Form 56- Notice Concerning Fiduciary Relationship

Form 1040-Final Individual Income Tax Return and the State Tax Return

Form 706-United States Estate (and Generatino-Skipping Transfer) Tax Return 

TAX FILINGS FOR ESTATES AND TRUSTS

FORM 56 – NOTICE CONCERNING FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP

This form is filed with the IRS to notify the Service that you are acting as the representative for the estate or trust. It is important to file this form as soon as possible so that the Service sends any tax notices or other correspondence to the correct address.  By filing this form, you notify the IRS that you are the responsible party for filing and paying taxes for the estate or trust.

FORM 1040 – FINAL INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RETURN AND THE STATE TAX RETURN

The decedent’s final individual tax returns, Form 1040 and state return.  The executor, administrator, or trustee is responsible for filing this form. It includes all income, deductions, credits, and withholdings from January 1 to through the date of death. As of the date of death, the decedent’s tax filing ends.

FORM 706 – UNITED STATES ESTATE (and GENERATION-SKIPPING TRANSFER) TAX RETURN

This return reports all the assets and liabilities of the decedent as of the date of death or an alternate valuation date. It is a snapshot of a moment in time.  It does not report income and it is not an income tax return.

The assets are reported at the fair market value as of the date of death. The executor of the estate must obtain documents to prove the date of death values of the decedent’s assets. These documents would include bank statements, CD certificates, broker statements, IRA and/or 401k statements, annuity statements, etc. dated as of the date of death or very close to it. The estate must also include life insurance proceeds on policies owned by the decedent and payable on his/her death. It will include income earned but not yet received by the decedent such as a paycheck, a bonus, and award, etc.

There will be a need for appraisals of the value of certain assets if the decedent owned any of the following:

• real estate
• a closely held business
• partnership interests
• jewelry
• art, antiques, and collectibles

The return is required if the net value is in excess of $5.43 million in 2015.  This amount is referred to as the exemption amount. This amount is estate-tax free. It is adjusted annually for inflation.

The return may be required if the surviving spouse elects to carry over her/his deceased spouse’s unused exemption amount (the DSUE).  In general, we advise a spouse to file the Form 706 to make this election if the couple’s entire estate is valued at $4 million or more at the date of the first spouse’s death.

The Form 706 is due exactly 9 months after the date of death. For example, if the date of death is February 7, the Form 706 is due by November 7. An extension may be available for the filing for 6 months.  The extension is for filing, not paying. The estate tax is due by the original filing date.

FORM 1041 – US INCOME TAX RETURN FOR ESTATES AND TRUSTS and THE STATE RETURN

Income earned or received and deductions incurred after the date of death are reported on this return. For example, if the date of the decedent’s date of death is May 6, there could be a final decedent’s return for the period January 1 through May 6 reporting income and deductions during that period. The estate or trust would file a Form 1041 reporting income and deductions for the period May 7 through December 31.  It is important to keep track of income and deductions during these two periods of time.

FORM 709 – UNITED STATES GIFT (and GENERATION-SKIPPING TRANSFER) TAX RETURN

• Every individual may gift (give a gift) up to $14,000 per gift recipient in 2015 without incurring a gift tax.
• Gifts are never taxable to the recipient.
• Gifts may be taxable to the giver. 
• You may give or bequest up to the Exclusion Amount, $5.43 million in 2015, during your lifetime or at your death.
• All gifts and the net estate value are totaled on the Form 706.
• Annually, any gifts in excess of $14,000 are reported on the Form 709.
• The Form 709 is due by 4/15 each year. The due date can be extended to 10/15.

What is Propositon 60 & 90, 58 & 193 re transfer of base year property tax values

 FAQ’s REGARDING THE TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY TAX BASE

 What is Proposition 60?

Prop. 60 was a constitutional amendment approved by the voters of California in 1986. It allows the transfer of an existing Proposition 13 base year value from a former residence to a replacement residence, if certain conditions are met. This benefit is open to homeowners who are at least 55-years old and are able to meet all qualifying conditions, (see below).

 What is Proposition 90?

Proposition 90 has the same provisions and qualifications as Proposition 60.  The difference is that it allows base year transfers from one county to another county in California.  The only counties that have adopted an ordinance to allow values from other counties are:

o    Alameda

o    El Dorado

o    Los Angeles

o    Orange

o    Riverside

o    San Bernardino

o    San Diego

o    San Mateo

o    Santa Clara

o    Ventura

This list can change at any time.  Please contact the local assessor to see if the value of your original property can be transferred to a replacement in that county.

How do I qualify for these property tax benefits?

1. Proposition 60 - Both the original property (former residence) and its replacement must be located in the same county.
2. Proposition 90 - The original property is located in a different county from replacement, (see Proposition 90 information above).
3. As of the date of transfer of the original property, the seller or a spouse living with the seller must be at least 55 years old.
4. The original property must have been eligible for the Homeowners' Exemption or entitled to the Disabled Veterans' Exemption.
5. The replacement dwelling must be of equal or lesser value than the original property.
6. The replacement dwelling must have been purchased or newly constructed on or after 11/06/86.
7. Without exception, the replacement dwelling must be purchased or newly constructed within two years (before or after) of the sale of the original property.
8. The original property must be subject to reappraisal at its current fair market value as the result of its transfer, in accordance with Sections 110.1 or 5803 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
9. Without exception, a Claim for Relief must be filed within three years of the date a replacement dwelling is purchased or new construction of a replacement dwelling is completed to receive the full relief. A claim filed after the three year time period will receive a prospective relief only.

Is it true that only one claimant, out of several co-owners of a replacement dwelling, need be at least 55 as of the date of sale of an original property?

Yes, but the claimant must be an owner of record. Either the claimant or his/her spouse must also have been an occupant of the original property and at least 55 years old on the date of sale.

Can a taxpayer apply for and receive the benefit of Prop. 60/90 more than once?

 No, this is a one-time benefit. You are not eligible if you have been previously granted this benefit.

What is meant by "equal or lesser value" than the original dwelling?

In general, "equal or lesser value" means:
 
100 % of the market value of an original property if a replacement dwelling is purchased before the original property is sold.

105 % of the market value of an original property if a replacement dwelling is purchased within one year after the sale of the original property.

110 % of the market value of an original property if a replacement dwelling is purchased within the second year after the sale of the original property.

Is the "equal or lesser value" test a simple comparison of the sales price of the original property and the purchase price or cost of new construction of the replacement dwelling?

 No. The comparison must be made using the full market value of the original property and the full market value of the replacement dwelling as of its date of purchase or completion of new construction. This is important because sales prices are not always the same as market value. The Assessor must determine the market value for each property, which may differ from sales price.

If the current full cash value of my replacement dwelling slightly exceeds the full market value of my original property, can I still receive a partial benefit?

No. Unless the replacement dwelling satisfies the "equal or lesser value" test, no benefit is available.

May I give my original property to my child and still receive the Prop. 60/90 benefit when I purchase a replacement property?

No. The law provides that an original property must be sold for consideration and subject to reappraisal at full market value at the time of sale. Original property transferred to a child or disposed of by gift or devise does not qualify.  See the FAQ’s below re Propositions 58 and 193.

Can I qualify for the benefits of Prop. 60/90 when I sell my original property (owned by me alone) and purchase a replacement dwelling with several co-owners? What if I own only a 10 percent interest in the replacement dwelling?

Yes. The base year value of your original property can be transferred to your replacement dwelling, as long as you are otherwise qualified.  You may receive the benefits of Prop. 60 regardless of how many co-owners of record there are on the replacement dwelling.  In this situation, the total market value of the original property is compared to the total market value of the replacement property regardless of the fact that the qualified principal claimant may only own 10 percent of both original and replacement dwelling properties.  

You and your spouse, as the claimants, will use your "one time only" benefit.  An owner of record of the replacement property who is not the claimant's spouse is not considered a claimant, and a claim filed for the property will not constitute use of the one-time-only exclusion by the co-owner even though that person may benefit from the property tax relief.

Can two otherwise qualified taxpayers who have recently sold their separately owned original properties combine their claim for Prop. 60/90 benefit when they buy a single replacement dwelling together?

No. they can only receive the benefit if one or the other, not both together, qualifies by comparing his or her original property to the jointly purchased replacement dwelling. The implementing legislation specifically disallows combining a claim, whether or not the co-owners of the replacement dwelling are married.

May I, as a former co-owner of an original property, receive partial benefit on my replacement dwelling, along with other co-owners who purchase separate replacement dwellings?

No. The law provides that only one co-owner of an original property that is, or was, qualified for the Homeowners' Exemption may receive the benefit in a situation like this where all co-owners purchase separate replacement dwellings. The co-owners must determine, between themselves, which one should receive the benefit. Only in the case of a multiple-residential original property, where several co-owners qualify for separate Homeowners' Exemptions, may portions of the factored base year value of that property be transferred to several qualified replacement dwellings.

What if I am the co-owner of a property with more than one residential unit?

 A portion of the original property may qualify for the Homeowners' Exemption for you. The base year value of that portion can be transferred to your replacement dwelling. The other portion(s) of the original property may qualify for a separate Homeowners' Exemption(s). The base year value(s) of that other portion(s) can be transferred to another replacement dwelling(s).

Does a person qualify for the Prop. 60/90 benefit when he/she sells an original property, then buys a replacement dwelling within two years, but no longer qualifies for a Homeowners' Exemption on the original property that sold nearly two years before?

Yes. The statute requires that the original property be eligible for the Homeowners' Exemption at the time of sale. It is eligible if the claimant owns and occupies the property as his or her principal residence at the time of sale.

Can I receive Prop 60. benefits if my original property is outside Orange County but my replacement dwelling is inside Orange County?

No. Both properties must be within Orange County. 

Can I receive Prop. 60 benefits if my original property is inside Orange County but my replacement dwelling is in another county in California?

You may qualify under Prop. 90. Call the county Assessor's Office where the replacement dwelling is located and ask if that county allows transfers of base year values between counties.

If the transfer of my base year value to the replacement dwelling results in a supplemental assessment that is a refund, do I still have to pay the existing annual roll tax bill on the replacement property or will that bill be adjusted to reflect the new, lower value?

Unfortunately, you must pay the existing annual roll tax bill on your replacement property. That bill cannot be adjusted or canceled to reflect the Prop. 60 benefit. Additionally, you must pay that bill before any refund resulting from the Prop. 60 benefit will be sent to you.

However, after the existing bill has been paid, you will later receive a refund that will reflect the Prop. 60 benefit. In other words, when the entire process is complete, you will not have overpaid any taxes,.

May parents transfer the family home to their children without a property tax reassessment?

YES.  Proposition 58 allows parents to transfer by gift, bequest, or sale their principal residence to their child(ren) and there will be no property tax reassessment. There is no limit on the value of the principal residence.  The parents must have a Homeowner’s or Disabled Veterans Exemption on the home.

May parents transfer other property to their children without a property tax assessment?

Yes. Each parent may transfer up to a total of $1 million of other property to their children without a property tax assessment. 

May grandparents transfer property to their grandchildren without a property tax assessment?

Proposition 193 expanded the benefits of family transfers of real property to grandparents.  They may transfer the property to a grandchild(ren) without a tax reassessment if the middle generation had already died.

How do the transferor and transferee obtain the relief of Propositions 58 and 193?

In order to obtain such relief, a Claim for Reassessment Exclusion for Transfer form must be signed by  both the property owner or deceased owner’s estate and by the person to whom title is being transferred.  The Claim must be filed within three years of the date of the transfer of the real property.  It is filed with the county Assessor.

International estates, an increasing concern.

Situation:  One of our clients referred a challenging fiduciary issue to our firm.  A U.S. citizen had died and left his assets to relatives in India.  The benficiaries of the estate were not U.S. citizens.  The trustee had to travel to the U.S. to settle the estate, creating a compressed timeline.  The trustee was facing a large tax bill as the rule for income paid to a non-U.S. citizen is that tax must be withheld at a rate of 30%, and the trustee is liable for the withholding.

Action:  The fiduciary accounting team at Green Zahn & Associates determined that the tax convention with The Republic of India provided for relief from double taxation and that the fiduciary was not required to withhold tax.

Results:  GZA saved the taxpayer tens of thousands of dollars in tax withholdings, and the cost of a second year's tax return preparation, by being proactive in researching and understanding international tax laws.

We need to prepare a burden calculation, what?!

Situation:  Our client needed to submit burden calculations, in a proposal, to a major customer.

Action:  We helped our client determine what costs should be included in the burden pool to enable the client to accurately calculate the burden.

Results:  Our client received acceptance of their proposal to produce parts for the customer.

We need to expand to another state...

Situation:  A construction company client wanted to be qualified to do business in another state.  The state required audited financial statements to be submitted in the qualification process.

Action:  Our client included reviewed financial statements prepared by Green Zahn & Associates in the qualifications package submitted to the state.

Results:  The state accepted the reviewed financial statements and the company received its license to operate in the state.

We love to help!

As a firm, we believe in giving back to our community.  This year we have achieved this through cash and time donations.  We regularly support the Long Beach Symphony, the Long Beach Rescue Mission, the Orange County School of the Arts, and (of course!) UCLA.  Allison dedicates quite a bit of time to the National Association of Women Business Owners' Mentoring Committee where she helps new business owners receive invaluable coaching from seasoned professionals.  Several staff members participated in the Run Seal Beach 5k & 10k this year and Rachel went on to participate in the Long Beach Half Marathon, the rest of the staff was happy to cheer for her!

In July the entire staff headed over to the Ronald McDonald House in Long Beach to prepare lunch for the families staying there.  We toured the facility, learned about the charity and its services, and prepared a fresh Chinese chicken salad luncheon.  It was very gratifying to help an organization with such a noble cause.  We highly reccomend adding this charity to the list you support, there are many ways to get involved, from preparing meals, to helping out with odd jobs, or donating household supplies. Cash donations are always useful as well.  Did you know that you can rent their beautiful, high tech boardroom for your company's off-sites?  Find out more at their website:

     http://www.longbeachrmh.org/about_us.php

In November we headed over to Working Wardrobes in Costa Mesa to help prepare for a workshop they hold at Camp Pendleton in suport of our returning troops.  Working Wardrobes is a smart organization that not only helps individuals put together a professional wardrobe, but offers workshops, mentoring and training on subjects such as networking the art of management, marketing, and change management.  Check out their offerings at:

     http://www.workingwardrobes.org/

We are always looking for opportunities to get involved, so let us know if you have a favorite not-for-profit that could use the likes of us for a day's worth of labor.  You can email your ideas to: greenzahn@greenzahn.com

Help!  Are we growing too fast?

Situation:  A manufacturing client was experiencing extremely rapid growth and their accounting needs were not being met by their in-house team, creating hazards on their path to success.

Action:  GZA stepped in to provide additional support to their existing accounting department as well as assisting with creating a policies and procedures manual to provide a basis for future growth.

Results:  The client was able to maintain stability and meet the demands of their clients while sustaining the rapid growth.

The IRS has announced a significant increase in enforcement actions for syndicated conservation easement transactions. This is a "priority compliance area" for the agency.

The IRS has announced a significant increase in enforcement actions for syndicated conservation easement transactions. This is a "priority compliance area" for the agency.

Throughout the IRS, coordinated examinations are being conducted in the Small Business and Self-Employed (SB/SE) Division, Large Business and International (LB&I) Division, and Tax Exempt and Government Entities (TE/GE) Division. The IRS Criminal Investigation (CI) Division has also been initiating investigations. The audits and investigations cover billions of dollars of potentially inflated deductions, as well as hundreds of partnerships and thousands of investors.

"We will not stop in our pursuit of everyone involved in the creation, marketing, promotion and wrongful acquisition of artificial, highly inflated deductions based on these aggressive transactions. Every available enforcement option will be considered, including civil penalties and, where appropriate, criminal investigations that could lead to a criminal prosecution," said IRS Commissioner Charles "Chuck" Rettig. "Our innovation labs are continually developing new, more extensive enforcement tools that employ advanced techniques. If you engaged in any questionable syndicated conservation easement transaction, you should immediately consult an independent, competent tax advisor to consider your best available options. It is always worthwhile to take advantage of various methods of getting back into compliance by correcting your tax returns before you hear from the IRS. Our continued use of ever-changing technologies would suggest that waiting is not a viable option for most taxpayers," he added.

Syndicated Conservation Easements

The IRS issued Notice 2017-10, I.R.B. 2017-4, 544, in 2016, which designated certain syndicated conservation easements as listed transactions. In these types of transactions, investors in pass-through entities receive promotional material which offer the possibility of a charitable contribution deduction worth at least two-and-a-half times their investment. The deduction taken in many transactions has been significantly higher than 250 percent of the investment.

Syndicated conservation easements were included on the IRS’s 2019 "Dirty Dozen" list of tax scams to avoid.

Not only do these transactions grossly overstate the value of the easement that was purportedly donated to charity, they often also fail to comply with the basic requirements for claiming a charitable deduction for a donated easement.

Taxpayers may avoid the imposition of penalties for improper contribution deductions if they fully remove the improper contribution and related tax benefits from their returns by timely filing a qualified amended return or timely administrative adjustment request.

Enforcement Actions

The IRS has prevailed in many cases involving the charitable deduction basic requirements, and has established a body of law that it believes supports disallowance of the deduction in a significant number of pending conservation easement cases. The IRS will soon be moving the Tax Court to invalidate the claimed deductions in all cases where the transactions fail to comply with the basic requirements, leaving only the final penalty amount to be determined.

In addition to auditing participants in syndicated conservation easement transactions, the IRS is pursuing investigations of promoters, appraisers, tax return preparers and others, and is evaluating numerous referrals of practitioners to the IRS Office of Professional Responsibility. The IRS will develop and assert all appropriate penalties, including:

• penalties for participants (40 percent accuracy-related penalty);
• penalties for appraisers (penalty for substantial and gross valuation misstatements attributable to incorrect appraisals);
• penalties for promoters, material advisors, and accommodating entities (penalty for promoting abusive tax shelters, and penalty for aiding and abetting understatement of tax liability); and
• penalties for return preparers (penalty for understatement of taxpayer’s liability by a tax return preparer).

Rettig, Desmond Highlight Heightened Focus

Rettig and IRS Chief Counsel Michael J. Desmond have each highlighted the IRS’s heightened, agency-wide focus on syndicated conservations easements.

While speaking at the American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) 2019 National Tax Conference in Washington, D.C., Rettig and Desmond both separately underscored the IRS’s increased enforcement efforts toward abuses of certain tax-advantaged land transactions under Code Sec. 170(h).

"We appreciate the value of conservation easements," Rettig said. "We do not appreciate the activities that have gone on with respect to the syndicated conservation easements—there are some artificial appraisals there… some fatal flaws."

Reiterating the IRS’s tough stance on the matter, Rettig said that the IRS is not going to "stand down." The information in IR-2019-182 issued on November 12 was "fair warning," Rettig said.

Likewise, Desmond stressed that the challenges surrounding syndicated conservation easements are an "institutional concern" for the IRS, "one that we will be responding to," he emphasized.

Treasury and the IRS are expected to release proposed rules in "early 2020" that would clarify certain limitations on the carried interest tax break, according to David Kautter, Treasury’s assistant secretary for tax policy. Kautter briefly addressed the proposed regulations’ timeline while speaking at the American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) 2019 National Tax Conference in Washington, D.C.

Treasury and the IRS are expected to release proposed rules in "early 2020" that would clarify certain limitations on the carried interest tax break, according to David Kautter, Treasury’s assistant secretary for tax policy. Kautter briefly addressed the proposed regulations’ timeline while speaking at the American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) 2019 National Tax Conference in Washington, D.C.

Carried Interest Limitation

The forthcoming regulations are expected to restrict S corporations from taking advantage of a carried interest exemption provision under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97). The TCJA requires certain money managers to hold investments for at least three years before becoming eligible for the lower, 20 percent capital gains rate. However, it exempted corporations from this holding period, which Treasury and many lawmakers on Capitol Hill say resulted in an unintended "loophole."

The proposed regulations are expected to clarify the law’s intent that S corporations are subject to the three-year holding period for carried interest, according to Treasury’s last press release on the matter issued in March 2018 (see "Treasury, IRS Issue Guidance On Carried Interest," at https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm0302).

Legal Questions May Arise

Most notably, however, the TCJA does not expressly contain this limitation on S-corporations, which has left some on Capitol Hill questioning Treasury and the IRS’s authority to implement such a restriction via regulations. The IRS on November 15 directed Wolters Kluwer to Treasury for confirmation on this anticipated rule and projected timeline. As of press time, Treasury had not responded to Wolters Kluwer’s request for comment.

Hopes for a year-end tax extenders package appear to be dwindling on Capitol Hill.

Hopes for a year-end tax extenders package appear to be dwindling on Capitol Hill.

Tax Extenders Need a Legislative Vehicle

Over 30 expired or soon-to-be expired tax breaks known as tax extenders were originally considered a top contender for hitching a ride on a larger, must-pass government funding bill. Considering the lack of time left on the legislative calendar this year, a stand-alone tax bill has been considered an unlikely initiative. Thus, a must-pass appropriations bill was seen by several lawmakers as the likely legislative vehicle for tax extenders and other tax items such as technical corrections to Republicans’ 2017 tax reform law.

However, a spokesperson for Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, confirmed to Wolters Kluwer on October 28 that Grassley believes there is "no hope" for action this year on a tax extenders package if lawmakers do not move quickly with respect to its legislative driver. Many within the practitioner community following these developments have said that the chances of providing taxpayers with certain tax breaks retroactively significantly decrease if Congress moves into next year leaving them expired.

Another Stopgap Spending Bill Appears Likely

Currently, the federal government is operating on a stopgap spending bill temporarily extending fiscal year (FY) 2019 funding levels through November 21. Previously, several lawmakers, in particular Grassley, had hoped that a tax extenders package would be attached to a larger, more comprehensive appropriations bill next month. However, Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Richard Shelby, R-Ala., told reporters that another short-term stopgap spending bill is the more likely option to keep the government open after November 21. "Unless a miracle happens around here with the House and Senate, we will have to put forth another [continuing resolution] CR," Shelby told reporters.

Notably, another short-term government funding bill is considered unlikely to have any policy riders. Generally, stop gap spending bills are usually considered "clean," for the most part. Also playing a role in tax extenders’ fate is whether President Trump would sign a more comprehensive appropriations bill. At this time, his support for a larger FY 2020 funding bill, apart from tax policy reasons, remains unclear.

Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and other top Senate tax writers are calling for Senate action on the bipartisan Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Secure bill (HR 1994) (SECURE Act). The House-approved, bipartisan retirement savings bill has remained stalled in the Senate since May.

Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and other top Senate tax writers are calling for Senate action on the bipartisan Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Secure bill (HR 1994) (SECURE Act). The House-approved, bipartisan retirement savings bill has remained stalled in the Senate since May.

SECURE Act’s Route to Senate Floor Remains Unclear

Grassley’s communications director Michael Zona told Wolters Kluwer on October 21 that it remains "unclear at this point" whether the SECURE Act will move through committee, reach the Senate floor by unanimous consent, or be attached to a larger, year-end tax package. "Grassley supports the House-passed SECURE Act. There are several holds on the bill, and he is working to get them lifted," Zona said.

The SECURE Act cleared the House on May 23 by a 417-to-3 vote. The bipartisan measure, which proposes sweeping changes to retirement savings tax policy, was originally expected to quickly clear the Senate after its approval in the House. However, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex., blocked the bill from reaching the Senate floor. Cruz blocked the bill in protest of House Democrats’ 11th hour-removal of a provision from the original bill that would have expanded tax-advantaged Section 529 education savings plans to include homeschooling and certain elementary and secondary expenses. Cruz and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., are reportedly still holding up the measure from reaching the Senate floor.

Catch-All Tax Package

However, the SECURE Act, among other bipartisan tax-related items including tax extenders, could be attached to a catch-all tax package that is expected on Capitol Hill to hitch a ride on a year-end government funding bill. A "must-pass" appropriations bill, like the one currently being negotiated to keep the government open after funding expires on November 21, could serve as the tax package’s legislative vehicle, thus fast tracking its approval.

"As the economy continues to change, the way we approach retirement savings must change as well. Otherwise, too many Americans will be left behind," Grassley said on October 21, noting that the SECURE Act is under "active consideration."

Similar to Grassley’s push, Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., led a letter sent to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., urging immediate Senate consideration of the SECURE Act. "This bipartisan legislation would expand access to retirement plans for millions of Americans, allow older workers and retirees to contribute more to their retirement accounts, increase 401(k) coverage to part-time employees, prevent as many as 4 million people in private-sector pension plans from losing future benefits, protect 1,400 religiously affiliated organizations whose access to their defined contribution retirement plans is in jeopardy, and do the right thing for Gold Star families," according to Scott.

The Senate blocked a Democratic resolution on October 23 to overturn Treasury rules preventing certain workarounds to the $10,000 state and local tax (SALT) federal deduction cap.

The Senate blocked a Democratic resolution on October 23 to overturn Treasury rules preventing certain workarounds to the $10,000 state and local tax (SALT) federal deduction cap.

SALT Cap Workaround

Senate Democrats’ resolution, S.J. Res. 50, forced a vote on Wednesday to nullify Treasury regulations that block taxpayers from circumventing the SALT cap through certain states’ programs that convert state and local taxes into fully deductible charitable contributions. The resolution failed by a largely party-line vote of 43-to-52.

Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., voted against the Democratic measure while Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., supported it. While the resolution would not repeal the SALT cap itself, House Democrats are reportedly crafting legislation to do so. Democrats and some Republicans, particularly from high-tax states, have criticized the SALT cap since its enactment in 2017 under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97).

Debate on SALT Cap, Treasury Rules

"Without any clear authority to do so, the Treasury Department reversed a long-standing IRS position that had allowed taxpayers a full deduction for charitable contributions to state tax credit programs," Senate Finance Committee (SFC) ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said on the Senate floor before the vote. "My view is the Treasury Department should not be putting its thumb on the scale on behalf of Republican interests, and it shouldn’t be using phony regulatory justifications to fix Republicans’ extraordinarily poorly drafted law."

However, several Republicans cited to a recent report from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), which estimated that repealing the SALT cap beginning in 2019 would result in over $40 billion of the associated tax cut going to taxpayers with incomes of at least $1 million ( JCX-35-19).

"It’s bad enough that my Democratic colleagues want to unwind tax reform, but it’s downright comical that their top priority is helping wealthy people in blue states find loopholes to pay even less," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said from the Senate floor on October 23. "Repealing the SALT cap would give millionaires an average tax cut of $60,000. Meanwhile, the average tax cut for taxpayers earning between $50,000 and $100,000 would be less than ten dollars."

Vaping Tax

In other news, the House Ways and Means Committee approved a bipartisan vaping tax bill, ( HR 4742), on October 23 by a 24-to-15 vote. The bill would establish a $27.81 tax per gram of nicotine used in vaping devices.

Treasury and the IRS on October 31 announced the release of a new, draft form implementing certain reporting requirements under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Opportunity Zone program.

Treasury and the IRS on October 31 announced the release of a new, draft form implementing certain reporting requirements under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Opportunity Zone program.

The proposed Form 8996 for Qualified Opportunity Funds (QOFs) comes after numerous calls on Capitol Hill for more transparency within the Opportunity Zone program. "The form is designed to collect information on the amount of investment by opportunity funds in business property by census tract," according to a Treasury press release.

Opportunity Zones’ Architect Applauds Treasury’s Steps Toward Reporting Requirements

Ken Farnaso, press secretary for Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., chief architect of the TCJA’s bipartisan Opportunity Zone program, told Wolters Kluwer on October 31 that reporting requirements, "an important piece of the puzzle," were, in fact, originally in the bill. "Unfortunately, during the tax reform process, Senate Democrats blocked these requirements from being included in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Since then, Senator Scott has continued working to restore those reporting requirements," Farnaso said.

Additionally, Farnaso told Wolters Kluwer that Scott applauds Treasury’s steps to ensure a clearer picture of the impact the Opportunity Zones initiative can have on the country. "Senator Scott will also continue to push for his current bill restoring robust reporting requirements to create a holistic picture of how the initiative is functioning," Farnaso said. "Overall, today is a good day for Opportunity Zones. We look forward to the more than $44 billion in currently anticipated investment being deployed in distressed communities across the nation, and that number growing even larger in the future."

Opportunity Zones Tax Incentive

The Opportunity Zone Program enacted under TCJA ( P.L. 115-97) is considered on Capitol Hill as one of the most generous and ambitious tax incentives for investors in distressed communities. Under Code Sec. 1400Z-2, investors may defer taxation of capital gains that are invested in a QOF.

Generally, the following investor tax benefits were created under the Opportunity Zone program:

• a temporary tax deferral for capital gains realized on the sale of appreciated assets and reinvested within 180 days in a QOF;
• the elimination of up to 10 or 15 percent of the tax on the capital gain that is invested in the QOF and held between five and seven years; and
• the permanent exclusion of tax when exiting a qualified opportunity fund investment held for at least 10 years.

Draft IRS Form 8996

Specifically, the new, draft Form 8996 for the 2019 tax year requires QOFs to report the following information:

• the Employer Identification Number (EIN) of each business in which the QOF has an ownership interest;
• the census tract location of the tangible property of the business;
  the value of the QOF’s investment; and
• the value and census tract location of qualified business property directly owned or leased.

"This is an important step towards a thorough evaluation of the Opportunity Zone tax incentive," Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said. "We want to understand where Opportunity Zone investments are going and strengthening the economy so that investors and communities can learn from the successes of this bipartisan, pro-growth policy."

Generally, the collection of this information will play a role in allowing lawmakers and the public to evaluate the effects of the tax incentive and to understand why some locations may be more successful than others at attracting investment, according to Treasury.

Opportunity Zones Criticism

The Opportunity Zone program has not come to fruition without its share of criticism, however. Although lawmakers have called for reporting requirements related to QOFs since the TCJA’s enactment, the program has recently come under increased scrutiny and criticism. Senate Finance Committee (SFC) ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., has said that the lack of reporting requirements are "inexcusable."

"Requiring taxpayers to prove they’re actually following the rules of the Opportunity Zone program is a positive first step, but it’s one that should have been taken two years ago…," Wyden said in an October 31 statement. "The Opportunity Zone program has been operating without any effort to ensure compliance and that’s inexcusable."

A California-based medical marijuana dispensary corporation’s motion for summary judgment challenging the constitutionality of Code Sec. 280E was denied. The Tax Court also addressed whether Code Sec. 280E applies to marijuana businesses legally operating under state (California) law, and whether the prohibition on deductions is limited to ordinary and necessary business expenses.

A California-based medical marijuana dispensary corporation’s motion for summary judgment challenging the constitutionality of Code Sec. 280E was denied. The Tax Court also addressed whether Code Sec. 280E applies to marijuana businesses legally operating under state (California) law, and whether the prohibition on deductions is limited to ordinary and necessary business expenses.

Section 280E

Congress enacted Code Sec. 280E after the court had allowed certain deductions for expenses incurred in connection with an illegal drug trade. Generally, Code Sec. 280E disallows any deductions attributable to a taxpayer’s illegal drug related trade or business. Taxpayers may reduce their income by the cost of goods sold (COGS), and Code Sec. 280E does not generally disallow deductions attributable to a taxpayer’s non-drug-related business.

Constitutionality

The Eighth Amendment of the Constitution prohibits excessive fines or penalties. The dispensary in this case claimed that Code Sec. 280E is a punitive provision that violates the Eighth Amendment. However, because Congress generally has the power to levy taxes under the Sixteenth Amendment, the Tax Court found that the law’s denial of certain deductions cannot be construed as a penalty.

Legality Under State Law

The dispensary also argued that its actions could not be considered "trafficking" for purposes of Code Sec. 280E because its activities were not illegal under California law. The court noted that because marijuana is still considered a Schedule I controlled substance and is banned under federal law, the application of Code Sec. 280E does not depend on the legality of marijuana sales under California law.

Additional Deductions

Finally, the dispensary argued that Code Sec. 280E only applies to deductions under Code Sec. 162, and that other deductions such as those under Code Secs. 164 and 167 should be permitted. However, the text of Code Sec. 280E broadly states that "no deduction or credit shall be allowed." It does not limit the deductions to those claimed under Code Sec. 162.

Dissenting Opinions

The Tax Court decision included several concurring and dissenting opinions, which primarily addressed the issue as to whether Code Sec. 280E is in fact a penalty provision that would violate the Eighth Amendment.

The dissenting opinions found that Code Sec. 280E is punitive in nature. One dissenter noted that rather than specify a narrow range of disallowed expenses, Code Sec. 280E attacks the entire marijuana industry with a broad denial of otherwise allowable deductions. The opinion stated that Congress passed Code Sec. 280E order to deter the sale of controlled substances and to penalize the drug trade. That intent was found to be "clearly in the nature of a penalty." Both dissents concluded with two additional questions, which the dissenters felt need to be addressed:

• Is the punitive nature of Code Sec. 280E excessive to the point where it violates the Eighth Amendment?, and
• Does the Eighth Amendment apply to corporation taxpayers?

The IRS has proposed regulations that define an eligible terminated S corporation (ETSC), and provide rules relating to distributions of money by an ETSC after the post-termination transition period (PTTP). The proposed regulations also extend the treatment of distributions of money during the PTTP to all shareholders of the corporation, and update and clarify the allocation of current earnings and profits to distributions of money and other property.

The IRS has proposed regulations that define an eligible terminated S corporation (ETSC), and provide rules relating to distributions of money by an ETSC after the post-termination transition period (PTTP). The proposed regulations also extend the treatment of distributions of money during the PTTP to all shareholders of the corporation, and update and clarify the allocation of current earnings and profits to distributions of money and other property.

Code Sec. 1371(f), as added by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97) extends the period during which C corporation shareholders can benefit from the corporation’s accumulated adjustment account (AAA) generated during its former status as an S corporation. Specifically, the provision allows the C corporation to source qualified distributions of money to which Code Sec. 301 would otherwise apply to in whole or part to AAA. The provision only applies if the corporation is an ETSC as defined in Code Sec. 481(d).

Under the proposed regulations, the revocation of S corporation status may be made during the two-year period beginning on December 22, 2017, even if the effective date for the revocation occurs after the conclusion of the two-year period.

Shareholder Identity Requirement

A former S corporation is not an ETSC unless the owners of its stock are the same owners (and in identical proportions) on December 22, 2017, and on the date of the S corporation revocation. The proposed regulations identify various categories of stock transfers that are not considered an ownership change for purposes of this rule.

ETSC Proration

A distributing ETSC’s AAA is allocated to qualified distributions and the distributions are chargeable to the ETSC’s accumulated earnings and profits (AE&P) based on the ETSC proration. The ETSC proration is implemented in a manner that facilitates the prompt distribution of AAA and full transition to C corporation status. Specifically, the proposed regulations:

• specify the time at which amounts of AAA and AE&P are determined for purposes of the ETSC proration;

• provide AAA and AE&P ratios used to the implement the proration; and

• describe in detail the method of characterizing qualified distributions.

The proposed regulations adopt a "snapshot" approach under which amounts of AAA and AE&P are determined on a specified date. As a result, the same ETSC proration is applied to all qualified distributions. Under the proposed regulations, the determination date is the date when the S corporation revocation election is effective. A "dynamic" approach that recalculated the amounts before each qualified distribution was rejected as administratively cumbersome.

The proposed regulations provide two ratios for determining the part of a qualified distribution that is sourced from AAA and from AE&P. The AAA ratio is the ratio of historical AAA to the sum of historical AAA and historical AE&P. The AE&P ratio is the ratio of historical AE&P and the sum of historical AAA and historical AE&P. The qualified distribution is multiplied by these ratios to determine the amount sourced from AAA and AE&P.

The proposed regulations provide a priority rule under which ETSC proration first applies to qualified distributions during the tax year. The rules of Code Sec. 301 and allocation rules of Code Sec. 316 then apply to any nonqualified distributions that are not fully accounted for by the ETSC proration because the corporation’s AAA or AE&P are exhausted.

Effective Date

The proposed regulations will be effective in tax years beginning after the date they are published as final regulations. A taxpayer may apply the regulations in their entirely to tax years that begin on or before the date of publication as final regulations.

All eyes are on Washington as the White House and the GOP seek to avoid the so-called “fiscal cliff” before the end of the year.  President Obama and House Republicans are negotiating the fate of the Bush-era tax cuts, mandatory spending cuts and more in the last weeks of 2012 and negotiations are expected to go right up to the end of the year.  At the same time, the IRS has cautioned that the start of the 2013 filing season could be delayed for many taxpayers because of late tax legislation.

All eyes are on Washington as the White House and the GOP seek to avoid the so-called “fiscal cliff” before the end of the year.  President Obama and House Republicans are negotiating the fate of the Bush-era tax cuts, mandatory spending cuts and more in the last weeks of 2012 and negotiations are expected to go right up to the end of the year.  At the same time, the IRS has cautioned that the start of the 2013 filing season could be delayed for many taxpayers because of late tax legislation.

Taxes and spending

Almost immediately after President Obama won re-election, Democrats and Republicans scrambled to stake out their positions over the fiscal cliff.  Unless the White House and the GOP reach an agreement, the Bush-era tax cuts will expire for all taxpayers after 2012 and across-the-board spending cuts will take effect.  Many popular but temporary tax incentives, known as tax extenders, expired after 2011, with many more scheduled to expire after 2012.  The alternative minimum tax (AMT), intended many years ago to apply to wealthy taxpayers, is on track to encroach on more middle income taxpayers because it is not indexed for inflation.  Also, the employee-side payroll tax cut is scheduled to expire after 2012.

Since winning a second term, President Obama has repeated that the Bush-era tax cuts should expire for higher income individuals after 2012.  The top two tax rates would rise to 36 percent and 39.6 percent after 2012. All of the remaining rates would be extended.  Tax rates on capital gains and dividends would also increase for higher income individuals. On the campaign trail, President Obama described higher income taxpayers as individuals with incomes above $200,000 and families with incomes above $250,000. 

President Obama has talked about trimming $4 trillion from the federal budget deficit.  Approximately $1.6 trillion would come from increased taxes on higher income individuals.  To achieve a target of $1.6 trillion in tax revenue, the Bush-era tax cuts could not be extended for higher income individuals.  Other incentives for higher income individuals would likely be curtailed or possibly eliminated under the President’s plan. These include the personal exemption phaseout (PEP) and the Pease limitation on itemized deductions. President Obama may also re-propose his “Buffett Rule,” which, the President has explained, would ensure that individuals making over $1 million a year pay a minimum effective tax rate of at least 30 percent.

The GOP, its majority reduced in the House after the November elections, has offered few details about its plans to avoid the fiscal cliff.  House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has indicated that the GOP may be open to raising revenue by closing tax loopholes and capping certain unspecified deductions for higher income individuals.  Revenue could also be raised by limiting or abolishing business tax deductions and credits.  Among the business tax incentives most often hinted at for elimination are ones for oil and gas producers. President Obama, however, has said that he will not support a deficit reduction plan that relies on closing undefined tax loopholes.

Possible scenarios

Looking ahead, several scenarios may play out before year-end.  President Obama and the GOP could agree on a tax and deficit reduction package that meets or comes close to the President’s targets.  President Obama and the GOP may agree to extend the Bush-era tax cuts and delay the spending cuts for three or six months to give everyone more time to negotiate a long-term deal.  On the other hand, both sides could fail to reach any agreement before year-end and the Bush-era tax cuts would expire as scheduled.  The spending cuts also would kick-in as scheduled.

Filing season

Whenever Congress changes the tax laws, the IRS has to reprogram its return processing systems.  Tax laws passed late in 2012 have the potential to delay the start of the 2013 filing season depending on how long it takes the IRS to reprogram its systems.

IRS officials have told Congress that they are preparing for late tax legislation, especially legislation on the AMT.  In past years, Congress has routinely “patched” the AMT to shield middle income taxpayers from its reach.  The IRS appears to be anticipating that Congress will patch the AMT for 2012.  If Congress does not, the IRS has warned that the start of the 2013 filing season could be delayed for as many as 60 million taxpayers.

The IRS also must reprogram its processing systems for the tax extenders.  These tax law changes generally do not require the level of reprogramming the AMT patch requires.  The IRS has predicted that any year-end extension of the extenders will be manageable.

Please contact our office if you have any questions about the tax and spending negotiations underway in Washington.

President Obama’s health care package enacted two new taxes that take effect January 1, 2013. One of these taxes is the additional 0.9 percent Medicare tax on earned income; the other is the 3.8 percent tax on net investment income. The 0.9 percent tax applies to individuals; it does not apply to corporations, trusts or estates. The 0.9 percent tax applies to wages, other compensation, and self-employment income that exceed specified thresholds.

President Obama’s health care package enacted two new taxes that take effect January 1, 2013. One of these taxes is the additional 0.9 percent Medicare tax on earned income; the other is the 3.8 percent tax on net investment income. The 0.9 percent tax applies to individuals; it does not apply to corporations, trusts or estates. The 0.9 percent tax applies to wages, other compensation, and self-employment income that exceed specified thresholds.

Additional tax on higher-income earners

There is no cap on the application of the 0.9 percent tax. Thus, all earned income that exceeds the applicable thresholds is subject to the tax. The thresholds are $200,000 for a single individual; $250,000 for married couples filing a joint return; and $125,000 for married filing separately. The 0.9 percent tax applies to the combined earned income of a married couple. Thus, if the wife earns $220,000 and the husband earns $80,000, the tax applies to $50,000, the amount by which the combined income exceeds the $250,000 threshold for married couples.

The 0.9 percent tax applies on top of the existing 1.45 percent Hospital Insurance (HI) tax on earned income. Thus, for income above the applicable thresholds, a combined tax of 2.35 percent applies to the employee’s earned income. Because the employer also pays a 1.45 percent tax on earned income, the overall combined rate of Medicare taxes on earned income is 3.8 percent (thus coincidentally matching the new 3.8 percent tax on net investment income).

Passthrough treatment

For partners in a general partnership and shareholders in an S corporation, the tax applies to earned income that is paid as compensation to individuals holding an interest in the entity. Partnership income that passes through to a general partner is treated as self-employment income and is also subject to the tax, assuming the income exceeds the applicable thresholds. However, partnership income allocated to a limited partner is not treated as self-employment and would not be subject to the 0.9 percent tax. Furthermore, under current law, income that passes through to S corporation shareholders is not treated as earned income and would not be subject to the tax.

Withholding rules

Withholding of the additional 0.9 percent Medicare tax is imposed on an employer if an employee receives wages that exceed $200,000 for the year, whether or not the employee is married. The employer is not responsible for determining the employee’s marital status. The penalty for underpayment of estimated tax applies to the 0.9 percent tax. Thus, employees should realize that the employee may be responsible for estimated tax, even though the employer does not have to withhold.

Planning techniques

One planning device to minimize the tax  would be to accelerate earned income, such as a bonus, into 2012. Doing this would also avoid any increase in the income tax rates in 2013 from the sunsetting of the Bush tax rates. Holders of stock-based compensation may want to trigger recognition of the income in 2012, by exercising stock options or by making an election to recognize income on restricted stock.

Another planning device would be to set up an S corp, rather than a partnership, for operating a business, so that the income allocable to owners is not treated as earned income. An entity operating as a partnership could be converted to an S corp.

If you have any questions surrounding how the new 0.9 percent Medicare tax will affect the take home pay of you or your spouse, or how to handle withholding if you are a business owner, please contact this office.

Taxpayers who do not meet the requirements for the home sale exclusion may still qualify for a partial home sale exclusion if they are able to prove that the sale was a result of an unforeseen circumstance. Recent rulings indicate that the IRS is flexible in qualifying occurrences as unforeseen events and allowing a partial home sale exclusion.

Generally, single taxpayers may exclude from gross income up to $250,000 of gain on sale or exchange of a principal residence and married taxpayers filing jointly may exclude up to $500,000. The exclusion can only be used once every two years.

To qualify for this exclusion, taxpayers must own and use the property as their principal residence for periods totaling two out of five years before sale. The five-year period can be suspended for up to 10 years for absences due to service in the military or the foreign service.

Partial exclusions are available when the ownership and use test or two-year test is not met but the taxpayer sells due to change of employment, health or unforeseen circumstances. Without these mitigating circumstances, all gain on the sale of a residence before the two years are up is taxed.

The IRS offers several "safe harbors," that is, events that will be considered to be unforeseen circumstances. These include the involuntary conversion of the taxpayer's residence, casualty to the residence caused by natural or man-made disasters or terrorism, death of a qualified individual, unemployment, divorce or legal separation, and multiple births from the same pregnancy.

If a taxpayer does not qualify for any of the safe harbors, the IRS can determine if a sale is the result of unforeseen circumstances by applying a facts and circumstances test. Some of the factors looked at by the IRS are proximity in time of sale and claimed unforeseen event, suitability of the property as the taxpayer's principal residence materially changes, whether the taxpayer's financial ability to maintain the property is materially impaired, whether the taxpayer used the property as a personal residence and whether the unforeseen circumstances were foreseeable when the taxpayer bought and used the property as a personal residence.

Recently, the IRS has decided that several non-safe harbor events were unforeseen circumstances. These include sales because of fear of criminal retaliation, the adoption of a child, a neighbor assaulting the homeowners and threatening their child, and a move to an assisted living facility followed by a move to a hospice.

If you think you may be eligible for a reduced home sale exclusion because of an unforeseen circumstance, give our office a call.

More small businesses get into trouble with the IRS over payroll taxes than any other type of tax. Payroll taxes are a huge source of government revenue and the IRS takes them very seriously. It is actively looking for businesses that have fallen behind in their payroll taxes or aren't depositing them. When the IRS finds a noncompliant business, it hits hard with penalties.

Your most important responsibility is depositing all of your payroll taxes on time. Before you do that, however, you have to know:

• Who are your taxable workers?
• What payroll taxes apply?
• What compensation is taxable?
• When are your payroll taxes due?
• What payroll and other returns should you file?

 Taxable workers

The first step is to determine who is a taxable worker. If you hire only independent contractors, they, and not you, are responsible for paying federal payroll taxes.

It's more likely that you hire employees.  In that case, you are responsible for withholding federal income tax and Social Security and Medicare taxes. You are also responsible for federal unemployment (FUTA) taxes along with any state taxes.

There are some exceptions to who is an employee for payroll taxes but they are few. The most common are real estate agents and direct sellers.

If you have any questions about the status of your workers, give our office a call. Misclassifying workers is a common mistake. If you treat an employee as an independent contractor, and your treatment is wrong, you will be liable for federal income tax and Social Security and Medicare taxes. They add up very quickly.

What taxes apply

Once you've determined that your workers are taxable employees, you have to determine what federal payroll taxes apply. Most employers must withhold federal income tax and Social Security and Medicare taxes. You are also liable for federal unemployment taxes (FUTA) but these are not withheld from an employee's pay. Only you pay FUTA taxes.

You have to withhold at the correct rate. Form W-4, which your employee fills out, tells you how much federal income tax to withhold for an employee. The Social Security, Medicare and FUTA tax rates are set by statute.

Failing to withhold at the correct rate is a surprisingly common mistake. Sometimes, an employee completes a new W-4 but the employer forgets to adjust his or her withholding. It's a good idea to review the W-4s of all your employees and make sure they are current.

Compensation

Almost every type of compensation, and not just wages, is taxable. The IRS wants its share of tips, bonuses, employee stock options, severance pay, and many other forms of compensation. This includes non-cash or in-kind compensation.

There are exceptions. Health insurance plans generally are not subject to federal payroll taxes. Per diem payments and other allowances, if they do not exceed rates set by the government, are generally not taxable as wages. Some fringe benefits are not taxable, such as employee discounts, an occasional taxi ride when an employee must work overtime and inexpensive holiday gifts.

Determining what compensation is taxable and what is not is often difficult. The complex tax rules are easy to misinterpret and you may be failing to withhold taxes on taxable compensation. It's a mistake that can be avoided with our help.

Deposit schedule

Most small employers deposit payroll taxes monthly. Large and mid-size businesses make semi-weekly deposits. Very small employers may make annual deposits.

Your deposit schedule is based on the total tax liability that you reported during a four-quarter "lookback" period. The lookback period begins July 1 and ends June 30. If you reported $50,000 or less of taxes for the lookback period, you make monthly deposits. If you reported more than $50,000, you make semi-weekly deposits.

Determining the lookback period is tricky. If the IRS finds that your lookback period is wrong, you could be heavily penalized for not making timely deposits. Your deposit schedule can also change and you have to know what can trigger a change.

Forms

If you withhold federal payroll taxes, you must file Form 941 quarterly. Of course, there are exceptions. The most important one is for very small employers. They file their returns annually instead of quarterly.

The IRS encourages employers to file Form 941 electronically. Depending on how large your business is, you may have no choice but to file electronically. A common mistake is filing more than one Form 941 quarterly. This only causes unnecessary delays.

Penalties are costly

Often, a small business just doesn't have the cash on hand to make a timely deposit. The owner thinks that he or she will double-up the next time and make things right. More often than not, that doesn't happen and the unpaid liability snowballs.

The penalties for failing to withhold or deposit federal income tax and Social Security and Medicare taxes are severe and they can be personal. If your business cannot pay the unpaid taxes, the IRS will go after you personally.

You may be using a payroll agent to pay your taxes. Keep in mind that you are still liable for those taxes if your agent doesn't pay them. Reliance on a payroll service, or anyone else, does not excuse your failure to pay.

Reporting obligations

Your payroll tax obligations also do not end with filing tax returns and depositing payments. You have reporting obligations to your employees and, in some cases, to your independent contractors.

Staying out of trouble with the IRS

Even if you believe you understand and are compliant with the federal payroll tax rules, give our office a call. The rules are riddled with exceptions that we haven't even touched on in this brief article. We'll take a look at your operations and make sure you are 100 percent compliant. It's worth avoiding any costly mistakes down the road.