Mid-Year Tax Planning Letter

Use Buttons to LIKE & Share This with Friends!

Dear Clients and Friends of our CPA Firm:

Experimental Newsletter Format

There have been a number of important tax developments in the second quarter of 2018. I do not want to give you a barrage of boring tax information so I have left references lines in the body of this letter; if you want more details of a particular item, simply cut and past the reference and email me a request for more information. The supporting detailed reference memos are ready to email.

Introduction

The following is a summary of important tax developments that have occurred in April, May, and June of 2018 that may affect you, your family, your investments, and your livelihood. Please email us for more information about any of these developments and what steps you should implement to take advantage of favorable developments and to minimize the impact of those that are unfavorable.

Postcard tax form. The IRS released a new draft version of the 2018 Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. The new Form is markedly different from the 2017 version of the form and would replace the current Form 1040, as well as the Form 1040A and the Form 1040EZ. In addition to reflecting a number of changes made by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA; P.L. 115-97, 12/22/2017), the “postcard” draft form is about half the size of the current version and contains far fewer lines than its predecessor. However, this reduction in length is countered by the fact that the draft form has six new accompanying schedules.

For more information, copy the following reference and email it back to me:  “2018 draft Form 1040 reduced to “postcard” size but requires more schedules.”

States in in bid to tax online/internet sales. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the correct standard in determining the constitutionality of a state tax law is whether the tax applies to an activity that has “substantial nexus” with the taxing state. The case (South Dakota v. Wayfair) involved South Dakota’s imposition of tax collection and remittance duties on out-of-state sellers meeting certain gross sales and transaction volume thresholds. With the rise of the digital economy, states have lost significant sales tax revenues because they have been unable to tax online/internet sales under the old physical presence nexus standards. Overturning its prior precedents, the Court held that the prior physical presence rule was an “unsound and incorrect” interpretation of the Commerce Clause that has created unfair and unjust marketplace distortions favoring remote sellers and causing states to lose out on enormous amounts of tax revenue. The Court held that the State had established that the vendor had substantial nexus in this case through “extensive virtual presence.”

For more information, copy the following reference and email it back to me:  “Supreme Court Abandons Physical Presence Standard: An In-Depth Look at South Dakota v. Wayfair .”

The IRS advises a “payroll checkup. The IRS has encouraged taxpayers who have typically itemized their deductions to use the withholding calculator on the IRS’s website to perform a “payroll checkup,” noting that changes made by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA, P.L. 115-97, 12/22/2017) may warrant an adjustment. TCJA made a number of law changes, effective for tax years beginning after 2017 and before 2026, which affect the amount of itemized deductions that can be claimed and whether taxpayers choose to itemize or claim the standard deduction. They include: nearly doubling standard deductions; limiting the deductions for state and local taxes; limiting the deduction for home mortgage interest in certain cases; and eliminating deductions for employee business expenses, tax preparation fees and investment expenses (including investment management fees, safe deposit box fees and investment expenses from pass-through entities). In light of these changes, some individuals who formerly itemized may now find it more beneficial to take the standard deduction, which could affect how much a taxpayer needs to have their employer withhold from their pay. Also, even those who continue to itemize deductions should check their withholding because of TCJA changes. The IRS warned that having too little tax withheld could result in an unexpected tax bill or penalty at tax time in 2019, and also noted that taxpayers who have too much tax withheld may prefer to receive more in their paychecks instead of in the form of a tax refund.

For more information, copy the following reference and email it back to me:  “Itemizers encouraged to check withholding in light of TCJA changes.”

Tax reform’s effect on vehicle and unreimbursed employee expenses. The IRS has provided updated information to taxpayers and employers about changes from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA, P.L. 115-97, 12/22/2017) affecting vehicle and unreimbursed employee expenses. Shortly before the enactment of the TCJA, the IRS released optional standard mileage rates for 2018, as well as the maximum standard automobile cost that may be used in computing the allowance under a fixed and variable rate (FAVR) plan. However, TCJA made many tax law changes, including those affecting move-related vehicle expenses, unreimbursed employee expenses, and vehicle expensing. The IRS advised taxpayers that TCJA generally suspended the deduction for moving expenses for tax years beginning after 2017 and before 2026, with an exception for certain members of the Armed Forces. Accordingly, no deduction is allowed for use of an automobile as part of a move using the pre-TCJA 18¢ mileage rate. For the same period, TCJA also suspended all miscellaneous itemized deductions that are subject to the 2%-of-adjusted gross income (AGI) floor, including unreimbursed employee travel expenses. Thus, the 54.5¢ business standard mileage rate generally can’t be used to claim an itemized deduction for unreimbursed employee travel expenses (but the 54.5¢ rate still applies for expenses that are deductible in determining AGI, such as for unreimbursed employee travel expenses claimed by reservists and certain state or local government officials). And, for purposes of computing the allowance under a FAVR plan, the maximum standard automobile cost may not exceed $50,000 for passenger automobiles, trucks and vans placed in service after 2017 (up from the pre-TCJA $27,300 for passenger automobiles and $31,000 for trucks and vans).

For more information, copy the following reference and email it back to me: IRS updates pre-TCJA guidance on vehicle and unreimbursed employee expenses.”

Family and medical leave credit. The IRS has provided guidance on the new family and medical leave credit, which was added by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA, P.L. 115-97, 12/22/2017). Under new Code Sec. 45S , for wages paid in tax years beginning in 2018 and 2019, eligible employers can claim a general business credit equal to the applicable percentage (between 12.5% and 25%) of the amount of wages paid to qualifying employees for up to 12 weeks per tax year while the employees are on family and medical leave, if certain requirements are met. For purpose of the credit, family and medical leave includes leave for: the birth of an employee’s child and to care for the child; placement of a child with the employee for adoption or foster care; care for the employee’s spouse, child, or parent who has a serious health condition; a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of his or her position; any qualifying exigency due to an employee’s spouse, child, or parent being on covered active duty (or having been notified of an impending call or order to covered active duty) in the Armed Forces; and care for a service member who is the employee’s spouse, child, parent, or next of kin.

For more information, copy the following reference and email it back to me: FAQs provide guidance on employer-paid family and medical leave credit.

Million dollar FBAR penalty. The Supreme Court declined to review a Ninth Circuit decision (U.S. v. Bussell), which, on finding that a taxpayer willfully failed to file a Report of Foreign Bank and Foreign Accounts (FBAR) with regard to her foreign account, let stand a million dollar FBAR penalty. Each U.S. person who has a financial interest in or signature or other authority over any foreign financial accounts, including bank, securities, or other types of financial accounts in a foreign country, if the aggregate value of these financial accounts exceeds $10,000 at any time during the calendar year, must report that relationship tor that calendar year by filing an FBAR with the Department of the Treasury. Those who willfully fail to file their FBARs on a timely basis can be assessed a penalty of up to the greater of $100,000 (as adjusted for inflation) or 50% of the balance in the unreported bank account for each year they fail to file a required FBAR. The Ninth Circuit rejected a variety of the taxpayer’s arguments, including that the imposition of the penalty violated the U.S. Constitution because the fine was excessive under the Eighth Amendment. The taxpayer argued that the penalty was a punitive forfeiture, grossly disproportional to the gravity of the offense, but the Court held that the assessment was proper because the taxpayer defrauded the government and reduced public revenues.

For more information, copy the following reference and email it back to me:  “Supreme Court lets million dollar FBAR penalty stand.”

Inflation-adjusted HSA amounts for 2019. The IRS has released the annual inflation-adjusted contribution, deductible, and out-of-pocket expense limits for 2019 for health savings accounts (HSAs). Eligible individuals may, subject to statutory limits, make deductible contributions to an HSA. Employers, as well as other persons (e.g., family members), also may contribute on behalf of an eligible individual. A person is an “eligible individual” if he is covered under a high deductible health plan (HDHP) and is not covered under any other health plan that is not a HDHP, unless the other coverage is permitted insurance (e.g., for worker’s compensation, a specified disease or illness, or providing a fixed payment for hospitalization). For calendar year 2019, the limitation on deductions for an individual with self-only coverage under an HDHP is $3,500 (up from $3,450 for 2018). For calendar year 2019, the limitation on deductions for an individual with family coverage under an HDHP is $7,000 (up from $6,900 for 2018). For calendar year 2019, an HDHP is defined as a health plan with an annual deductible that is not less than $1,350 (same as for 2018) for self-only coverage or $2,700 (same as for 2018) for family coverage, and with respect to which the annual out-of-pocket expenses (deductibles, co-payments, and other amounts, but not premiums) do not exceed $6,750 (up from $6,650 for 2018) for self-only coverage or $13,500 (up from $13,300 for 2018) for family coverage.

For more information, copy the following reference and email it back to me: IRS issues inflation-adjusted health savings account figures for 2019.”

More returns to be filed electronically. The IRS has issued proposed regulations that would require all information returns, regardless of type, to be taken into account in determining whether a person met the 250-return threshold and thus was required to file the returns electronically. The proposed Regs would also require any person required to file information returns electronically to file corrected information returns electronically, regardless of the number of corrected information returns being filed. Existing Regs provide that the 250-return threshold applies separately to each type of information return and each type of corrected information return filed. Accordingly, under the existing rules, different types of forms are not aggregated for purposes of determining whether the 250-return threshold is satisfied, with the result that fewer taxpayers are required to file electronically. The proposed Regs are proposed to go into effect for returns filed after Dec. 31, 2018.

For more information, copy the following reference and email it back to me:  “Prop regs: all info returns count towards 250-return e-file threshold.”

Conclusion

Careful planning will be an important part of the 2018, 2019 and 2020 Tax Years; it is these transitional years that will allow us to learn the ins and outs of working with the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act”; it is the most significant tax overhaul since 1988.

Don’t delay you tax planning. The longer you wait, the less likely it is that you’ll be able to achieve the maximum tax benefits afforded by the new law.

Please don’t hesitate to call us with questions or for additional strategies on reducing your tax bill. We’d be glad to set up a planning meeting or assist you in any other way that we can.  As always, I enjoy visiting with my clients and friends!

Very truly yours,

Steve Richardson, CPA

 

 

Use Buttons to LIKE & Share This with Friends!

Legal challenges to the Housing Allowance

Use Buttons to LIKE & Share This with Friends!

Newsletter from
Steve Richardson & Company, Certified Public Accountants

July 3, 2018

Legal challenges to the Housing Allowance

To Our Clients and Friends:

A Hot Topic

We get questions about Ministerial Housing Allowance multiple times every day.  The Ministerial or Clergy Housing Allowance is authorized by §107 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code).  This allowance has been a part of the Code from the beginning of Income Tax Law in 1913.  The first Rules and Regulations related to the Housing Allowance date to 1916! This is old law.

Important law

It’s important law because it has an impact on a large number of people subject to US Taxation; these people can be working inside the USA or anywhere in the world.  It has an impact on more than the people actually in receipt of a Housing Allowance; employers, church members, board members and contributors to churches and other §501(c)(3) organizations.

Interesting!

Here is one interesting bit of tax law.  A minister who is employed as a minister by a non-church §501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization can have a housing allowance.  Here is another even more interesting bit of tax law: a minister (who is employed as a minister) by a for-profit corporation can also have a housing allowance! Surprised? Most people are surprised to learn that Ford Motor Company actually employs chaplains on its staff and compensate them as ministers. Other company that employ ministers on their staff include General Motors, Coca-Cola, Tyson Foods and literally hundreds of other commercial enterprises of all sizes.

Who can employ a minister?

To recount: churches, non-church §501(c)(3) organization and even commercial companies can employ members of the clergy on their staff and allow them to receive a ministerial housing allowance.  Interesting indeed!

The Ministerial Housing Allowance is under constant legal challenge

One of the more recent challenges to the ministerial housing allowance was on November 22, 2013.

 

The Legal Challenge

Federal district court judge Barbara Crabb of the District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin struck down the ministerial housing allowance as an unconstitutional preference for religion. [Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc., v. Lew, 983F. Supp.2d 1051 (W.D.Wis.2013)]. The ruling was in response to a lawsuit brought by the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) and two of its officers challenging the constitutionality of the housing allowance and the parsonage exclusion.

A Narrow Defense Strategy

The federal government, which defended the housing allowance because it is a federal statute, asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit on the ground that the plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue their claim in federal court.

Judge Crabb ruled in favor of the FFRF saying that the plaintiff (FFRF) did have standing because ‘they would have been denied a housing allowance exclusion had they claimed one on their tax return’.  The government appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago.

A Narrow Appeal

On November 13, 2014, the appeals court issued its ruling reversing the Wisconsin court’s decision. It concluded that a ‘hypothetical’ situation did not establish any reasonable standing to pursue their challenge to the housing allowance.

The FFRF Response

The FFRF responded to the appeals court’s ruling by designating a housing allowance for two of its officers. The officers reported their allowances as taxable income on their tax returns and thereafter filed amended tax returns seeking a refund of the income taxes paid on the amounts of their designated housing allowances. The FFRF claims that in 2015, the IRS denied the refunds sought by its officers.

Having endeavored to correct the standing problem, the FFRF renewed its legal challenge to the housing allowance in the federal district court in Wisconsin. Agreeing that the FFRF had standing, Judge Crabb struck down the ministerial housing allowance again as an unconstitutional preference for religion. The federal court’s decision regarding the housing allowance is currently being appealed to the Seventh Circuit, which is expected to deliver a decision sometime this year.

How Will the Seventh Circuit Rule?

That is entirely up to the Judges of the Seventh Circuit; we will need to wait and see.

This case is not going away

If the Seventh Circuit again overturns Judge Crabb, which I expect to happen, the FFRF and other groups opposed to the ministerial housing allowance will find time and venue to launch a renewed attack.

If the Seventh Circuit agrees with Judge Crabb’s and determines that the ministerial housing allowance is unconstitutional, legal responses and challenges could put this issue into the hands of the US Supreme Court.  [Note: the US Supreme Court accepts less than 1% of all cases appealed to that level.]

Which way it goes, no one knows.

My only complaint is that The Department of Justice has, again, chosen another narrow basis on which to appeal.  To me, it looks like legal nit-picking.  I would prefer a much more robust appeal where we put the real issues before the court and let them rule; is the ministerial housing allowance constitutional or not.

Be Aware

The ministerial housing allowance is under attack; this will not change or end soon.  The tax implications of losing the housing allowance are significant.

Tax Planning!

Win, lose or draw, there are always tax planning options.  One thing we are considering is a Home Equity Allowance.  Not a perfect solution but a good thought.

Use Buttons to LIKE & Share This with Friends!