son with a trust fund that he won't get his inheritance unless he graduates from college, "we can help educate the children that this is the way the trust works, and if you don't meet the expectations, you're not going to get the distribution," Mr. Luster says.

Communication is critical with these families because their wealth is so interconnected, says Stephen Campbell, managing director and head of the North America Family Office Group at Citi Private Bank, a unit of Citigroup C +1.66% . Communication between generations, family education and conflict resolution can help to preserve wealth, he says.
Research by Roy Williams and Vic Preisser, consultants who have studied thousands of family wealth transfers, shows that family wealth often peters out by the third generation.
But with family offices varying in so many respects, comparisons can be tricky. "If you've seen one family office, you've seen one family office," says Evan Jehle, a principal in the family-office group at accounting firm Rothstein Kass.
Who's Signing Up
Multifamily firms are proliferating, and they are grabbing more money to manage. Their numbers have increased by 33% in the past five years to more than 4,000 in the U.S., says Richard C. Wilson, chief executive of Family Offices Group, a trade group in Portland, Ore.
Assets under advisement at the 51 multifamily offices surveyed by the Family Wealth Alliance totaled $377 billion at the end of 2011, up 9.6% from a year earlier. Those assets account for three-quarters of the entire multifamily office industry, which handles some $450 billion in all.
Demand spiked for better investment advice and coordination of assets after the financial crisis, says Bob Moser, president and CEO of Laird Norton Wealth Management, a multifamily office based in Seattle with about $4 billion under management.
There has been more interest in multifamily offices from families selling their businesses. Katherine Lintz, founder of Matter Family Office, which has $3 billion in assets, says 40% of the St. Louis firm's clients have privately owned businesses. More than half of the firm's asset growth in the past five years has come from families who have sold all or part of their business.
The offices also are attractive because the professionals who run them often are paid by the families themselves, so there is no incentive for them to push products, says Mr. Bergman of TAG Associates. (Offices typically contract with banks and investment firms to provide deposit and trading services but aren't paid commissions.)
Families looking for a multifamily office should make sure to find out how employees earn their money.
A family office "provides you with unadulterated risk-benefit analysis for any question you have about your assets," says Dr. Morrey. "They don't bother you and say, 'We've got this great opportunity.' "
Weighing the Benefits
If you have $5 million in assets to invest, is the expense of a family office worth it? The answer depends on what services your family wants most.
Some firms have slimmed down to the basics. Threshold Group, a multifamily office in Gig Harbor, Wash., with $3 billion in assets under management, introduced in October a service level aimed at families with $5 million to $50 million in assets to invest. Threshold had previously catered mainly to families above that level, says its president, Ed Lazar, but wanted to build relationships with clients who could potentially increase their wealth by selling a family business or investing well.
The new offering focuses on investment advice and financial planning. What isn't included: bill paying, family-governance oversight and administrative work, which family offices traditionally provide.
But if you shop around, you might get just as much service despite your smaller net worth.
Abernathy, for example, offers family education, estate planning and lifestyle and concierge services in addition to investment management for families with as little as $5 million. Since it launched in 2011, the firm has more than doubled every year the number of families it serves, says Mr. Luster.
Other firms try to woo clients seen as likely to strike it rich down the road. "If the client has $5 million and a Harvard M.B.A. and is extremely ambitious, that's an ideal conversation for us to have," says Nick Delgado, chief wealth officer at Dignitas, a multifamily office in Chicago that works with 37 families worth an average of $17 million each. "We try to democratize the family-office experience."
New Investment Choices
Setting up a family office can create access to different types of investments.
Increasingly, the wealthiest families are starting to sidestep private-equity funds to invest on their own or with other families in privately held, middle-market companies that can use the families' know-how.
The number of family offices interested in making direct investments more than doubled to 504 last year from 224 in 2010, says John Rompon, managing partner at McNally Capital, a Chicago firm that advises families working together to make direct investments.
McNally gathers about 65 families for meetings three times a year to discuss potential investments, such as solar power and water treatment, and match up potential partners.
Tony and J.B. Pritzker, brothers in the family that once owned the Hyatt hotel chain, hired Paul Carbone last year from Baird Private Equity—the buyout and venture-capital arm of Robert W. Baird & Co.—to expand their direct-investing business, part of the Pritzker Group, their family investment firm. The brothers like being able to build businesses long-term without feeling pressure to sell, as private-equity firms often do, to generate short-term returns.
Family Squabbles
What if the family has a dispute?
One relative whose family works with Citi Private Bank's North America Family Office Group didn't want to have any "sin stocks," such as tobacco- and alcohol-related investments. But the rest of the family disagreed and refused to liquidate those holdings, says group head Mr. Campbell.
The fix: breaking out the dissatisfied relative's share of the holdings and using it to fund a "socially responsible" investment vehicle managed outside of the family office.
Ms. Pepper, of multifamily office Pepper International, suggests structuring a buyback agreement in advance that would let family members sell back shares if they are shareholders in a family operating company.
To leave the family office, an individual family member can move those investments out if those holdings are in his or her name already.
It is tougher to unwind holdings held in a trust, which are often used to shelter assets from taxes and protect assets from family members with spending or substance-abuse problems and in divorces.
When one trust beneficiary wants out of the family office and the trust has other beneficiaries who don't, there are extra complications, says Amy Szostak, a senior vice president at Northern Trust NTRS +1.91% .
Other Options
Families a few million dollars shy of the cut for a multifamily office can replicate some of the experience with other wealth-management services.
Ms. Pepper suggests asking your wealth-management firm if they can provide consolidated reporting so you have a window into all of your assets and see your full asset allocation.
Also, look for a firm that will designate a financial "quarterback" to serve as the go-between with all of your advisers, including lawyers, accountants and other professionals. The quarterback needs to make sure everyone is in the loop and executing the same financial plan.
Pinnacle Wealth Planning Services, a Mansfield, Ohio, fee-only firm managing $550 million, offers quarterbacking services for clients with at least $1 million in assets. The package costs between $2,000 and $6,500 a year on top of its asset-management fee of 0.5% to 1% a year.
At Investment Financial Services in Sarasota, Fla., a wealth-management firm serving mainly families with at least $1 million in investible assets, the financial-quarterback service is included in the firm's asset-management fee, which ranges from 0.5% to 1% a year.
"We can't do some of the things that family offices do, but we do the nuts and bolts of a client's wealth-management planning," says Bill Heichel, Pinnacle's founder. "Clients can make their own airline reservations."

Posted on 6:23 AM | Categories:

US Accountants Comment On Home Office Deduction

Mike Godfrey for Tax-News.com writes: The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) has recommended, in a letter to the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS), that the agency should re-evaluate certain provisions of its optional safe harbor method for the home office deduction, as proposed in a Revenue Procedure at the beginning of this year.


The IRS created the safe harbor method to simplify the home office deduction for many individual taxpayers, owners of home-based businesses and some home-based employees. It will be applicable to taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, but the IRS has also solicited feedback on the optional method "to improve it for tax year 2014 and later years."
A taxpayer may qualify to deduct expenses for the business use of his or her home, if part of the home is exclusively and regularly used for business purposes. The home office deduction may include part of certain costs that the taxpayer paid for having a home. For example, a part of the rent or allowable mortgage interest, real estate taxes and utility payments could qualify. The amount of the deduction usually depends on the percentage of the home used for business.

The safe harbor method would allow taxpayers to deduct home office expense at USD5 per square foot for a maximum of 300 square feet of qualified home office space used, for a maximum yearly deduction of USD1,500. It is hoped that it will reduce the paperwork and record keeping burden on small businesses by an estimated 1.6m hours annually.
Eligible taxpayers claiming the home office deduction are currently generally required to fill out a 43-line form, often with complex calculations of allocated expenses, depreciation and carryovers of unused deductions. Taxpayers claiming the optional deduction will complete a significantly simplified form.

Though homeowners using the new option cannot depreciate the portion of their home used in a trade or business, they can claim allowable mortgage interest, real estate taxes and casualty losses on the home as itemized deductions. These deductions need not be allocated between personal and business use, as is required under the regular method.

Business expenses unrelated to the home, such as advertising, supplies and wages paid to employees are still fully deductible, and current restrictions on the home office deduction, such as the requirement that a home office must be used regularly and exclusively for business and the limit tied to the income derived from the particular business, still apply under the new option.
In its letter, the AICPA welcomes the proposed optional safe harbor method that "would simplify the tax preparation and record-keeping process for many taxpayers and small business owners who are eligible for the deduction but who do not currently deduct home office expenses," but recommends re-evaluation of selected details.

For example, the AICPA proposes that the IRS should increase the initial maximum deduction, as estimates of average home-office deductions historically range from USD2,000 (from the National Association for the Self Employed) to USD3,000 (from the IRS itself). In addition, while the Revenue Procedure does indicate that the IRS and Treasury Department may update this rate from time to time as warranted, it believes that failing to specify up front future cost of living adjustments will make the deduction less useful and valuable to taxpayers in the future.

In further comments, the AICPA suggests that the IRS should consider allowing taxpayers who choose the safe harbor method to deduct depreciation expense, in addition to the home office deduction; taxpayers should be permitted to deduct any disallowed home office deduction carryovers in the next year, regardless of the method used; ordering rules should be established, such as that the carryovers are applied first; and any unused deduction, which was generated by use of the actual method, should be allowed to carry forward to the next tax year.
In conclusion, the AICPA "supports the concept of a simplified method to deduct home office expenses, as the safe harbor method will increase the availability of home office deductions for taxpayers who are eligible for the deduction and have not been claiming it."

However, it is recommended "that the IRS and Treasury re-evaluate and alter some of the details of their proposal to implement the safe harbour method. For taxpayers who have been claiming (or may in the future claim) the home office deduction under the actual expense method, unanticipated administrative burdens have been created for the taxpayer."
Posted on 6:23 AM | Categories:

Five Steps Toward Fixing the Hole In Your Retirement Plan

Mitch Tuchman for Forbes writes: A new report casts considerable doubt on how well many Americans will fare in retirement: Those born between 1966 and 1975, the so-called Gen-Xers, will be the worst off, able to replace only half their working income. Older savers will do better, but only just.
What happened? One way to look at the problem is through a policy lens. As companies abandoned pension plans during the 1970s and onward,Americans were slowly pushed to fend for themselves in retirement. We replaced that system with largely voluntary 401(k) and IRA savings plans.
Experts often speak of retirement plans as “defined benefit” or “defined contribution.” The difference can seem subtle, but it’s quite stark. Pension plans promise an outcome (the benefit) and then work to provide it. Private, individual savings plans promise an opportunity (contributions today with tax breaks and company matches) while not guaranteeing the result.
One can easily debate the relative merits of either path, but the point is largely moot. It’s extremely unlikely that corporations will voluntarily resume the long-term financial risk of running pension plans. They dumped pensions for a reason.
What’s left for working Americans who expect to retire is a real puzzler. How can an individualreplicate the predictability and solidity of a pension-style plan sized down to one? Is it even possible?
The answer is yes, but it takes a fundamental reimagining of the purpose of saving and retirement. Here are the five basic steps:
1. Pay yourself first. If you don’t save money, you won’t have money. Budget experts suggest doing a breakdown of where you spend every dime, but the simplest budget method by far is to remove a significant percentage of your pay in advance (double digits, at least) and deposit it into an account you cannot easily access. You can’t spend money you don’t have. Safely deducting savings ahead of your check is exactly what a 401(k) does quite well.
2. Take every tax break you can. The ancillary benefit of a 401(k) is that someone else — your employer working with the IRS — automates the pre-tax deduction process for you and keeps all the records intact. That’s a major load of paperwork that you as an employee almost certainly wouldn’t take on. Your taxes are lower today, and the benefit is easily portable as you change jobs, which of course you will.
3. Estimate your real retirement needs. This can be the tricky part. Caught between generations that depended on private pensions and government retirement plans, most people seem to believe that “someone else” will take care of the problem of paying their bills once they cease working. Yes, you probably will get something out of Social Security, but the idea that it will be enough to support your lifestyle is plainly an illusion. You have to have enough money set aside to finance, at minimum, 70% of your highest paycheck. Most young people won’t make it, Pew found.
4.  Stop hoping the market will save the day. Once savers begin to accept that they are not on track, that’s when interest in the markets and investing tends to take root. The problem is, real pension planners never hope to “make a killing” on a stock. They have a legal responsibility to assume the worst and plan conservatively. That doesn’t mean holding cash or being 100% bonds for decades (which brings its own risk). It does mean seeking a reasonable return for the risk assumed and dialing down that risk as you near retirement.
5. Think like a pension manager. Do you know if you’re on track to retire on time and with ample income to sustain your lifestyle over decades in retirement? A pension manager knows exactly how well or how poorly his or her plan is working. You should have enough information to feel the same level of confidence, information the government is working to require of 401(k) plan providers.
It’s possible to save enough and retire on time with a reasonably safe income — mathematically. What’s missing is the will to take charge of one’s own financial future, a lesson the Gen-Xers will unfortunately have learned very late in the game, if the current data holds true.

Posted on 6:23 AM | Categories:

S Corporation tax benefits become more beneficial with the new Affordable Care Act

Blake Hassan, JD, CPA, and John McGill, JD, CPA, MBA for Dental Economics write:  As many doctors are well aware, there have been rumblings from the White House and Congress for a number of years about subjecting S corporation profits to self-employment taxes (SE Tax) as a way to raise revenues. So far this has not happened, and operating as an S corporation still affords the opportunity to save taxes versus operating as a C corporation, sole proprietorship, general partnership, or limited liability company (LLC).
By way of review, a C corporation is a taxable entity and any remaining profits at year end are taxed at a flat 35% rate in personal service corporations. As a result, C corporations will generally zero out their profits before year-end, by paying out bonuses or other compensation to the shareholders. This zeroing out eliminates any tax payable by the corporation, but the bonuses paid are subject to payroll taxes.
In contrast, an S corporation is a pass-through entity and does not pay income taxes. It still prepares an income tax return; however, its profits and losses are reported to the shareholders via Schedule K-1, and the income/losses are reported by the shareholders on their personal tax returns. Any resulting taxes are then paid by the shareholders in connection with their personal tax returns. The shareholders are required to pay themselves reasonable compensation (which is subject to payroll taxes) for the services they provide; however, any corporate profit over and above such reasonable compensation may be paid out as dividends (which are not subject to payroll taxes).
In noncorporate forms (e.g., sole proprietorships, general partnerships, and LLCs), all profits are subject to SE Tax, and in computing the profits subject to SE tax, there is no deduction for health insurance premiums or retirement plan contributions for the owners. In contrast, those items are not subject to payroll taxes in corporations, except for voluntary deferrals by a shareholder-employee into a retirement plan.
For 2013, the SE/payroll tax is computed as 15.3% up to $113,700 of SE income or wages, plus 2.9% of SE income or wages over $113,700, plus .9% of SE income or wages over $250,000 (on a married filing joint return). This latter .9% is a result of the new Medicare surtax added by the Affordable Care Act (sometimes referred to as Obamacare).
The following shows a comparison of the payroll taxes generated under an S corporation versus an LLC, assuming $400,000 of income. Note that the amount of income tax payable in either case will be the same; however, there is a difference between the SE Tax paid with the LLC versus the payroll tax paid with the S corporation. Both examples ignore the effect of the income tax deduction allowed for half of the SE Tax or the payroll tax.
LLC – Total income = $400,000 (including owner's retirement plan contribution of $49,000 and health insurance premiums of $12,000).
S Corporation – Total income = $400,000 (including owner's wages of $250,000, $23,000 of which is deferred into a retirement plan, employer's matching contribution into retirement plan of $26,000, owner's health insurance premiums of $12,000, and $112,000 dividend).
In the case of the S corporation, a portion of the retirement plan contribution, all the health insurance premiums, and all the dividends escape payroll tax, resulting in significant tax savings versus the LLC.
The good news is that it is not expensive for an existing LLC to elect to be taxed as an S corporation, and such an election can be done without the inconvenience of getting a new tax identification number. Also, it is not expensive for a C corporation to elect to be taxed as an S corporation. If you find that you are not currently using the tax advantages of an S corporation, you should discuss switching to an S corporation with your CPA or tax attorney as soon as possible. This could save you tens of thousands of dollars in SE/Payroll taxes throughout your career!
Posted on 6:23 AM | Categories:

Taxpayer Hit With Additional Tax and Accuracy-Related Penalties / First-time home purchase exception inapplicable; notice of deficiency upheld

Dawn S. Markowitz for WealthManagement.com writes:  In August 2000, taxpayer Laura Ung purchased a residence on Ellen Drive in West Covina, Calif. (the Ellen Drive property).  She subsequently re-titled the property to herself and her brother, Chamnam D. Ung, as joint tenants.  From 2002 through 2006, Laura listed the Ellen Drive property as her contact and mailing address.  In 2006, Laura and Chamnam, as joint tenants, sold the Ellen Drive property.
In 2007, Homecomings Financial LLC conveyed title to a different property, Kam Court, to Chamnam.  Although Laura’s name appeared in the address portion of the deed that indicated where the clerk was to send the deed after it was recorded, her name didn’t appear on the Kam Court deed itself. 
In January 2008, Laura requested a withdrawal of $20,000 from a retirement account she held at Morgan Stanley.  She listed the Kam Court property as the address to where Morgan Stanley should mail her check, and on Jan. 25, 2008, Morgan Stanley mailed the check to that address.  In March 2008, Laura received $256 as a distribution from a retirement account she held at Fidelity Investments (Fidelity).  The check Fidelity issued listed the Kam Court property as Laura’s mailing address. 
In 2011, the Internal Revenue Service sent Laura a notice of deficiency for $8,778 and an accuracy-related penalty of $1,654.  On May 2, 2011, Laura filed a petition with the U.S.Tax Court for redetermination of the deficiency.  On May 13, 2013, the Tax Court ruled in favor of the IRS, holding that Laura: 1) didn’t qualify under any exception and was therefore liable for the 10 percent additional tax for early distributions from her retirement plans; and 2) was liable for accuracy-related penalties(Ung v. Commissioner,T.C. Memo. 2013-126 (May 13, 2013)). 

Ten Percent Tax Applies
Internal Revenue Code Section 72(t) imposes an additional tax of 10 percent on premature distributions (that is, distributions from retirement plans made before a taxpayer reaches the age of 59½).  Because Laura was not 59½ or older, the only way to avoid the additional tax was to try to satisfy one of the exceptions under IRC Section 72(t)(2).  One of those exceptions, Section 72(t)(2)(F), covers premature distributions for first-time homebuyers.  A first-time homebuyer may claim an exception for a lifetime distribution up to and including $10,000 (Section 72(t)(8)(B)).
To qualify for this exception, the distribution from a retirement account may not exceed $10,000 and must be used within 120 days of receipt to pay qualified acquisition costs relating to a principal residence for a first-time home buyer.  A “first-time homebuyer” is someone who hasn’t had a present ownership in a principal residence during the 2-year period ending on the date of acquisition of another principal residence.  “Qualified acquisition costs” include the costs of acquiring, constructing or reconstructing a residence.”  They also include reasonable settlement, financing or other closing costs. 
Laura failed to qualify for this exception on several counts.  First, although Laura claimed she used the $20,000 Morgan Stanley distribution for a down payment on the Kam Court property, she didn’t “own” the property because her name wasn’t on the deed.  Second, she wasn’t a first-time homebuyer, because she owned the Ellen Drive property within two years of the purchase of the Kam Court property.  Third, she didn’t use the $20,000 for qualified acquisition costs in the year the Kam Court property was purchased—2007.  And, as an aside, the Tax Court noted that even if Laura satisfied the exception, only $10,000 of the distribution, not $20,000, would be eligible under the exception. 
As to the $256 early distribution from her Fidelity account, Laura presented no evidence to the Tax Court as to why she shouldn’t have to pay the 10 percent additional tax.  As such, the 10 percent additional tax penalty applied.

Accuracy-Related Penalty Applies
IRC Sections 6662(a) and 6662(b)(2) impose a 20 percent penalty on the part of a tax underpayment attributable to a “substantial” understatement of income tax.  “Substantial” under Section 6662(b)(2) means an understatement that exceeds the greater of 10 percent of the tax required to be shown on a return or $5,000.  There’s an exception to this provision: A taxpayer can demonstrate that she acted in good faith and there was reasonable cause for the underpayment.  “Reasonable cause” and “good faith” are made on a case-by-case basis. 
In this instance, the Tax Court noted that Laura had her tax returns prepared by
Pedro Aguilar of P.A. Mortgage, Inc.  Although she provided Pedro with some records and information, she didn’t give him the 2008 Forms 1099-MISC, Miscellaneous Income, issued by both Morgan Stanley and Fidelity.  To avoid accuracy-related penalties, a taxpayer must, among other things, provide “necessary and accurate information” to her advisor and actually rely in good faith on the advisor’s judgment.  Laura admitted that she didn’t review her 2008 tax return prior to filing it and testified that she should have reviewed it prior to signing it.  She also admitted that she was irresponsible in not giving Pedro all of the documents relevant to 2008, including Forms 1099-MISC and her Forms W-2 Wage and Tax Statement.  The court thus found that she didn’t rely in good faith and accordingly, there wasn’t reasonable cause for the underpayment.  As a result, Laura was liable for Section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalties.
Posted on 6:22 AM | Categories:

Summer Job Tax Information for Students

When summer vacation begins, classroom learning ends for most students. Even so, summer doesn’t have to mean a complete break from learning. Students starting summer jobs have the opportunity to learn some important life lessons. Summer jobs offer students the opportunity to learn about the working world – and taxes.
Here are six things about summer jobs that the IRS wants students to know.
1. As a new employee, you’ll need to fill out a Form W-4, Employee’s Withholding Allowance Certificate. Employers use this form to figure how much federal income tax to withhold from workers’ paychecks. It is important to complete your W-4 form correctly so your employer withholds the right amount of taxes. You can use the IRS Withholding Calculator tool at IRS.gov to help you fill out the form.
2. If you’ll receive tips as part of your income, remember that all tips you receive are taxable. Keep a daily log to record your tips. If you receive $20 or more in cash tips in any one month, you must report your tips for that month to your employer.
3. Maybe you’ll earn money doing odd jobs this summer. If so, keep in mind that earnings you receive from self-employment are subject to income tax. Self-employment can include pay you get from jobs like baby-sitting and lawn mowing. 
4. You may not earn enough money from your summer job to owe income tax, but you will probably have to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes. Your employer usually must withhold these taxes from your paycheck. Or, if you’re self-employed, you may have to pay self-employment taxes. Your payment of these taxes contributes to your coverage under the Social Security system.
5. If you’re in ROTC, your active duty pay, such as pay received during summer camp, is taxable. However, the food and lodging allowances you receive in advanced training are not.
6. If you’re a newspaper carrier or distributor, special rules apply to your income. Whatever your age, you are treated as self-employed for federal tax purposes if:
  • You are in the business of delivering newspapers.
  • Substantially all your pay for these services directly relates to sales rather than to the number of hours worked.
  • You work under a written contract that states the employer will not treat you as an employee for federal tax purposes.
If you do not meet these conditions and you are under age 18, then you are usually exempt from Social Security and Medicare tax.
Visit IRS.gov, the official IRS website, for more information about income tax withholding and employment taxes.

Additional IRS Resources:
Posted on 6:22 AM | Categories:

A Global Love Affair / Marriages among different nationalities are up, but so are the tax and estate issues.

Niel Parmar for the Wall St Journal writes: LOVE HAS NO BORDERS, of course, which may help explain why it's not just the economy that's gone global. To hear estate and tax planners talk, cross-border marriages are skyrocketing—along with a host of international estate and tax-planning headaches. 


The issues can indeed get thorny: Can an Australian deduct any business expenses in his home country if he and his wife live in Texas? Is a will written in Spain executable by a spouse in Greece? And don't even start on the thicket of prenup issues. "This whole area of international cross-border planning is an emerging area," says Suzanne Shier, director of wealth planning and tax strategy at Northern Trust, which manages more than $758 billion in assets.
All told, nearly five million Americans in 2010 were married to someone who was born in another country, twice as many as in 1960, according to the Minnesota Population Center. Other countries have had similar jumps. And the international mingling is only expected to continue, as more foreign-born business tycoons relocate to the U.S. from South Korea, China, Russia and fast-growing emerging markets to expand their ventures and scoop up local property. 
It's not just tycoons driving this. The growing number of affluent people working overseas is a factor, as are changing tax codes, especially in some euro-stressed countries. After France announced plans last year to impose a 75 percent tax on citizens who earn above 1 million euros annually, many fled and found love elsewhere. Givner & Kaye's estate-planning law office in Los Angeles has netted so many new French clients that, to give them a warm welcome, the firm recently installed an espresso maker. "We are getting rave reviews for the cappuccino," says attorney Bruce Givner.
Tax experts say one of the biggest issues that comes up quickly among Americans is the so-called unlimited marital-deduction privilege. In the U.S., spouses can give or leave each other any amount of money, tax-free, as long as they're both U.S. citizens. But if one of them holds citizenship from another country, that could trigger an unexpected federal estate-tax hit—of as much as 39.6 percent for assets valued above $5.25 million. (That rate is up from 35 percent last year.) "This is a constant problem we have with our clients," says Steve Mindel, managing partner of the law firm Feinberg, Mindel, Brandt & Klein.
For many, part of the problem may just be more paperwork. In recent years, the Internal Revenue Service has tightened its global grip by raising penalties for tax evaders and rolling out new reporting requirements for wealthy expatriates to share more information about their foreign bank-account holdings. The U.S. is among one of the few countries that taxes global income, no matter where the American citizen lives. But tax experts say that normally softens when the country the citizen works in has a treaty with the U.S., because certain foreign tax credits may be allowed. When there is no treaty, some of those exceptions go out the window.
Each country has its own twists on taxes that suddenly are part of the cross-border marriage experience.
Of course, outside the U.S. each country has its own twists on taxes that suddenly are part of the cross-border marriage experience. According to Shomari Hearn, a financial adviser at Palisades Hudson Financial Group in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., one of his couples with a net worth of about $40 million spent three decades overpaying taxes. Here's how: The wife was born in Brazil, where the couple was married under a community-property regime. Under U.S. law, her Brazilian investment income shouldn't have counted toward her husband's income, but the couple kept paying tax on it. Hearn says he got some of the income back, but there was likely significant investment income he couldn't. "It's very possible he overpaid tens of thousands in taxes," says Hearn.
Inheritance is another tricker, and perhaps the most difficult when one spouse is European, advisers say. One of Givner's clients—an American physician—was set to inherit much of a $10 million estate when his German-born wife died in 2010. That is, until a rule known as "pflichtteil" (translation: forced heirship) meant their children in the U.S. were legally entitled to one-third of the inheritance under German law.
A global legal battle dragged on for two years, with the kids hiring attorneys in Deutschland, while the father used lawyers from both countries. An agreement was reached, but the details were undisclosed. The legal bill, however, came to $50,000 for the father alone. "Forced heirship rules are pretty common throughout Europe," says Givner.
Not surprising, one of the biggest complications for cross-border couples is dividing everything up if it all ends in divorce. Calculating the right tax deductions for spousal or child support, or enforcing custody rules, becomes increasingly difficult when one partner moves back to their country of origin. The enforceability of prenups varies across the globe, but such agreements can help when there are specifics about property division, advisers say. "You can imagine the complexity of dealing with this on an international level," says Mindel. There is one solution, though: Stay married. 
Taxing Times
The number of cross-border marriages, where spouses hail from different countries, is rapidly rising—and so are their international tax and estate-planning issues.
Property Limits
Some countries have restrictions on joint ownership of property when one partner is from another country. That's particularly true in Switzerland, where some nonresidents can only buy vacation properties in designated areas, says Steve Mindel, managing partner of an L.A. law firm whose clients have struggled with this.
Inheritance Cuts
A German spouse may want to bequeath certain assets to his or her partner. But that doesn't mean everything will make it to the loved one. Thanks to "pflichtteil" in Germany, or a forced heirship rule that's also common in other European countries, children are normally entitled to a chunk of a parent's estate—usually a third of it.
Higher Taxes
France's president, François Hollande, triggered the exodus of some wealthy French citizens last year when he proposed a steep tax—75 percent for individuals who earn more than 1 million euros annually. A court later rejected the proposed tax, although the French government says it plans to try pushing it through again.
Posted on 6:22 AM | Categories:

Treasury And The IRS Propose Regulations On $500,000 Compensation Deduction Limit For Health Insurers

 Linda Z. Swartz Shane J. Stroud  and Brian T. McGovern  for Cadwalader write: On April 2, 2013, the Treasury Department and the IRS issued proposed regulations1 under section 162(m)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code,2 which generally imposes an annual $500,000 limitation on the amount that certain health insurers and their affiliates ("Covered Health Insurance Providers" or "CHIPs") may deduct for compensation paid to an employee.3 This limitation is contained within section 162(m) of the Code, which historically has governed the deductibility of compensation paid by public companies to certain of their senior executive officers. However, the $500,000 limitation in subpart (6) of section 162(m) is much broader in scope and applies to all CHIPs, whether public or private, and to all of a CHIP's current or former officers, directors, employees and related service providers.
The Proposed Regulations provide:
  • Additional guidance on qualification as a CHIP, including exceptions for de minimis premiums, self-insured plans, reinsurance plans, and other similar arrangements.
  • Further guidance excepting compensation paid to independent contractors, corporations and partnerships from the $500,000 deduction limitation.
  • Timing rules regarding when compensation is deemed to be paid for purposes of applying the $500,000 compensation limitation within a taxable year. 4
This memorandum summarizes the provisions of the Proposed Regulations and highlights those portions of particular importance to health insurers, members of corporate groups affiliated with a health insurer, and their respective executives.

II. Overview of the Deduction Limitation

Section 162(m)(6) of the Code imposes a $500,000 limit on a CHIP's5 deduction for the combined "applicable individual" and "deferred deduction"6 compensation paid to certain employees7 for taxable years after December 31, 2012. "Deferred deduction" compensation includes compensation that relates to services performed in any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2009 and before January 1, 2013.
III. CHIP Status and Exceptions
The Proposed Regulations indicate that the determination as to whether a person or entity is a CHIP is made with reference to an individual taxable year; a taxpayer may be a CHIP in one taxable year but not the next. The Proposed Regulations also provide that all entities related to a CHIP are aggregated with the CHIP and treated as a single employer for purposes of applying the deduction limitation (an "Aggregated Group").8
The Proposed Regulations establish three exceptions to CHIP status: (1) the de minimis premiums exception; (2) the reinsurance exception; and (3) the self-insured plan exception.
The de minimis exception provides that no member of an Aggregated Group will be a CHIP if the health insurance premiums received by such group are less than 2% of the aggregate gross revenue of all members of the Aggregated Group, so long as a member does not qualify for CHIP status independently.
The Proposed Regulations also except reinsurance contract premiums and direct service payments9from the deduction limitation.
Finally, the Proposed Regulations provide that an employer (other than a captive insurance company) will not be a CHIP solely because it sponsors a self-insured medical reimbursement plan.10

IV. "Applicable Individual" Status and Exceptions

The $500,000 deduction limitation generally applies to payments by a CHIP to any individual who is an officer, director or employee of the CHIP, or who provides services for or on behalf of a CHIP.
The Proposed Regulations specifically exclude from the $500,000 deduction limitation compensation paid to independent contractor service providers. Generally, an unrelated service provider will be considered an independent contractor if the service provider is actively engaged in a trade or business of providing services to others and providing "significant services" to two or more non-related persons.
In addition, the preamble to the Proposed Regulations indicate that no entity classified as a corporation or partnership for federal income tax purposes providing services to a CHIP will be covered by the $500,000 deduction limitation. However, the preamble invites comments on how to ensure individuals do not abuse this exception by forming small single-member personal service corporations or similar entities to circumvent the deduction limitation.

V. Timing and Application of the Deduction Limitation

The Proposed Regulations provide that the services performed by an employee for a CHIP relate to the taxable year of the CHIP in which the employee obtains a legally binding right to the compensation. For example, if, in Year 1, the CHIP pays an employee $400,000, but the employee also earns $200,000 in deferred (but not vested) compensation in such year that is payable in Year 3, the CHIP can only deduct $100,000 of the $200,000 in deferred compensation when it pays the deferred compensation in Year 3 because the compensation relates to services provided in Year 1 (when $400,000 in compensation was already paid). However, if an employee actually receives compensation exceeding $500,000 in a taxable year, then the deduction limit applies first to any such compensation exceeding $500,000, and then to any amounts of deferred compensation paid out in such taxable year.
Finally, in the case of aggregate compensation paid to an employee by two or more members of an Aggregated Group that exceeds $500,000, the deduction limitation is applied to each member in proportion to amounts of compensation paid by each member of the Aggregated Group.

VI. Conclusion

The Proposed Regulations present many complex issues important both to health insurers and their employees, as well as to any organization that is an affiliate of a health insurer. Concerned parties are encouraged to submit comments on the Proposed Regulations no later than July 1, 2013.
Posted on 6:22 AM | Categories: