Monday, August 26, 2013

Xero Problems and Solutions - Checks / Xero has very serious problems with checks

Mike Block @ Xero CPAs Blog writes: Unless you E-pay bills, it only imports things like Check #501 and Check 502. Some clients have more than a thousand unreconciled manual checks in a single account. It is time consuming, expensive and error prone to have clients consistently send us check stubs for this, much less do it on a frequent, current and consistent basis. That is why we often give remote assistants read-only bank account access, to research this. However, these assistants rarely know applicable accounts for most new payees. Supervisory accountants also may not know this for some payees, without doing web searches or asking clients. This Xero problem is especially bad because it only uses its rules to match imported entries to accounts (it ignores rules for manually entered payees). You also cannot record payees in Xero without accounts.
Our new 0CPAs program will soon provide solutions to the very serious Xero problems with checks. We will accumulate a web table of all such payees, accounts, contact data, identification numbers and related information. It will work the same way that QuickBooks does, with an incremental search, as you enter each letter of a payee name. If you match an existing payee, it will enter the payee and the account.
Unlike QuickBooks, if you do not match, it will save the new payee with the new date and check number. It will then notify a supervisor and do (or offer to do) a web search for items he does not know. For items the supervisor cannot code, it will notify the client. Once someone codes a payee to an account, it will batch update the payee. It also can batch update payee contact data, identification numbers and related information. Of course, QuickBooks does not use batch updates or aggregate this table for many clients.
This is how 0CPAs will soon provide solutions to the Xero problems with checks.
Posted on 7:21 AM | Categories:

S Corporation SE Avoidance Still A Solid Strategy / Even though Sean P. McAlary lost in Tax Court, the decision in his case shows that S Corporations are still a valid self-employment tax avoidance strategy.

Peter J Reilly for Forbes writes:   Even though Sean P. McAlary lost in Tax Court, the decision in his case shows that S Corporations are still a valid self-employment tax avoidance strategy.  If you operate as a sole-proprietorship, all of its income will be subject to self-employment tax.  If you put the business into an S Corporation, none of the income will be subject to self-employment tax.  Entrepreneurs will be inclined to heavily discount any decrease in future social security benefits as a trade-off, so organizing as an S Corporation and avoiding self-employment tax seems like a no-brainer for a sole proprietor.
The Exposure
There is a catch.  In the C corporation arena, the IRS is wont to argue that very high salaries are disguised dividends.  With S Corporations, the Service may take the position that corporate distributions are actually disguised salary.  That can be pretty ugly, since the penalties for being late with payroll taxes are fairly stiff.  When Sean McAlary Ltd got hit for just over $10,000 in FICA and Medicare tax, that did not really prove that the S Corporation low or no payroll strategy is a bad idea.  I mean, nothing ventured, nothing gained.  What is nasty is the $6,000 or so in penalties. 
Win, Loss or Draw ?
So would Mr. McAlary have been better off for 2006 if he had run his business as a proprietorship and paid self-employment tax on the entire profit.  Forgive me for not doing the precise computation, but it is actually close to a push.  Mr. McAlary had his corporation pay him no salary at all.  There was an agreement in place for his salary to be $24,000.  The IRS expert argued that his salary should have been $100,755.  The Tax Court determined that $83,200 was actually the right number.  According to the discussion in the case the net income of the S Corporation was $231,454 and the total on page 2 of his Schedule E was $200,877.  His distributions from the S corporation were $240,000.  I can’t tell why there is a difference.  Perhaps he or his wife has another S Corporation that lost money.  Regardless, by running as an S Corporation, he avoided the effect of Self-employment tax on between roughly $120,000 and $150,000 of income, even after getting audited.
That nasty $6,000 in penalties probably puts him a bit behind particularly when you throw in thetsoris of going all the way to Tax Court.  Mr. McAlary represented himself, though, and did win a small concession, so you can’t rule out that he may have enjoyed the fight.  When you consider other years, where he did not get audited, he came out way ahead using the strategy.
How To Win Almost For Sure ?
 Explaining things like this throws me back to the early days of my career.  My elaborate analysis would need to be translated into terms that the client would understand.  After absorbing as much of the analysis as he thought relevant, Herb Cohan would then say to the client – “Don’t be chazzer !”  The more elaborate version of that caution on the limits of aggressiveness in tax planning was “Pigs get fed.  Hogs get slaughtered.”.
What the McAlary case teaches us is not that you can’t use an S Corporation to avoid SE/payroll taxes.  It teaches us that you really should not use the strategy to avoid SE/payroll taxes entirely. 
The case also shows us where to go for guidance.  The IRS expert cited Risk Management Association Annual Statement Studies.  RMA, as we used to call it, is a great reference tool.  I used to use it a lot, before I became overspecialized.  It provides averages of financial statements submitted to banks by businesses applying for loans and the like.  Apparently being an expert for the IRS on reasonable compensation is not exactly rocket science.  You can do it for yourself and come up with a reasonable percentage of profit to take as salary.  There is actually a wealth of other potentially useful data in RMA which might give you a sense of how well you are doing on things like inventory turnover and collections.
Don’t Be A Chazzer
The AICPA standards of tax practice prohibit me from giving clients audit lottery type advice, but you and I are just pals, so I think I am in ethical bounds when I tell you this. 
 If your business is reasonably profitable, don’t even think about taking less than whatever the unemployment wage base is in your state is.  That varies substantially by state ranging from $7,000 in Arizona to $39,800 in Washington.  By going below that limit you end up with another group of enforcers being interested in you.  My limited experience with them is that they are very stubborn and since there are not many dollars at stake the temptation will be to just pay it. There is then the potential that they will rat you out to the IRS.
If your business is quite profitable, be a sport and take something over the FICA maximum.  The savings can still be quire substantial.  Newt Ginrgrich took about $250,000 in salary with profits over $2,500,000 in his S corporation.  That got him some bad press, of course, but you are probably not going to be running for President.  It is worth noting that the President, himself, did not play this particular game and paid SE tax on all the net income from his book royalties.
Policy Question
 With the new Obamacare Net Investment Income Tax, almost all income that individuals get from businesses is potentially subject to a medicare levy of one sort or the other.  An exception is business flow-through income from businesses in which the taxpayer materially participates.  Were it not for that exception, the Obamacare tax would have taken the fun out of the S Corp SE game for fellows like Newt Gingrich.  I worked briefly (17 months) for a national firm and got to rub elbows a bit with one of the national guys who would talk to congressional staffers.  I asked him if there was any policy justification for this odd loophole and he knew of none.
Is The Game Worth The Candle ?
If you convert a proprietorship to an S Corporation, there are some costs to weigh. If you are going to take salary below the FICA max, there may be an effect on future social security benefits.  Actually quantifying that is challenging, but you can give it a shot with some of the calculator programs.  I have never gone through that exercise and my experience is that most business owners are dismissive of it.  So you can take that factor as a “just saying” if you want.
Operating as an S Corporation will require another tax return to be filed, which might cost something.  In principle, your individual return should be somewhat easier, since a Schedule C is no longer required.  You may need to “remind” your tax preparer of that in order to realize that saving on the individual return that might offset some of the cost of the S Corporation return.  If you are a brown paper bag type of client with a masochistic CPA, the realization on doing your return might be so lousy that even without your Schedule C, standard charges might come out higher than what you paid in the previous year.  On the other hand if you are a mensch with a CPA who “knows how to bill” your fee will never go down from one year to the next if you don’t ask.
 Although there is a good chance that the potential for your individual return being audited will go down, the S Corporation return will be another return that potentially could be audited.  I don’t know how that balances out and I suspect that nobody knows, although you will find plenty of people who will tell you they know.
If your business involves significant debt and has irregular income, there are a lot of tax traps in operating as an S Corporation.  It gets really complicated if you have multiple businesses and real estate ownership is somehow involved.  If you are the type of person inclined to pay the bills out of whatever account happens to have sufficient cash and let your accountant sort it out with journal entries, you may be setting yourself up for an income tax nightmare in your quest to save a few thousand dollars in SE tax.  I have known partners in professional practices who contributed their partnership interests into S Corporations and encouraged me to do the same.  I never regretted not doing it and they came to regret having done it, except the one who died.  I’m pretty sure his executor really regretted it.
Finally, don’t ignore state and local income taxes in planning this move.  There can be pluses and minuses depending on which state or states you are dealing with.  New Hampshire is a particularly nasty place to fool with S Corporations and don’t get me started on New York City.  Regardless, you need to consider state and local taxes carefully, particularly since you are not really saving a very high percentage federally from making this move.
Conclusion
Despite court  losses and the lack of any discernible policy justification, it appears that the S Corporation SE tax avoidance strategy is still solid.  Small business owners should examine the implication carefully, though, before jumping into it.
You can follow me on twitter @peterreillycpa.
 Afternote
If you are in the Northeast and really want to nail down a strategy on this you might want to consider taking one of the Boston Tax Institute courses taught by Lucien Gauthier.  Lu provides the right mix of in-depth technical coverage and practical reality. (Full disclosure: I taught a course for BTI about a million years ago.)
Posted on 5:51 AM | Categories:

Tax treatment of ESOPs ( Employee Stock Ownership Plan)

Karin Price Mueller/The Star-Ledger   writes: Question. I have just made a direct rollover from an Employee Stock Ownership plan, or ESOP, to an IRA. Do I pay the New Jersey income tax on the rollover amount this tax year, or in the year it is withdrawn? Can I take a deduction?
— Jim in Montville

Answer. Ah, that’s a question you should have asked before you made the move — just so you’d know what you were getting into.

"The New Jersey Gross Income Tax Act does not contain provisions similar to the Internal Revenue Code which permit deductions for contributions to IRA accounts," said Jeffrey Boyer, a certified financial planner with RegentAtlantic Capital in Morristown. "If one makes a federally deductible IRA contribution of $5,500 in 2013, the state of New Jersey does not provide a deduction on the state return."

Then, when the funds are distributed from an IRA, the amount you contributed is not taxable for New Jersey income tax purposes.

Boyer said that’s an important thing for retirees to remember because sometimes IRA withdrawals are overlooked when filing the state income tax return. You can learn more from the Division of Taxation.

On your specific question, direct rollovers from qualified plans to an IRA account do not trigger tax at the federal or state level. This includes rollovers 401(k) plans, ESOPs or other qualified retirement plans.

"For a New Jersey resident, the rollover of an eligible plan is excludable from New Jersey income if the rollover qualifies for deferral for federal tax purposes," said Cynthia Fusillo, a certified public accountant with Lassus Wherley in New Providence. "The rollover must be made within a 60 day period following the distribution, or be a direct trustee-to-trustee transfer of assets to qualify."

On the topic of ESOPs, specifically, it’s important that investors fully consider their options when making rollovers or distributions of company stock.
Boyer says there’s a strategy to consider.

"A special taxation method called net unrealized appreciated, or NUA, is preserved for employees which allows for appreciation to be treated as a capital gain, rather than ordinary income," Boyer said. "If you do have appreciated company stock in a qualified plan, be certain to check with your tax professional before rolling it over to an IRA to take advantage of the NUA treatment."

Once you make the rollover to an IRA, the decision is irrevocable, and the NUA tax opportunity will be lost, he said.
Posted on 5:51 AM | Categories:

Roth IRA conversion - confused on taxing

Over at Bogleheads we read:

Roth IRA conversion - confused on taxing

Postby ps56k » Sun Aug 25, 2013 7:11 pm
I've been looking at the subject of a conversion from Traditional IRA to the Roth IRA, some of the other issues as mentioned/learned in another thread.

This one is specifcally about the concept of the conversion, the "non-deductible basis", and the tax to be paid.
SO -
First scenario - $100k mkt value, $30k paid non-deductible contribs across the years, 25% current tax rate
so, if you convert this account, it would be $100k - $30k = $70k x 25% tax = $17.5k tax bill - correct ??

I'm confused on the concept of where the tax is being applied -
on the "growth or gains" of the account, ala divs, etc ?

What about the fully deductible account - same general numbers -
$100k mkt value - $0 for non-deductible amounts but same $30k contribs, 25% current tax rate
so, if you convert this account, it would be $100k - $0k = $100k x 25% tax = $25k tax bill - correct ??

BUT WHY - why are you taxed on the ENTIRE amount, and not just the usual "gains" like any investment ??
User avatar
ps56k
Posts: 332
Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Location: Chicago area

Re: Roth IRA conversion - confused on taxing

Postby williamg » Sun Aug 25, 2013 7:38 pm
Contingent on holding periods and age, you are only taxed on contributions that were not taxed when you made them. All other contributions and gains, both capital and dividend/interest, are not taxable.
williamg
Posts: 221
Joined: 1 Mar 2007

Re: Roth IRA conversion - confused on taxing

Postby littlebird » Sun Aug 25, 2013 8:06 pm
williamg wrote:Contingent on holding periods and age, you are only taxed on contributions that were not taxed when you made them. All other contributions and gains, both capital and dividend/interest, are not taxable.


I don't believe this can be true. Trad IRAs are taxed on the entire amount *coming out*. Roth IRAs are taxed on the entire amount before *going in*. If you took out untaxed increase from a trad IRA and didn't pay tax before putting it in the Roth and then, because it's a Roth, you didn't pay tax on it *coming out*, you'd have never paid tax on the increase. What a deal that would be after 30 or 40 years!
littlebird
Posts: 142
Joined: 10 Apr 2010

Re: Roth IRA conversion - confused on taxing

Postby kaneohe » Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:11 pm
littlebird is correct. When you do the conversion you need to file F8606 at tax time which walks you thru the steps
to do the calculation http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8606.pdf so you don't have to think (sometimes a dangerous thing :) )

TIRAs with deductible contributions are sometimes said to have a basis of 0 since they weren't taxed going in. When thought of in that way, they are similar to taxable invvestments which have a non-zero basis.........only the amount over basis (the gain) is being taxed. When you have TIRAs with a non-deductible component, the basis is non-zero by that amount.
kaneohe
Posts: 2068
Joined: 22 Sep 2008

Re: Roth IRA conversion - confused on taxing

Postby grabiner » Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:15 pm
littlebird wrote:
williamg wrote:Contingent on holding periods and age, you are only taxed on contributions that were not taxed when you made them. All other contributions and gains, both capital and dividend/interest, are not taxable.


I don't believe this can be true. Trad IRAs are taxed on the entire amount *coming out*. Roth IRAs are taxed on the entire amount before *going in*.


There are also non-deductible traditional IRAs, if you are covered by an employer plan and exceed the income limits for the deduction. If you make a non-deductible IRA contribution, you get no tax deduction at the time, but you do not pay tax on the already-taxed portion (prorated if you make a partial withdrawal). The same thing applies to a conversion.

For example, if you have $10,000 in non-deductible contributions, $20,000 in deductible contributions, and $20,000 in gains in your IRA, then 80% of any withdrawal will be taxed. If you convert the whole IRA to a Roth, you pay tax on the $40,000 which was not already taxed; if you convert half of it, you pay tax on $20,000 of the $25,000.
 David Grabiner
User avatar
grabiner
Advisory Board
Posts: 10727
Joined: 21 Feb 2007
Location: New Jersey

Re: Roth IRA conversion - confused on taxing

Postby ps56k » Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:16 pm
williamg wrote:Contingent on holding periods and age, you are only taxed on contributions that were not taxed when you made them. All other contributions and gains, both capital and dividend/interest, are not taxable.

Not sure how some of those comments pertain to the basic math calcs used to determine Roth Conversion numbers.

I just ran the Schwab calculator on my 2 examples -
http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/investing/retirement_and_planning/understanding_iras/ira_calculators/roth_ira_conversion
the only part missing was some kind of time frame... of say..... 10 years to let the calculator project future growth of the 2 scenarios - Trad vs Roth -
BUT, still not sure I understand why the ENTIRE amount is taxed during the "deductible" conversion....

BTW - the $100k "non-deductible" conversion turned out better with Roth after 10 years - but cost $18k in taxes.
As another quick calc - used $200k fully deductible, and it didn't do as well in the Roth and cost a whopping $59k in taxes.
User avatar
ps56k
Posts: 332
Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Location: Chicago area

Re: Roth IRA conversion - confused on taxing

Postby DireWolf » Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:26 pm
While I understand the benefit of a backdoor Roth IRA for a high income earner... it seems to make a portfolio incredibly cluttered.

You open a traditional IRA... contribute $5,500... convert it to a Roth IRA a couple days later. However, for the next fiscal year you have repeat the entire process... open a traditional IRA... contribute $5,500... convert it to a Roth IRA a couple days later... so now you have 2 Roth IRA accounts. If you continue this for 30 years, you will end up with 30 different Roth IRA accounts.

Do I understand this correctly?
DireWolf
Posts: 69
Joined: 4 May 2009

Re: Roth IRA conversion - confused on taxing

Postby littlebird » Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:47 pm
grabiner wrote:
littlebird wrote:
williamg wrote:Contingent on holding periods and age, you are only taxed on contributions that were not taxed when you made them. All other contributions and gains, both capital and dividend/interest, are not taxable.


I don't believe this can be true. Trad IRAs are taxed on the entire amount *coming out*. Roth IRAs are taxed on the entire amount before *going in*.


There are also non-deductible traditional IRAs, if you are covered by an employer plan and exceed the income limits for the deduction. If you make a non-deductible IRA contribution, you get no tax deduction at the time, but you do not pay tax on the already-taxed portion (prorated if you make a partial withdrawal). The same thing applies to a conversion.

For example, if you have $10,000 in non-deductible contributions, $20,000 in deductible contributions, and $20,000 in gains in your IRA, then 80% of any withdrawal will be taxed. If you convert the whole IRA to a Roth, you pay tax on the $40,000 which was not already taxed; if you convert half of it, you pay tax on $20,000 of the $25,000.



Yes, but what williamg said was: "All other contributions and *gains, both capital and dividend/interest, are not taxable*.
littlebird
Posts: 142
Joined: 10 Apr 2010

Re: Roth IRA conversion - confused on taxing

Postby grabiner » Sun Aug 25, 2013 10:04 pm
DireWolf wrote:While I understand the benefit of a backdoor Roth IRA for a high income earner... it seems to make a portfolio incredibly cluttered.

You open a traditional IRA... contribute $5,500... convert it to a Roth IRA a couple days later. However, for the next fiscal year you have repeat the entire process... open a traditional IRA... contribute $5,500... convert it to a Roth IRA a couple days later... so now you have 2 Roth IRA accounts. If you continue this for 30 years, you will end up with 30 different Roth IRA accounts.

Do I understand this correctly?


You can make a conversion (or a contribution, for that matter) into an existing account, so you will only have one Roth IRA account.
 David Grabiner
User avatar
grabiner
Advisory Board
Posts: 10727
Joined: 21 Feb 2007
Location: New Jersey

Re: Roth IRA conversion - confused on taxing

Postby Red Rover » Mon Aug 26, 2013 12:30 am
grabiner wrote:You can make a conversion (or a contribution, for that matter) into an existing account, so you will only have one Roth IRA account.


I had the same question about additional contributions in subsequent years and have not seen it addressed in any of the information I have found. Are you saying that once a Roth IRA has been established by "back door", subsequent contributions can be made directly to the Roth?

Can anyone cite a source to confirm this?
Red Rover
Posts: 45
Joined: 5 Jul 2013

Re: Roth IRA conversion - confused on taxing

Postby kaneohe » Mon Aug 26, 2013 12:50 am
Red Rover wrote:
grabiner wrote:You can make a conversion (or a contribution, for that matter) into an existing account, so you will only have one Roth IRA account.


I had the same question about additional contributions in subsequent years and have not seen it addressed in any of the information I have found. Are you saying that once a Roth IRA has been established by "back door", subsequent contributions can be made directly to the Roth?

Can anyone cite a source to confirm this?


not quite sure what you are thinking but I think he is saying that back door conversions can continue into the same Roth account (via the TIRA first as a non-deductible contribution). However if you subsequently become eligible for a Roth contribution and don't need to do the back door conversion, you can make that contribution into the same Roth.

I don't think he is saying that back door Roths (conversions) can go directly to the Roth w/o going thru the TIRA first.
Last edited by kaneohe on Mon Aug 26, 2013 1:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
kaneohe
Posts: 2068
Joined: 22 Sep 2008

Re: Roth IRA conversion - confused on taxing

Postby grabiner » Mon Aug 26, 2013 12:52 am
Red Rover wrote:
grabiner wrote:You can make a conversion (or a contribution, for that matter) into an existing account, so you will only have one Roth IRA account.


I had the same question about additional contributions in subsequent years and have not seen it addressed in any of the information I have found. Are you saying that once a Roth IRA has been established by "back door", subsequent contributions can be made directly to the Roth?


As far as a provider such as Vanguard is concerned, there is no distinction between Roth IRAs funded with direct contributions, conversions, or rollovers from employer plans. You just tell Vanguard, "Contribute $5500 from my taxable money-market fund to my Roth IRA in Target Retirement 2045", or "Convert the entire balance of my Traditional IRA to my Roth IRA and invest it in Target Retirement 2045", or "Roll over the Roth 401(k) from my former employer to my Roth IRA and invest it in Target Retirement 2045"; all three will be in the same account.

You have to keep track of the source of transactions for tax purposes. You can withdraw a contribution penalty-free at any time, but if you paid tax on a conversion and withdraw that conversion within five years, there is a 10% penalty on the amount which was taxed at conversion, and if you withdraw earnings and do not meet one of the exceptions such as being 59-1/2, you may owe tax and penalty on the earnings.
 David Grabiner
User avatar
grabiner
Advisory Board
Posts: 10727
Joined: 21 Feb 2007
Location: New Jersey

Re: Roth IRA conversion - confused on taxing

Postby Bob's not my name » Mon Aug 26, 2013 4:29 am
Federal tax treatment is discussed above. Illinois tax treatment does not follow federal. Illinois does not tax federal-deductible TIRA contributions, but it diverges from federal treatment in that it exempts all conversions.
Bob's not my name
Posts: 6078
Joined: 15 Nov 2009
  
Posted on 5:51 AM | Categories: