The IRS began its "Dirty Dozen" list for 2022, which includes potentially abusive arrangements that taxpayers should avoid. The tax scams in this series focus on four transactions that are wrongfully promoted and will likely attract additional agency compliance efforts in the future. Those four abusive transactions involve charitable remainder annuity trusts, Maltese individual retirement arrangements, foreign captive insurance and monetized installment sales. These are the first four entries in this year’s Dirty Dozen series.

The IRS began its "Dirty Dozen" list for 2022, which includes potentially abusive arrangements that taxpayers should avoid. The tax scams in this series focus on four transactions that are wrongfully promoted and will likely attract additional agency compliance efforts in the future. Those four abusive transactions involve charitable remainder annuity trusts, Maltese individual retirement arrangements, foreign captive insurance and monetized installment sales. These are the first four entries in this year’s Dirty Dozen series.

Taxpayers who have already claimed the purported tax benefits of one of these four transactions on a tax return should consider taking corrective steps, including filing an amended return and seeking independent advice. Where appropriate, the IRS will challenge the purported tax benefits from the transactions on this list and may assert accuracy-related penalties. Further, the IRS informed that to combat the evolving variety of these potentially abusive transactions, the IRS created the Office of Promoter Investigations (OPI). The IRS has a variety of means to find potentially abusive transactions, including examinations, promoter investigations, whistleblower claims, data analytics and reviewing marketing materials.

Further, the IRS reminded taxpayers to watch out for and avoid advertised schemes, many of which are now promoted online, that promise tax savings that are too good to be true and will likely cause taxpayers to legally compromise themselves. Additionally, the IRS informed that taxpayers who have engaged in any of these transactions or who are contemplating engaging in them should carefully review the underlying legal requirements and consult independent, competent advisors before claiming any purported tax benefits.

The IRS announced that is completing the processing on a key group of individual tax returns filed during 2021. Business paper returns filed in 2021 will follow shortly after. The Service began 2022 with a larger than usual inventory of paper tax returns and correspondence filed during 2021 due to the pandemic. The IRS will continue to work on the few remaining 2021 individual tax returns that have processing issues or require additional information from the taxpayer. As of June 10, the IRS had processed over 4.5 million individual paper tax returns received in 2021.

The IRS announced that is completing the processing on a key group of individual tax returns filed during 2021. Business paper returns filed in 2021 will follow shortly after. The Service began 2022 with a larger than usual inventory of paper tax returns and correspondence filed during 2021 due to the pandemic. The IRS will continue to work on the few remaining 2021 individual tax returns that have processing issues or require additional information from the taxpayer. As of June 10, the IRS had processed over 4.5 million individual paper tax returns received in 2021.

To date, more than twice as many returns await processing compared to a typical year at this point in the calendar year. A greater percentage of this year’s inventory awaiting processing is comprised of original returns that, generally, take less time to process than amended returns. To address the unprocessed inventory by the end of this year, the IRS has taken aggressive steps including significant, ongoing overtime for staff throughout 2022, creating special teams of employees focused solely on processing aged inventory and expediting hiring of thousands of new workers and contractors. Additionally, the IRS has improved the process for taxpayers whose paper and electronically filed returns were suspended during processing for manual review and correction.

The IRS reminded taxpayers who have not yet filed their 2021 tax returns this year, including those who requested an extension until October 17, to make sure they file their returns electronically with direct deposit to avoid delays. The IRS urged taxpayers to file as soon as they are ready and to not wait until the last minute before the October 17 extension deadline. Filing sooner avoids potential delays for taxpayers and assists the larger ongoing IRS efforts to complete processing tax returns this year.

Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Charles Rettig is pushing back on assertions that the agency is spending less time targeting wealthy taxpayers for audit in favor of lower income taxpayers.

Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Charles Rettig is pushing back on assertions that the agency is spending less time targeting wealthy taxpayers for audit in favor of lower income taxpayers.

"This is damaging to tax administration in this country when people say IRS audits more lower income people than higher income people," Rettig told attendees June 23, 2022, at the NYU Tax Controversy Forum.

He asserted that audit rate figures can be skewed depending on when the calculation is taking place. For example, he noted that if data is published on rates of audit for the 2021 tax year in 2022, the numbers will be considerably off.

"[W]hen you see these audit rates, don't jump on that train and say IRS is only auditing .0000 something," he said. "I go, Wow. Who are these folks we picked up? Right? The average audit gets picked up, particularly for high wealth taxpayer at least 16 months after that return has been filed. Why would we audit in the same calendar year that it's filed?"

Rettig noted that wealthy people may be filing later toward the extended filing deadline and filing more returns covering multiple years simultaneously, which would push back when audits take place. The would give the appearance that audits for more wealthy taxpayers may not be happening as much as for lower income taxpayers when examining a single-year audit rate.

But in reality, he said that audit rates for those who make more than $10 million "runs right around seven or eight percent. And as of this year, it’s at 8.7 percent. You will see that the $5 to $10 million group runs about 4.2%. You will see the $1 to $5 million group runs about 2.2%. Most of you have done the math and you understand exactly what I'm telling you, you go for the higher income folks."

After that, the numbers drop off "considerably," he said.

"The $1 million-and-under person is really the executive who has W-2 and 1099 income and we have that information," Rettig said. "The over $1 million person is the entrepreneur who has a lot of pass-through entities and whatnot, we don't have that information," and they get audited more because of it.

Rettig also used the forum to continue advocacy for more funding and guaranteed funding over multiple years to help improve not only enforcement, but to help improve the services that the agency provides to taxpayers, including hiring for call centers and providing better outreach.

Republican members of the Senate Finance Committee are the latest group to call on the Internal Revenue Service to implement 2-D barcoding technology on individual tax forms.

Republican members of the Senate Finance Committee are the latest group to call on the Internal Revenue Service to implement 2-D barcoding technology on individual tax forms.

"We are writing to strongly encourage the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to work with tax return software companies to implement 2-D barcoding technology for use during the 2023 tax filing season for the 1040 family of paper returns," the GOP senators, led by Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), said in a May 24, 2022, letter to IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig.

Similar calls have been made by other stakeholders, including the National Taxpayer Advocate, who sent a directive to the IRS in March to implement 2-D barcoding in time for use with the 2023 tax season.

The GOP senators noted that the IRS is financially capable of doing this now. In the letter, the senators referenced the 2017 budget request of $8.4 million for implementation of 2-D barcoding and the $1 billion earmarked in the American Rescue Plan of 2021 for IT modernization, of which they state only $98.5 million so far has been spent.

The group also called on the agency to "stop chasing technological perfection" in the letter.

"If we were to wait for the promise of better technology, nothing would ever get implemented," the letter states. "To the contrary, the fact that 2-D technology is a bit older probably means it has been tested and is less expensive. Many states currently use 2-D barcoding for tax returns, so we have proof it works."

2-D barcoding came back into the forefront of needed IT upgrades for the IRS during the pandemic that caused a significant backlog of unprocessed paper returns. As of April 29, the agency still had more than 18 million unprocessed paper returns, though Commissioner Rettig has stated in numerous congressional hearings that the backlog will be back to its "normal" levels by the end of 2022.

The IRS Whistleblower Office has released the fiscal year (FY) 2021 annual report to Congress. In FY 2021, the Whistleblower Office made 179 award payments to whistleblowers totaling $36,144,926, including 20 awards paid under Code Sec. 7623(b). Whistleblower claim numbers assigned in FY 2021 grew by 55 percent year over year and claim closures increased by 13 percent. Additionally, this year’s report introduces the Code Sec. 7623 Payment and Claim Processing Analysis. The analysis shows Code Sec. 7623(b) awards were paid on average in 17 days.

The IRS Whistleblower Office has released the fiscal year (FY) 2021 annual report to Congress. In FY 2021, the Whistleblower Office made 179 award payments to whistleblowers totaling $36,144,926, including 20 awards paid under Code Sec. 7623(b). Whistleblower claim numbers assigned in FY 2021 grew by 55 percent year over year and claim closures increased by 13 percent. Additionally, this year’s report introduces the Code Sec. 7623 Payment and Claim Processing Analysis. The analysis shows Code Sec. 7623(b) awards were paid on average in 17 days.

Code Sec. 7623 Payment and Claim Processing Analysis

The average claim processing time for Code Sec. 7623(b) award payments made during FY 2021 increased by 2.9 percent from the prior year and average claim processing time for Code Sec. 7623(a) award payments increased by 10.4 percent. The report stated that it is likely average claim processing times will continue to increase as claim inventory continues to age while the Whistleblower Office awaits audits, exams, investigations, appeals, tech services, collection, statutes to expire, and whistleblower litigation.

Ten Most Common Allegations Submitted In FY 2021

The ten most common allegations submitted on Form 211, Application for Award for Original Information, for FY 2021 were:

• unreported income;
• general allegations of fraud, tax fraud, wire fraud, insurance fraud, and related allegations;
• false dependent exemptions;
• employee vs. subcontractor;
• failure to file;
• wage under reporter;
• capital gains tax;
• wages being paid in cash or under the table;
• rental income; and
• false deductions or expenses.

The report also provided other information including disclosures made under Taxpayer First Act, additional information on submissions received in FY 2021, information on claim numbers issued, claims remaining open and claims that were closed in each FY from 2019 to 2021, geographic location of all whistleblowers by region, open Code Sec. 7623(b) claims as of FY 2021, and reasons for closures that occurred during FY 2021.

Department of the Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is continuing to promote the agreement on international taxes reached by most members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development on a global corporate minimum tax, but acknowledged that its overall impact will be determined by the final details.

Department of the Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is continuing to promote the agreement on international taxes reached by most members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development on a global corporate minimum tax, but acknowledged that its overall impact will be determined by the final details.

Testifying before the Senate Finance Committee at a June 7, 2022, hearing about the White House’s fiscal 2023 budget request, Secretary Yellen noted in her opening remarks that she is "keenly focused on moving forward on the global agreement on international tax reform, including a global minimum tax that will level the playing field and raise crucial revenues to benefit people around the world."

However, she noted that because the specific details of how the international tax reforms will be defined and implemented, the impact on American businesses cannot be determined.

In response to a question as to whether the agency will provide Congress with the analysis of data currently available on whether the pillar one agreements will have a positive or negative impact, she said "that it could go either way, depending on the details which have not yet been decided. In the pillar one negotiations, the impact on fiscal revenues will be small."

Yellen continued: "Pillar two has a big impact. Pillar one will have a small impact. We're a very large market economy. We will gain revenue from our ability to tax foreign corporations that are doing business in the United States where we consume those services, we will lose some from revenue. Yet, it could be positive or negative, depending on details that have not yet been worked out. And that's why we've not provided data. We will when those details are clear."

That being said, Yellen also highlighted that countries will not be able to skirt the requirements of the treaty, responding to a question on whether China, a signee of the agreement, can be expected to comply with it when the nation has a questionable record complying with other international agreements.

Secretary Yellen testified that she expects China to comply with the terms of the agreement, but if it fails to do so, "this agreement contains an enforcement mechanism that will allow the United States or any other country that has adopted the global minimum tax to impose taxes on China's companies that would be the same as if China had complied. So there is a tough enforcement mechanism in this deal."

She also testified that Treasury will be negotiating on the details to ensure that business tax credits and subsidies will not negatively impact corporations once the international tax reforms are implemented.

Defending the Budget

During the hearing, she also addressed a number of issues that have become common themes among Biden Administration officials in recent months, including a recent focus on the tax gap and the disparities in auditing following a Government Accountability Office report that highlighted those concerns.

"Tackling that $600 billion annual tax gap is absolutely important in ensuring fiscal responsibility," Yellen told members of the Senate Finance Committee in response to a comment that the White House is requesting $80 billion over 10 years to address this. "It would generate substantial revenue in a manner that's efficient and fair. It would enable deficit reduction and help these price pressures by providing the funding a part of the funding we need for the urgent fiscal priorities."

She reinforced a common call to better fund the Internal Revenue Service to make sure it has the proper personnel in place to do things such as conducting more complicated audits to ensure the top earners are paying their fair share of taxes, in addition to helping the IRS serve the overall population and update its information technology infrastructure.

"We absolutely have to invest in the IRS to close that tax gap, which reflects opaque sources of income, mainly by high income earners that are not taxed," she said. "And they need the resources to serve taxpayers to be able to answer their phones to be able to ensure that they receive the payments that they are due, and they need to modernize their technology which is really the oldest dating back to the [19]60s in the federal government."

Yellen also took the opportunity to encourage Congress to extend the child tax credit, noting that while it may have played a minor role in contributing to the inflation issues the nation is tackling, it has had a significant effect on helping to reduce childhood hunger.

"It enabled families to get a little bit of breathing room and to help their kids afford nutritious food and clothing and back to school supplies." Yellen said.

She also mentioned during the Senate Finance Committee hearing that the Treasury Department is looking forward to working with Congress to get a tax deduction for union dues reinstated after it was cut in 2017.

A day later, on June 8, 2022, Secretary Yellen appeared before the House Ways and Means Committee in a hearing also advertised as a review of the White House budget but one that focused heavily on inflation, current energy policy, and international tax reform.

The American Institute of CPAs is calling on Congress to fund the Internal Revenue Service at the level requested by the White House in its fiscal year 2023 budget request. Separately, the group offered its suggestions on the IRS Guidance Priority List. "In advance of the Fiscal Year 2023 appropriations cycle, we request that you fund the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) at necessary levels to allow it to handle all the duties required of it by Congress, including properly administering and enforcing our nation’s tax laws as well as providing needed assistance to taxpayers and their advisers in a timely and professional manner," AICPA said in a May 25, 2022, letter to Democratic and Republican leadership in both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.

The American Institute of CPAs is calling on Congress to fund the Internal Revenue Service at the level requested by the White House in its fiscal year 2023 budget request. Separately, the group offered its suggestions on the IRS Guidance Priority List. "In advance of the Fiscal Year 2023 appropriations cycle, we request that you fund the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) at necessary levels to allow it to handle all the duties required of it by Congress, including properly administering and enforcing our nation’s tax laws as well as providing needed assistance to taxpayers and their advisers in a timely and professional manner," AICPA said in a May 25, 2022, letter to Democratic and Republican leadership in both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.

AICPA expressed concern that "service challenges will persist long after the pandemic has ended unless sufficient, targeted funding for technology improvements, human talent and training, and taxpayer services are appropriated."

The organization also noted that there needs to be more than money thrown at the agency to help its functioning. "It should be clear that funding alone will not solve the IRS’s problems,” AICPA wrote. “Structural reforms and organizational alignment from Congress, the President, the Secretary, and the Commissioner are necessary to delivering the promised goals. We look forward to working with all parties involved to this end and create an IRS that taxpayers deserve."

Priority Guidance Recommendations

In a separate letter sent to the IRS May 24, 2022, AICPA outlined its suggestions for the guidance that the agency should be prioritizing. The guidance recommendations cut across a range of programs and legislation, such as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the SECURE Act, and the CARES Act and covering a number of areas such as corporation and shareholder taxation, employee benefits taxation, individual taxation, and international taxation.

R&E Recommendations

AICPA is also recommending the Internal Revenue Service issue specific regulations related to the treatment of research and experimental (R&E) expenditures under Sec. 174.

In a May 26, 2022, letter to the IRS, AICPA said that the Department of the Treasury and the IRS should "issue regulations providing that section 174(a) expenditures include direct costs, including employee compensation, contract labor, and materials, and at the taxpayer’s election, allocable indirect and overhead costs."

AICPA also said that Treasury and the IRS "should issue regulations that illustrate, using detailed examples, which costs are ‘incident to’ the development or improvement of a product as per Reg. §1.174-2."

If the agency doesn’t issue new regulations, AICPA recommended guidance to cover these requests.

Additionally, AICPA identified issues that have arisen with Rev. Proc. 2000-50, which covers the treatment of costs paid or incurred to develop, purchase, or lease computer software.

"IRS should modify the scope limitation under section 4 of Rev. Proc. 2000-50 to clarify that the limitation on costs that a taxpayer has treated as R&E expenditures under section 174 only applies to costs previously subject to an irrevocable election under section 174, including 174(b) or charging the expenses to capital account."

The Department of the Treasury is continuing its push to get funding for much needed information technology infrastructure upgrades from Congress.

The Department of the Treasury is continuing its push to get funding for much needed information technology infrastructure upgrades from Congress.

During a June 14, 2022, hearing before the Senate Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, Treasury Deputy Secretary Wally Adeyemo testified as to why the funds were needed.

The "IRS’ technology is decades out of date, written in a programming language no longer taught, and incredibly expensive to maintain the master file that under grids," Adeyemo told the committee in his opening statement. "The tax system dates back to the 1960s when there was no internet, no cell phones, and no spreadsheets or automatic payments."

The White House is requesting a 12 percent budget increase in fiscal year 2023 compared to 2022 enacted levels "to begin to remedy this mismatch between the IRS’ responsibilities and its resources."

Treasury’s request for increasing funds to help address IT infrastructure upgrades for the IRS did not come up during the hearing’s question-and-answer period, as the committee focused its attention on Russian sanctions, the role of using cryptocurrency to evade sanctions, energy policy and independence, and other criminal-focused activities.

The U.S. Supreme Court has granted a petition for certiorari in the case of A. Bittner, CA-5, 2021-2 USTC ¶50,242 . In Bittner, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that each failure to report a qualifying foreign account on the annual Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) constituted a separate reporting violation subject to penalty. This means that the penalty applies on a per-account basis, not a per-form basis. The Fifth Circuit disagreed with a Ninth Circuit panel that adopted a per-form interpretation ( J. Boyd, CA-9, 2021-1 USTC ¶50,112).

The U.S. Supreme Court has granted a petition for certiorari in the case of A. Bittner, CA-5, 2021-2 USTC ¶50,242 . In Bittner, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that each failure to report a qualifying foreign account on the annual Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) constituted a separate reporting violation subject to penalty. This means that the penalty applies on a per-account basis, not a per-form basis. The Fifth Circuit disagreed with a Ninth Circuit panel that adopted a per-form interpretation ( J. Boyd, CA-9, 2021-1 USTC ¶50,112).

—

Background

U.S. citizens and residents must keep records and/or file reports when the person makes a transaction or maintains a relation for any person with a foreign financial agency ( 31 USC 5314). Each person with a financial interest in a financial account in a foreign country must report the relationship to the IRS for each year the relationship exists by providing specified information on and filing the FBAR. The FBAR generally must be filed by June 30 of each calendar year for foreign financial accounts over $10,000 maintained during the previous calendar year (31 C.F.R. §§1010.350, 1010.306).

If the person fails to file the FBAR, the IRS can impose a penalty of up to $10,000 for non-willful violations, unless the violation was due to reasonable cause. For a willful violation, the maximum penalty is the greater of $100,000 or 50 percent of (1) the amount of the transaction when a violation involves a transaction, or (2) the balance in the account at the time of the violation when a violation involves a failure to report the existence of an account. There is no reasonable cause exception for willful violations ( 31 USC 5321).

Fifth Circuit: FBAR Penalty Per Account

In A. Bittner, the Fifth Circuit ruled that the text, structure, history, and purpose of the relevant statutory and regulatory provisions showed that the "violation" of 31 USC 5314 contemplated by the 31 USC 5321 penalty was the failure to report a qualifying account, not the failure to file an FBAR. Therefore, the $10,000 penalty cap applied on a per-account basis, not a per-form basis.

The Fifth Circuit agreed with the government that the district court had erred in determining what constituted a "violation" under 31 USC 5314 by focusing on the regulations under section 5314 to the exclusion of section 5314 itself. Section 5314 does not create the obligation to file a single report, stated the Fifth Circuit, but instead gives the Treasury Secretary discretion to prescribe how to fulfill the statute’s requirement of reporting qualifying accounts.

The Fifth Circuit observed that by authorizing a penalty for any "violation of ... any provision of section 5314," as opposed to the regulations under section 5314, section 5314 "naturally reads" as referring to the statutory requirement to report each account, not the regulatory requirement to file FBARs in a particular manner. Further, the circuit court stated that the reasonable cause exception for non-willful violations was framed in terms of "the transaction" and "the account," and thus it also "naturally reads" as excusing the failure to report a transaction or account, not the failure to file an FBAR.

Ninth Circuit: FBAR Penalty Per Form

In J. Boyd, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the IRS can impose only one non-willful penalty when an untimely but accurate FBAR is filed, regardless of the number of foreign financial accounts. The Ninth Circuit determined that the statutory and regulatory scheme under 31 USC 5314 authorizes a single non-willful penalty for the failure to file a timely FBAR, and that the taxpayer’s conduct in failing to timely file the FBAR amounted to one non-willful violation.

The Ninth Circuit was not persuaded by the government's argument that, based on the statutory scheme as a whole and legislative intent, the penalty amount could be assessed on a per-account basis. The Ninth Circuit found nothing in the statute or regulations to suggest that the penalty could be calculated that way for a single failure to file a timely FBAR that is otherwise accurate. The Ninth Circuit presumed that Congress had purposely excluded the per-account language from the non-willful penalty provision because it had included such language in the previously-enacted willful penalty provision. Further, the inclusion of per-account language in the reasonable cause exception supported the view that Congress had intentionally omitted per-account language from the non-willful penalty provision.

Every year, Americans donate billions of dollars to charity. Many donations are in cash. Others take the form of clothing and household items. With all this money involved, it's inevitable that some abuses occur. The new Pension Protection Act cracks down on abuses by requiring that all donations of clothing and household items be in "good used condition or better."

Good used or better condition

The new law does not define good or better condition. For guidance, you can look to the standards that many charities already have in place. Many charities will not accept your donations of clothing or household items unless they are in good or better condition.

Clothing cannot be torn, soiled or stained. It must be clean and wearable. Many charities will reject a shirt with a torn collar or a jacket with a large tear in a sleeve. As one charity spokesperson summed it up, "Don't donate anything you wouldn't want to wear yourself." 

Household items include furniture, furnishings, electronics, appliances, and linens, and similar items.  Food, paintings, antiques, art, jewelry and collectibles are not household items. Household items must be in working condition. For example, a DVD player that does not work is not in good used or better condition. You can still donate it (if the charity will accept it) but you cannot claim a tax deduction. Household items, particularly furnishings and linens, must be clean and useable. 

The new law authorizes the IRS to deny a deduction for the contribution of a clothing or household item that has minimal monetary value. At the top of this list you can expect to find socks and undergarments, which have had inflated values for years.

Fair market value

You generally can deduct the fair market value of your donation. Unless your donation is new - for example, a blouse that has never been worn - its fair market value is not what you paid for it. Just like when you drive a new car off the dealer's lot, a new item loses value once you wear or use it.  Therefore, its value is less than what you paid for it.  

If you're not sure about an item's value, a reputable charity can help you determine its fair market value. Our office can also help you value your donations of used clothing and household items.

Get a receipt

Generally, you must obtain a receipt for your gift. If obtaining a receipt is impracticable, for example, you drop off clothing at a self-service donation center, you must maintain reliable written information about the contribution, such as the type and value of the property.

Charitable contributions of property of $250 or more must be substantiated by obtaining a contemporaneous written acknowledgement from the charity including an estimate of the value of the items. If your deduction for noncash contributions is greater than $500, you must attach Form 8283 to your tax return. Special rules apply if you are claiming a deduction of more than $5,000.

Exception

In some cases, the new rules about good used or better condition do not apply. The restrictions do not apply if a deduction of more than $500 is claimed for the single clothing or household item and the taxpayer includes an appraisal with his or her return.

If you have any questions about the new charitable contribution rules for donations of clothing and household items, give our office a call. The new rules apply to contributions made after August 17, 2006.

Uncle Sam takes a tax bite out of almost every asset sold and collectibles are no exception. Indeed, collectibles are currently subject to one of the highest rates of federal taxation on investment property. Capital gain from the sale of a collectible is taxed at 28 percent.

What is a collectible?

What is a "collectible?" Of course, collectibles include stamps and coins, fine wines, glassware, and other commonly collected items.

It's important to keep in mind that less obvious items are often "collectibles." For example, a collection of political campaign buttons and badges can be a collectible. If an item is an antique, it is probably a collectible.  

Higher tax rate

Traditionally, collectibles have been taxed at a high capital gains rate because of public policy arguments. Supporters of high capital gains tax rates for collectibles justify their position by the lack of broader benefits, such as innovation, new products and higher productivity, that society receives from collectibles. On the other hand, society benefits from the preservation of works of art, antiques and many other collectibles.

Currently, the capital gains tax rate for collectibles is 28 percent. This is significantly higher than the capital gains tax rate for stocks, securities and many other investments, which enjoy a 15 percent capital gains tax rate (five percent for taxpayers in the 10 or 15 percent tax brackets).

Understanding basis

Before you calculate gain, you have to have an understanding of basis. If you purchased the item, then your calculations start with the cost of acquisition. These costs include not only what you actually paid for the collectible but also auction and broker's fees.

Inherited collectibles are treated differently. Your basis is the collectible's fair market value at the time of inheritance. Most commonly, fair market value is determined by an appraisal but there are other methods. Another way to show fair market value is by looking at current sales of comparable collectibles.

Your collectible may have been a gift from another person. In this case, your basis is the same as that of the person who made the gift.

Many collectibles require special care. You may have spent money to maintain the collectible or restore it.  These costs are also part of your basis in the collectible.

After you have calculated your basis in the collectible, you subtract your basis from the amount you sold the item for. This is your capital gain.

Example. Beverly inherits a 19th century rocking chair from her grandmother. Shortly before she died, Beverly's grandmother had the chair appraised. Its value was determined to be $2,000. Beverly spends $500 to restore the chair. Two years later, Beverly sells the chair online. Beverly earns $3,900 from the sale. Beverly's basis in the chair is ($2,500) ($2,000, which was the chair's fair market value when she inherited it, plus the $500 she spent to restore it). Beverly's capital gain is $1,400 ($3,900 minus $2,500). As a collectible, it is taxed at 28 percent rather than 15 percent, a difference of $182 in tax.

"Gold bug" advice

The price of gold has almost doubled in the past several years. Investing in gold presents two issues. First, there is the issue of valuing gold coins. When coins have numismatic worth exceeding their face denomination, the amount realized is the numismatic value of the coins, not the face value. Second, if you want to invest in the price of gold rather than in the collectible nature of a gold coin, you should consider investing in gold strictly as a precious metal, through a mutual fund, gold stocks, or other negotiable certificate. That interest, and the gain realized by selling it, is entitled to full capital gain treatment.

Understanding the tax treatment of collectibles is complicated. Our office can help you determine if your item is a collectible, what your basis is and, if you have sold it or are thinking of selling it, what your capital gain would be. Don't hesitate to give our office a call.

The actual date a business asset is placed in service is important because it affects when depreciation may be claimed for tax purposes. Depreciation begins in the tax year that an asset is placed in service. The placed-in-service date is especially important in the case of end-of-tax year acquisitions.

If an asset is placed in service on December 31 by a calendar-year taxpayer, depreciation is claimed on that asset for that tax year. If the same asset is placed in service one day later on January 1, depreciation deductions cannot be taken before that new year. The placed-in-service date also determines whether certain mid-quarter and half-year "conventions" will apply, which can mean greater depreciation deductions if purchase and use are timed just before the quarter or mid-year cut off date.

An asset is placed in service on the date that it is in a condition or state of readiness for a specifically assigned function in a trade or business or the production of income, which is not necessarily the date of acquisition. An asset that is being used in a trade or business is clearly placed in service. However, an asset not put to use is most likely not placed in service, unless everything in the taxpayer's power has been done to put the asset to use. An example of this is a canal barge that was deemed placed in service in the year it was acquired despite not being used until the following tax year because the canals were frozen.

Another related rule is that an asset will not be considered placed in service until the business actually begins operations. For example air conditioners installed in a grocery store before the store's opening were not considered placed in service until the store was actually open for business. In many instances this is not a bad thing, since a startup business usually has a limited amount of income during its first year to offset with depreciation deductions. Depreciation deductions in that case generally are more valuable later in the business's development.

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.

Starting for tax year 2005, businesses have been able to take a new deduction based on income from manufacturing and certain services. Congress defined manufacturing broadly, so many businesses -just not those with brick and mortar manufacturing plants-- will be able to claim the deduction. The deduction is 3 percent of net income from domestic production for 2005 and 2006. This percentage rises to 6 percent and then 9 percent in subsequent years.

Domestic production includes the manufacture of tangible personal property and computer software in the U.S. It also includes construction activities and services from engineering and architecture. Income from these activities must be calculated on an item-by-item basis and cannot be determined by division, product line or transaction. Direct and indirect costs are subtracted to determine "qualified production income." Land does not qualify as domestic production property.

The 3 percent rate is applied to the lower of net income from domestic production and overall net income. That amount is then capped at 50 percent of wages paid out by the employer for all its business activities.

Example. In 2005, Company X has $300,000 of income from domestic production activities. The company's overall net income was $500,000.  The 3 percent rate is applied to $300,000, yielding a potential deduction of $9,000.

Company X paid its employees $50,000 in wages and reported this amount on Forms W-2 for 2005.  Since the deduction is limited to 50 percent of wages paid and reported, Company X's deduction for 2005 is capped at $25,000 (50 percent of $50,000 in wages).  X is entitled to a $9,000 deduction.

W-2 wage limitation

In some cases, the W-2 wage limit can easily trip up taxpayers. A successful sole proprietor who earns income but has no employees would not have any W-2 wages and, therefore, could not take the deduction.  Self-employment income is not treated as wages. Neither are payments made to independent contractors. A small business that is incorporated but has no employees would have the same problem. Because payments to partners are not W-2 wages, a partnership with two partners and no employees also would be unable to take the deduction. Sole proprietors and other small businesses may want to consider putting a family member on the payroll, so that they have W-2 wages to satisfy this requirement.

An incorporated business, such as an S corporation, could put an owner on the payroll and apply the W-2 limit to reasonable wages paid to the owner. Employees include officers of the corporation and common law employees, as defined in the Tax Code.  The more labor-intensive the manufacturing process, the more likely that a deduction will not be reduced by the W-2 wage limitation. The more automated the manufacturing process, the more likely it is that the manufacturer will find itself restricted by the wage limitation and not be able to take the full manufacturing deduction.

Code Sec. 199 defines W-2 wages as the sum of the total W-2 wages reported on Forms W-2, "Wage and Tax Statement," for the calendar year ending during the employer's taxable year. W-2 wages are defined as wages and deferred salary that is included on Form W-2.  Deferred salary includes elective deferrals for a 401(k) plan or tax-sheltered annuity; contributions to a plan of a state and local government or tax-exempt entity; and designated Roth IRA contributions. IRS guidance provides three methods for calculating W-2 wages.

Our office can help you determine your eligibility for the manufacturing deduction and the amount of the deduction. Give us a call today.