New York And State Donation Programs

You may have read that the new tax law will limit your itemized tax deduction beginning this year (2018).

This is of no concern to you if you do not itemize deductions on your personal return.

If you do itemize, then this might be a concern.

Here is the calculation:

        *  state income taxes plus

        *  local income taxes plus

        *  real estate taxes plus

        *  personal property taxes

There is a spiff in there if you live in a state without an income tax, but let’s skip that for now.

You have a sum. You next compare that sum to $10,000, and

… you take the smaller number. That is the maximum you can deduct.

Folks, if you live in New Jersey odds are that real estate taxes on anything is going to be at least $10 grand. That leaves you with no room to deduct New Jersey income taxes. You have maxed.

Same for New York, Connecticut, California and other high tax states.

Governor Cuomo said the new tax law would “destroy” New York.

Stepping around the abuse of the language, New York did put out an idea – two, in fact:

·       Establish a charitable fund to which one could make payments in lieu of state income taxes. When preparing one’s individual tax return, one could treat contributions to that fund as state taxes paid. To make this plausible, New York would not make the ratio one-to-one. For example, if you paid $100 to the charitable fund, your state tax credit might be $90. Surely no one would then argue that you had magically converted your taxes into a charitable deduction. The only one on the short end is the IRS, but hey … New York.

·      Have employers pay a new payroll tax on employee compensation, replacing employee withholding on that compensation.  Of course, to get this to work the employee would probably have to reduce his/her pay, as the employer is not going to keep his/her salary the same and pay this new tax.

Other states put out ideas, by the way. New York was not alone.

I somewhat like the second idea. I do however see the issue with subsequent raises (a smaller base means a smaller raise), possibly reduced social security benefits, possible employer reluctance to hire, and the psychological punch of taking a cut in pay. Ouch.

The first idea however has a sad ending.

You see, many states for many years thought that there were good causes that they were willing to subsidize.

·       Indiana has the School Scholarship Credit. You donate to a scholarship-granting charity and Indiana gives you a tax credit equal to 50% of the donation on your personal return.

·       South Carolina has something similar (the Exceptional SC), but the state tax credit is 100%.

New York and its cohorts saw these and said “What is the difference between what Indiana or South Carolina is doing and what we are proposing?”

Well, for one thing money is actually going to a charitable cause, but let’s continue.

This past summer the IRS pointed out the obvious: there was no charity under New York’s plan., The person making the “donation” was simultaneously receiving a tax benefit. That is hardly the hallmark of a charitable contribution.

Wait, wait, New York said. We are not giving him/her a dollar-for-dollar credit, so …..

Fine, said the IRS. Here is what you do. Subtract the credit from the “donation.” We will allow the difference as a deductible contribution.

In fact, continued the IRS, if the spread is 15% or less, we will spot you the full donation. You do not have to reduce the deduction for the amount you get back. We can be lenient.

So what have New York and cohorts done to Indiana, to South Carolina and other states with similar programs?

You got it: they have blown up their donation programs.

Way to go.

Why did the IRS not pursue this issue before?

Well, before it did not matter whether one considered the donation to be a tax or a deductible contribution. Both were deductible as itemized deductions. There was no vig for the IRS to chase.

This changed when deductible taxes were limited to $10,000. Now there was vig.

There are about 30 states with programs like Indiana and South Carolina, so do not be surprised if this reaches back to you.

“Destination-Based” “Border Adjustment” “Indirect Tax” … What?

The destination-based border adjustment tax.

I  have been reading about it recently.

If you cannot distinguish it from a value-added tax, a national sales tax, a tariff or all-you-can eat Wednesdays at Ruby Tuesday, you are in good company.

Let’s talk about it. We need an example company and exemplary numbers. Here is one. Let’s call it Mortimer. Mortimer’s most recent (and highly compressed) income statement numbers are as follows:

Sales			10,000,000
Cost of sales			(3,500,000)
Operating expenses			(4,000,000)
Net profit			2,500,000

How much federal tax is Mortimer going to pay? Using a 34% federal rate, Mortimer will pay $850,000 ($2,500,000 * 34%).

Cue the crazy stuff….

A new tax will bring its own homeboy tax definitions. One is “WTO,” or World Trade Organization, of which the U.S. is a part and whose purpose is to liberalize world trade. The WTO is a fan of “indirect taxes,” such as excise taxes and the Value Added Tax (VAT). The WTO is not so much a fan of “direct taxes,” such as the U.S. corporate tax. To get some of their ideas to pass WTO muster, Congressional Republicans and think-tankers have to reconfigure our corporate income tax to mimic the look and feel of an indirect tax.

One way to do that is to disallow deductions for Operating Expenses. An example of an operating expense would be wages.

As a CPA by training and experience, hearing that wages are not a deductible business expense strikes me as ludicrous. Let us nonetheless continue.

Our tax base becomes $6,500,000 (that is, $10,000,000 – 3,500,000) once we leave out operating expenses.

Not feeling so good about this development, are we?

Well, to have a prayer of ever getting out of the Congressional sub-subcommittee dungeon of everlasting fuhgett-about-it, the tax rate is going to have to come down substantially. What if the rate drops from 35% to 20%?

I see $6,500,000 times 20% = $1,300,000.

Well, this is stinking up the joint.

VATs normally allow one to deduct capital expenditures. We did not adjust for that. Say that Mortimer spent $1,500,000 on machinery, equipment and what-not during the year, What do the numbers now look like? 

• Sales                                       10,000,000
• Cost of Sales                            3,500,000
• Operating Expenses                 4,000,000
• Capital Additions                       1,500,000 

I am seeing $5,000,000 ($10,000,000 – 3,500,000 – 1,500,000) times 20% =  $1,000,000 tax.

Still not in like with this thing.

Let’s jump on the sofa a bit. What if we not tax the sale if it is an export? We want to encourage exports, with the goal of improving the trade deficit and diminishing any incentive for companies to invert or just leave the U.S. altogether.

Here are some updated numbers:

• Sales                                        10,000,000 (export $3,000,000)
• Cost of Sales                             3,500,000
• Operating Expenses                  4,000,000
• Capital Additions                        1,500,000 

I see a tax of: (($10,000,000 – 3,000,000) – (3,500,000 + 1,500,000) * 20% = 2,000,000 * 20% = $400,000 federal tax.

Looks like Mortimer does OK in this scenario.

What if Mortimer buys some of its products from overseas?

Oh oh.

Here are some updated, updated numbers:

• Sales                                       10,000,000
• Cost of Sales                            3,500,000 (import $875,000)
• Operating Expenses                 4,000,000
• Capital Additions                       1,500,000 

This border thing is a two-edged blade. The adjustment likes it when you export, but it doesn’t like it when you import. It may even dislike it enough to disallow a deduction for what you import.

I see a tax of: ($10,000,000 – (3,500,000 - 875,000) – 1,500,000) * 20% = 5,875,000 * 20% = $1,175,000 federal tax.

Mortimer is not doing so fine under this scenario. In fact, Mortimer would be happy to just leave things as they are.

Substitute “Target” or “Ford” for “Mortimer” and you have a better understanding of recent headlines. It all depends on whether you import or export, it seems, and to what degree.

By the way, the “border adjustment” part means the exclusion of export income and no deduction for import cost of sales. The “destination” part means dividing Mortimer’s income statement into imports and exports to begin with.

We’ll be hearing about this – probably to ad nauseum – in the coming months.

And the elephant in the room will be clearing any change through the appropriate international organizations. The idea that business expenses – such as labor, for example – will be nondeductible will ring very odd to an American audience.

  

Ohio Reforms Its Local Income Taxation

I remember having to quickly ramp-up on local taxes after moving to Cincinnati. I grew up in Florida, which has no state or local individual income taxes. We moved here from Georgia, which has a state but no local income taxes. I did not realize at the time that I was moving to a region which has approximately 80% or more of all the local income taxes in the nation – Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania and Kentucky.

The Kentucky local individual taxes are – for the most part – occupational taxes. If you do not work in one of those counties or cities, you generally do not have to worry about it. I live in Kentucky, for example, but I pay no Kentucky local income taxes. I do not work in Kentucky.

Indiana has county taxes, but they are filed with the state individual income tax return. Think of it as a “piggy-back” tax.

Ohio had to be different. For one thing, Ohio cities tax their residents, meaning that – if you live within the city – you have yet one more tax return to file. It doesn’t matter whether you work there (in contrast to Kentucky), and in many cases you have to file a return whether you owe tax or not. You might not owe tax, for example, if the city allows (at least some) credit for the local taxes paid to the city where you work (for example, if you live in a suburb but work downtown).

Add to this that each city has local autonomy to determine its taxable base, within the limits of Ohio law. One city could tax supplemental retirement benefits (SERPs), while another would not. One city could allow you to carry over a net operating loss (NOL) to future years, while another city would not.  Even if the city allowed an NOL, your city might allow a carryover of five years, while another would allow only three.

Even for a tax pro, it is a pain.

On December 19, 2014 the Governor signed a bill that promises to bring some standardization to the wild west of Ohio local income taxation. It is called the Ohio Municipal Income Tax Reform Act, and it will be effective for tax years beginning on and after January 1, 2016. The delay was intentional, as tax forms may need to be redesigned and instructions updated. A tax bill signed in December does not leave much time for that. 

Let’s go over the high points:

(1) The calculation of local taxable income will begin with federal adjusted gross income. The adjustments to federal AGI have been significantly standardized and include, for example, interest, dividends and capital gains.

NOTE: There are two cities in Ohio that start with Ohio adjusted gross income (from the Ohio state income tax return). Those two do not have to change to the new law. One of them is in Cincinnati and rhymes with Indian Hill. The effect for residents of Indian Hill is to tax their interest, dividends and capital gains. 

(2) Partnerships and LLCs will be taxed at the entity level only. Partners and members will subtract this income (as an adjustment under (1) above) when calculating their city tax.

That leaves Subchapter S shareholders to discuss.

(3) Subchapter S corporations will also be taxed at the entity level.

In addition, S shareholders may also continue to be taxed at the individual level if they live within 119 selected municipalities.

OBSERVATION: Obviously not as good as the rule for partnerships and LLCs. Why the difference? Who knows.          

(4) Losses from a passthrough entity (that is, a partnership, LLC, Subchapter S or (unlikely) a trust) may offset self-employment, rental, royalty and farming income. The reverse is also true.

(5) Net losses from (4) however cannot offset wages and salaries.

(6) Employee business expenses (that is, “Form 2106” expenses) will be deductible to the extent deducted for federal purposes.

(7) Ohio cities will have to limit their consideration of “domicile” to 25 common law-type tests. The cities are not permitted to add to these 25 tests.

NOTE: This is the “snowbird” test. I have had cities tell me they do not recognize snowbirds. A house there means you are taxed there, whether you spend much time at the house or not.

(8) An employee or sole proprietor is allowed to go into and out of a city for up to 20 days without triggering withholding for that city’s income tax.

NOTE: The previous threshold was 12 days. Notice that we are discussing withholding taxes only. A city may still contact a business for business income taxes if it spots business vans and work trucks stopping within the city.

(9) Pensions are not taxable.

NOTE: SERPs are considered to be wages, not pensions. SERPS are deferred compensation plans, usually funded exclusively by the employer. The tax reporting for a SERP is done on Form W-2 - the same reporting as one's wages or salary - so the cities take the position that SERPs are wages and not pension income.

(10)        Returns will be due (for a calendar year taxpayer) on April 15.

(11)        The returns will be automatically extended if a federal extension is requested.

(12)        Estimated individual income taxes will be required only if the estimated tax due is $200 or more.

(13)        Any tax due (before withholdings or estimates) of $10 or less will be reduced to zero.

NOTE: You still have to file the tax return, though.

(14)        Any interest due will charged at the federal rate plus 5% (Ohio’s rate is federal plus 3%).

(15)        Net operating losses are standardized.

a.     Beginning January 1, 2017 all cities will allow a uniform 5-year carryover (with a phase-in).

b.     Earlier NOLs will be permitted as allowed by pre-change city law.

c.      City NOLs will be calculated using federal limitations such as passive activity, basis or at-risk limitations.

NOTE: This is a subtle but very significant change – in favor of the cities.

(16)        Certain administrative changes, such as requiring the cities to send out an assessment notice -clearly marked “ASSESSMENT” – before they can change your numbers on the city return.

The Ohio Society of CPAs was an outspoken advocate of these changes. I am  sympathetic to arguments the cities raised, but I am nonetheless thankful for some standardization. I prepare or review local returns. I have to bill for this, as this is my profession. I have routinely seen business clients with multiple local returns where the cumulative tax is a fraction of the professional fee to prepare the returns. I submit that a tax is unfair when the preparation fee routinely exceeds any tax so raised. Call it Hamilton's razor if you wish. 

By the way, I would apply the same razor to federal and state taxes. A corollary to the razor would require Congress to reduce its revenue estimates from any proposed tax by the compliance costs (that is, the professional fees) of complying with said proposed tax. I suspect we wouldn't see as much nonsense as we presently have in the tax Code.
 

Senator Baucus Revs Up Tax Reform Discussion

Today (November 21, 2013) Senator Baucus released the third in a series of staff discussions on tax reform. This discussion focuses on depreciation (also called “cost recovery”) and tax accounting methods.

Not the most exciting topics, and I will not miss Thursday Night Football reading up on them. Let’s review them quickly.

The Senator leads off with:

America today is using a bloated tax code that was built for businesses close to 30 years ago. The code is completely outdated and acting as a brake on economic growth.  More must be done to simplify tax rules, lessen the burden on small businesses and jumpstart job growth.”

I cannot disagree with him, but I am not optimistic about politicians – today, tomorrow – keeping their hands off any tax reform. Remember that Chief Justice Roberts deemed ObamaCare to be a “tax” – even though the White House itself did not present brief or argue it to be a tax. With that level of verbal schizophrenia, I would wager that any “reform” would last about as long as when the first politician needs to get reelected.

Baucus is proposing the following depreciation changes:

(1) Reduce the number of depreciation classes to four: three for short- to mid-term property and one for longer-lived assets. There would be only one permitted depreciation method.

a.     By longer-lived, think real estate, which Baucus proposes to depreciate over 43 years.

COMMENT: There goes the never-worked-in-the-real-world-crowd again. I have thirty years in this business, and I have never seen a proposed real estate investment analyzed over a 43-year recovery. Doesn’t happen, folks.

(2) Slow depreciation from double-declining balance to declining balance. Real estate would remain straight-line.

(3)  Allow expanded general asset accounting. This means that asset categories are pooled, and depreciation is calculated by…

a.     Starting with last year’s asset pool balance

b.     Increased by additions and improvements

c.      Decreased by proceeds from asset sales and dispositions

d.     And multiplying the result by a depreciation factor

(4)  Repeal like-kind exchanges.

COMMENT: Yipes.

(5) Repeal depreciation recapture for pooled assets.

COMMENT: Yay!

Treat all gain from disposition of pooled assets as ordinary income.

          COMMENT: Nay!

(6)  The maximum cost of mixed- use vehicles is capped at $45,000.

a.     That means that – if a car is used for both business and personal use – the maximum cost that can be depreciated is $45,000. That amount in turn is depreciated over 5 years.

b.     I am not overly surprised. There is still a lot of abuse – truly – in this area.

Then there are some tax accounting changes:

(7) Repeal expensing for research and development expenses. The default treatment will be to capitalize and depreciate over 5 years.

COMMENT: This cannot make business sense. You want to explain this proposal change to Apple, Samsung, Pfizer, or any number of research-intensive companies?

(8) Disallow the deduction for advertising. In its place, you would deduct one-half immediately and then amortize the balance over 5 years.

COMMENT:  This makes no sense to an accountant. I associate depreciation and amortization with assets that have use or value over more than one year. Advertising doesn’t make that cut. Does anyone talk about the commercials from last year’s Super Bowl, for example?

(9) Treat “qualified extraction expenditures” the same way as research and development.

COMMENT: Think fracking. The United States is increasingly moving to energy independence (Bakken Shale, for example), even under a hostile Administration. Do you think this change is going to help or hurt that effort?

(10)  Repeal percentage depletion.

COMMENT: Same comment as (9).

(11)  Make permanent Section 179 expensing.

a.     The maximum expensing would be set at $1,000,000, with the phase-out beginning at $2,000,000.

COMMENT: Frankly, it’s about time.

(12)  The Section 197 amortization period is increased from 15 to 20 years.

(13)  All business with less than $10 million in annual gross receipts can use the cash basis of accounting and not account for inventory.

          COMMENT: Wait for it...

(14)  If you are not described in (13) then you are on the accrual basis of accounting.

COMMENT: When the government talks about accrual basis, they means that they want you to pay taxes on your receivables before you actually collect them.

(15)  Businesses described in (13) do not have to suffer through the Section 263A uniform capitalization calculations.

        COMMENT: Good. 

(16)  LIFO is repealed.  

COMMENT: I do not particularly care for LIFO, but I acknowledge that major industries use it extensively, and it is considered GAAP when auditors render their auditors’ report. The government is not chasing this down because they had brilliant debates while in accounting theory class. They want the jack.

(17) The completed contract method of accounting (think contractors) is repealed, except for small construction contracts.

Overall, Baucus is trying to reduce corporate tax rates. At 35%, the United States has the dubious distinction of having the highest corporate tax rate in the world. There are consequences to having the highest rate, such as having less business.  To reduce rates, he has to raise money somewhere, and we see some of those sources above.

And remember folks: these are only proposals.