The IRS and the Treasury Department have automatically extended the federal income tax filing due date for individuals for the 2020 tax year, from April 15, 2021, to May 17, 2021. Individual taxpayers can also postpone federal income tax payments for the 2020 tax year due on April 15, 2021, to May 17, 2021, without penalties and interest, regardless of the amount owed.

The IRS and the Treasury Department have automatically extended the federal income tax filing due date for individuals for the 2020 tax year, from April 15, 2021, to May 17, 2021. Individual taxpayers can also postpone federal income tax payments for the 2020 tax year due on April 15, 2021, to May 17, 2021, without penalties and interest, regardless of the amount owed.

This postponement applies to individual taxpayers, including those who pay self-employment tax. Penalties, interest and additions to tax will begin to accrue on any remaining unpaid balances as of May 17, 2021.

The IRS has informed taxpayers that they do not need to file any forms or call the IRS to qualify for this automatic federal tax filing and payment relief.

Individual taxpayers who need additional time to file beyond the May 17 deadline can request a filing extension until October 15 by filing Form 4868 through their tax professional or tax software, or by using the Free File link on the IRS website. Filing Form 4868 gives taxpayers until October 15 to file their 2020 tax return, but does not grant an extension of time to pay taxes due.

Not for Estimated Taxes, Other Items

This relief does not apply to estimated tax payments that are due on April 15, 2021. Taxes must be paid as taxpayers earn or receive income during the year, either through withholding or estimated tax payments. Also, the federal tax filing deadline postponement to May 17, 2021, only applies to individual federal income returns and tax (including tax on self-employment income) payments otherwise due April 15, 2021, not state tax payments or deposits or payments of any other type of federal tax. The IRS urges taxpayers to check with their state tax agencies for details on state filing and payment deadlines.

Winter Storm Relief

The IRS had previously announced relief for victims of the February winter storms in Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana. These states have until June 15, 2021, to file various individual and business tax returns and make tax payments. The extension to May 17 does not affect the June deadline.

On March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. Some of the tax-related provisions include the following:

On March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. Some of the tax-related provisions include the following:

• 2021 Recovery Rebate Credits of $1,400 for eligible individuals ($2,800 for joint filers) plus $1,400 for each eligible dependent. Credit begins to phase out at adjusted gross income of $150,000 for joint filers, $112,500 for a head of household, $75,000 for other individuals. The IRS has already begun making advance refund payments of the credit to taxpayers.
• Exclusion of up to $10,200 of unemployment compensation from income for tax year 2020 for households with adjusted gross income under $150,000.
• Enhancements of many personal tax credits meant to benefit individuals with lower incomes and children.
• Exclusion of student loan debt from income, for loans discharged between December 31, 2020, and January 1, 2026.
• For tax years after December 31, 2026, the $1,000,000 deduction limit on compensation of a publicly-held corporation’s covered employees will expand to include the five highest paid employees after the CEO and CFO. The rule in current law applies to the CEO, the CFO, and the next three highest paid officers.
• For the payroll credits for paid sick and family leave: The credit amounts are increased by an employer’s collectively bargained pension plan and apprenticeship program contributions that are allocable to paid leave wages. Also, paid leave wages do not include wages taken into account as payroll costs under certain Small Business Administration programs.

The president is conducting a nationwide tour to explain and promote the over 600-page, $1.9 trillion legislation.

Stimulus Payments

Many of the 158.5 million American households eligible for the payments from the stimulus package can expect to receive them soon, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said the same afternoon Biden signed the legislation into law. Payments are coming by direct deposit, checks, or a debit card to those eligible.

FTC: Beware of Scams

Scammers are right now crawling out from under their rocks to fleece businesses and consumers receiving the aid, the Federal Trade Commission warned on March 12.

It is important for business owners and consumers to know that the federal government will never ask them to pay anything up front to get this money, said the FTC: "That’s a scam. Every time." The regulatory agency also cautioned that the government will not call, text, email or direct mail aid recipients to ask for a Social Security, bank account, or credit card number.

The IRS needs to issue new rules and guidance to implement the American Rescue Plan, experts said on March 11 as President Joe Biden signed his COVID-19 relief measure.

The IRS needs to issue new rules and guidance to implement the American Rescue Plan, experts said on March 11 as President Joe Biden signed his COVID-19 relief measure.

"I hope Treasury will say something very soon: FAQs, press release, something. IRS undoubtedly will have to write new regs," commented Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center Senior Fellow Howard Gleckman. He stressed IRS certainly will have to figure out how to make the retroactive tax exemption for some 2020 unemployment benefits work. Gleckman also said he suspects the Child Tax Credit will require new guidance.

Gleckman claimed a new form this late in the tax season is unlikely. "Amended returns seems easiest," said the veteran IRS observer.

To help implement the tax-related changes in the American Rescue Plan, a colleague at the Tax Policy Center, Janet Holtzblatt, said that she, as well, is looking for guidance from the IRS on what taxpayers would do if they received unemployment benefits in 2020. Holtzblatt noted the law would exclude $10,200 of those benefits from adjusted gross income if the taxpayers’ adjusted gross income is less than $150,000.

What people will want to know, Holtzblatt stated, is:

• What to do if they already filed their tax return and paid income taxes on those benefits? Do they have to file an amended tax return just to get the tax refund for that reason, or will the IRS establish a simpler method to do so?
• And going forward, what about people who have not yet filed their tax return? If a new form is not released, what should they report on the existing return—the full amount or the partial amount? And how will the IRS know when the tax return is processed whether the taxpayer reported the full amount or the partial amount? (Eventually, the IRS could—when, after the filing season is over and tax returns are matched to 1099s from UI offices—but that could be months before taxpayers would be made whole.)

For the CARES Act, Holtzblatt said the IRS generally provided guidance through FAQs on their website which was insufficient for some tax professionals and later voided. "Some of their interpretations raised questions—and in the case of the treatment of prisoners, was challenged in the courts and led to a reversal of the interpretation in the FAQ," she explained.

National Association of Tax Professionals Director of Marketing, Communications & Business Development Nancy Kasten said new rules are musts and the agency will have to issue new FAQs, potentially on all of the key provisions in the legislation. The NATP executive asserted that old forms are going to need to be revised for Tax Year 2021. "Regarding 2020 retroactive items, we are waiting on IRS guidance," said Kasten.

National Conference of CPA Practitioners National Tax Policy Committee Co-Chair Steve Mankowski said the primary rules that will need to be written ASAP relate to the changes in the 2020 unemployment, especially since it appears to be income based as well as the increased child tax credit with advanced payments being sent monthly unless a taxpayer opts out. He added there will most likely need to be a worksheet added to the 2020 tax returns to show the unemployment received and adjusting UE income down to the taxable amount.

Mankowski, immediate past president of NCCCPAP said the primary items for new FAQs include the unemployment and the income limit on the non-taxability, changes in the child tax credit; and changes in the Employee Retention Credit.

In response to an email seeking what the agency plans to do to help implement the pandemic relief measure, an IRS spokesman forwarded the following statement released on March 10:

"The IRS is reviewing implementation plans for the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 that was recently passed by Congress. Additional information about a new round of Economic Impact Payments and other details will be made available on IRS.gov, once the legislation has been signed by the President."

Strengthening tax breaks to promote manufacturing received strong bipartisan support at a Senate Finance Committee hearing on March 16.

Strengthening tax breaks to promote manufacturing received strong bipartisan support at a Senate Finance Committee hearing on March 16.

Creating new incentives and making temporary ones permanent are particularly critical for helping American competitiveness in semiconductors, batteries and other high-tech products, Senate Banking Chair Ron Wyden (D-Ore) and Ranking Minority Party Member Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) stressed at the session.

Wyden said it is urgent business for elected officials to create conditions for the American semiconductor industry to thrive for years as part of a Congressional job creation toolkit. "I have seen too many short-term tax policies and mistakes," the Senate Finance Chair said. His sentiment was echoed by Crapo, the committee’s top Republican: "This is an area of bipartisan interest, and I welcome the opportunity to work with Chairman Wyden on this."

Crapo: Don’t Raise Corporate Rate

At the same time, Crapo cautioned Congress should not offset losses in federal revenue from increasing the stability of investment importance of protecting tax credit credits by raising the overall corporate tax rate. He said he is "very concerned" by reports he has heard that the White House is preparing to propose just that. Currently at 21 percent, the corporate tax rate was 35 percent before the 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act took effect.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School Of Management Accounting Professor Michelle Hanlon told the hearing raising corporate tax rates would put American industry at a competitive disadvantage globally. She said the 2017 tax cuts should be built upon to expand manufacturing.

While saying expanding tax breaks for tech including clean energy is critical, Senator Tom Carper (D-Del) warned the federal government is looking at an avalanche of debt. To lessen that surge, he said it is important to go after the tax gap: money that taxpayers owe but they are not paying.

Senator Todd Young (R-Ind) warned that left unchanged, starting in 2022 companies will no longer be able to expense research and development expenses in the year incurred. "This would come at the expense of manufacturing jobs," he said. Young has introduced legislation to let businesses write up R&D as they are currently allowed.

If businesses are not allowed to continue to amortize their research and development expenses in the year they are incurred, it would significantly increase the cost to perform R&D in the U.S., Intel Chief Financial Officer George Davis warned the panel.

Ford Embraces Biden Proposal

Ford Motor Company Vice President, Global Commodity Purchasing And Supplier Technical Assistance Jonathan Jennings told the Senate that the auto maker embraces President Joe Biden’s proposal to provide a 10 percent advanceable tax credit for companies creating U.S. manufacturing jobs.

IRS Commissioner Charles "Chuck" Rettig told Congress on February 23 that the backlog of 20 million unopened pieces of mail is gone.

IRS Commissioner Charles "Chuck" Rettig told Congress on February 23 that the backlog of 20 million unopened pieces of mail is gone.

"There were trailers in June filled (with unopened paper returns). There are none today," Rettig said in an appearance before the House Appropriations Committee Financial Services Subcommittee.

When there was a delay in getting to a return, Rettig said that a taxpayer was credited on the date the mail was received, not the day the payment was processed.

The IRS leader stated that virtual currency, which is designed to be anonymous, has probably significantly increased the amount of money taxpayers owed but have not paid since the last formal figure of $381 billion was estimated in 2013.

To close the gap between money owed and money paid, Rettig said there has to be an increase in guidance as well as enforcement. "The two go together," said Rettig, who pointed out that the IRS must support the people who are working to get their tax payments right as well as working against those who are trying to thwart the agency’s efforts.

Rettig cited high-income/high-wealth taxpayers, including high-income non-filers, as high enforcement priorities. "We have not pulled back enforcement efforts for higher income individuals during the pandemic. We can be impactful," said Rettig. He added that the IRS is using artificial intelligence and other information technology (IT) advances to catch wealthy tax law and tax rule breakers. "Our advanced data and analytic strategies allow us to catch instances of tax evasion that would not have been possible just a few years ago," said the IRS leader.

Rettig contended that the agency’s IT improvement efforts are being hampered by a shortage of funding. According to Rettig, three years into a six-year business modernization plan, the IRS has received half of the money it requested from Congress for the initiative.

One of the impacts of the pandemic on the IRS and the taxpayers and tax professionals it serves, said Rettig, is the average length of phone calls has risen to 17 minutes from 12 minutes because the issues have been more complex.

On another issue related to COVID-19, Rettig said the IRS has been diligently working to alert taxpayers and tax professionals to scams related to COVID-19, especially calls and email phishing attempts tied to the Economic Impact Payments (EIPs). He said people can reduce the chances of missing their EIP payments through lost, stolen or thrown-away debit cards by filing their tax returns electronically.

The Commissioner told the panel that the delay in starting the tax filing season this year will not add to any additional delays to refunds on returns claiming the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) or the Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC).

Rettig also noted that taxpayers who interact with an IRS representative now have access to over-the-phone interpreter services in more than 350 languages.

The Tax Court ruled that rewards dollars that a married couple acquired for using their American Express credit cards to purchase debit cards and money orders—but not to purchase gift cards—were included in the taxpayers’ income. The court stated that its holdings were based on the unique circumstances of the case.

The Tax Court ruled that rewards dollars that a married couple acquired for using their American Express credit cards to purchase debit cards and money orders—but not to purchase gift cards—were included in the taxpayers’ income. The court stated that its holdings were based on the unique circumstances of the case.

Background

During the tax years at issue, each taxpayer had an American Express credit card that was part of a rewards program that paid reward dollars for eligible purchases made on their cards. Card users could redeem reward dollars as credits on their card balances (statement credits). To generate as many reward dollars as possible, the taxpayers used their American Express credit cards to buy as many Visa gift cards as they could from local grocery stores and pharmacies. They used the gift cards to purchase money orders, and deposited the money orders into their bank accounts. The husband occasionally purchased money orders with one of the American Express cards.

The taxpayers also occasionally paid their American Express bills through a money transfer company. Using this method, they paid the American Express bill with a reloadable debit card, and the money transfer company would transmit the payment to American Express electronically. The taxpayers used their American Express cards to purchase reloadable debit cards that they used to pay their American Express bills, and the purchase of debit cards and reloads also generated reward dollars.

All of the taxpayers' charges of more than $400 in single transactions with the American Express cards were for gift cards, reloadable debit cards, or money orders. On their joint tax returns, the taxpayers did not report any income from the rewards program.

The IRS determined that the reward dollars generated ordinary income to the taxpayers. When a payment is made by a seller to a customer as an inducement to purchase property, the payment generally does not constitute income but instead is treated as a purchase price adjustment to the basis of the property ( Pittsburgh Milk Co., 26 TC 707, Dec. 21,816; Rev. Rul. 76-96, 1976-1 CB 23). The IRS argued that the taxpayers did not purchase goods or property, but instead purchased cash equivalents—gift cards, reloads for debit cards, and money orders—to which no basis adjustment could apply. As a result, the reward dollars paid as statement credits for the charges relating to cash equivalents were an accession to wealth.

Rebate Policy; Cash Equivalency Doctrine

The Tax Court observed that the taxpayers' aggressive efforts to generate reward dollars created a dilemma for the IRS which was largely the result of the vagueness of IRS credit card reward policy. Under the rebate rule, a purchase incentive such as credit card rewards or points is not treated as income but as a reduction of the purchase price of what is purchased with the rewards or points ( Rev. Rul. 76-96; IRS Pub. 17). The court observed that the gift cards were quickly converted to assets that could be deposited into the taxpayers’ bank accounts to pay their American Express bills. According to the court, to avoid offending its long-standing policy that card rewards are not taxable, the IRS sought to apply the cash equivalence concept, but that concept was not a good fit in this case.

The court stated that a debt obligation is a cash equivalent where it is a promise to pay of a solvent obligor and the obligation is unconditional and assignable, not subject to set-offs, and is of a kind that is frequently transferred to lenders or investors at a discount not substantially greater than the generally prevailing premium for the use of money ( F. Cowden, CA-5, 61-1 ustc ¶9382, 289 F2d 202). The court found that the three types of transactions in this case failed to fit this definition.

The court ruled that the reward dollars associated with the gift card purchases were not properly included in income. The reward dollars taxpayers received were not notes, but instead were commitments by American Express to allow taxpayers credits against their card balances. The court found that American Express offered the rewards program as an inducement for card holders to use their American Express cards.

However, the court upheld the inclusion in income of the related reward dollars for the direct purchases of money orders and the cash infusions to the reloadable debit cards. The court observed that the money orders purchased with the American Express cards, and the infusion of cash into the reloadable debit cards, were difficult to reconcile with the IRS credit card reward policy. Unlike the gift cards, which had product characteristics, the court stated that no product or service was obtained in these uses of the American Express cards other than cash transfers.

As the court noted, the money orders were not properly treated as a product subject to a price adjustment because they were eligible for deposit into taxpayers' bank account from acquisition. The court similarly found that the cash infusions to the reloadable debit cards also were not product purchases. The reloadable debit cards were used for transfers by the money transfer company, which the court stated were arguably a service, but the reward dollars were issued for the cash infusions, not the transfer fees.

Finally, the court stated that its holdings were not based on the application of the cash equivalence doctrine, but instead on the incompatibility of the direct money order purchases and the debit card reloads with the IRS policy excluding credit card rewards for product and service purchases from income.

The IRS Office of Chief Counsel has embarked on its most far-reaching Settlement Days program by declaring the month of March 2021 as National Settlement Month. This program builds upon the success achieved from last year's many settlement day events while being shifted to virtual format due to the pandemic. Virtual Settlement Day (VSD) events will be conducted across the country and will serve taxpayers in all 50 states and the District of Colombia.

The IRS Office of Chief Counsel has embarked on its most far-reaching Settlement Days program by declaring the month of March 2021 as National Settlement Month. This program builds upon the success achieved from last year's many settlement day events while being shifted to virtual format due to the pandemic. Virtual Settlement Day (VSD) events will be conducted across the country and will serve taxpayers in all 50 states and the District of Colombia.

Settlement Day

Settlement Day events are coordinated efforts to resolve cases in the U.S. Tax Court by providing taxpayers who are not represented by counsel with the opportunity to receive free tax advice from Low Income Taxpayer Clinics (LITCs), American Bar Association (ABA) volunteer attorneys, and other pro bono organizations. Taxpayers can also discuss their Tax Court cases and related tax issues with members of the Office of Chief Counsel, the IRS Independent Office of Appeals and IRS Collection representatives. These communications can aid in reaching a settlement by providing taxpayers with a better understanding of what is needed to support their case.

The Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS) employees also participate in VSDs to assist taxpayers with tax issues attributable to non-docketed years. Local Taxpayer Advocates and their staff can work with and inform taxpayers about how TAS may be able to assist with other unresolved tax matters, or to provide further assistance after the Tax Court matter is concluded. IRS Collection personnel will be available to discuss potential payment alternatives if a settlement is reached. For those who choose to take their cases to court, the VSD process can also give a better understanding of what information taxpayers need to present to the court to be successful.

Following its first announcement of virtual settlement days in May last year, the Chief Counsel and LITCs have successfully used VSD events to help more than 259 taxpayer resolve Tax Court cases without having to go to trial.

Registration and Information

The IRS proactively identifies and reaches out to taxpayers with Tax Court cases which appear most suitable for this settlement day approach, and invites them attend VSD events. The IRS also generally encourages taxpayers with active Tax Court cases to contact the assigned Chief Counsel attorney or paralegal about participating in the March VSD events.

This year, the IRS has included the following locations where these events have never been offered: Albuquerque, Billings, Buffalo, Cheyenne, Cleveland, Denver, Des Moines, Indianapolis, Little Rock, Milwaukee, Nashville, Peoria, Omaha, Reno, Sacramento, San Diego and San Jose.

LITCs can contact their local Chief Counsel offices about the event in their area. If additional information is needed, individuals can reach out to Chief Counsel’s Settlement Day Cadre, or contact Sarah Sexton Martinez at (312) 368-8604. Pro bono volunteers are encouraged to contact Meg Newman (Megan.Newman@americanbar.org) with the American Bar Association Tax Section.

An individual who owned a limited liability company (LLC) with her former spouse was not entitled to relief from joint and several liability under Code Sec. 6015(b). The taxpayer argued that she did not know or have reason to know of the understated tax when she signed and filed the joint return for the tax year at issue. Further, she claimed to be an unsophisticated taxpayer who could not have understood the extent to which receipts, expenses, depreciation, capital items, earnings and profits, deemed or actual dividend distributions, and the proper treatment of the LLC resulted in tax deficiencies. The taxpayer also asserted that she did not meaningfully participate in the functioning of the LLC other than to provide some bookkeeping and office work.

An individual who owned a limited liability company (LLC) with her former spouse was not entitled to relief from joint and several liability under Code Sec. 6015(b). The taxpayer argued that she did not know or have reason to know of the understated tax when she signed and filed the joint return for the tax year at issue. Further, she claimed to be an unsophisticated taxpayer who could not have understood the extent to which receipts, expenses, depreciation, capital items, earnings and profits, deemed or actual dividend distributions, and the proper treatment of the LLC resulted in tax deficiencies. The taxpayer also asserted that she did not meaningfully participate in the functioning of the LLC other than to provide some bookkeeping and office work.

However, the taxpayer, a high school graduate, testified that she had “a little bit of banking education,” indicating that she had some familiarity with bookkeeping. Her ex-spouse added during trial that the taxpayer had worked at a bank for a few years. Regarding her role in the LLC, the taxpayer maintained the business' books and records, prepared and signed sales tax returns and unemployment tax contribution forms on its behalf, and worked with an accountant to prepare its tax returns. Nothing in the record indicated that her ex-spouse tried to deceive or hide anything from her.

Further, the taxpayer’s joint ownership of the LLC, her involvement in maintaining its books and records, her role in preparing and signing tax-related documents on behalf of the business, and her cooperation with an accountant to prepare the LLC’s tax returns, showed that she had actual knowledge of the factual circumstances that made the deductions unallowable. Thus, she also was not entitled to relief under Code Sec. 6015(c).

The taxpayer was not eligible for streamlined determination under Rev. Proc. 2013-34, 2013-43 I.R.B. 397, because no evidence corroborated her testimony that her former spouse had abused her in any sense to which the tax law or common experience would accord any recognition. The history of acrimony between the taxpayer and her ex-spouse called into question the weight to be given to her claims of spousal abuse. Finally, the taxpayer was unable to persuade the court that she was entitled to equitable relief under Code Sec. 6015(f). She was intimately involved with the LLC, knew or had reason to know of the items giving rise to the understatement, and failed to make a good-faith effort to comply with her income tax return filing obligations.

A married couple’s civil fraud penalty was not timely approved by the supervisor of an IRS Revenue Agent (RA) as required under Code Sec. 6751(b)(1). The taxpayers’ joint return was examined by the IRS, after which the RA had sent them a summons requiring their attendance at an in-person closing conference. The RA provided the taxpayers with a completed, signed Form 4549, Income Tax Examination Changes, reflecting a Code Sec. 6663(a) civil fraud penalty. The taxpayers declined to consent to the assessment of the civil fraud penalty or sign Form 872, Consent to Extend the Time to Assess Tax, to extend the limitations period.

A married couple’s civil fraud penalty was not timely approved by the supervisor of an IRS Revenue Agent (RA) as required under Code Sec. 6751(b)(1). The taxpayers’ joint return was examined by the IRS, after which the RA had sent them a summons requiring their attendance at an in-person closing conference. The RA provided the taxpayers with a completed, signed Form 4549, Income Tax Examination Changes, reflecting a Code Sec. 6663(a) civil fraud penalty. The taxpayers declined to consent to the assessment of the civil fraud penalty or sign Form 872, Consent to Extend the Time to Assess Tax, to extend the limitations period.

Thereafter, the RA obtained written approval from her immediate supervisor for the civil fraud penalty, and sent the taxpayers a notice of deficiency determining the same. The taxpayers contended that the civil fraud penalty was not timely approved by the RA’s supervisor because the revenue agent report (RAR) presented at the conference meeting embodied the first formal communication of the RA’s initial determination to assert the fraud penalty.

Due to the use of a summons letter requiring the taxpayers' attendance, the closing conference at the end of the taxpayers’ examination process carried a degree of formality not present in most IRS meetings. The closing conference was, like an IRS letter, a formal means of communicating the IRS’s initial determination that taxpayers should be subject to the fraud penalty. Therefore, the RA communicated her initial determination to assert the fraud penalty when she provided the taxpayers with a completed and signed RAR at the closing conference. The RA had also informed the taxpayers during the closing conference that they did not have appeal rights at that time, which was incomplete and potentially misleading.

The completed RAR given to the taxpayers during the closing conference, coupled with the context surrounding its presentation, represented a "consequential moment" in which the RA formally communicated her initial determination that the taxpayers should be subject to the fraud penalty.

The small business health insurance tax credit, created by the health care reform package, rewards employers that offer health insurance to their employees with a tax break. The credit is targeted to small employers; generally employers with 25 or fewer employees. In May 2010, the IRS issued Notice 2010-44, which describes the steps employers take to determine eligibility for the credit and how to calculate the credit.

Initial steps

1. Determine the employees taken into account for purposes of the credit.

Generally, any employee who performs services for you during the tax year is taken into account in determining your full-time employees (FTEs), average wages, and premiums paid. However partners and certain business owners are excluded. Additionally, family members of these owners and partners are also not taken into account as employees.

Example. A partnership employs five individuals, including one of the partners, Elise, and her spouse, Ron. For purposes of the credit, Elise and Ron are not taken into account as employees in determining the number of FTEs for purposes of the credit.

2. Determine the number of hours of service performed by those employees.

An employee's hours of service include (1) each hour for which an employee is paid, or entitled to payment, for the performance of duties for the employer during the employer's tax year; and (2) each hour for which an employee is paid, or entitled to payment, by the employer on account of vacation, holiday, illness, and similar events. The IRS allows you to use one of three alternative methods to calculate hours of service: (1) actual hours of service; (2) days-worked equivalency; or (3) weeks-worked equivalency.

Example. Priscilla is an employee of ABC Co. ABC's payroll records show that Priscilla worked 2,000 hours and was paid for an additional 80 hours on account of vacation, holiday and illness in 2010. Priscilla performed 2,080 hours of service.

3. Calculate the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) employees.

Employers use a formula to calculate the number of FTEs. Total hours of service credited during the year to qualified employees (but not more than 2,080 hours for any employee) are divided by 2,080. The result, if not a whole number, is then rounded to the next lowest whole number.

Example. An employer pays five employees wages for 2,080 hours each, pays three employees wages for 1,040 hours each, and pays one employee wages for 2,300 hours. The employer's FTEs would be calculated as follows:

(1) Total hours of service not exceeding 2,080 per employee is the sum of:

(a) 10,400 hours of service for the five employees paid for 2,080 hours each (5 x 2,080);

(b) 3,120 hours of service for the three employees paid for 1,040 hours each (3 x 1,040); and

(c) 2,080 hours of service for the one employee paid for 2,300 hours (the lesser of 2,300 and 2,080).

The sum of (a), (b) and (c) equals 15,600 hours of service.

(2) The hours of service -- 15,600 -- are divided by 2,080, which equals 7.5. That number is rounded to the next lowest whole number, which is seven. The employer has seven FTEs.

4. Determine the average annual wages paid per FTE.

Employers also use a formula to determine average annual wages paid for a tax year. The amount of total wages paid to qualified employees is divided by the number of the employer's FTEs for the year. The result is then rounded down to the nearest $1,000 (if not otherwise a multiple of $1,000).

Example. XYZ Co. has 10 FTEs and pays average annual wages of $224,000 for the 2010 tax year. The amount of XYZ's average annual wages is $224,000 divided by 10, which equals $22,400. When rounded down to the nearest $1,000, is $22,000.

5. Determine the amount of premiums paid by the employer.

Only premiums paid by the employer for health insurance coverage are counted in calculating the credit. If an employer pays only a portion of the premiums for the coverage provided to employees (with employees paying the rest), only the portion paid by the employer is taken into account.

However, an employer's premium payments are not taken into account for purposes of the credit unless the payments are for health insurance coverage under a qualifying arrangement. Generally, this is an arrangement under which the employer pays premiums for each employee enrolled in health insurance coverage offered by the employer in an amount equal to a uniform percentage (not less than 50 percent) of the premium cost of the coverage.

Additionally, the amount of an employer's premium payments taken into account in calculating the credit is limited to the premium payments the employer would have made under the same arrangement if the average premium for the small group market in the state (or an area within the state) in which the employer offers coverage were substituted for the actual premium.

Example. MNO Co. offers a health insurance plan with single and family coverage to its nine FTEs with average annual wages of $23,000 per FTE. Four employees are enrolled in single coverage and five are enrolled in family coverage.

MNO pays 50 percent of the premiums for all employees enrolled in single coverage and 50 percent of the premiums for all employees enrolled in family coverage. The premiums are $4,000 a year for single coverage and $10,000 a year for family coverage. The average premium for the small group market in employer's State is $5,000 for single coverage and $12,000 for family coverage.

MNO's premium payments for each FTE ($2,000 for single coverage and $5,000 for family coverage) do not exceed 50 percent of the average premium for the small group market in employer's state ($2,500 for single coverage and $6,000 for family coverage).

The amount of premiums paid by the employer for purposes of computing the credit equals $33,000 ((4 x $2,000) + (5 x $5,000) = $33,000).

Calculating the credit

After determining eligibility for the credit, employers calculate the amount of their credit. The maximum credit is 35 percent for employers with 10 or fewer FTEs paying average annual wages of not more than $25,000. The maximum credit for a tax-exempt employer is 25 percent. The maximum 35 percent and 25 percent credits are available for 2010 through 2013. The maximum amounts rise for 2014 and 2015, but at that time the credit is linked to an employer's participation in a state insurance exchange.

The credit is subject to phase-out. The credit is reduced by 6.667 percent for each FTE in excess of 10 employees and by four percent for each $1,000 that average annual compensation paid to an employee exceeds $25,000.

The following examples illustrate calculation of the credit:

Small for-profit employer

PRS Co. employs nine FTEs with average annual wages of $23,000 per FTE for the 2010 tax year. PRS pays $72,000 in health insurance premiums for those employees (which does not exceed the average premium for the small group market in the employer's state) and otherwise meets the requirements for the credit. PRS's credit for 2010 is $25,200 (35 percent x $72,000).

Small tax-exempt employer

TUV employs 10 FTES with average annual wages of $21,000 per FTE for the 2010 tax year. TUV pays $80,000 in health insurance premiums for its employees (which does not exceed the average premium for the small group market in the employer's state) and otherwise meets the requirements for the credit. The total amount of the employer's income tax and Medicare tax withholding plus the employer's share of the Medicare tax equals $30,000 in 2010.

The credit is calculated as follows: (1) The initial amount of the credit is determined before any reduction: (25 percent x $80,000) = $20,000; (2) The employer's withholding and Medicare taxes are $30,000; (3) the total 2010 tax credit equals $20,000 (the lesser of $20,000 and $30,000).

We've covered a lot of material. Please contact our office if you have any questions about the small employer health insurance tax credit.

The health care reform package (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010) imposes a new 3.8 percent Medicare contribution tax on the investment income of higher-income individuals. Although the tax does not take effect until 2013, it is not too soon to examine methods to lessen the impact of the tax.

Net investment income

"Net investment income" includes interest, dividends, annuities, royalties and rents and other gross income attributable to a passive activity. Gains from the sale of property not used in an active business and income from the investment of working capital are also treated as investment income. Further, an individual's capital gains income will be subject to the tax. This includes gain from the sale of a principal residence, unless the gain is excluded from income under Code Sec. 121, and gains from the sale of a vacation home. However, contemplated sales made before 2013 would avoid the tax.

The tax applies to estates and trusts, on the lesser of undistributed net income or the excess of the trust/estate adjusted gross income (AGI) over the threshold amount ($11,200) for the highest tax bracket for trusts and estates, and to investment income they distribute.

However, the tax will not apply to nontaxable income, such as tax-exempt interest or veterans' benefits.

Deductions

Net investment income is gross income or net gain, reduced by deductions that are "properly allocable" to the income or gain. This is a key term that the Treasury Department expects to address in guidance, and which we will update on developments. For passively-managed real property, allocable expenses will still include depreciation and operating expenses. Indirect expenses such as tax preparation fees may also qualify.

For capital gain property, this formula puts a premium on keeping tabs on amounts that increase your property's basis. It also focuses on investment expenses that may reduce net gains: interest on loans to purchase investments, investment counsel and advice, and fees to collect income. Other costs, such as brokers' fees, may increase basis or reduce the amount realized from an investment. As such, taxpayers may want to consider avoiding installment sales with net capital gains (and interest) running past 2012.

Thresholds

The tax applies to the lesser of net investment income or modified AGI above $200,000 for individuals and heads of household, $250,000 for joint filers and surviving spouses, and $125,000 for married filing separately. MAGI is your AGI increased by any foreign earned income otherwise excluded under Code Sec. 911; MAGI is the same as AGI for someone who does not work overseas.

Example. Jim, a single individual, has modified AGI of $220,000 and net investment income of $40,000. The tax applies to the lesser of (i) net investment income ($40,000) or (ii) modified AGI ($220,000) over the threshold amount for an individual ($200,000), or $20,000. The tax is 3.8 percent of $20,000, or $760. In this case, the tax is not applied to the entire $40,000 of investment income.

Exceptions to the tax

Certain items and taxpayers are not subject to the 3.8 percent Medicare tax. A significant exception applies to distributions from qualified plans, 401(k) plans, tax-sheltered annuities, individual retirement accounts (IRAs), and eligible 457 plans. There is no exception for distributions from nonqualified deferred compensation plans subject to Code Sec. 409A. However, distributions from these plans (including amounts deemed as interest) are generally treated as compensation, not as investment income.

The exception for distributions from retirement plans suggests that potentially taxable investors may want to shift wages and investments to retirement plans such as 401(k) plans, 403(b) annuities, and IRAs, or to 409A deferred compensation plans. Increasing contributions will reduce income and may help you stay below the applicable thresholds. Small business owners may want to set up retirement plans, especially 401(k) plans, if they have not yet established a plan, and should consider increasing their contributions to existing plans.

Another exception is provided for income ordinarily derived from a trade or business that is not a passive activity under Code Sec. 469, such as a sole proprietorship. Investment income from an active trade or business is also excluded. However, SECA (Self-Employment Contributions Act) tax will still apply to proprietors and partners. Income from trading in financial instruments and commodities is also subject to the tax.

The additional 3.8 percent Medicare tax does not apply to income from the sale of an interest in a partnership or S corporation, to the extent that gain of the entity's property would be from an active trade or business. The tax also does not apply to business entities (such as corporations and limited liability companies), nonresident aliens (NRAs), charitable trusts that are tax-exempt, and charitable remainder trusts that are nontaxable under Code Sec. 664.

Income tax rates

In addition to the tax on investment income, certain other tax increases proposed by the Obama administration may take effect in 2011. The top two marginal income tax rates on individuals would rise from 33 and 35 percent to 36 and 39.6 percent, respectively. The maximum tax rate on long-term capital gains would increase from 15 percent to 20 percent. Moreover, dividends, which are currently capped at the 15 percent long-term capital gain rate, would be taxed as ordinary income. Thus, the cumulative rate on capital gains would increase to 23.8 percent in 2013, and the rate on dividends would jump to as much as 43.4 percent. Moreover, the thresholds are not indexed for inflation, so more taxpayers may be affected as time elapses.

Please contact our office if you would like to discuss the tax consequences to your investments of the new 3.8 percent Medicare tax on investment income.

The answer is no for 2010, but yes, in practical terms, for 2014 and beyond. The health care reform package (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010) does not require individuals to carry health insurance in 2010. However, after 2013, individuals without minimum essential health insurance coverage will be liable for a penalty unless otherwise exempt.

Shared responsibility

The health care reform package describes health insurance coverage as "shared responsibility." Individuals, employers, the federal government, and the states all have roles to play in guaranteeing that individuals do not lack minimum essential health insurance coverage.

The health care reform package assumes that employer-provided health insurance will continue to be the primary means of delivering coverage after 2013. The health care reform package includes measures that lawmakers hope will keep premium costs down along with tax incentives, so employers continue to offer health insurance. For larger employers (those with 50 or more employees), that "encouragement" is also combined with penalties if alternate health insurance is not offered.

Millions of Americans are also currently covered by Medicaid, Medicare and other government programs. They will continue to be covered by these programs after 2013. Indeed, some of these government programs will be expanded between now and 2013, covering more individuals.

Individual responsibility

Beginning in 2014, the health care reform package imposes a penalty on individuals for each month they fail to have minimum essential health insurance coverage for themselves and their dependents. Another name for the penalty is "shared responsibility payment."

As a baseline, all individuals without minimum essential health insurance coverage will be liable for the penalty. However, the health care reform package expressly excludes certain individuals from liability for the penalty. They include:

• Individuals whose household income is below their income thresholds for filing a federal income tax return;
  
• Individuals who are exempt on religious conscience grounds;
  
• Individuals whose contribution to employer-provided coverage exceeds a threshold percentage;
  
• Hardship cases;
  
• Native Americans;
  
• Undocumented aliens;
  
• Incarcerated individuals;
  
• Individuals with short lapses of minimum essential coverage;
  
• Individuals covered by Medicare, Medicaid and other government programs; and
  
• Certain individuals outside the U.S.

Amount of penalty

The monthly penalty after 2013 is 1/12 of the flat dollar amount or a percentage of income, whichever is greater. For 2014, the flat dollar amount is $95 and the percentage of income is one percent. The flat dollar amount rises to $695 in 2016 (indexed for inflation thereafter) and the percentage of income increases to 2.5 percent.

For individuals under age 18, the flat dollar amount is 50 percent of the amount for adults. Generally, a family's total penalty cannot exceed $285 for 2014 (rising to $2,085 by 2016) or the national average annual premium for the "bronze" level of coverage through a state insurance exchange. By 2014, each state must establish an insurance exchange where individuals can shop for health insurance coverage. The exchanges will have four levels of coverage: bronze, silver, gold, and platinum.

Example. Ana, age 38, is self-employed with a modified adjusted gross income (AGI) of $68,500 for 2014. Ana does not have minimum essential coverage for all 12 months of 2014 and is not exempt from carrying minimum essential coverage because of income or other qualifying reasons. Ana will be liable for a penalty of the greater of $95 or one percent of her modified AGI.

Example. Ana's mother, Barbara, is enrolled in Medicare. Barbara has minimum essential coverage because she is enrolled in Medicare and is not liable for a penalty.

Health insurance tax credits

At the same time the individual responsibility requirement kicks in, the health care reform package provides a refundable health insurance premium assistance tax credit to qualified persons. The premium assistance credit will operate on a sliding scale based on an individual's relationship to the federal poverty level (between 100 and 400 percent).

The healthcare reform package makes the premium assistance tax credit refundable and also provides for advance payment of the credit. Advance payment will be made to the health plan in which the individual is enrolled.

Adult children

There is one important change regarding individual coverage for 2010. Effective September 23, 2010, the health care reform package enables more young adults to remain on their parents' health insurance policies. Generally, employer-sponsored group health plans will be required to provide coverage for adult children up to age 26 if the adult child is ineligible to enroll in another employer-sponsored plan. The health care reform package also extends the employer-provided health coverage gross income exclusion to coverage for adult children under age 27 as of the end of the tax year.

Guidance

The IRS, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and other federal agencies are expected to issue extensive guidance on the individual responsibility mandate. Our office will keep you posted on developments.

On March 18, 2010, President Obama signed the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act. The $18 billion HIRE Act is expected to be the first of several "jobs" bills out of Congress in 2010. The new law encourages companies to hire unemployed workers and also retain existing workers by providing two key tax incentives: payroll tax relief and a worker retention tax credit. Employers can take a tax credit of up to $1,000 for the year if they hire an unemployed worker and retain the new worker for at least one year.

Payroll tax forgiveness

The Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) is made up of two taxes: Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance (OASDI) (Social Security) and hospital insurance (HI)(Medicare). Employers pay OASDI tax equal to 6.2 percent of an employee's taxable wages up to $106,800. The HIRE Act temporarily lifts the employer's 6.2 percent OASDI tax.

The covered employee must be on the employer's payroll after February 3, 2010 and before January 1, 2011. However, payroll tax forgiveness applies only to wages paid to covered employees after March 18, 2010 and before January 1, 2011.

Example #1. Ann is hired as a full-time employee working 40 hours each week by ABC Co. Ann's hire date is January 31, 2010. On March 19, ABC Co. hires Nate as a full-time employee working 40 hours each week. On April 30, ABC Co. hires Cai as a full-time employee working 40 hours each week. Ann is not a covered employee for purposes of the HIRE Act because she began employment with ABC Co. before February 3, 2010. Cai and Nate are covered employees under the HIRE Act because their start dates are after February 3, 2010 and they are on the company's payroll after March 18, 2010.

The HIRE Act requires that employees certify they had not been employed for more than 40 hours during the 60-day period ending on the date their employment with the qualified employer began. The IRS is developing a form that employers can use to obtain the certification from covered employees.

Example #2. In example #1, Cai and Nate were covered employees under the HIRE Act because their start dates with ABC Co. were after February 3, 2010 and they were on the payroll after March 18, 2010. Before coming to work for ABC Co., Cai was employed full-time (40 hours per week) by XYZ Co. between November 1, 2002 and April 29, 2010 (one day before her date of hire by ABC Co.). Consequently, Cai cannot certify that she had not been employed for more than 40 hours during the 60-day period ending on the date of her employment with ABC Co.

A covered employee must not replace another employee of the employer, with some exceptions. The exceptions cover employees who voluntarily quit and employees who are fired for cause. Additionally, the covered employee must not be related to the employer or own a certain share of the employer's business. Some employees, for example household employees, are expressly excluded from the HIRE Act.

Retained worker tax credit

As part of the general business credit, the HIRE Act allows employers to claim a worker retention credit. For each qualified employee, the employer's general business credit is increased by the lesser of $1,000 or 6.2 percent of the retained worker's wages paid during a 52-week consecutive period.

The covered employee must be on the employer's payroll after March 18 and continue in employment for at least 52 consecutive weeks. Additionally, the covered employee's wages during the last 26 weeks of the 52 consecutive week period must equal at least 80 percent of the wages paid during the first 26 weeks of that period.

Example #3. In example #1, Nate was a covered employee under the HIRE Act because his start date with ABC Co. was after February 3, 2010. Additionally, Nate qualified his employer for payroll tax forgiveness because he was on the company's payroll after March 18, 2010. At the close of business on September 24, 2010, Nate resigns from ABC Co. Consequently, ABC Co. may claim payroll tax forgiveness for Nate for the period between March 19, 2010 and September 24, 2010 but ABC Co. cannot claim the retained worker tax credit because Nate did not remain employed with the company for at least 52 consecutive weeks.

Employers will need to maintain careful records with respect to each new employee hired in order to show that the new worker qualifies the employer for the credit. It is presumed that the IRS will begin crafting a form to be used by employers in order to claim the credit.

Please contact our office if you have any questions about the HIRE Act. The business incentives are temporary, so don't delay.

Health care reform is now law and many employers are asking how does it affect my business and my employees? The first thing to keep in mind is that reform is gradual. The health care reforms and tax provisions in the new health care reform package play out over time, with some taking effect this year or next year but others not until 2014 and beyond. However, the health care package imposes significant new responsibilities and taxes on employers and individuals so it is not too early to start preparing.

Two new laws

Health care reform is actually made up of two new laws. The first is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, signed by President Obama on March 23. The second is the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, signed by the president on March 26. The Patient Protection Act, which reflects the Senate's original health care reform bill, provides the overall framework for reform. The Reconciliation Act was drafted in the House to make changes to the Patient Protection Act, especially in the area of cost-sharing and in some of the revenue raisers.

Employer responsibility

The final health care package, unlike earlier versions, does not include an employer mandate. However, any employer with more than 50 full-time employees that does not offer health insurance and has at least one full-time employee receiving a premium assistance tax credit or cost-sharing will pay a per-employee penalty. An employer with more than 50 full-time employees that offers coverage that the government deems unaffordable or fails to meet minimum standards and has at least one full-time employee receiving a premium assistance tax credit or cost-sharing also will pay a per-employee penalty. Small employers with less than 50 employees will not be penalized in any case. The penalty rules apply starting in 2014.

Small employers that provide health insurance coverage are eligible for a new tax credit. A sliding scale tax credit is available immediately in 2010 for qualified small employers. The IRS is expected to make guidance for the new credit a priority. If your small business offers or is thinking of offering health insurance to your workers, the credit could generate significant cost-savings. Please contact our office and we can discuss the details of the credit in depth.

Individual responsibility

Unlike employers, individuals have a mandate under the health care reform package. Beginning in 2014, most individuals will be responsible for maintaining health insurance coverage for themselves and their dependents. If they do not have minimum essential coverage, they will be liable for a penalty.

The health care package excludes many individuals from the mandatory coverage requirement. Any individual or family who currently has coverage can retain that coverage under a "grandfather" provision. Individuals with incomes below the federal filing threshold, religious objectors, individuals covered by Medicaid and Medicare and others are also exempt.

The health care package provides a premium assistance tax credit and cost-sharing to help make coverage more affordable. The premium assistance tax credit is calculated on a sliding scale based on the individual's income in relation to the federal poverty level. Cost-sharing reduces the cost of coverage for qualified individuals. The premium assistance tax credit and cost-sharing generally will be available after 2013.

High-dollar plans

One of the principal revenue raisers to fund health care reform is a new excise tax on high-dollar health insurance plans. The health care reform package imposes an excise tax of 40 percent on insurance companies or plan administrators for any health insurance plan with an annual premium in excess of $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. The excise tax applies to the amount in excess of the $10,200/$27,500 levels. The thresholds are higher for individuals in high-risk occupations and individuals over age 55. The excise tax will not kick in until 2018.

Medicare additional tax and surtax

Changes to the hospital insurance (HI)(Medicare) tax also fund health care reform. These changes impact higher-income individuals and families.

The health care reform package increases the Medicare tax by 0.9 percent for individuals who receive wages in excess of $200,000 (the threshold increases to $250,000 for married couples who file a joint federal income tax return). Additionally, the new law imposes a 3.8 percent surtax (called the Unearned Income Medicare Contribution) on investment income for individuals with adjusted gross incomes above $200,000 ($250,000 for married couples filing jointly). Investment income includes income from interest and dividends.

The additional Medicare tax on wages and the additional Medicare contribution on investment income take effect in 2013, so taxpayers have some time to prepare. Please contact our office for more details about how these tax changes may impact you.

Flexible spending arrangements

Flexible spending arrangements (FSAs) are a very popular way to save and pay for health care expenses. One of the most attractive features is the ability to use FSA dollars for over-the-counter medications. The health care reform package ends that feature after 2010.

In 2011 and subsequent years, FSA dollars can only be used to pay for prescription medications (with some limited exceptions). In 2013, the health care reform package limits the amount of contributions to health FSAs to $2,500 per year. The $2,500 amount will be indexed for inflation after 2013.

More provisions

The health care reform package als

• Increases the AGI threshold for claiming the itemized deduction for medical expenses for regular tax purposes to 10 percent after 2012 with a delayed effective date for seniors;
• Extends dependent coverage up to age 26;
• Expands Medicaid eligibility;
• Requires states to establish insurance exchanges to help individuals and small employers obtain coverage;
• Increases the additional tax on distributions from health savings accounts (HSAs) not used for qualified medical expenses;
• Eliminates the employer deduction for Medicare Part D;
• Imposes annual fees on pharmaceutical manufacturers and health insurance providers;
• Imposes an excise tax on medical device manufacturers;
• Requires more corporate information reporting;
• Imposes new requirements on non-profit hospitals;
• Accelerates some corporate estimated income taxes in 2014;
• Imposes an excise tax on indoor tanning services;
• Codifies the economic substance doctrine; and
• Modifies the biofuel credit.

In the coming months and years, the IRS and other federal agencies will issue many new rules and regulations to implement health care reform. Our office will keep you posted of developments, and, as always, please contact us if you have any questions.

As 2010 unfolds, small businesses are confronted with tax challenges and opportunities on many fronts. Lackluster consumer spending, combined with tight credit, has many small businesses in a holding pattern. Congress may respond with a new tax credit to encourage hiring. Small businesses are also faced with uncertainty over many temporary provisions in the federal Tax Code. Many of these incentives have expired. At the same time, small businesses are uncertain how health care reform, the fate of the federal estate tax and proposed retirement savings initiatives may impact them.

Hiring and retention tax credit

To encourage businesses to hire more workers, the Senate has passed a hiring and retention tax credit (Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act). The credit exempts employers from paying the 6.2 percent Social Security tax for qualified new hires up to the Social Security wage base of $106,800. The new hire must have been unemployed for at least 60 days and added to the employer's payroll before January 1, 2011. Employers would also be eligible for an additional $1,000 tax credit for each new hire that they keep on the payroll for at least 52 consecutive weeks.

The House has not scheduled a vote on the Senate's hiring and retention credit and it is unclear if it will. The House approved a jobs bill late last year (Jobs for Main Street Act, H.R. 2847), which does not include a hiring and retention credit.

Extenders

Businesses may be surprised that some of the tax breaks they took in 2009 are not available in 2010. That's because many of these popular business tax incentives are temporary and they expired at the end of 2009. They include the research tax credit, 15-year recovery periods for qualified leasehold improvement, restaurant, and retail improvement property, enhanced corporate contributions to qualified organizations, special incentives for producers of alternative energy, and others.

In December 2009, the House approved legislation extending these temporary business incentives through December 31, 2010 (Tax Extenders Act of 2009, H.R. 4213). The Senate, however, has yet to act on the House bill or vote on its own version of an extenders package. Traditionally, the extenders have been renewed but this year there is a chance that renewal may be later rather than sooner. High unemployment numbers have Congress focused on job creation. A growing number of lawmakers view many of the extenders as having little if any impact on immediate job creation in the private sector.

Expensing/bonus depreciation

Under a temporary provision expiring at the end of 2009, taxpayers could expense up to $250,000 in annual investment expenditures for qualified property. The maximum amount that could be expensed for property placed in service in 2009 was reduced by the amount that the qualified property exceeded $800,000. The Obama administration has proposed extending enhanced Code Sec. 179 expensing, with the $250,000/$800,000 threshold, through December 31, 2010. The Senate approved an extension in its jobs bill and the House approved an extension last year but the chambers have yet to approve the extension in a common bill that they can send to the White House for the president's signature.

Another expired pending incentive is bonus depreciation. Under a temporary provision, an additional first-year depreciation deduction equal to 50 percent of the adjusted basis of the property was provided for qualified property acquired and placed in service before January 1, 2010. The Obama administration has proposed extending bonus depreciation through December 31, 2010. The House approved an extension last year but the Senate has not. There is growing sentiment among some senators that the extension of bonus depreciation into 2010 would be an expensive "budget buster" not worth the price tag.

Health care reform

Health care reform, which dominated the news in recent months, has been on the back burner as lawmakers have switched their attention to jobs. However, health care reform remains a priority of the Obama administration. Some form of a reform package may be enacted in 2010 and it could impose new mandates on employers.

The House health care reform bill (Affordable Health Care for America Act, H.R. 3962) would require employers to satisfy certain minimum coverage requirements. Otherwise, the employer would be liable for an additional payroll tax. Small employers, generally businesses with annual payrolls below $500,000, would be exempt. The Senate health care reform bill (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, H.R. 3590) does not require employers of any size to provide health insurance coverage.

Estate tax

Many small business owners are reviewing their estate plans after the federal estate tax expired January 1, 2010. Effective for decedents dying on and after January 1, 2010 and on or before December 31, 2010 the federal estate tax is replaced with a carryover basis regime. Generally, the income tax basis of property acquired from a decedent is carried over from the decedent. Executors may partially increase the basis of property by up to $1.3 million ($3 million in the case of property passing to a surviving spouse).

The House passed a bill late last year extending the 2009 estate tax into 2010 (Permanent Estate Tax Relief Bill of 2009, H.R. 4154). However, the Senate has not acted on the House bill. Democratic leaders have said the Senate will vote on an extension but have not laid out a timetable. If you have not reviewed your estate plans in light of the expiration of the federal estate tax, please contact our office.

Retirement plans

The Obama administration proposes requiring employers that do not currently offer a retirement plan to offer their employees automatic enrollment in an individual retirement account (IRA). Small businesses (generally employers with 10 or fewer employees) would be exempt from the proposed requirement. The administration's proposal would be effective for tax years beginning after January 1, 2011. Qualified employers would be eligible for a temporary tax credit of $25 for each employee up to a total credit of $250 per year for a maximum of two years.

At the same time, the administration proposes to enhance the existing tax incentive for small employers that establish a retirement plan. Under current law, employers with 100 or fewer employees that adopt a new qualified retirement plan are entitled to a temporary tax credit equal to 50 percent of their expenses to establish and administer the plan. The credit is limited to $500 per year for three years. The administration has asked Congress to double the tax credit to $1,000 per year for three years. The administration's proposal would be effective for tax years beginning after January 1, 2011.

Employment tax audits

In addition to trying to cope with the changing tax laws, small businesses should be aware that the IRS has identified their group as a target for vigorous tax audits. Recent surveys have confirmed for the IRS that the small business environment presents easy opportunities for some "bad apples" to cheat on their taxes. Armed with those statistics as justification, the IRS is now aggressively looking to small businesses to help close "the tax gap," the difference between what taxpayers owe and what is actually collected. One initial area of concern involves employment taxes.

The IRS recently launched a special study of employment tax compliance. The IRS will randomly audit 2,000 taxpayers, including small businesses, each year for the next three years. Employers selected for the study will receive notices from the IRS. According to the IRS, these examinations will be comprehensive, will look at all aspects of employment tax compliance, and will be used to form more effective criteria for auditing many more small businesses.

If you have any questions about the tax opportunities and challenges we have discussed, please contact our office.

People are buzzing about Roth Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs). Unlike traditional IRAs, "qualified" distributions from a Roth IRA are tax-free, provided they are held for five years and are made after age 59 1/2, death or disability. You can establish a Roth IRA just as you would a traditional IRA. You can also convert assets in a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA.

Before 2010, only taxpayers with adjusted gross income of $100,000 or less were eligible to convert their traditional IRA (provided they were not married taxpayers filing separate returns). Beginning in 2010, anyone can convert a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA, regardless of income level or filing status.

Comment: While you can only contribute a maximum of $5,000 to a Roth IRA for 2010 (plus a $1,000 catch-up contribution if you are over age 50), you can convert an unlimited amount from a traditional IRA.

Conversion is treated as a taxable distribution of assets from the traditional IRA to the IRA holder, although it is not subject to the 10 percent tax on early distributions. While paying taxes on conversion is undesirable, the advantages of holding assets in a Roth IRA usually outweigh this disadvantage, especially if you will not be retiring soon. Furthermore, if you convert assets in 2010, you have the option of including them in income in 2011 and 2012 (50 percent each year) instead of 2010.

Comment: Generally, this income-splitting would be advantageous to any taxpayer who does not expect a sharp increase in income in 2011 or 2012. A wildcard factor is that the lower income tax rates that have been in effect since 2001 will expire after 2010 and could increase in 2011.

There are four ways to convert a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA:

• A rollover - you receive a distribution from a traditional IRA and roll it over to a Roth IRA within 60 days;
• Trustee-to-trustee transfer - you direct the trustee of the traditional IRA to transfer an amount to the trustee of a Roth IRA;
• Same-trustee transfer - the trustee of the traditional IRA transfers assets to a Roth IRA maintained by the same trustee; or
• Redesignation - you designate a traditional IRA as a Roth IRA, instead of opening a new Roth account.

Comment: The account holder does not have to convert all of the assets in the traditional IRA.

Another advantage of converting assets from a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA is that you can change your mind and put the assets back into the traditional IRA. This is known as a recharacterization. You have until the due date, with extensions, for the return filed for the year of conversion. Thus, if you convert assets in 2010, you have until mid-October in 2011 to undo the conversion.

This ability to recharacterize the conversion allows you to use hindsight to check whether your assets declined in value after the conversion. Since you are paying taxes on the amount converted, a decline in asset value means that you paid taxes on phantom income that no longer exists. However, if you convert assets into multiple Roth IRAs, you can choose to recharacterize the assets in a Roth IRA that decreased in value, while maintaining the conversion for a Roth IRA's assets that appreciated in value.

The use of a Roth IRA can be a savvy investment, but whether to convert assets is not an easy decision. If you would like to explore your options, please contact this office.