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.

The American Institute of CPAs in a March 31 letter to House of Representatives voiced its “strong support” for a series of tax administration bills passed in recent days.

The American Institute of CPAs in a March 31 letter to House of Representatives voiced its “strong support” for a series of tax administration bills passed in recent days.

The four bills highlighted in the letter include the Electronic Filing and Payment Fairness Act (H.R. 1152), the Internal Revenue Service Math and Taxpayer Help Act (H.R. 998), the Filing Relief for Natural Disasters Act (H.R. 517), and the Disaster Related Extension of Deadlines Act (H.R. 1491).

All four bills passed unanimously.

H.R. 1152 would apply the “mailbox” rule to electronically submitted tax returns and payments. Currently, a paper return or payment is counted as “received” based on the postmark of the envelope, but its electronic equivalent is counted as “received” when the electronic submission arrived or is reviewed. This bill would change all payment and tax form submissions to follow the mailbox rule, regardless of mode of delivery.

“The AICPA has previously recommended this change and thinks it would offer clarity and simplification to the payment and document submission process,” the organization said in the letter.

H.R. 998 “would require notices describing a mathematical or clerical error be made in plain language, and require the Treasury Secretary to provide additional procedures for requesting an abatement of a math or clerical adjustment, including by telephone or in person, among other provisions,” the letter states.

H.R. 517 would allow the IRS to grant federal tax relief once a state governor declares a state of emergency following a natural disaster, which is quicker than waiting for the federal government to declare a state of emergency as directed under current law, which could take weeks after the state disaster declaration. This bill “would also expand the mandatory federal filing extension under section 7508(d) from 60 days to 120 days, providing taxpayers with additional time to file tax returns following a disaster,” the letter notes, adding that increasing the period “would provide taxpayers and tax practitioners much needed relief, even before a disaster strikes.”

H.R. 1491 would extend deadlines for disaster victims to file for a tax refund or tax credit. The legislative solution “granting an automatic extension to the refund or credit lookback period would place taxpayers affected my major disasters on equal footing as taxpayers not impacted by major disasters and would afford greater clarity and certainty to taxpayers and tax practitioners regarding this lookback period,” AICPA said.

Also passed by the House was the National Taxpayer Advocate Enhancement Act (H.R. 997) which, according to a summary of the bill on Congress.gov, “authorizes the National Taxpayer Advocate to appoint legal counsel within the Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS) to report directly to the National Taxpayer Advocate. The bill also expands the authority of the National Taxpayer Advocate to take personnel actions with respect to local taxpayer advocates (located in each state) to include actions with respect to any employee of TAS.”

Finally, the House passed H.R. 1155, the Recovery of Stolen Checks Act, which would require the Treasury to establish procedures that would allow a taxpayer to elect to receive replacement funds electronically from a physical check that was lost or stolen.

All bills passed unanimously. The passed legislation mirrors some of the provisions included in a discussion draft legislation issued by the Senate Finance Committee in January 2025. A section-by-section summary of the Senate discussion draft legislation can be found here.

AICPA’s tax policy and advocacy comment letters for 2025 can be found here.

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

The Tax Court ruled that the value claimed on a taxpayer’s return exceeded the value of a conversation easement by 7,694 percent. The taxpayer was a limited liability company, classified as a TEFRA partnership. The Tax Court used the comparable sales method, as backstopped by the price actually paid to acquire the property.

The Tax Court ruled that the value claimed on a taxpayer’s return exceeded the value of a conversation easement by 7,694 percent. The taxpayer was a limited liability company, classified as a TEFRA partnership. The Tax Court used the comparable sales method, as backstopped by the price actually paid to acquire the property.

The taxpayer was entitled to a charitable contribution deduction based on its fair market value. The easement was granted upon rural land in Alabama. The property was zoned A–1 Agricultural, which permitted agricultural and light residential use only. The property transaction at occurred at arm’s length between a willing seller and a willing buyer.

Rezoning

The taxpayer failed to establish that the highest and best use of the property before the granting of the easement was limestone mining. The taxpayer failed to prove that rezoning to permit mining use was reasonably probable.

Land Value

The taxpayer’s experts erroneously equated the value of raw land with the net present value of a hypothetical limestone business conducted on the land. It would not be profitable to pay the entire projected value of the business.

Penalty Imposed

The claimed value of the easement exceeded the correct value by 7,694 percent. Therefore, the taxpayer was liable for a 40 percent penalty for a gross valuation misstatement under Code Sec. 6662(h).

Ranch Springs, LLC, 164 TC No. 6, Dec. 62,636

State and local housing credit agencies that allocate low-income housing tax credits and states and other issuers of tax-exempt private activity bonds have been provided with a listing of the proper population figures to be used when calculating the 2025:

State and local housing credit agencies that allocate low-income housing tax credits and states and other issuers of tax-exempt private activity bonds have been provided with a listing of the proper population figures to be used when calculating the 2025:

• calendar-year population-based component of the state housing credit ceiling under Code Sec. 42(h)(3)(C)(ii);
• calendar-year private activity bond volume cap under Code Sec. 146; and
• exempt facility bond volume limit under Code Sec. 142(k)(5)

These figures are derived from the estimates of the resident populations of the 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, which were released by the Bureau of the Census on December 19, 2024. The figures for the insular areas of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands are the midyear population figures in the U.S. Census Bureau’s International Database.

Notice 2025-18

The value of assets of a qualified terminable interest property (QTIP) trust includible in a decedent's gross estate was not reduced by the amount of a settlement intended to compensate the decedent for undistributed income.

The value of assets of a qualified terminable interest property (QTIP) trust includible in a decedent's gross estate was not reduced by the amount of a settlement intended to compensate the decedent for undistributed income.

The trust property consisted of an interest in a family limited partnership (FLP), which held title to ten rental properties, and cash and marketable securities. To resolve a claim by the decedent's estate that the trustees failed to pay the decedent the full amount of income generated by the FLP, the trust and the decedent's children's trusts agreed to be jointly and severally liable for a settlement payment to her estate. The Tax Court found an estate tax deficiency, rejecting the estate's claim that the trust assets should be reduced by the settlement amount and alternatively, that the settlement claim was deductible from the gross estate as an administration expense (P. Kalikow Est., Dec. 62,167(M), TC Memo. 2023-21).

Trust Not Property of the Estate

The estate presented no support for the argument that the liability affected the fair market value of the trust assets on the decedent's date of death. The trust, according to the court, was a legal entity that was not itself an asset of the estate. Thus, a liability that belonged to the trust but had no impact on the value of the underlying assets did not change the value of the gross estate. Furthermore, the settlement did not burden the trust assets. A hypothetical purchaser of the FLP interest, the largest asset of the trust, would not assume the liability and, therefore, would not regard the liability as affecting the price. When the parties stipulated the value of the FLP interest, the estate was aware of the undistributed income claim. Consequently, the value of the assets included in the gross estate was not diminished by the amount of the undistributed income claim.

Claim Not an Estate Expense

The claim was owed to the estate by the trust to correct the trustees' failure to distribute income from the rental properties during the decedent's lifetime. As such, the claim was property included in the gross estate, not an expense of the estate. The court explained that even though the liability was owed by an entity that held assets included within the taxable estate, the claim itself was not an estate expense. The court did not address the estate's theoretical argument that the estate would be taxed twice on the underlying assets held in the trust and the amount of the settlement because the settlement was part of the decedent's residuary estate, which was distributed to a charity. As a result, the claim was not a deductible administration expense of the estate.

P.B. Kalikow, Est., CA-2

An individual was not entitled to deduct flowthrough loss from the forfeiture of his S Corporation’s portion of funds seized by the U.S. Marshals Service for public policy reasons. The taxpayer pleaded guilty to charges of bribery, fraud and money laundering. Subsequently, the U.S. Marshals Service seized money from several bank accounts held in the taxpayer’s name or his wholly owned corporation. 

An individual was not entitled to deduct flowthrough loss from the forfeiture of his S Corporation’s portion of funds seized by the U.S. Marshals Service for public policy reasons. The taxpayer pleaded guilty to charges of bribery, fraud and money laundering. Subsequently, the U.S. Marshals Service seized money from several bank accounts held in the taxpayer’s name or his wholly owned corporation. The S corporation claimed a loss deduction related to its portion of the asset seizures on its return and the taxpayer reported a corresponding passthrough loss on his return.

However, Courts have uniformly held that loss deductions for forfeitures in connection with a criminal conviction frustrate public policy by reducing the "sting" of the penalty. The taxpayer maintained that the public policy doctrine did not apply here, primarily because the S corporation was never indicted or charged with wrongdoing. However, even if the S corporation was entitled to claim a deduction for the asset seizures, the public policy doctrine barred the taxpayer from reporting his passthrough share. The public policy doctrine was not so rigid or formulaic that it may apply only when the convicted person himself hands over a fine or penalty.

Hampton, TC Memo. 2025-32, Dec. 62,642(M)

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.