A 1099 Reporting Rule Is Delayed

 

You may have heard that the IRS recently delayed a 1099 reporting rule that was going to otherwise affect a lot of people this filing season.

We are talking about payments apps such as Venmo, PayPal, Square and Cash App. Use Lyft or Uber, purchase something on Etsy or buy lunch at a food truck and you are likely paying cash or using one of these payment platforms.

For years and years, the tax rules require a payment processor to issue a 1099 to a business if two things happened:

(1)  The business received payments exceeding $20,000 and

(2)  There were more than 200 transactions.

This flavor of 1099 is a “1099-K.” It basically means that one received payment for a business transaction by accepting a credit card or mobile payment app. Mind you, this is not the same flavor of 1099 as those for interest or dividend income, rent or stock sales. A 1099-K is issued to a business, not to an individual. However, an individual having a business – think a side gig – can receive a 1099-K for that gig. Think Uber or Etsy – or a teenage babysitter – and you get the distinction.  

I remember when the $20,000/200 rule came in. There was one year when the IRS wanted taxpayers to separate business revenues on their tax return between those reported on a 1099 and those not. Clients were not amused with locating and providing those 1099 forms. Preparers quickly adjusted by reporting all revenues as reported on a 1099, despite IRS protestations that it would render their computer matching superfluous. True, but preparers cannot spend a lifetime preparing one tax return because Congress and the IRS want a DNA match on any economic activity during the year.   

Congress changed the $20,000/200 law. The American Rescue Plan of 2021 reduced the dollar threshold to $600 in the aggregate, with no threshold on the number of transactions.

Fortunately, some of the business apps are trying to minimize the damage. PayPal and Venmo, for example, are allowing users to distinguish whether a payment is personal - think a birthday gift – or a payment for goods and services. Personal payments do not require 1099-K reporting.   

Many tax professionals were concerned how this expanded reporting would mesh with an IRS that is just barely getting itself off the floor from COVID202020212022. The IRS still has unprocessed tax returns and correspondence to wade through – the same IRS that recently destroyed millions of tax documents because they relinquished hope of ever processing them.

The 1099-K reporting has not gone away completely, though. The IRS delayed the $600 rule, but the old rule - $20,000 and 200 transactions – is still in effect. Yeah, it can be confusing.

Have you wondered why that $600 limit has never changed? The $600 has been around since the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, and prior to 1954 there was comparable reporting for certain payments exceeding $1,000. Mind you, average annual U.S. income in 1954 was less than $4,000. You could buy a house for twice that amount.  

Had that $600 been pegged for inflation – not an unreasonable request to make of Congress, which caused the inflation - it would be almost $6,700 today.

And Congress would not be burdening everybody with 1099 reporting at dollar thresholds less than you spend monthly on groceries.

 

Income, Clearly Realized

 

What is income?

Believe it or not, there is a line of cases over decades developing the tax concept of income.

Some instances are clear-cut: if you receive wages or salary, for example, then you have income.

Some instances may not be so clear-cut.

For example, let’s say that you receive a stock dividend. The company has a good year, and you receive – as an example – 1 additional share for every 5 shares you own.  

Do you have income?

Let’s talk this out. Let’s say that the company is worth $25 million before the stock dividend and has 1 million shares outstanding. After the stock dividend it will have 1.2 million shares outstanding. What are those extra 200,000 shares worth?

This is an actual case – Eisner v Macomber - that the Supreme Court decided in 1920. Congress had changed the tax law to tax this stock dividend, and someone (Myrtle Macomber) brought suit arguing that the law was unconstitutional.

Her argument:

·      The company was worth $25 million before the dividend

·      The company was worth $25 million after the dividend

·      She may have more shares, but her shares represent the same proportional ownership of the company.

·      She did not have any more money than she had before.

She had a point.

The Bureau of Internal Revenue (that is, the IRS) came at it from a different angle:

There was income – the income generated by the company.  The company was “distributing” said income by means of a stock dividend.

The Court reasoned that one could have income from labor or from capital. The first did not apply, and it could find nothing to support the second had happened to Mrs Macomber.

The Court decided that she did not have income.

Let’s continue.

The Glenshaw Glass Company sued the Hartford-Empire Company for damages stemming from fraud and for treble damages for business injury.

The two companies settled, and Hartford was paid approximately $325 thousand in punitive damages.

Glenshaw had no intention of paying tax on that $325 grand. That money was not paid because of labor or because of capital. It was paid because of injury to its business - returning Glenshaw to where it should have been if not for the tortious behavior.

Not labor, not capital. Glenshaw was draped all over that earlier Eisner v Macomber decision.

But the IRS had a point – in fact, 325 thousand points.

Here is the Court:

Here we have instances of undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which taxpayers have complete dominion. The mere fact that the payments were extracted from the wrongdoers as punishment for unlawful conduct cannot detract from their character as taxable income.”

The Court levered away from its earlier labor/capital impasse and clarified income to be:

·      An increase in wealth

·      Clearly realized, and

·      Over which one has (temporary or permanent) discretion or control

In time Glenshaw has come to mean that everything is taxable unless Congress says that it is not taxable. While not mathematically precise, it is precise enough for day-to-day use.

I have a question, though.

At a conceptual level, what are the limits on the “clearly realized” requirement?

I get it when someone receive a paycheck.

I also get it when someone sells a mutual fund.

But what if your IRA has gone up in value, but you haven’t taken a distribution?

Or the house in which you raised your family has appreciated in value?

Do you have an increase in wealth?

Do you have discretion or control over said increase in wealth?

Do you have “income” that Congress can tax under Glenshaw?

Your 2020 Tax Return and the Stimulus Payments

 

Let’s talk about your 2020 personal tax return and the two stimulus payments that you (may have) received.

The first round of stimulus checks was up to $1,200 for each spouse and $500 for each qualifying child.

The second round was up to $600 for each spouse and qualifying child.

So, if you have two qualifying kids and qualified for the maximum, you would have received $5,800 ($3,400 plus $2,400) between the two rounds.

How do you not qualify for the maximum?

One way is easy: you had too much income.

The second way is nonintuitive: the child was over age 16. A qualifying child means a child under the age of 17. Seems odd to me to exclude a high school senior, but there it is.

Let’s talk about the first non-qualification: income.

Let’s use a married couple with two qualifying children as our example.

The income limit for marrieds is $150,000. Past that point the stimulus check goes away by a nickel on the dollar. The maximum for two spouses is $2,400, so we can calculate this as follows:

                      $2,400 divided by .05 = $ 48,000

                      $150,000 plus 48,000 = $198,000

All right, the stimulus for marrieds burns-out at $198,000, right?

Nope.

Why?

Because of the qualifying children.

Each of the kids adds another $10,000 to the phaseout range.

We have two kids. That means $20,000 added to the $198,000, totaling $218,000 before we burn-out of stimulus altogether.

Are we stilling phasing-out at a nickel on the dollar?

Let’s check.

           $218,000 – 150,000 = $68,000

           $3,400 divided by 68,000 equals $0.05.

Yep, nickel on the dollar.

You received the first stimulus check in April, 2020. Remember that tax returns were automatically extended until July 15, 2020 because of COVID. The odds were extremely good that the IRS was not basing its calculations on your 2019 return, because your 2019 return had not been prepared, much less filed. For most of us, the IRS was looking at our 2018 tax return.

Let’s continue.

You received your second stimulus check very late in December, 2020 or (more likely) January, 2021 – but the income phaseout range was the same.

What did change was the tax year the IRS was looking at. By December, 2020 you would have filed your 2019 tax return (let’s skip paper filings that may not have been processed by then, or we are going to drive ourselves crazy).

If your income went up from 2018 to 2019, you would have climbed the phaseout range. You might have received a first stimulus check, for example, but not qualified for a second one. It could have gone the other way, of course, if your income went down in 2019. 

Now your 2020 tax return lands on my desk and we need to settle-up on the stimulus.

How do we settle-up?

We run through the income phaseout range … again.

Using your 2020 tax return this time.

Did you notice we are doing the calculation three times using income from three different tax years?

Yep, it’s a pain.

Mind you, if you have modest income, I know that you received the maximum stimulus.

Conversely, if you made bank, I know that you received no stimulus.

Fall in between – or have wildly varying income – and I you need to tell me the amount of your stimulus checks.

Let’s go through a quick example, using our married couple with two qualifying children.

Their 2018 adjusted gross income was 201,000.

Here is the first stimulus:

phaseout start			150,000.00
phaseout end		198,000.00
add: 2 children		20,000.00
			218,000.00
				68,000.00
2018 AGI			201,000.00
				51,000.00
First stimulus		2,400.00
		1,000.00
			3,400.00	times	51,000.00	=	2,550.00
					68,000.00
			(2,550.00)
			850.00

They would have received $850.

Their 2019 adjusted gross income was $320,000.

Way over the income limit. There was no second stimulus.

Their 2020 tax return lands on my desk. Their adjusted gross income is $104,000.

Way below the income limit. Full stimulus.

Two qualifying kids. The maximum over two rounds of stimulus would be $3,400 plus $2,400 = $5,800.

They already received $850 per above.

That means a $4,950 credit on their 2020 individual tax return. I look like a hero.

But why? After all, their 2019 income was over $300 grand – way above the range for receiving any stimulus.

The quirky thing is that the stimulus is based on one’s 2020 tax return. Congress however wanted the money out as fast as possible. The stimulus had an income test, though, so the first option was to do the calculation on one’s 2019 tax return. When that option proved unworkable, the second option was to use 2018. It was messy but quick, and one would settle-up when filing the 2020 tax return.

Congress realized that settling-up could mean repaying some of the stimulus money. Since that somewhat negated the purpose of a stimulus, Congress decided that the gate would only swing one way. If one did not receive enough stimulus, then one could claim the shortfall on the 2020 return. If one was overpaid, well … one got to keep the money. 

It was a win:win.

Not so much for the accountant, though.

Deducting Expenses Paid With Paycheck Protection Loans

There was a case in 1931 that is influencing a public controversy today.

Let’s talk about it.

The taxpayer (Slayton) was in the business of buying, holding and selling tax-exempt bonds. He would at times borrow money to buy or to carry tax-exempt bonds he already owned.

Slayton had tax-exempt interest income coming in. That amount was approximately $65 thousand.

Slayton was also paying interest. That amount was approximately $78 thousand.

COMMENT: On first read it does not appear that dear old Slayton was the Warren Buffett of his day.

Time came to file his tax return. He omitted the $65 grand in interest received because … well, it was tax-exempt.

He deducted the $78 grand that he was paying to carry those tax-exempt securities.

The IRS said no dice.

Off to Court they went.

Slayton was hot. He made several arguments:

(1)  The government was discriminating against owners of tax-exempt securities and – in effect – nullifying their exemption from taxation.

(2)  The government was discriminating against dealers in tax-exempt bonds that had to borrow money to carry an inventory of such bonds.

(3)  The government was discriminating in favor of dealers of tax-exempt bonds who did not have to borrow to carry an inventory of such bonds.

I admit: he had a point.

The government had a point too.

(1)  The income remained tax-exempt. The issue at hand was not the interest income; rather it was the interest expense.

(2)  Slayton borrowed money for the express purpose of carrying tax-exempt securities. This was not an instance where someone owned an insubstantial amount of tax-exempts within a larger portfolio or where a business owning tax-exempts borrowed money to meet normal business needs.

The link between the bonds and the loans to buy them was too strong in this case. The Court disallowed the interest expense. Since then, tax practitioners refer to the Slayton issue as the “double-dip.”  The dip even has its own Code section:

        § 265 Expenses and interest relating to tax-exempt income.

(a)  General rule.

No deduction shall be allowed for-

(1)  Expenses.

Any amount otherwise allowable as a deduction which is allocable to one or more classes of income other than interest (whether or not any amount of income of that class or classes is received or accrued) wholly exempt from the taxes imposed by this subtitle, or any amount otherwise allowable under section 212 (relating to expenses for production of income) which is allocable to interest (whether or not any amount of such interest is received or accrued) wholly exempt from the taxes imposed by this subtitle.

Over the years the dip has evolved to include income other than tax-exempt interest, but the core concept remains: one cannot deduct expenses with too strong a tie to nontaxable income.

Let’s fast forward almost 90 years and IRS Notice 2020-32.

To the extent that section 1106(i) of the CARES Act operates to exclude from gross income the amount of a covered loan forgiven under section 1106(b) of the CARES Act, the application of section 1106(i) results in a “class of exempt income” under §1.265- 1(b)(1) of the Regulations. Accordingly, section 265(a)(1) of the Code disallows any otherwise allowable deduction under any provision of the Code, including sections 162 and 163, for the amount of any payment of an eligible section 1106 expense to the extent of the resulting covered loan forgiveness (up to the aggregate amount forgiven) because such payment is allocable to tax-exempt income. Consistent with the purpose of section 265, this treatment prevents a double tax benefit.

I admit, it is not friendly reading.

The CARES Act is a reference to the Paycheck Protection loans. These are SBA loans created in response to COVID-19 to help businesses pay salaries and rent. If the business uses the monies for their intended purpose, the government will forgive the loan.

Generally speaking, forgiveness of a loan results in taxable income, with exceptions for extreme cases such as bankruptcy. The tax reasoning is that one is “wealthier” than before, and the government can tax that accession to wealth as income.

However, the CARES Act specifically stated that forgiveness of a Paycheck Protection loan would not result in taxable income.

So we have:

(1)  A loan that should be taxable – but isn’t - when it is forgiven.

(2)  A loan whose proceeds are used to pay salaries and rent, which are routine deductible expenses.

This sets up the question:

Are the salaries, rent and other qualified expenses paid with a Paycheck Protection loan deductible?

You see how we got to this question, with Section 265, Slayton and subsequent cases that expanded on the double dip.

The IRS said No.

This answer makes sense from a tax perspective.

This answer does not make sense from a political perspective, with Senators Wyden and Grassley and Representative Neal writing to Secretary Mnuchin that this result was not the intent of Congress.

I believe them.

I have a suggestion.

Change the tax law.

Family First Coronavirus Response Act

Congress passed and the President signed a coronavirus-related bill this week. While mainly addressing employment benefits, it also includes payroll-tax-related provisions to mitigate the effect of the benefit expansion on employers.

Following is a recap of the Act. It is intended as an introduction and quick reference only. Please review the Act itself for detailed questions.

The Family First Corona Virus Response Act has two key employment-benefit components. Employers are to be reimbursed for the benefit expansion via a tax credit mechanism.

A. The Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act

1.  Private employers employing less than 500 employees shall provide an employee with paid sick time if:

i. The employee is subject to quarantine or isolation due to COVID-19.

ii.  The employee has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID– 19.

iii.  The employee is experiencing symptoms of COVID– 19 and seeking a medical diagnosis.

iv. The employee is caring for an individual described in (i) or has been advised as described in (ii).

v. The employee is caring for a son or daughter of such employee if the school or place of care of the son or daughter has been closed, or the child care provider of such son or daughter is unavailable, due to COVID–19 precautions.

vi. The employee is experiencing any other substantially similar condition specified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Labor.

2. Full-time employees are entitled to 80 hours of paid sick time.

3. Part-time employees are entitled to the average number of hours worked on over a 2-week period.  For employees with varying schedules, the employer shall use the employee’s average number of hours per day over the 6-month period ending on the date the employee takes leave under the Act.

4. If an employee takes time off for self-care, the employee shall be compensated at the employee’s regular pay rate.

     i. Not to exceed $511 per day and $5,110 in the aggregate

5. If an employee takes time off for a sick family member or child, the employee shall be compensated at 2/3 of the employee’s regular pay rate.

     i. Not to exceed $200 per day and $2,000 in the aggregate

6. There are comparable provisions for the self-employed.

7. The Act expires on December 31, 2020.

8. The Labor Secretary is authorized to exempt employers with less than 50 employees if the requirements would imperil the viability of the business.

9. Employers who violate this Act shall be considered to have failed to pay minimum wages in violation of the FLSA and be subject to penalties related to such a violation.

B. Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act (E-FMLA)

1. The Act expands coverage of the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) for employers with fewer than 500 employees. Employees are typically not eligible for FMLA leave until they have worked at least 12 months and 1250 hours. 

i.  For purposes of E-FMLA, this threshold is reduced to 30 days.

2.  E-FMLA applies if the employee leave is to care for a child under 18 if the school or place of care has been closed or child care provider is unavailable due to a public health emergency.

3. Protected leave can be for up to 12 weeks, but the first 10 days may consist of unpaid leave.

4.  The employee shall be compensated not less than two-thirds of the employee’s regular rate of pay.

i. Not to exceed $200 per day and $10,000 in the aggregate (for each employee)  

5. There are comparable provisions for the self-employed.

6. The Act expires on December 31, 2020.

7. The Labor Secretary is authorized to exempt employers with less than 50 employees if the requirements would imperil the viability of the business.

8. Employers who violate this Act shall be considered to have failed to pay minimum wages in violation of the FLSA and be subject to penalties related to such a violation.

C. Tax Credits

1. The compensation paid under the Act is not subject to the Old-Age, Survivors and Disability portion of FICA (that is, the 6.2%).

2. The compensation paid under the Act is subject to the Hospital Insurance portion of FICA (that is, the 1.45%).

3. On a quarterly basis, employers can claim a payroll tax credit for the sum of the following:

                a. Wages paid under this Act

b. Allocable “qualified health plan expenses” 

      ... think health insurance

c. The employer portion of Hospital Insurance (that is, the 1.45%)

4. Treasury is authorized to issue Regulations waiving penalties for not making payroll tax deposits in anticipation of the credit to be allowed.

5. The credit is refundable if it exceeds the amount the employer owes in payroll tax.

6. Employer taxable income is to be increased by the amount of payroll credit received.

           i. Otherwise there would be a double tax benefit.    

Year-End Retirement Tax Changes

On Friday December 20, 2019 the President signed two spending bills, averting a government shutdown at midnight.

The reason we are talking about it is that there were several tax provisions included in the bills. Many if not most are as dry as sand, but there are a few that affect retirement accounts and are worth talking about.

Increase the Age for Minimum Required Distributions (MRDs)

We know that we are presently required to begin distributions from our IRAs when we reach age 70 ½. The same requirement applies to a 401(k), unless one continues working and is not an owner. Interestingly, Roths have no MRDs until they are inherited.

In a favorable change, the minimum age for MRDs has been increased to 72.

Repeal the Age Limitation for IRA Contributions

Presently you can contribute to your 401(k) or Roth past the age of 70 ½. You cannot, however, contribute to your IRA past age 70 ½.

In another favorable change, you will now be allowed to contribute to your IRA past age 70 ½.

COMMENT: Remember that you generally need income on which you paid social security taxes (either employee FICA or self-employment tax) in order to contribute to a retirement account, including an IRA. In short, this change applies if you are working past 70 ½.

New Exception to 10% Early Distribution Penalty

Beginning in 2020 you will be allowed to withdraw up to $5,000 from your 401(k) or IRA within one year after the birth or adoption of a child without incurring the early distribution penalty.

BTW, the exception applies to each spouse, so a married couple could withdraw up to $10,000 without penalty.

And the “within one year” language means you can withdraw in 2020 for a child born in 2019.

Remember however that the distribution will still be subject to regular income tax. The exception applies only to the penalty.

Limit the Ability to Stretch an IRA

Stretching begins with someone dying. That someone had a retirement account, and the account was transferred to a younger beneficiary.

Take someone in their 80s who passes away with $2 million in an IRA. They have 4 grandkids, none older than age 24. The IRA is divided into four parts, each going to one of the grandkids. The required distribution on the IRAs used to be based on the life expectancy of someone in their 80s; it is now based on someone in their 20s. That is the concept of “stretching” an IRA.

Die after December 31, 2019 and the maximum stretch (with some exceptions, such as for a surviving spouse) is now 10 years.

Folks, Congress had to “pay” for the other breaks somehow. Here is the somehow.

Annuity Information and Options Expanded

When you get your 401(k) statement presently, it shows your account balance. If the statement is snazzy, you might also get performance information over a period of years.

In the future, your 401(k) statements will provide “lifetime income disclosure requirements.”

Great. What does that mean?

It means that the statement will show how much money you could get if you used all the money in the 401(k) account to buy an annuity.

The IRS is being given some time to figure out what the above means, and then employers will have an extra year before having to provide the infinitely-better 401(k) statements to employees and participants.

By the way …

You will never guess this, but the law change also makes it easier for employers to offer annuities inside their 401(k) plans.

Here is the shocked face:

 Expand the Small Employer Retirement Plan Tax Credit

In case you work for a small employer who does not offer a retirement plan, you might want to mention the enhanced tax credit for establishing a retirement plan.

The old credit was a flat $500. It got almost no attention, as $500 just doesn’t move the needle.

The new credit is $250 per nonhighly-compensated employee, up to $5,000.

At $5 grand, maybe it is now worth looking at.