TAX ACCOUNTANT

Tax professional with experience in preparing or reviewing complex income tax returns. Successful applicant will have excellent computer skills & proficiency in ProSystem Fx.

If you are interested in working for MorganWingate, send your resume and cover letter to [email protected]

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has removed the requirement that U.S. companies and U.S. persons must report beneficial ownership information (BOI) to FinCEN under the Corporate Transparency Act.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has removed the requirement that U.S. companies and U.S. persons must report beneficial ownership information (BOI) to FinCEN under the Corporate Transparency Act. This interim final rule is consistent with the Treasury Department's recent announcement that it was suspending enforcement of the CTA against U.S. citizens, domestic reporting companies, and their beneficial owners, and that it would be narrowing the scope of the BOI reporting rule so that it applies only to foreign reporting companies.

The interim final rule amends the BOI regulations by:

• changing the definition of "reporting company" to mean only those entities that are formed under the law of a foreign country and that have registered to do business in any U.S. State or Tribal jurisdiction by filing of a document with a secretary of state or similar office (these entities had formerly been called "foreign reporting companies"), and
• exempting entities previously known as "domestic reporting companies" from BOI reporting requirements.

Under the revised rules, all entities created in the United States (including those previously called "domestic reporting companies") and their beneficial owners are exempt from the BOI reporting requirement, including the requirement to update or correct BOI previously reported to FinCEN. Foreign entities that meet the new definition of "reporting company" and do not qualify for a reporting exemption must report their BOI to FinCEN, but are not required to report any U.S. persons as beneficial owners. U.S. persons are not required to report BOI with respect to any such foreign entity for which they are a beneficial owner.

Reducing Regulatory Burden

On January 31, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14192, which announced an administration policy "to significantly reduce the private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations to secure America’s economic prosperity and national security and the highest possible quality of life for each citizen" and "to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens" on the American people.

Consistent with the executive order and with exemptive authority provided in the CTA, the Treasury Secretary (in concurrence with the Attorney General and the Homeland Security Secretary) determined that BOI reporting by domestic reporting companies and their beneficial owners "would not serve the public interest" and "would not be highly useful in national security, intelligence, and law enforcement agency efforts to detect, prevent, or prosecute money laundering, the financing of terrorism, proliferation finance, serious tax fraud, or other crimes."The preamble to the interim final rule notes that the Treasury Secretary has considered existing alternative information sources to mitigate risks. For example, under the U.S. anti-money laundering/countering the financing of terrorism regime, covered financial institutions still have a continuing requirement to collect a legal entity customer's BOI at the time of account opening (see 31 CFR 1010.230). This will serve to mitigate certain illicit finance risks associated with exempting domestic reporting companies from BOI reporting.

BOI reporting by foreign reporting companies is still required, because such companies present heightened national security and illicit finance risks and different concerns about regulatory burdens. Further, the preamble points out that the policy direction to minimize regulatory burdens on the American people can still be achieved by exempting foreign reporting companies from having to report the BOI of any U.S. persons who are beneficial owners of such companies.

Deadlines Extended for Foreign Companies

When the interim final rule is published in the Federal Register, the following reporting deadlines apply:

• Foreign entities that are registered to do business in the United States before the publication date of the interim final rule must file BOI reports no later than 30 days from that date.
• Foreign entities that are registered to do business in the United States on or after the publication date of the interim final rule have 30 calendar days to file an initial BOI report after receiving notice that their registration is effective.

Effective Date; Comments Requested

The interim final rule is effective on the date of its publication in the Federal Register.

FinCEN has requested comments on the interim final rule. In light of those comments, FinCEN intends to issue a final rule later in 2025.

Written comments must be received on or before the date that is 60 days after publication of the interim final rule in the Federal Register.

Interested parties can submit comments electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, comments may be mailed to Policy Division, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, P.O. Box 39, Vienna, VA 22183. For both methods, refer to Docket Number FINCEN-2025-0001, OMB control number 1506-0076 and RIN 1506-AB49.

FinCEN Interim Final Rule RIN 1506-AB49

FinCEN News Release

Melanie Krause, the IRS’s Chief Operating Officer, has been named acting IRS Commissioner following the retirement of Doug O’Donnell. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent acknowledged O’Donnell’s 38 years of service, commending his leadership and dedication to taxpayers.

Melanie Krause, the IRS’s Chief Operating Officer, has been named acting IRS Commissioner following the retirement of Doug O’Donnell. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent acknowledged O’Donnell’s 38 years of service, commending his leadership and dedication to taxpayers. O’Donnell, who had been acting Commissioner since January, will retire on Friday, expressing confidence in Krause’s ability to guide the agency through tax season. Krause, who joined the IRS in 2021 as Chief Data & Analytics Officer, has since played a key role in modernizing operations and overseeing core agency functions. With experience in federal oversight and operational strategy, Krause previously worked at the Government Accountability Office and the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General. She became Chief Operating Officer in 2024, managing finance, security, and procurement. Holding advanced degrees from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Krause will lead the IRS until a permanent Commissioner is appointed.

A grant disbursement to a corporation to be used for rent payments following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center was not excluded from the corporation's gross income. Grants were made to affected businesses with funding provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The corporation's grant agreement required the corporation to employ a certain number of people in New York City, with a portion of those people employed in lower Manhattan for a period of time. Pursuant to this agreement, the corporation requested a disbursement as reimbursement for rent expenses.

A grant disbursement to a corporation to be used for rent payments following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center was not excluded from the corporation's gross income. Grants were made to affected businesses with funding provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The corporation's grant agreement required the corporation to employ a certain number of people in New York City, with a portion of those people employed in lower Manhattan for a period of time. Pursuant to this agreement, the corporation requested a disbursement as reimbursement for rent expenses.

Exclusions from Gross Income

Under the expansive definition of gross income, the grant proceeds were income unless specifically excluded. Payments are only excluded under Code Sec. 118(a) when a transferor intends to make a contribution to the permanent working capital of a corporation. The grant amount was not connected to capital improvements nor restricted for use in the acquisition of capital assets. The transferor intended to reimburse the corporation for rent expenses and not to make a capital contribution. As a result, the grant was intended to supplement income and defray current operating costs, and not to build up the corporation's working capital.

The grant proceeds were also not a gift under Code Sec. 102(a). The motive for providing the grant was not detached and disinterested generosity, but rather a long-term commitment from the company to create and maintain jobs. In addition, a review of the funding legislation and associated legislative history did not show that Congress possessed the requisite donative intent to consider the grant a gift. The program was intended to support the redevelopment of the area after the terrorist attacks. Finally, the grant was not excluded as a qualified disaster relief payment under Code Sec. 139(a) because that provision is only applicable to individuals.

Accuracy-Related Penalty

Because the corporation relied on Supreme Court decisions, statutory language, and regulations, there was substantial authority for its position that the grant proceeds were excluded from income. As a result, the accuracy-related penalty was not imposed.

CF Headquarters Corporation, 164 TC No. 5, Dec. 62,627

The parent corporation of two tiers of controlled foreign corporations (CFCs) with a domestic partnership interposed between the two tiers was not entitled to deemed paid foreign tax credits under Code Sec. 902 or Code Sec. 960 for taxes paid or accrued by the lower-tier CFCs owned by the domestic partnership. Code Sec. 902 did not apply because there was no dividend distribution. Code Sec. 960 did not apply because the Code Sec. 951(a) inclusions with respect to the lower-tier CFCs were not taken into account by the domestic corporation.

The parent corporation of two tiers of controlled foreign corporations (CFCs) with a domestic partnership interposed between the two tiers was not entitled to deemed paid foreign tax credits under Code Sec. 902 or Code Sec. 960 for taxes paid or accrued by the lower-tier CFCs owned by the domestic partnership. Code Sec. 902 did not apply because there was no dividend distribution. Code Sec. 960 did not apply because the Code Sec. 951(a) inclusions with respect to the lower-tier CFCs were not taken into account by the domestic corporation.

Background

The parent corporation owned three CFCs, which were upper-tier CFC partners in a domestic partnership. The domestic partnership was the sole U.S. shareholder of several lower-tier CFCs.

The parent corporation claimed that it was entitled to deemed paid foreign tax credits on taxes paid by the lower-tier CFCs on earnings and profits, which generated Code Sec. 951 inclusions for subpart F income and Code Sec. 956 amounts. The amounts increased the earnings and profits of the upper-tier CFC partners.

Deemed Paid Foreign Tax Credits Did Not Apply

Before 2018, Code Sec. 902 allowed deemed paid foreign tax credit for domestic corporations that owned 10 percent or more of the voting stock of a foreign corporation from which it received dividends, and for taxes paid by another group member, provided certain requirements were met.

The IRS argued that no dividends were paid and so the foreign income taxes paid by the lower-tier CFCs could not be deemed paid by the entities in the higher tiers.

The taxpayer agreed that Code Sec. 902 alone would not provide a credit, but argued that through Code Sec. 960, Code Sec. 951 inclusions carried deemed dividends up through a chain of ownership. Under Code Sec. 960(a), if a domestic corporation has a Code Sec. 951(a) inclusion with respect to the earnings and profits of a member of its qualified group, Code Sec. 902 applied as if the amount were included as a dividend paid by the foreign corporation.

In this case, the domestic corporation had no Code Sec. 951 inclusions with respect to the amounts generated by the lower-tier CFCs. Rather, the domestic partnerships had the inclusions. The upper- tier CFC partners, which were foreign corporations, included their share of the inclusions in gross income. Therefore, the hopscotch provision in which a domestic corporation with a Code Sec. 951 inclusion attributable to earnings and profits of an indirectly held CFC may claim deemed paid foreign tax credits based on a hypothetical dividend from the indirectly held CFC to the domestic corporation did not apply.

Eaton Corporation and Subsidiaries, 164 TC No. 4, Dec. 62,622

Other Reference:

• Code Sec. 960

An appeals court affirmed that payments made by an individual taxpayer to his ex-wife did not meet the statutory criteria for deductible alimony. The taxpayer claimed said payments were deductible alimony on his federal tax returns.

An appeals court affirmed that payments made by an individual taxpayer to his ex-wife did not meet the statutory criteria for deductible alimony. The taxpayer claimed said payments were deductible alimony on his federal tax returns.

The taxpayer’s payments were not deductible alimony because the governing divorce instruments contained multiple clear, explicit and express directions to that effect. The former couple’s settlement agreement stated an equitable division of marital property that was non-taxable to either party. The agreement had a separate clause obligating the taxpayer to pay a taxable sum as periodic alimony each month. The term “divorce or separation instrument” included both divorce and the written instruments incident to such decree.

Unpublished opinion affirming, per curiam, the Tax Court, Dec. 62,420(M), T.C. Memo. 2024-18.

J.A. Martino, CA-11

Three years ago, Congress enhanced small business expensing to encourage businesses to purchase equipment and other assets and help lift the economy out of a slow-down. This valuable tax break was set to expire after 2007. Congress has now extended it two more years as part of the recently enacted Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act. Taxpayers who fully qualify for the expensing deduction get what amounts to a significant up-front reduction in the out-of-pocket cost of business equipment.

Indexed for inflation

In lieu of depreciation, taxpayers can elect to deduct up to $100,000 of the cost of qualifying property placed in service for the tax year. The $100,000 amount is reduced, but not below zero, by the amount by which the cost of the qualifying property exceeds $400,000.

The $100,000 and $400,000 limitations are indexed for inflation. For 2006, they are $108,000 and $430,000 respectively.

Expensing election

If you want to take advantage of the small business expensing election, you must do so on your original tax return, on Form 4562 (Depreciation and Amortization) or on an amended return filed before the due date for your original return including any extensions. If you don't claim it, you cannot change your mind later by filing an amended tax return after the due date.

Tangible personal property

The property that you purchase must be tangible personal property that is actively used in your business and for which a depreciation deduction would be allowed. The property must be newly purchased new or used property rather than property that you previously owned but recently converted to business use. If you have any questions about the type of property you are purchasing, give our office a call and we'll help you determine if it qualifies for enhanced expensing.

Generally, land improvements, such as buildings, paved parking lots and fences do not qualify for expensing. However, property contained in or attached to a building that is not a structural component, such as refrigerators, testing equipment and signs, does qualify.

Property acquired by gift or inheritance does not qualify. Property you acquired from related persons, such as your spouse, child, parent, or other ancestor, or another business with common ownership also does not qualify.

There are special provisions for applying the expensing rules to partnerships and S corporations, controlled groups of corporations, married couples, and sport utility vehicles.  We can explain these provisions in more detail if you call our office.

Recapture

Qualifying property must be used more than 50 percent for business. If use falls below 50 percent, you may have to recapture (give back) part of the tax benefit you previously claimed.

The two-year extension opens the door to some important strategic tax planning opportunities. Our office can help you plan purchases so you get the maximum tax benefit. Give us a call today.

Starting in 2010, the $100,000 adjusted gross income cap for converting a traditional IRA into a Roth IRA is eliminated. All other rules continue to apply, which means that the amount converted to a Roth IRA still will be taxed as income at the individual's marginal tax rate. One exception for 2010 only: you will have a choice of recognizing the conversion income in 2010 or averaging it over 2011 and 2012.

The Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 eliminated the $100,000 adjusted gross income (AGI) ceiling for converting a traditional IRA into a Roth IRA. While this provision does not apply until 2010, now may be a good time to make plans to maximize this opportunity.

The Roth IRA has benefits that are especially useful to high-income taxpayers, yet as a group they have been denied those advantages up until now. Currently, you are allowed to convert a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA only if your AGI does not exceed $100,000. A married taxpayer filing a separate return is prohibited from making a conversion. The amount converted is treated as distributed from the traditional IRA and, as a consequence, is included in the taxpayer's income, but the 10-percent additional tax for early withdrawals does not apply.

Significant benefits

While recognizing income sooner rather than later is usually not smart tax planning, in the case of this new opportunity to convert a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA, the math encourages it. The difference is twofold:

1. All future earnings on the account are tax free; and
2. The account can continue to grow tax free longer than a traditional IRA without being forced to be distributed gradually after reaching age 70 ½.

These can work out to be huge advantages, especially valuable to individuals with a degree of accumulated wealth who probably won't need the money in the Roth IRA account to live on during retirement.

Example. Mary's AGI in 2010 is $200,000 and she has traditional IRA balances that will have grown to $300,000. Assuming a marginal federal and local income tax of about 40 percent on the $300,000 balance, the $180,000 remaining in the account can grow tax free thereafter, with distributions tax free. Further assume that Mary is 45 years of age with a 90 year life expectancy and money conservatively doubles every 15 years. She will die with an account of $1.44 million, income tax free to her heirs. If the Roth IRA is bequeathed to someone in a younger generation with a long life expectancy, even factoring in eventual required minimum distributions, the amount that can continue to accumulate tax free in the Roth IRA can be staggering, eventually likely to reach over $10 million.

Planning strategies

Now is not too early to start planning to take advantage of the Roth IRA conversion opportunity starting in 2010. While planning to maximize the conversion will become more detailed as 2010 approaches and your assets and income for that year are more measurable, there are certain steps you can start taking now to maximize your savings.

Start a nondeductible IRA

The income limits on both kinds of IRAs have prevented higher income taxpayers from making deductible contributions to traditional IRAs or any contributions to Roth IRAs. They could always make nondeductible contributions to a traditional IRA, but such contributions have a limited pay-off (no current deduction, tax on account income is deferred rather than eliminated, required minimum distributions).

While a taxpayer could avoid these problems by making nondeductible contributions to a traditional IRA and then converting it to a Roth IRA, this option was not available for upper income taxpayers who would have the most to benefit from such a conversion. With the elimination of the income limit for tax years after December 31, 2009, higher income taxpayers can begin now to make nondeductible contributions to a traditional IRA and then convert them to a Roth IRA in 2010. In all likelihood, there will be little to tax on the converted amount.

What's more, taxpayers with $100,000-plus AGIs should consider continue making nondeductible IRA contributions in the future and roll them over into a Roth IRA periodically. As a result, the elimination of the income limit for converting to a Roth IRA also effectively eliminates the income limit for contributing to a Roth IRA.

Example. John and Mary are a married couple with $300,000 in income. They are not eligible to contribute to a Roth IRA because their AGI exceeds the $160,000 Roth IRA eligibility limit. Beginning in 2006, the couple makes the maximum allowed nondeductible IRA contribution ($8,000 in 2006 and 2007, and $10,000 in 2008, 2009, and 2010). In 2010, their account is worth $60,000, with $46,000 of that amount representing nondeductible contributions that are not taxed upon conversion. The couple rolls over the $60,000 in their traditional IRA into a Roth IRA. They must include $14,000 in income (the amount representing their deductible contributions), which they can recognize either in 2010, or ratably in 2011 and 2012.

Assuming they have sufficient earned income each year thereafter (until reaching age 70 1/2), John and Mary can continue to make the maximum nondeductible contributions to a traditional IRA and quickly roll over these funds into their Roth IRA, thereby avoiding significant taxable growth in the assets that would have to be recognized upon distribution from a traditional IRA.

Rollover 401(k) accounts

Contributions to a Section 401(k) plans cannot be rolled over directly into a Roth IRA. The lifting of the $100,000 AGI limit does not change this rule. However, they often can be rolled over into a traditional IRA and then, after 2009, converted into a Roth IRA.

Not everyone can just pull his or her balance out of a 401(k) plan. A plan amendment must permit it or, more likely, those who are changing jobs or are otherwise leaving employment can choose to roll over the balance into an IRA rather than elect to continue to have it managed in the 401(k) plan.

For money now being contributed to 401(k) plans by employees, an even better option would be for those contributions to be made to a Roth 401(k) plan. Starting in 2006, as long as the employer plan allows for it, Roth 401(k) accounts may receive employee contributions.

Gather those old IRA accounts

Many taxpayers opened IRA accounts when they were first starting out in the work world and their incomes were low enough to contribute. Over the years, many have seen those account balances grow. These accounts now may be converted into Roth IRAs starting in 2010, regardless of income.

Paying the tax

In spite of all the advantages of a Roth IRA, a conversion is advisable only if the taxpayer can readily pay the tax generated in the year of the conversion. If the tax is paid out of a distribution from the converted IRA, that amount is also taxed; and if the distribution counts as an early withdrawal, it is also subject to an additional 10-percent penalty. For those planning to convert who may not already have the funds available, saving now in a regular bank or brokerage account to cover the amount of the tax in 2010 can return an unusually high yield if it enables a Roth IRA conversion in 2010 that might not otherwise take place.

Careful planning is key

Transferring funds between retirement accounts can carry a high price tag if it is done incorrectly. For those who plan carefully, however, converting from a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA can yield very substantial after-tax rates of return. Please feel free to call our offices if you have any questions about how the 2010 conversion opportunity should fit into your overall tax and wealth-building strategy.

No. Generally, payments that qualify as alimony are included in the recipient's gross income and are deducted from the payor's gross income. However, not all payments between spouses qualify as alimony.

Divorce or separation agreement

Payments do not qualify as alimony unless they are made under a written divorce or separation instrument. Any payment that exceeds the amount provided in the agreement, that is made before they are required by the agreement or that is made after they are no longer required by an agreement will not be considered alimony and will not be deductible as such.

The current rules apply to payments made under a post-1984 divorce or separation agreement. Covered under these rules are divorce or separation agreements executed after December 31, 1984, instruments executed before 1985 if a decree executed after December 31, 1984 changes the terms of the pre-1985 instrument, or pre-1985 instruments which are not treated as executed after December 31, 1984 but which have been modified after that date to expressly provide that the post-1984 rules are to apply.

Under the current rules, a divorce or separation agreement is defined as a divorce or separate maintenance decree or a written instrument incident to that decree, a written separation agreement, or a decree that is not a divorce decree or a separate maintenance decree but that requires a spouse to make payments for the support or maintenance of the other spouse.

Strict requirements

To be deductible, alimony payments must meet all the strict statutory requirements. First, the payment must be in cash or an equivalent and must be received by or on behalf of a spouse under a divorce or separation agreement.

Additionally, the agreement must not designate the payment as not includable in gross income and not allowable as a deduction under Code Sec. 215, the spouses who are legally separated under a decree of divorce or separate maintenance cannot be members of the same household when the payment is made, there must be no liability to make any payment after the death of the payee spouse, and spouses must not file joint returns with each other.

Lastly, the payment must not be fixed as child support. Payments that do not meet these requirements will not be considered alimony and cannot be deducted.

Different rules apply to payments made under pre-1985 divorce or separation agreements. However, a pre-1985 agreement can be expressly modified to provide that the rules for post-1984 agreements will apply to subsequent payments.

Ordinarily, you can deduct the fair market value (FMV) of property contributed to charity. The FMV is the price in an arm's-length transaction between a willing buyer and seller.  If the property's value is less than the price you paid for it, your deduction is limited to FMV.  In some cases, you must submit an appraisal with your tax return.

Record-keeping requirements vary for noncash contributions, depending on the amount of the deduction. Similar items should be combined to determine the amount of the contribution:

• If the claimed deduction is less than $250, the charitable recipient must give you a receipt that identifies the recipient, the date of the contribution, and provides a detailed description of the property. You should keep a written record with a description of the property, its FMV, and how you determined the FMV, including a copy of any appraisals. 
  
  
• If the property's value is between $250 and $500, the requirements are similar. In addition, the recipient must give you a written acknowledgment that describes and values any goods or services provided to you. 
  
  
• If the value is between $500 and $5,000, your records must describe how the property was obtained, the date it was obtained or created, and the basis of the property.
  
  

• If the value is between $5,000 and $500,000, you must obtain a qualified appraisal by a qualified appraiser, retain that appraisal in your records, and attach to your income tax return a completed Form 8283, Section B.

• If you donate property and claim a deduction of more than $500,000, or donated art and deducted $20,000 or more, you must submit a "qualified appraisal" with your tax return.

If total noncash contributions exceed $500, you must fill out Section A of Form 8283, Noncash Charitable Contributions. If the contributions exceed $5,000, you must fill out Section B of the form. Publicly-traded securities must be listed on Section A, even if the value exceeds $5,000.

Form 8283 indicates that an appraisal generally must be submitted for amounts described in Section B. The IRS will deny the deduction if there is no appraisal, unless the failure to get an appraisal was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect. If the IRS asks you to file Form 8283, the taxpayer will have 90 days to submit a completed form.

For property over $5,000, the appraiser and the charitable recipient must sign Form 8283. The form advises the recipient to file Form 8282, Donee Information Return, with the IRS and to give a copy to the donor if the property is sold within two years. This is not required if the item (or group of similar items) has a value of $500 or less, or if the property is transferred for a charitable purpose.

You must obtain a "qualified appraisal" no earlier than 60 days before you contributed the property and before the due date of your return, including extensions. If you first report the contribution on an amended return, you must obtain an appraisal before you filed the amended return.

The appraisal must describe the property in detail so that it can be identified; give its condition; provide the date of contribution; describe any restrictions on the use of the property; and identify the appraiser. The appraisal also must provide the appraiser's qualifications; the date the property was valued; the FMV on the date of contribution; and the valuation method for determining value, including any comparable sales used.

A separate appraisal and a separate Form 8283 are required for each item or group of similar items. Only one appraisal is required for a group of similar items contributed in the same year. If similar items are contributed to more than one recipient and the items' value exceeds $5,000, a separate Form 8283 must be filed for each recipient.

Here's an example:

You donate $2,000 of books to College A, $2,500 of books to College B, and $1,000 of books to a public library. A separate Form 8283 must be submitted for each recipient.

Generally, a family member or a party who sold the property to the donor cannot be the appraiser.  An appraiser who is regularly used by the donor or recipient must have performed the majority of his or her appraisals for other persons. Form 8283 requires that the appraiser either publicize his (or her) services or else perform appraisals on a regular basis. The appraisal fee cannot be based on a percentage of the appraised property value or of the deduction allowed by the IRS.

Fees that you pay for an appraisal are a miscellaneous itemized deduction and cannot be included in the charitable deduction.

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.

No, parking tickets are not deductible. Internal Revenue Code Sec. 162 (a) provides that no deduction is allowed for fines or penalties paid to a government (U.S. or foreign, federal or local). While many delivery businesses consider parking tickets as a cost of doing business and more akin to an occasional "rental" payment for a place to park, a parking ticket is a fine and, as such, it is not deductible. By definition, parking tickets are civil penalties imposed by state or local law. The Tax Court decided that parking tickets are not business deductions way back in 1975 in a case dealing with a taxpayer that was trying to deduct as a business expense some parking tickets, among other things. The court allowed the other deductions but did not allow the parking tickets, citing Code Sec. 162.

The AMT is difficult to apply and the exact computation is very complex. If you owed AMT last year and no unusual deduction or windfall had come your way that year, you're sufficiently at risk this year to apply a detailed set of computations to any AMT assessment. Ballpark estimates just won't work.

If you did not owe AMT last year, you still may be at risk. The IRS estimates that half million more individuals will be subject to the AMT in 2006 because of rising deductions and exemptions. If Congress doesn't extend the same AMT exclusion amount given in 2005, an estimated 3 million more taxpayers will pay AMT.

For a system that was intended originally to target only the very rich, the AMT now hits many middle to upper-middle class taxpayers as well. Obviously something has to be done, and will be, eventually, through proposed tax reform measures. In the meantime, expect AMT to be around for at least another year.

Basic calculations. Whether you will be liable for the AMT depends on your combination of income, adjustments and preferences. After all the computations, if your AMT liability exceeds your income tax liability, you will be liable for the AMT. Here are the basic steps to take to determine in evaluating whether you will owe the AMT:

• Step #1: Calculate your regular taxable income. If your regular tax were to be determined by reference to an amount other than taxable income, that amount would need to be determined and used in the next steps.
  
• Step #2: Calculate your alternative minimum taxable income (AMTI) by increasing or reducing your regular taxable income (or other relevant amount) by applying the AMT adjustments or preferences. These include business depreciation adjustments and preferences, loss, timing and personal itemized deductions adjustments, and tax-exempt or excluded income preferences. This is the step with potentially many sub-computations in determining increases and reductions in tax liability.
  
• Step #3:  If your AMTI exceeds the applicable AMT exemption amount, pay AMT on the excess.

While no single factor will automatically trigger the AMT, the cumulative result of several targeted tax benefits considered in Step #2, above, can be fatal. Common items that can cause an "ordinary" taxpayer to be subject to AMT are:

• All personal exemptions (especially of concern to large families);
• Itemized deductions for state and local income taxes and real estate taxes;
• Itemized deductions on home equity loan interest (except on loans used for improvements);
• Miscellaneous Itemized Deductions;
• Accelerated depreciation;
• Income from incentive stock options; and
• Changes in some passive activity loss deductions.

You've waited until the last minute to fill out your income tax return. Instead of owing more taxes to the IRS, as you feared, you discover that you're entitled to a big refund. You breathe a sigh of relief.

What's wrong with this picture?

You're parking your money with the IRS; in effect, you have made an interest-free loan to the U.S. government. Wouldn't you rather have the money yourself, sooner?

It's true that you can't anticipate every facet of your tax return. You may have last-minute medical expenses. You may decide to increase your end-of-the year charitable giving. You may decide to sell off that investment that's a money-loser. Last-minute actions like these will all reduce your tax liability.

Over-Withheld?

But if you're getting a sizeable refund, you may want to reduce your income tax withholding this year. You should consider reducing your withholding in the following circumstances: 

• You got a big refund and your tax items will be about the same.
• Your income will remain the same but your adjustments, deductions and credits will increase significantly.
• You got a refund and you will qualify for one or more tax credits this year that you did not qualify for last year.

Any of the following common situations during a tax year also can lead to over-withholding:

• You and your spouse both withhold at the individual rate, when one of you could withhold at the lower married rate.
• You had child care expenses.
• You bought a home with a higher mortgage.
• You worked part-time but withheld at the higher annual rate as if you were working full-time.
• You bought a hybrid automobile and can claim a deduction or credit.

The unpredictable

Of course, a larger-than-expected refund also can be the result of uncovering "hidden treasures" at tax preparation time -- unexpected deductions and other tax benefits that will lower the amount of income taxes that you thought you would have to pay. That's terrific; tax return time often does result in "finding" deductions and opportunities for post-year end tax planning as you pour over receipts and other paperwork. However, to what degree could many of these "hidden treasures" be discovered earlier and your tax withholding and estimated tax payments lowered earlier as a result?

Personal and financial factors also might change your tax liability: lifestyle changes, wage income, decreased income not subject to withholding; increased adjustments to income, and increased itemized deductions or tax credits.

Taking action!

If your circumstances change, or you want to make any changes to your withholding allowances, give your employer a new Form W-4. If you're starting a new job and are having trouble determining your withholding amount, you should still submit Form W-4. Otherwise, the employer must withhold at the highest rate.

Please contact this office if you need assistance in determining the right balance of wage withholding and estimated tax payments needed to cover your tax liability while not giving Uncle Sam an interest free loan. Remember, when you get a tax refund you are getting back money that you did not have to pay into the tax system in the first place.