Newsletters

The IRS has released the annual inflation adjustments for 2021 for the income tax rate tables, and for over 50 other tax provisions. The IRS makes these cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) each year to reflect inflation.

The IRS has released the annual inflation adjustments for 2021 for the income tax rate tables, and for over 50 other tax provisions. The IRS makes these cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) each year to reflect inflation.

2021 Income Tax Brackets
For 2021, the highest income tax bracket of 37 percent applies when taxable income hits:

• $628,300 for married individuals filing jointly and surviving spouses,
• $523,600 for single individuals and heads of households,
• $314,150 for married individuals filing separately, and
• $13,050 for estates and trusts.

2021 Standard Deduction
The standard deduction for 2021 is:

• $25,100 for married individuals filing jointly and surviving spouses,
• $18,800 for heads of households, and
• $12,550 for single individuals and married individuals filing separately.

The standard deduction for a dependent is limited to the greater of:

• $1,100 or
• the sum of $350 plus the dependent’s earned income.

Individuals who are blind or at least 65 years old get an additional standard deduction of:

• $1,350 for married taxpayers and surviving spouses, or
• $1,700 for other taxpayers.

AMT Exemption for 2021
The alternative minimum tax (AMT) exemption for 2021 is:

• $114,600 for married individuals filing jointly and surviving spouses,
• $73,600 for single individuals and heads of households,
• $57,300 for married individuals filing separately, and
• $25,700 for estates and trusts.

The exemption amounts begin to phase out when alternative minimum taxable income (AMTI) exceeds:

• $1,047,200 for married individuals filing jointly and surviving spouses,
• $523,600 for single individuals, heads of households, and married individuals filing separately, and
• $85,650 for estates and trusts.

Expensing Section 179 Property in 2021
For tax years beginning in 2021, taxpayers can expense up to $1,050,000 in Code Sec. 179 property. However, this dollar limit is reduced when the Section 179 property placed in service during the year exceeds $2,620,000.

Estate and Gift Tax Adjustments for 2021
The following inflation adjustments apply to federal estate and gift taxes in 2021:

• the gift tax exclusion is $15,000 per donee, or $159,000 for gifts to spouses who are not U.S. citizens;
• the federal estate tax exclusion is $11,700,000; and
• the maximum reduction for real property under the special valuation method is $1,190,000.

2021 Inflation Adjustments for Other Tax Items

The maximum foreign earned income exclusion amount in 2021 is $108,700.

The IRS also provided inflation-adjusted amounts for the:

• adoption credit,
• lifetime learning credit,
• earned income credit,
• excludable interest on U.S. savings bonds used for education,
• various penalties, and
• many other provisions.

Effective Date
These inflation adjustments generally apply to tax years beginning in 2021, so they affect most returns that will be filed in 2022. However, some specified figures apply to transactions or events in calendar year 2021.

The IRS has released the 2021 cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) for pension plan dollar limitations and other retirement-related provisions.

The IRS has released the 2021 cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) for pension plan dollar limitations and other retirement-related provisions.

Key Unchanged Amounts
The 2021 contribution limit remains unchanged at $19,500 for employees who take part in:

• 401(k) plans,
• 403(b) plans,
• most 457 plans, and
• the federal government’s Thrift Savings Plan

The catch-up contribution limit for employees aged 50 and over who participate in these plans also remains unchanged at $6,500.

The limitation for SIMPLE retirement accounts is unchanged at $13,500.

For individual retirement arrangements (IRAs), the limit on annual contributions to an IRA remains unchanged at $6,000. The additional catch-up contribution limit for individuals aged 50 and over is not subject to an annual cost-of-living adjustment, and so remains $1,000.

IRAs and Roth IRAs
The income ranges for determining eligibility to make deductible contributions to traditional IRAs and to contribute to Roth IRAs have increased for 2021.

Taxpayers can deduct contributions to a traditional IRA if they meet certain conditions. The deduction phases out if the taxpayer or his or her spouse takes part in a retirement plan at work. The deduction phase out depends on the taxpayer's filing status and income.

• For single taxpayers covered by a workplace retirement plan, the 2021 phase-out range is $66,000 to $76,000, up from $65,000 to $75,000 for 2020.
• For married couples filing jointly, when the spouse making the contribution takes part in a workplace retirement plan, the 2021 phase-out range is $105,000 to $125,000, up from $104,000 to $124,000 for 2020.
• For an IRA contributor who is not covered by a workplace retirement plan but who is married to someone who is covered, the 2021 phase out range is between $198,000 and $208,000, up from $196,000 and $206,000 for 2020.
• For a married individual who is covered by a workplace plan and is filing a separate return, the phase-out range is not subject to an annual COLA and remains $0 to $10,000.

The 2021 income phase-out ranges for Roth IRA contributions are:

• $125,000 to $140,000 for singles and heads of household (up from $124,000 to $139,000 in 2020),
• $198,000 to $208,000 for married filing jointly (up from $196,000 to $206,000 in 2020), and
• $0 to $10,000 for married filing separately.

Saver’s Credit
The income limit for low- and moderate-income workers to claim the Saver's Credit under Code Sec. 25B has also increased for 2021:

• $66,000 for married couples filing jointly (up from $65,000 in 2020),
• $49,500 for heads of household (up from $48,750 in 2020), and
• $33,000 for singles and married filing separately (up from $32,500 in 2020).

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in California v. Texas, the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA expanded insurance coverage, and includes popular provisions such as required coverage of preexisting medical conditions.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in California v. Texas, the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA expanded insurance coverage, and includes popular provisions such as required coverage of preexisting medical conditions.

Three major issues are at play in this case:

• Do the plaintiff challengers of ACA—two individuals, the Trump Administration, and a number of states led by Texas—have standing to bring this case?
• Did reducing the penalty amount under Code Sec. 5000A(c) to $0 render the individual mandate in the ACA unconstitutional?
• If the mandate is unconstitutional, does that mean the act itself is unconstitutional, in whole or in part?

Background
The individual mandate in the ACA requires that taxpayers either maintain minimum essential coverage, have an exemption, or pay a penalty. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 zeroed out the penalty. The plaintiffs in this case argue that without the penalty, the mandate is unconstitutional. They further contend that the mandate is so essential to ACA that it cannot be severed from the rest of the law, and thus the entire act should be struck down. At the very least, they would like the Court to strike down portions of the ACA.

The challenger states are: Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia. They have added two individuals, and the U.S. Department of Justice under the Trump Administration is also a party.

Other states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. House of Representatives have intervened to defend the ACA. The intervenor states are: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont, and Washington.

Oral Arguments
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments from both sides of this case on November 10. The challengers argued that Republicans used the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act to eliminate the law’s penalty for Americans who do not get health coverage. This rendered the mandate unconstitutional, and since the mandate is so essential to the rest of the act, the whole act must also fall.

The attorneys on behalf of the House, however, argued that the plaintiffs are asking the Supreme Court to take on a legislative role contrary to the Court’s precedent, and that striking down the ACA would throw millions of people off their health insurance, end pre-existing condition protections, and create "chaos in the health care sector."

The Supreme Court appeared unlikely to completely wipe out ACA, with key conservative justices Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh indicating that such a ruling would be too broad of a role for the courts. "I think it's hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down," Chief Justice Roberts said.

If the three more liberal justices agree with the two conservative justices, it would provide the minimum five votes needed for the ACA to survive its latest appearance before the Supreme Court. A decision is expected before the end of term in June.

The IRS has provided guidance to taxpayers that want to apply either Reg. §1.168(k)-2 and Reg. §1.1502-68, or want to rely on proposed regulations under NPRM REG-106808-19.

The IRS has provided guidance to taxpayers that want to apply either Reg. §1.168(k)-2 and Reg. §1.1502-68, or want to rely on proposed regulations under NPRM REG-106808-19, for:

• certain depreciable property acquired and placed in service after September 27, 2017, by the taxpayer during its tax years ending on or after September 28, 2017, and before the taxpayer's first tax year that begins on or after January 1, 2021;
• certain plants planted or grafted after September 27, 2017, by the taxpayer during its tax years ending on or after September 28, 2017, and before the taxpayer's first tax year that begins on or after January 1, 2021; and
• components acquired or self-constructed after September 27, 2017, of certain larger self-constructed property and placed in service by the taxpayer during its tax years ending on or after September 28, 2017, and before the taxpayer's first tax year that begins on or after January 1, 2021.

Rev. Proc. 2020-25, 2020-19 I.R.B. 785, and Rev. Proc. 2019-43, 2019-48 I.R.B. 1107, are modified.

Change in Accounting Method
The guidance applies to taxpayers who are changing their method of accounting for depreciable property that includes:

• components described in Reg. §1.168(k)-2(c) or NPRM REG-106808-19 where the component election has already been made; and
• specified plants for which the Code Sec. 168(k)(5) election has been made and that are planted, or grafted to a plant that was previously planted, after September 27, 2017, during the taxpayer’s 2017, 2018, 2019, or 2020 tax year.

This guidance does not apply to property or a plant:

• that is impacted by a late election, or withdrawn election under Code Sec. 163(j)(7) after November 16, 2020, pursuant to Rev. Proc. 2020-22;
• for which the taxpayer is changing from deducting the cost or other basis of such property as an expense to capitalizing and depreciating the cost or other basis, or vice versa; or
• that the taxpayer does not own at the beginning of the year of change, with some exceptions.

In addition, this guidance cannot be used to make a late election, or revoke an election, under Code Sec. 168, Code Sec. 179, or Reg. §1.1502-68.

Taxpayers have a choice of applying the 2020 final regulations under T.D. 9916, the previous final regulations under T.D. 9874, or both the final regulations under NPRM REG-106808-19. However, once a taxpayer applies Reg. §1.168(k)-2 and Reg. §1.1502-68, the taxpayer must apply Reg. §1.168(k)-2 and Reg. §1.1502-68 to all subsequent tax years.

Automatic Extensions of Time
Applicable taxpayers may make a late Code Sec. 168(k)(5) election, a late Code Sec. 168(k)(7) election, a late Code Sec. 168(k)(10) election, a late component election, a late designated transaction election, or a late proposed component election, by filing either:

• an amended Form 1065 for the placed-in-service year of the property, or for the planting year of the specified plant, as applicable, on or before December 31, 2021; or
• a Form 3115 with the taxpayer’s timely filed original Federal income tax return or Form 1065 for the taxpayer’s first or second tax year succeeding the tax year in which the taxpayer placed in service the property or the planting year of the specified plant, or, if later, the taxpayer’s timely filed original Federal income tax return or Form 1065 that is filed on or after November 6, 2020, and on or before December 31, 2021.

Effective Date
This guidance is effective on November 6, 2020.

The IRS has issued final regulations to update the life expectancy and distribution period tables under the required minimum distribution (RMD) rules. The tables reflect the general increase in life expectancy. The tables would apply for distribution calendar years beginning on or after January 1, 2022, with transition relief.

The IRS has issued final regulations to update the life expectancy and distribution period tables under the required minimum distribution (RMD) rules. The tables reflect the general increase in life expectancy. The tables would apply for distribution calendar years beginning on or after January 1, 2022, with transition relief.

RMDs apply to qualified plans, including 401(k) plans and profit sharing plans. They also apply to IRAs (including SEP and SIMPLE IRAs), inherited Roth IRAs, Tax Sheltered Annuity plans, and eligible deferred compensation plans. In general, RMDs must begin for the year the individual reaches age 72. An RMD for a calendar year is determined by dividing the participant’s account balance by the applicable distribution period.

Distribution periods are based on life expectancies and are found in one of three tables, depending on the circumstances:

• During the employee’s lifetime (including year of death), the applicable distribution period is determined by the Uniform Lifetime Table. The figures in that table are the joint and last survivor life expectancy for the employee and a hypothetical beneficiary 10 years younger.
• If an employee's sole beneficiary is the employee's surviving spouse and the spouse is more than 10 years younger than the employee, then the applicable distribution period is the joint and last survivor life expectancy of the employee and spouse under the Joint and Last Survivor Table.
• After the employee’s death, the distribution period is generally based on the designated beneficiary’s age using the Single Life Expectancy Table.

Updated Tables
Distribution periods under the new rules would generally increase between one and two years. For example, a 72-year-old IRA owner who applied the prior Uniform Lifetime Table to calculate RMDs used a life expectancy of 25.6 years. Applying the new Uniform Lifetime Table, a 72-year-old IRA owner will use a life expectancy of 27.4 years to calculate RMDs. As another example, a 75-year-old surviving spouse who is the employee’s sole beneficiary and applied the prior Single Life Table to compute RMDs used a life expectancy of 13.4 years. Under these regulations, a 75-year-old surviving spouse will use a life expectancy of 14.8 years.

Retirees and beneficiaries would be able to withdraw slightly smaller amounts from their plans each year. They could leave amounts in tax-favored retirement accounts for a slightly longer period of time, to account for the possibility that they may live longer.

Applicability Date
The life expectancy tables and Uniform Lifetime Table under these regulations apply for distribution calendar years beginning on or after January 1, 2022. Thus, for an IRA owner who attained age 70.5 in February of 2020 (so that the individual attains age 72 in August of 2021 and the individual’s required beginning date is April 1, 2022), these regulations do not apply to the RMD for the individual’s 2021 distribution calendar year (which is due April 1, 2022) but will apply to the RMD for the individual’s 2022 distribution calendar year (which is due December 31, 2022).

These regulations include a transition rule that applies if an employee died before January 1, 2022, and, under the rules of Reg. §1.401(a)(9)-5, the distribution period that applies for calendar years following the calendar year of the employee’s death is equal to a single life expectancy calculated as of the calendar year of the employee’s death (or if applicable, the year after the employee’s death), reduced by one for each subsequent year.

The IRS has released guidance on its website for employers and employees regarding deferral of employee Social Security tax under Notice 2020-65, I.R.B. 2020-38, 567.

The IRS has released guidance on its website for employers and employees regarding deferral of employee Social Security tax under Notice 2020-65, I.R.B. 2020-38, 567.

In August, the IRS issued Notice 2020-65 in response to a Presidential Memorandum that allowed deferral of the withholding, deposit, and payment of certain employee payroll tax obligations. The Notice allows employers the option to defer the employee portion of Social Security tax from September 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020, for eligible employees who earn less than $4,000 per bi-weekly pay period (or the equivalent threshold amount with respect to other pay periods) on a pay period-by-pay period basis.

To pay the deferred amount, an employer that chooses deferral will ratably withhold the amount of deferred tax from the employees' paychecks from January 1, 2021, through April 30, 2021.

Employers
The guidance provides the following instructions to employers that deferred the employee portion of Social Security tax under Notice 2020-65:

When reporting total Social Security wages paid to an employee on Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, the employer should include any wages for which it deferred withholding and payment of employee Social Security tax in box 3 (Social security wages) and/or box 7 (Social security tips). The employer should not include in Box 4 (Social security tax withheld) any amount of deferred tax that has not been withheld.

Employee Social Security tax deferred in 2020 that is withheld in 2021 and not reported on the 2020 Form W-2 should be reported in box 4 (Social security tax withheld) on Form W-2c, Corrected Wage and Tax Statement. On Form W-2c, the employer should enter tax year 2020 in box c and adjust the amount previously reported in box 4 (Social security tax withheld) of the Form W-2 to include the deferred amounts that were withheld in 2021. The employer should file all Forms W-2c with the Social Security Administration (along with Form W-3c, Transmittal of Corrected Wage and Tax Statements) as soon as possible after the employer has finished withholding the deferred amounts. The employer should also furnish Forms W-2c to employees. (More information on completing and filing Forms W-2c and W-3c will be published in the 2021 General Instructions for Forms W-2 and W-3, in January 2021.)

There is similar guidance for employers that deferred withholding and payment of the employee Social Security tax equivalent of Tier 1 Railroad Retirement Tax Act (RRTA) tax.

Employees
There is also guidance for employees whose employers deferred the employee portion of Social Security tax (or the RRTA equivalent tax) under Notice 2020-65:

If an employee had only one employer during 2020 and his or her Form W-2c for 2020 only shows a correction to box 4 (or to box 14 for employees who pay RRTA tax) to account for the tax that was deferred in 2020 and withheld in 2021, no further steps are required.

If an employee had two or more employers in 2020 and the Form W-2c for 2020 shows a correction to box 4 (or to box 14 for employees who pay RRTA tax) to account for the tax that was deferred in 2020 and withheld in 2021, the employee should use the amount of Social Security (or Tier 1 RRTA) tax withheld reported on the Form W-2c to determine whether he or she had excess Social Security tax (or Tier 1 RRTA tax) on wages (or compensation) paid in 2020.

If the corrected amount in box 4 of the Form W-2c for 2020 causes the total amount of employee Social Security tax (or equivalent portion of the Tier 1 RRTA tax) withheld by all of the employee’s employers to exceed the maximum amount of tax owed ($8,537.40 for 2020), or increases an already existing excess amount of employee Social Security tax (or Tier 1 RRTA tax) withheld, the employee should file Form 1040-X, Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, to claim a credit for the excess tax withheld.

Additional Information
Additional information can be found here.

The IRS intends to issue proposed regulations to clarify that state and local income taxes imposed on and paid by a partnership or an S corporation are deductible by the partnership or S corporation in computing non-separately stated taxable income for the year of the payment. The proposed regulations are intended to provide certainty to individual partners and S corporation shareholders in calculating their state and local tax (SALT) deduction limitations.

The IRS intends to issue proposed regulations to clarify that state and local income taxes imposed on and paid by a partnership or an S corporation are deductible by the partnership or S corporation in computing non-separately stated taxable income for the year of the payment. The proposed regulations are intended to provide certainty to individual partners and S corporation shareholders in calculating their state and local tax (SALT) deduction limitations.

The proposed regs described in the notice apply to specified income tax payments made on or after November 9, 2020. Taxpayers can also apply these rules to specified income tax payments made in tax years ending after December 31, 2017, and before the proposed regulations are published in the Federal Register.

SALT Deduction
For tax years beginning after 2017 and before 2026, an individual’s federal SALT deduction is generally limited to $10,000 ($5,000 for married individuals who file separate returns). The SALT deduction includes real property taxes, personal property taxes, income, war profits, and excess profits taxes, and general sales taxes.

However, legislative history indicates that this limit should not apply to taxes imposed at the entity level, such as a business tax imposed on pass-through entities, that are reflected in a partner’s or S corporation shareholder’s distributive or pro-rata share of income or loss on a Schedule K-1 or similar form. Instead, these taxes should continue to reduce the partner’s or shareholder’s distributive or pro-rata share of income.

New Entity-Level Taxes
Some state and local jurisdictions have enacted or are considering entity-level income tax on partnerships and S corporations, sometimes with a corresponding credit, deduction or exclusion for the owners. There is uncertainty as to whether the entity’s payment of such taxes must be taken into account in applying an owner’s SALT deduction limit.

The proposed regs will clarify that specified income tax payments are deductible by partnerships and S corporations in computing their non-separately stated income or loss.

Specified Income Tax Payments
A "specified income tax payment" is any amount paid by a partnership or an S corporation to satisfy the entity’s liability for income taxes imposed by and paid to a state, a state’s political subdivision, or the District of Columbia. This definition applies regardless of whether the tax results from an election by the entity, or whether an owner receives any deduction, exclusion or credit for the payment. Specified income tax payments do not include income taxes imposed by U.S. territories or their political subdivisions.

The partnership or S corporation can deduct specified income tax payments in computing taxable income for the year the payment is made. The specified income tax payments will be reflected in a partner’s or a shareholder’s distributive or pro-rata share of non-separately stated income or loss. Thus:

• a specified income tax payment is not an item of deduction that a partner or shareholder takes into account separately in determining its own federal income tax liability; and
• a specified income tax payment is not taken into account in applying the SALT deduction limitation to any individual partner or shareholder.

Instead of getting a paper check, you may want to have your refund deposited directly into your bank account or other financial account. Forms 1040, 1040A, and 1040EZ have a line for designating direct deposit of your refund, right after the line showing the amount of your refund.

If you choose direct deposit, for the first time starting this year, you can split your refund deposit among two or three accounts. To split the refund, you must submit Form 8888, Direct Deposit of Refund to More Than One Account, with your return. You must identify the amount being deposited into each account, and the total must equal the amount on Form 1040 that is being refunded to you.

An amount may be directly deposited into a checking account, a savings account, or another account such as an individual retirement account. You must establish the account before you request direct deposit. If the account is an IRA, you must make sure that the trustee will accept direct deposit. You must also notify the IRA trustee which year the deposit will be applied to. If the deposit is for the prior year, you must verify that the deposit was made by the due date of the return (which this year is April 17).

The direct deposit accounts are shown on lines 1, 2 and 3 of Form 8888. If you owe past-due federal tax, the IRS can use your refund to offset your liability. The past-due amount will first be deducted from the direct deposit shown on line 3, then the deposit on line 2, and finally from the deposit on line 1. If the amount deducted was going into an IRA, you may need to correct your IRA contribution and change your return.

Only 50 percent of the cost of meals is generally deductible. A meal deduction is customarily allowed when the meal is business related and incurred in one of two instances:

(1) while traveling away from home (a circumstance in which business duties require you to be away from the general area of your tax home for longer than an ordinary day's work); and

(2) while entertaining during which a discussion directly related to business takes place.

Entertainment expenses generally do not meet the "directly related test" when the taxpayer is not present at the activity or event. Both your meal and the meal provided to your business guest(s)' is restricted to 50 percent of the cost.

Related expenses, such as taxes, tips, and parking fees must be included in the total expenses before applying the 50-percent reduction. However, allowable deductions for transportation costs to and from a business meal are not reduced.

The 50-percent deduction limitation also applies to meals and entertainment expenses that are reimbursed under an accountable plan to a taxpayer's employees. It doesn't matter if the taxpayer reimburses the employees for 100 percent of the expenses. "Supper money" paid when an employee works late similarly may be tax free to the employee but only one-half may be deducted by the employer. The same principle applies to meals provided at an employees-only business luncheon, dinner, etc.

A special exception to the 50 percent rule applies to workers who are away from home while working under Department of Transportation regulations. For these workers, meals are 75 percent deductible in 2006 and 2007.

When a per diem allowance is paid for lodging, meal, and incidental expenses, the entire amount of the federal meals and incidental expense (M&IE) rate is treated as an expense for food or beverages subject to the percentage limitation on deducting meal and entertainment expenses. When a per diem allowance for lodging, meal, and incidental expenses for a full day of travel is less than the federal per diem rate for the locality of travel, the payer may treat 40 percent of the per diem allowance as the federal M&IE rate.

"Lavish" meals out of proportion to customary business practice are generally not deductible to the extent they are lavish. Generally, meals taken alone whentraveling generally have a lower threshold for lavishness than meals considered an entertainment expense for which a client or other business contact is "wined and dined."

The standard mileage rate may be taken in lieu of proving actual expenses such as depreciation on your automobile and the cost of gas. You must still prove that you took the trip for business and that you took it in your vehicle, whether owned or leased. The standard mileage rate applies to the actual miles driven and not simply to miles traveled.

Car travel for business is a deductible expense.  The standard mileage rate can be used to determine the deductible amount, rather than keeping track of actual expenses for using a car. An individual who owns or leases a car and has other expenses, such as gasoline, can deduct actual expenses or can take the standard mileage rate, even if the standard mileage rate is higher.

Rather than drive to a business destination, an individual can travel by rail, bus, plane or taxi. However, the standard mileage rate is not available if the individual travels by other means, rather than by motor vehicle. In this situation, the deduction is limited to reasonable expenses for the manner of travel used by the individual, which may be the actual expenses incurred. On the latter point, the Tax Court has taken this approach in the case of a businessman who traveled by charter rather than by commercial plane. The court allowed the use of first class plane fare but not the cost of the charter.

For further assistance on how to maximize your travel expense deductions, whether by automobile, jet or otherwise, please feel free to contact this office.

A: If you have the money, contributing to your IRA immediately on January 1^st or as soon thereafter as possible is the best strategy.  The #1 advantage of an IRA is that interest or other investment income earned on the account accumulates without tax each year. The sooner the money starts working at earning tax-free income, the greater the tax advantage. With a traditional IRA, that tax advantage means no tax until you finally withdraw the money at retirement or for a qualified emergency. In the case of a Roth IRA, the tax advantage comes in the form of the investment income that is never taxed.

While the earliest date to contribute to an IRA for a current year is January 1^st of that year, the latest date is 15 1/2 months later, on April 15^th of the next year when your tax return is due. (Because of the weekend-next business day rule that's April 16, 2007 for 2006 tax-year contributions.)

Although you may file for an extension to file your tax return, that extension does not extend the time you have to contribute to an IRA; April 15^th is the deadline. Another caveat: If you make a contribution after December 31^st it will be presumed to be made for the next year unless you designate it as relating back to the year just ended. Finally, until the due date for your return, you are allowed to withdraw any IRA contribution, plus earnings on that contribution.

Soon, the recently-passed Pension Protection Act of 2006 will give you another option: designating all or a portion of your tax refund for the year to be directly deposited into your IRA account. In fact, the IRS has moved quickly to provide several refund options, already announcing that new Form 8888 will be created to give all individual filers the ability to split their refunds in up to three financial accounts, such as checking, savings and retirement accounts.

In addition to knowing when to make IRA contributions, you also need to know how much you are able to contribute and whether a traditional or a Roth IRA makes more sense. For those who are already covered by a retirement plan, restrictions on contributing to deductible IRAs must be heeded. Nondeductible and "spousal" IRAs also are options to be considered. Please call our offices if you need further guidance on any of the IRA rules. They are worth using and can grow into a substantial additional nest egg for you at retirement.

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.

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

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

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

Significant benefits

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

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

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

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

Planning strategies

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

Start a nondeductible IRA

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

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

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

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

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

Rollover 401(k) accounts

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

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

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

Gather those old IRA accounts

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

Paying the tax

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

Careful planning is key

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