Articles About Income Tax Planning

From the moment they were introduced nearly 25 years ago in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, the Roth IRA has been an incredibly popular retirement vehicle, thanks to its ‘unlimited’ potential for generating tax-free growth. Of course, the caveat is that Roth-style accounts are only tax free because the contributions into the account are made on an after-tax basis – unlike traditional retirement accounts, which enjoy a tax deduction on the initial contribution. Which means in practice, households must make a decision whether to contribute to a pre-tax traditional IRA or a tax-free Roth, based on whether the upfront tax deduction (on the traditional IRA contribution) will be more or less valuable than tax-free growth at the end (on the Roth IRA distribution).

Mathematically, the Roth-versus-traditional IRA decision will actually be the same, regardless of growth rates and time horizon, as long as both accounts remain intact and tax rates don’t change. If future tax rates do change, though, the Roth IRA will result in more wealth when tax rates rise in the future, while the traditional IRA will benefit when tax rates are lower in the future. Though in practice, because the tax burden for a Roth IRA is paid upfront – when the (after-tax) contribution is made – there is no future uncertainty with respect to its future tax rate; instead, changes in tax rates primarily impact the future value of a traditional IRA, in particular, making it better or worse off depending on whether or how tax rates change.

To cope with this uncertainty, one popular approach is to ‘tax-diversify’ between the two types of accounts, splitting contributions between traditional and Roth IRAs so that there is at least ‘some’ benefit regardless of which direction tax rates go (as higher tax rates benefit the portion of dollars in the Roth, and lower tax rates would benefit the traditional IRA dollars instead). However, the reality is that splitting dollars between traditional and Roth retirement accounts isn’t just a form of diversification; because the outcomes are correlated to each other (as a change in tax rates that benefits one type of account adversely impacts the other type by the same amount), the net result is that tax diversification doesn’t actually diversify the risk, it simply neutralizes the opportunity altogether. Or viewed another way, splitting between traditional and Roth IRAs is not akin to the diversification of owning different types of stocks; it’s more akin to just bailing out of stocks altogether and owning zero-return cash.

So what’s the alternative? Instead of trying to tax-diversify between traditional and Roth retirement accounts, taxpayers can consider trying to ‘Roth optimize’ exactly when to add dollars to tax-free Roth accounts. After all, a household’s tax rates typically vary throughout life – often by a wide range as careers start and stop and change, family and health needs impact our time in the workforce and what we earn, businesses are started and subsequently fail or succeed, and eventually retirement comes (with its own tax complications of Social Security benefits and Required Minimum Distributions). Which means there will be years where a household can ‘time’ its tax situation, by contributing to traditional IRAs in years when income and tax rates are high, and tactically switching to Roth contributions (or even engaging in Roth conversions) when tax rates are unusually low.

Of course, there’s always a risk that tax rates will change in the future, not because of the household’s change in income, wealth, or circumstances, but simply because Congress itself ‘changes the rules’ by altering tax rates. Although, in reality, while tax brackets have varied significantly throughout history, tax deductions have often changed alongside the brackets, such that changes in effective tax rates have actually been remarkably narrow throughout history. In other words, the variability of tax rates due to Congress (which we can’t control) is actually dwarfed by changes in tax rates within the household over time (which can be planned for!).

Ultimately, though, the key point is simply to understand that arbitrarily splitting dollars between traditional and Roth-style retirement accounts isn’t actually a positive wealth-creating strategy; instead, it is more akin to ‘going to cash’ and eliminating the opportunity altogether. For those who want to actually maximize wealth with the traditional-vs-Roth decision, the better approach is to try to Roth-optimize by timing when to shift between traditional and Roth accounts. Which, in practice, is easier than most realize, as while a household’s future is never certain, the Roth-vs-traditional decision has the most impact in years that are especially high or low in income… which are actually the years that are most easy to identify in the moment for a Roth optimization timing decision!

Read More...

In 2014, Congress created the IRC Section 529A plan under the Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) Act. Similar to 529 plans for college savings, the 529A “ABLE” account provides the opportunity to generate tax-deferred growth, and that growth can ultimately be withdrawn tax-free for “qualified” expenses. Which for 529 plans are qualified education expenses… while 529A plans provide tax-free withdrawals to cover qualified disability expenses (for beneficiaries who were first disabled prior to the age of 26).

Beyond the opportunity to generate tax-free growth for qualified disability expenses, though, one of the key benefits of 529A plans is that they are not treated as a countable asset for a wide range of government benefits programs, from SSI (Supplemental Security Income) to Medicaid (and its associated waivers for other support programs), Section 8 housing, electronic benefit transfer programs (for food support), and more. In fact, the government benefits that are preserved when disabled beneficiaries accumulate assets inside a 529A plan can be worth significantly more than the tax-free growth itself.

Nonetheless, the opportunity to accumulate inside of a 529A plan is very important, as ABLE account assets may provide the crucial ‘transition support’ necessary to navigate benefit purgatory – that challenging point where a disabled individual begins to work and generates enough income to disqualify themselves from support programs, when they might not actually have enough income to fully support themselves. In other words, saving into an ABLE account can be a crucial pathway for those who are trying to reach the point of being financially self-sufficient and avoiding the need to rely upon (and be subject to the constraints of) government programs.

And even for those disabled individuals who may not be able to achieve financial autonomy, ABLE accounts make it possible for beneficiaries to achieve a greater level of financial autonomy, by being able to draw directly upon their own assets (that don’t have to be immediately spent down to remain qualified for government aid), without needing to necessarily go the pathway of conservatorship or guardianship. Which makes 529A plans especially helpful in a framework of supported decision-making to develop greater autonomy and self-confidence for the account beneficiary.

Notably, though, because ABLE accounts often support ongoing spending far more directly than most other types of tax-preferenced accounts (that more often make fewer larger distributions, such as for college tuition or a year’s worth of retirement spending), it’s important to evaluate exactly how a prospective 529A plan actually facilitates payments. Fortunately, though, a growing number of 529A plans provide debit cards that allow beneficiaries to access and utilize their funds directly (which also helps to ensure the assets don’t get deposited into a bank account that itself could disqualify the beneficiary from government programs), while also providing some controls to ensure beneficiaries don’t accidentally ‘overspend’ their limited resources too quickly.

Ultimately, the key point is to recognize that 529A plans are about more than ‘just’ accumulating assets for a disabled beneficiary on a tax-preferenced basis, or preserving the beneficiary’s ability to utilize crucial government programs. Instead, ABLE accounts also provide a pathway to developing the self-confidence and financial autonomy of the beneficiary, as part of a supported decision-making approach, which over time can provide far greater emotional benefits than the mere financial benefits alone.

Read More...

The Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement (SECURE Act) was passed into law on December 20, 2019, dramatically changing the post-death distribution rules for most non-spouse Designated Beneficiaries. Whereas in the past, such beneficiaries were generally able to ‘Stretch’ distributions from their inherited retirement accounts over their life expectancy, the SECURE Act generally imposes a new 10-Year Rule on such beneficiaries (Non-Eligible Designated Beneficiaries). And since (as compared to the ‘Stretch,’ the 10-Year Rule generally reduces tax deferral and increases the size of the average distribution (in the years such distributions take place), raising the chances that a beneficiary will be bumped into a higher tax bracket, practitioners have been exploring ways to mitigate this change.

One way that some practitioners have suggested to mitigate the impact of the ‘death’ of the ‘Stretch’ is to name would-be Non-Eligible Designated Beneficiaries as the income beneficiaries of a CRUT, and then naming that CRUT as the beneficiary of the individual’s retirement account (instead of naming the Non-Eligible Designated Beneficiaries directly on the beneficiary form). Notably, CRUTs have the potential to offer certain individuals similar benefits as would have been provided by the ‘Stretch’, such as tax deferral, and the ability to distribute assets annually individual’s (or group of individuals) life expectancy. And similar to the ‘Stretch’, income beneficiaries of a CRUT pay taxes on the distributions they receive (from the trust) on their personal returns.

To establish a valid CRUT, a trust must comply with certain rules and restrictions. CRUTs, for instance, are required to provide no less than 10% of the actuarily projected future value of the trust be left to a qualified charity. Such trusts must also distribute a fixed percentage between 5% and 50% of their assets annually to the CRUT’s income beneficiaries. Distributions retain the tax characteristics of income (e.g., ordinary income, long-term capital gain, etc.) received by the CRUT, and are distributed on a Worst-In, First-Out (least-tax-efficient income first) basis.

But while, on the surface, CRUTs can appear to approximate many of the qualities of the ‘Stretch', they are rarely the optimal choice for those retirement account owners who are primarily interested in transferring as much wealth as possible to heirs. Such trusts are generally not even possible to establish with lifetime distributions for beneficiaries in their early 20s, or younger. Older beneficiaries, meanwhile, often can’t (or don’t) live long enough to diminish the projected ‘loss’ of (at least) 10% of the CRUT assets to charity to a point where it is outweighed by the gain of extended tax deferral (compared to the 10-Year Rule).

While each scenario should be evaluated separately, in general, if a retirement account owner is looking to use a CRUT as a wealth maximization vehicle, the ideal fact pattern would include:

• A young, healthy beneficiary (but not so young that the CRUT can’t actually be established),
• who projects to be in a high tax bracket, and
• expects to have significant long-term returns with at least a reasonable amount of turnover, and/or interest or dividends.

Even where the pieces ‘line up,’ though, it can often take three or more decades for the CRUT beneficiary to reach the breakeven point and ‘catch up’ to a beneficiary who inherited assets via the 10-Year Rule. Thus, there is almost always a substantial mortality risk associated with the use of a CRUT. CRUTs also limit the optionality of a beneficiary, as well as increasing organizational and operational expenses.

But while CRUTs have probably been over-hyped for purely their wealth transfer ability, for retirement account owners looking to satisfy both legacy (to heirs) and charitable goals, they can be a powerful tool. In many situations, the result of such planning will be a modest reduction in the wealth passed to heirs, in exchange for a much larger increase in the amount that goes to charity.

Ultimately, if just the right circumstances present themselves, or if a retirement account owner is sufficiently charitably inclined, naming a CRUT as the beneficiary of a retirement account is a planning strategy worth exploring. But for retirement account owners solely looking to maximize the transfer of wealth to heirs, the bottom line is that a CRUT is generally not a great (or is at least a “risky”) option.

Read More...

For entrepreneurially minded individuals, the potential to generate investment returns and wealth creation through the founding and growth of a business is often unrivaled. The caveat, of course, is that rapid growth businesses also face substantial taxation on that growth when they are eventually sold. Accordingly, when such individuals have retirement account assets – effectively legal tax shelters – the question arises: “How can I shift some of the value of my fast-growing business into my retirement account?” or better yet “Can I use my tax-free Roth IRA to invest into early stage growth companies?” (as was highlighted in a recent ProPublica article about Peter Thiel’s early stage investments into PayPal and Facebook to create a whopping $5 billion Roth IRA).

Because the reality is that while a Roth IRA can certainly own shares of stocks – including privately held companies that are not (yet) publicly traded – there are limitations on who an IRA can buy shares from, and who can be compensated by an IRA-owned company, under the so-called “Prohibited Transaction” rules.

At the highest level, the Prohibited Transaction rules restrict an individual from using their (Roth) IRA to engage in various types of transactions with certain “Disqualified Persons”. Which is important because, in the case of an IRA owner, failure to abide by these rules results in a deemed distribution of the entire IRA in which the transaction occurs as of January 1 of the year in which the Prohibited Transaction occurs (causing a forced liquidation of the entire retirement account and forfeiting its tax-preferenced status altogether!).

Among the Prohibited Transaction rules outlined in IRC Section 4975, IRAs are prohibited from buying/selling property to/from, lending/borrowing to/from, or furnishing/receiving goods, services, or facilities to/from, a Disqualified Person. Disqualified Persons are also prohibited from using IRA assets for their own personal benefit. Finally, Disqualified Persons who are also fiduciaries must avoid dealing with the income or assets of an IRA for their own account, or (in general) receiving any consideration from the IRA.

Critically, an IRA owner is always a Disqualified Person, and fiduciary with respect to their own IRA. Other Disqualified Persons, with respect to an individual’s IRA (who may or may not be fiduciaries), are the individual’s spouse, ancestors, lineal descendants, and any spouse of a lineal descendant. In the event an IRA owner, along with those related Disqualified Persons owns 50% or more of a business, then the business, itself, also becomes a Disqualified Person, along with its officers, directors (and persons with similar responsibilities), 10% or greater owners, and employees earnings 10% or more of its total wages.

The end result of these rules is that in order for a Roth IRA to invest into an early stage growth business, it must have someone besides the IRA owner (or his/her family members) to buy the shares from (as they cannot be contributed in-kind to an IRA). Which means businesses that are fully owned by the founder (and/or their family members) are effectively ineligible to be purchased inside of an IRA! And even if the business isn’t fully owned by Disqualified Persons, if the IRA owner (and other family members) own 50% or more of all shares, the business cannot even issue new shares to the IRA and must find other non-Disqualified-Person owners to buy from (and even then, there is a risk that the IRS will scrutinize the transaction further under the self-dealing rules for IRAs).

Interestingly, though, for individuals who want to start a new business owned by an IRA, 100% IRA ownership is achievable. As the Tax Court has repeatedly determined that since prior to the formation and capitalization of a company, it has no owners and thus, cannot yet be a Disqualified Person! Accordingly, the company can issue 100% of its shares/interests to an individual’s IRA.

However, even when a business is fully owned by an IRA, entrepreneurs must still be cautious with respect to their compensation. Because in situations where the business is owned 50% or more by an individual’s IRA, “control” essentially always exists (either directly or indirectly), and thus receipt of compensation personally should be universally avoided (to avoid running afoul of the self-dealing rules for IRAs). Though at the same time, absent the receipt of compensation, an individual can still create a Prohibited Transaction through the provision of services (‘sweat equity’) to their IRA-owned business. As while an IRA owner can perform certain administrative and decision-making duties on behalf of an IRA-owned business (e.g., paying bills of the IRA-owned business with IRA money, deciding on investments to be made by the company), it cannot do the work of the business.

Ultimately, the key point is that while IRAs can be used to purchase private, non-public companies, the Prohibited Transaction rules significantly restrict both who can sell shares to the IRA, what compensation the entrepreneur can receive when working for an IRA-owned company, and even the ability to contribute sweat equity to an IRA-owned company. Which is important to navigate, given the harsh tax consequences associated with the Prohibited Transaction rules!

Read More...

There are many aspects of equity compensation that benefit both employers and employees, making it an attractive and lucrative niche for financial advisors. And while some financial advisors may be met with some basic challenges to establish a practice in this space, those who invest time to learn about the industry and its planning nuances may find ample business opportunities and a rewarding level of success.

There are three primary tiers of equity compensation recipients, the first of which includes C-suite executives. These employees receive numerous and sizable grants from their company and may greatly benefit from financial planning services but, while the C-suite executive may be the most financially promising client, they are generally also the hardest to engage by advisors not already affiliated with the company, as these employees are often already provided with comprehensive advisory services (provided by a wide range of competing providers of equity compensation guidance) as part of their employer benefit packages. The second tier includes the middle management group of directors and other critical staff, who represent a client ‘sweet spot’ for advisors to target. These prospects tend to be high-net-worth individuals with substantial stock holdings and options, but without the same access to comprehensive financial guidance that C-suite executives may receive. The last tier of equity compensation recipients includes non-executives and non-key employees who tend to receive the least generous benefits. While these employees may not generate much revenue for financial advisors outright, they should not be dismissed entirely – not only do they hold potential for their own financial growth, but they also help financial advisors better understand the company’s benefit plans and can serve as a valuable referral source.

In addition to identifying and pursuing their ideal equity compensation client, advisors will also need to develop a systematic process to analyze the broad spectrum of equity compensation benefits that a company offers its employees. This process generally consists of valuation and investment risk analyses and is often followed by some degree of tax strategy modeling, depending on the complexity of the client’s benefit package and their particular planning needs. Advisors will need to gather key information not just about the equity compensation plan itself (e.g., the client’s grant summary statement and vesting schedules, along with information about the company shares the client may already own), but also about the client’s other portfolio assets and tax situation. Helping clients understand how best to manage their options through tax-efficient diversification strategies can be an invaluable service, and showing clients exactly how to optimize their assets in the broader scope of their comprehensive financial planning goals will undoubtedly go a long way not just in building client awareness and trust, but in also creating valuable referral credibility and networking opportunities through existing clients.

Ultimately, the key point is that the equity compensation niche can be an attractive and rewarding opportunity for financial advisors, and by investing resources in seeking out prospects that work for particular companies, advisors can begin to really lean into and grow their niche. Financial advisors need not be intimated by large advisory firms who may seem to be competitors in the equity compensation space, as middle-tier employees provide ample opportunities for independent advisors to offer valuable and high-quality guidance, offering both the client and the advisor a rewarding planning-oriented experience!

Read More...

Split-interest gifting has long been a staple of charitable tax planning for affluent individuals, where assets are “split” between individual beneficiaries (e.g., the donor themselves or their family members) and charitable beneficiaries. At its core, the appeal of such split-interest vehicles – particularly the ‘charitable remainder’ type – is the opportunity to claim a current tax deduction now, for a donation that can still generate income for the desired income beneficiaries in the years to come… paired with a remainder that only goes to the charity in the potentially-distant future.

The caveat, though, is that the charitable tax deduction for a charitable remainder trust and similar split-interest vehicles is determined by calculating the present value of the income interest that will be left to non-charitable beneficiaries, and subtracting that value from the upfront contribution to determine the value of the remainder. Which means the lower the interest rate, the higher the value of the non-charitable income interest, and the lower the value of the upfront charitable deduction. Which has diminished the desire to establish CRTs and other split-interest vehicles in the current low-rate environment.

However, Pooled Income Funds (PIFs) operate under slightly different rules, which can make them somewhat more appealing for split-interest giving at low yields. Functionally, PIFs are similar to CRTs, in providing an income interest to some non-charitable individuals (e.g., the donor or their family members) and the remainder to a charity. However, while CRTs typically pay out a fixed stated dollar amount or percentage of the trust, PIFs are assumed to pay out whatever their income actually will be (based on whatever their returns have been for the preceding 3 years). Which means when interest rates and projected returns are low, so too is the assumed payout rate from the PIF… allowing for a larger charitable deduction for the split-interest gift (albeit at a ‘cost’ of not necessarily generating as much income for the income beneficiaries).

For new Pooled Income Funds that have been formed, though, there is no 3-year history to determine an assumed return, and as a result the Treasury Regulations state that new PIFs are expected to use an assumed rate of the IRS 7520 rates reduced by 1%... producing an even lower interest rate assumption in the current environment, and an even higher charitable deduction. Except to the extent that the new PIF – or NPIF – actually earns a higher return in the future, it can pay out a higher rate to its income beneficiaries, even after “locking in” the charitable deduction at the initial lower-interest-rate assumption, allowing for the best of both worlds (a favorable potentially-higher payout rate to income beneficiaries and a favorable lower-interest-rate assumption for the charitable tax deduction)!

In fact, some charities are now establishing NPIFs on a rolling basis specifically to allow a steady flow of new donors to take advantage of the new rules for more favorable charitable tax deductions. And are incorporating other more-flexible provisions into their PIF documents to further attract donors to participate (for which the sponsoring charitable institution hopes to be the charitable remainder).

Unfortunately, though, because NPIFs are so ‘new’ themselves, there is no centralized directory of sponsoring charities and opportunities, requiring those interested to explore with their own charities of choice (and the associated Planned Giving Departments). Nonetheless, giving the substantial additional tax benefits that may be available, those who have an interest in split-interest charitable giving (e.g., via a Charitable Remainder Trust) should at least explore whether their charity of choice may be sponsoring a New Pooled Income Fund to use or a better charitable tax deduction instead!?
Read More...

When investments appreciate in value, their capital gains are subject to preferential tax rates, which were first established to incentivize taxpayers to invest their available savings for growth. However, President Joe Biden’s recently proposed American Families Plan, calling for substantial tax reform, includes a number of changes that would dramatically reshape the taxation of capital gains. In particular, the proposal would – at least for high-income individuals – eliminate the preferential rates for long-term capital gains, reverting their tax rate to the top ordinary income tax bracket (which itself would rise from the current 37% to a new 39.6% rate under the proposal).

Notably, the new 39.6% rate on long-term capital gains would only apply directly to taxpayers with income in excess of $1 million, allowing most to avoid the new capital gains bracket. However, because assets can appreciate substantially over very long periods of time, and potentially be taxed all at once in the year they are ultimately sold, the newly proposed capital gains tax rate could also potentially impact other taxpayers who don't annually earn anywhere near $1 million, but do have a once-in-a-lifetime (or few-in-a-lifetime) taxable event(s), such as the sale of a business, that can temporarily push their income over the $1 million mark (if only due to the capital gains event itself).

While the recent Biden budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2022 assumes the capital gains changes are made retroactively to April 2021, the reality of both the political climate and the practical challenges associated with such a retroactive change means that the most likely outcome would be a January 2022 effective date for any changes. Accordingly, business owners who are considering the potential sale and exit of a business – that may potentially have a ‘lifetime’ of growth all taxed in a single year of sale – will seriously want to consider liquidating the business before year-end, in an effort to ‘harvest’ capital gains at current 20% top capital gains tax rates, and avoid potentially substantial capital gains income from being subject to the proposed 39.6% top tax rate in the future (which at the margin, is a 19.6% tax rate savings on what could be one or several million dollars of appreciated business value!).

Additionally, business owners selling in 2021 whose sales may qualify for the installment method may wish to proactively opt out of such treatment, and instead report all gain from the sale in 2021, to avoid having capital gains spill into future years, where they may again be taxed at the newly proposed higher rate. Opting out of such treatment, however, could leave certain business owners with liquidity challenges that should be proactively addressed.

Ultimately, the price of liquidating capital gains (or having them treated as liquidated upon death) is likely about to be dramatically increased for high-income taxpayers (and others with highly appreciated assets that they will sell). And while most will be able to avoid the capital gains exposure – simply because they don’t earn $1M+ per year in the first place – those contemplating the sale-of-a-lifetime (e.g., a business whose value has been built over years or decades) in the coming years will want to seriously consider whether to accelerate (or not) the sale in 2021 given the sizable one-time tax savings that may be available! Which, notably, not only includes the clients of financial advisors, but even financial advisors themselves considering retirement and the potential sale of their own advisory firms!

Read More...

One of the centerpieces of the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act recently signed by President Joe Biden was the establishment of a third round of coronavirus-related stimulus checks, officially a tax credit known as the 2021 'Recovery Rebates'. The maximum potential amount of an individual's 2021 Recovery Rebate is equal to $1,400 times the number of eligible individuals, which includes the taxpayer(s) themselves, as well as any dependents (not just limited to qualifying children) claimed by the taxpayer.

Those credits, however, phase out quickly over extremely narrow phaseout ranges. Yet, while the relatively modest income amounts at which a taxpayer’s 2021 Recovery Rebate credit is fully phased out will make it challenging for some individuals to qualify for the stimulus, the good news for many individuals is that there's the potential to receive the amount based on their 2019 income, their 2020 income, or their 2021 income.

More specifically, if, at the time the American Recovery Plan was enacted, the taxpayer’s AGI on file (generally 2019, but 2020 in the case of some early filers) was below the applicable phaseout range, taxpayers would generally have already received their 2021 Recovery Rebate. If the most recent year of AGI on file was 2019 (as was the case for the majority of taxpayers) and that AGI was too high to qualify for the taxpayer’s maximum potential 2021 Recovery Rebate, the American Recovery Act offers a second opportunity to receive a (larger) credit, based on the taxpayer's 2020 AGI, provided their 2020 tax return is filed before the Additional Payment Determination date. Barring any additional delays in the filing deadline for 2020 returns (beyond the current already-delayed filing deadline of May 17, 2021), the Additional Payment Determination Date is August 15, 2021.

Those who still haven’t received their full 2021 Recovery Rebate by the time they file their 2021 return will have one last chance to do so. To the extent that the AGI reported on the 2021 return is low enough to create a larger 2021 Recovery Rebate Credit than what the taxpayer has already received (based on their 2019 and/or 2020 AGI), the taxpayer will be 'trued up' via a credit on their 2021 income tax return.

Given the many ways in which a taxpayer can qualify to receive a 2021 Recovery Rebate credit, a non-trivial number of individuals can take action now, during 2021, that will enable them to receive a (larger) 2021 Recovery Rebate.

For many taxpayers, 2020 will perhaps represent the only year in which their income will be low enough to allow them to qualify for a 2021 Recovery Rebate Credit. In such circumstances, the Additional Payment Determination Date of August 16th really needs to be viewed as the taxpayer's de facto 2020 income tax return. For others, additional measures may be necessary to reduce their AGI enough to qualify for the maximum credit. Potential strategies that can be implemented now (in 2021) to reduce 2020 AGI include making deductible IRA contributions and/or HSA contributions, using installment sales to report eligible gains, maximizing the use of employer-sponsored retirement plans, and using accelerated depreciation options.

For those unable to use presently available strategies to reduce 2020 AGI enough to qualify for their maximum Recovery Rebate, 2021 provides increased flexibility and opportunity to drive down income. In addition to methods that can potentially reduce 2020 AGI, some taxpayers may also consider seeing if year-end bonuses can be paid in 2022 (utilizing the flexibility afforded to cash-basis businesses), reducing or eliminating planned Roth conversions, reducing portfolio income, or even taking a lengthy unpaid leave of absence/sabbatical from their employer!

Finally, married couples in separate property states can explore whether filing separate returns and ‘stuffing’ the lower-earning spouse’s income with all available dependents will allow that spouse to receive a big enough 2021 Recovery Rebate credit to more than offset any increase in income tax due to filing separate returns.

Ultimately, while not all taxpayers will be able to qualify for the maximum Recovery Rebate, many individuals whose incomes are closer to the 2021 Recovery Rebate Credit phaseout ranges have several sound planning strategies that can meaningfully increase the ultimate amount of 2021 Recovery Rebate Credit they receive, potentially relying not just on their income levels for the current year, but also on 2019 and 2020 income levels as well. Which also offers financial planners a range of strategies to help their clients maximize any Recovery Rebate credit due to them!

Read More...

Financial advisors have used the home office deduction as a valuable tax-reducing tool for qualifying clients with home offices, allowing them to deduct certain work-related home expenses on their tax returns. However, as COVID-19 has led to a dramatic increase in the number of individuals working from home, client questions about the home office deduction have become more common than ever before. Accordingly, advisors should have conversations with clients who work from home to ensure they understand (and make proper use of!) the home office deduction rules.

In order to claim the deduction, a home office must generally pass three key tests. The first is the Exclusive Use Test, which requires that the portion of the home used as the home office is used exclusively for business purposes… 100% of the time; the second is the Regular Use Test, which requires the home office to be used on a regular, ongoing basis; and the third is the Principal Place of Business Test, which requires the home office to be the taxpayer’s principal place of business.

While employees are never allowed to claim the home office deduction, self-employed taxpayers can claim the deduction subject to certain Net Operating Loss (NOL) limitations, provided they pass the three requisite tests. Partners can also benefit from a home office deduction by claiming Unreimbursed Partner Expenses (UPEs) on Schedule E of Form 1040. However, partners seeking to do this should ensure that their partnership agreement expressly states that they are personally responsible for the payment of such expenses.

And while employees per se can’t claim the home office deduction, taxpayers who are both the owner and an employee of the same corporation can instead use Accountable Plans to shift what would otherwise be non-deductible (unreimbursed) employee expenses (e.g., expenses related to a home office) into expenses that can be deducted by the corporation at the entity level.

To calculate the home office deduction, qualifying taxpayers can use either the Regular (Actual Expense) Method or the Simplified Method. With the Regular (or Actual Expense) method, taxpayers eligible for the deduction can claim 100% of the actual cost of direct expenses (i.e., expenses entirely attributable to the home office) and a ratable amount of indirect expenses (i.e., expenses attributable to both the home office and personal, non-home office portions of the home such as taxes, rent, and utilities) associated with the home office. Alternatively, the Simplified Method allows taxpayers simply to deduct $5 for each square foot of the Home Office, up to a maximum of $1,500.

Ultimately, the key point is that financial advisors with clients who are self-employed (or who are partners of a partnership) can determine if those clients qualify for the home office deduction (by passing the three requisite home office deduction tests) and whether they have eligible expenses to claim (and if so, how much of those expenses can be claimed). And given the effect of COVID-19 on taxpayers who have adapted to a work-from-home environment, questions about the home office deduction have become increasingly prevalent. Financial advisors who understand how the home office deduction works can help eligible clients make use of a valuable tax break – potentially freeing up resources for those clients to use towards more enjoyable goals!

Read More...

As is often common after a national election, a new administration brings a new set of priorities, resulting in new legislation to implement those priorities… for which the Internal Revenue Code is still one of the most common ways for government policy to be implemented. And so, as the Biden administration closes out its second month, this week ushers in its first major piece of tax legislation: the American Rescue Plan of 2021, intended to drive $1.9T economic stimulus and provide fiscal relief in response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

The lead of the American Rescue Plan is another (third) round of so-called “Stimulus Checks”, in an amount of $1,400 per eligible individual. Though notably, eligibility in this cycle has been expanded from including ‘just’ children under the age of 17 to all dependents in the household (which can include children in the later years of high school, or in college still claimed as dependents, as well as parents who are claimed as dependents). At the same time, though, the phaseout limitations of the new stimulus checks are more restrictive, with a near-cliff-style phaseout (starting at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for married couples) so sharp that some families could see marginal tax rates in excess of 100% through the phaseout range! Which in turn, will require a special focus on navigating a series of three checkpoints that households can pass through to potentially be eligible (based on their 2019, 2020, or 2021 tax returns).

In addition to stimulus checks, the American Rescue Plan also significantly expands the Child Tax Credit, from $2,000 to $3,000 (and up to $3,600 for children under the age of 6), a slightly higher age threshold that will allow 17-year-old children to qualify in 2021, a new system that will pay a portion of the Child Tax Credit in advance over the last 6 months of the year… and yet another set of phaseout thresholds (again at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for married couples) for the new Child Tax Credit amount (while the original $2,000 base amount of the Child Tax Credit still phases out at higher thresholds of $200,000 and $400,000, respectively).

Other notable aspects of the American Rescue Plan include a significant increase in the Dependent and Child Care Credit (including higher eligible expense limits and Applicable Percentage amounts that be claimed); new extensions on various Unemployment Compensation benefits that were otherwise set to expire; increases in the Premium Assistance Tax Credit for households buying health insurance from the state exchanges (including coverage down to the first dollar for lower-income households below 150% of the Federal poverty level, and new eligibility for the tax credit for households with income above 400% of the Federal Poverty Level if health insurance exceeds 8.5% of their AGI); a new provision that provides a 100%(!) tax credit to employers to offset the cost of COBRA coverage for 3 months for any employees who are involuntarily unemployed; and a provision that will make student loan debt forgiveness tax-free in the future (albeit without including any actual provisions for student loan forgiveness in this legislation). On the other hand, the popular provision of RMD relief was not included in the final legislation (nor was the widely debated increase in the Federal minimum wage to $15/hour).

Notably, most of the new provisions under the American Rescue Plan are for 2021 only (or in limited cases, until 2022 as well), making them only “temporary” relief. However, the potential remains for additional tax legislation in the coming months as well, raising the question of whether some of the changes – particularly to the Child Tax Credit – may become a permanent feature of tax law in the future, and what else (e.g., student loan forgiveness) may still be on the horizon. Which means the potential for even more legislation-driven tax planning opportunities for clients likely through the remainder of 2021!

Read More...