Search This Blog

Monday, January 16, 2017

Sales Tax Policy Outlook for 2017

I don't expect 2017 will look much different than activities of 2016.  With one change - Congress looking at a consumption tax at the federal level for business income. If that happens, there is relevance for state sales taxes.

For more, please see my policy post at SalesTaxSupport.com.

What do you think?

SalesTaxSupport.com

Wednesday, January 11, 2017

IRS National Taxpayer Advocate Report Released

https://taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/reports/2016-annual-report-to-congress/full-report
The IRS National Taxpayer Advocate - Nina Olson, is required to issue an annual report to Congress. The 2016 report was released 1/10/17.  These reports are always a great read. The report lists the mots "serious issues" in the tax system and makes recommendations for improvement. The 2016 report focuses a lot on the IRS "Future State" project and tax reform.

I'll cover parts of the report in future posts over the next few weeks.

I'll start with a comment make in the IRS press release (IR-2017-02), it made me chuckle.

The IRS Future State is a project started a while back, but primarily brought to public attention by the NTA's 2015 report to Congress. It aims to use modern technology to best assist taxpayers. The IRS has diagrams for each of its four divisions on how the Future State taxpayer-IRS interactions might function. See for example, how the IRS Wage and Investment Division might interact with taxpayer Jane. In the 2016 report, the NTA points out the following trait about the four vignettes:

"Each vignette shows the IRS contacting a taxpayer to conduct an audit or otherwise challenge a taxpayer’s return, and in every case, the vignette shows the taxpayer ultimately conceding the IRS is correct and consenting to the IRS’s proposed adjustment – all in a digital environment.  That all four operating divisions chose to illustrate their Future State by showing that they were right and the taxpayer was wrong is concerning, the report says.  “Nowhere did [any] vignette demonstrate how the taxpayer could prevail in the system of the future,” it adds."

That's a good question. Why doesn't at least one vignette show that the taxpayer was correct?

What do you think?

Wednesday, January 4, 2017

Repealing Obamacare - Costs and Issues!

The 115th Congress started on January 3 and repeal of Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act) has begun.  Here is information from Majority Speaker Paul Ryan including the budget resolution to help with the repeal. He states:

“This is the first step toward relief for Americans struggling under Obamacare. This resolution sets the stage for repeal followed by a stable transition to a better health care system. Our goal is to ensure that patients will be in control of their health care and have greater access to quality, affordable coverage. Today we begin to deliver on our promise to the American people.”

The ACA is certainly not perfect and I'm speaking from a tax perspective. The ACA included some complex tax rules.  It also included some inequitable ones, which I've written about before (such as 12/14/14 and 10/18/14 and 3/8/15). Some of the key tax issues/inequities:
  • If you purchase health insurance on the exchange, you only get a tax credit if your household income is under 400% of the federal poverty line (about $42,000 for a single person). In contrast, if you're fortunate to have your employer subsidize your health insurance, that income is excluded from your taxable income regardless of your income level.
  • The eligibility for the Premium Tax Credit doesn't factor in age even though health insurance costs a lot more as you get older.
  • The employer mandate is too complex. Reg 1.4980H-1 includes 50 definitions! and that's just part of its complexity.
The ACA enabled millions of people to afford insurance and to obtain it even if they had a pre-existing condition.

The Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation estimate that repeal of the ACA will increase the budget deficit by $137 billion over 10 years.

Two of the ACA taxes - the net investment income tax (NIIT) and the .09% additional Medicare tax on higher income individuals bring in more revenue than the individual AMT! That was over $35 billion for 2014. Repeal of the AMT would provide a better benefit because the AMT generally is not paid by the highest income individuals. But, where will the replacement funds come from or how much will repeal cost us in increased budget deficits and interest expense on the debt? [Per IRS data for 2014]

When will repeal be effective? Will people who purchased their insurance on the Exchange for 2017 lose it? Will they lose their subsidy (Premium Tax Credit) that helps most people be able to afford the insurance? What happens to people with pre-existing conditions? What happens to the ability for parents to include children up to age 26 on their health plan and if provided by their employer, to exclude that income benefit from income?

Challenges of repeal include:
  • If there is a replacement, will it be better? 
  • Why not just fix Obamacare (and call it something new)? 
  • How will it all be paid for (see above dollar issues)?
Why not help pay for it by reducing the largest tax subsidy in the tax system - the income exclusion for employer-provided health care which benefits the roughly 60% of employees with such coverage?  It costs the budget about $266 billion per year! The House Republicans identify that as one of the three largest government health care subsidies. They also note that this subsidy increases the cost of health insurance by about 10 - 15% (page 15)!

Per the House Republican Health Care Blueprint (page 15):

"The non-partisan CBO projects this job-based subsidy will lower federal revenues by $266 billion in fiscal year 2016 alone and $3.6 trillion over the next decade. This benefit is so massive that, in terms of federal support, it would be the third largest health expenditure, after Medicare and Medicaid."

The Republican plan does call for taxing this benefit, likely if the benefits exceeds a specified amount. I think that's a good idea.  This is the biggest tax break in our tax system and taxing some portion of it would help fund health care for more people and even allow for lower tax rates.

We'll see what happens. Repeal won't be easy and likely won't be popular.

What do you think?

Saturday, December 24, 2016

New Required Preparer Due Diligence for AOTC and Child Tax Credit

The addition of these two credits to the required due diligence of paid preparers in preparing a return that claims either or both was made by the PATH Act (P.L. 114-113, 12/18/15). The statutory language added at §6695(g) implied that regulations were needed. The IRS released draft Form 8867 and instructions in summer 2016, but did not release the regulations until 12/5/16. [TD 9799 (12/5/16) and REG 102952-16 (12/5/16)]
The regulations note that Form 8867 must be completed “and such other information as may be prescribed by the” IRS. The preparer must include relevant worksheets and Form 8863 and instructions (AOTC), or “otherwise record in one or more documents in the tax return preparer’s paper or electronic files the tax return preparer’s computation of the credit or credits claimed on the return or claim for refund, including the method and information used to make the computations.”
The regulations also include this rule about knowledge (§1.6695-2(b)(3)):
“(3) Knowledge—(i) In general. The tax return preparer must not know, or have reason to know, that any information used by the tax return preparer in determining the taxpayer’s eligibility for, or the amount of, any credit described in paragraph (a) of this section and claimed on the return or claim for refund is incorrect. The tax return preparer may not ignore the implications of information furnished to, or known by, the tax return preparer, and must make reasonable inquiries if a reasonable and well-informed tax return preparer knowledgeable in the law would conclude that the information furnished to the tax return preparer appears to be incorrect, inconsistent, or incomplete. The tax return preparer must also contemporaneously document in the files any inquiries made and the responses to those inquiries.”
Form 8867, lines 3 and 4, address the “knowledge” requirement. The instructions for these lines provide:
“As a paid tax return preparer, when determining the taxpayer’s eligibility for, or the amount of, a credit claimed on a return or claim for refund, you must not use information that you know, or have reason to know, is incorrect. You may not ignore the implications of information provided to, or known by you, and you must make reasonable inquiries if the information provided to you appears to be incorrect, inconsistent, or incomplete. You must make reasonable inquiries if a reasonable and well-informed tax return preparer, knowledgeable in the tax law, would conclude that the information provided to you appears to be incorrect, inconsistent, or incomplete. You must also contemporaneously document in your files any reasonable inquiries made and the responses to these inquiries.
You must know the tax law for each credit claimed on a return or claim for refund you prepare and use that knowledge to ask your client the right questions to get all the relevant facts to determine your client’s eligibility for the credit(s) and the correct amount of the credit(s).”
Here are a few questions I’d suggest are appropriate for determining if someone is eligible for the child credit (not a complete list).
  • How old are your children? When were they born?
  • Where do they go to school? What grades are they in?
  • For a single parent, where does the child live? If the child lived the majority of the time with the parent who is your client, ask if he/she signed a Form 8332 to allow the other parent to claim the child.
  • If a client tells you they have a signed Form 8332 from the other parent, ask if it has been revoked (did they receive notice of revocation from the other parent)?
A few questions for someone who appears eligible to claim the AOTC for their dependent child and whose income is below the phase-out range (also see Form 8863 and instructions, along with IRC 25A and information on the IRS website (regulations addressing AOTC are still in proposed form - REG-131418-14 (8/2/16)):
  • When did they start college?
  • How many units did they take each semester? (student needs to be at least a half-time student for at least one semester; also see Box 8 of Form 1098-T)
  • Please provide me the Form(s) 1098-T the child received. If it shows amount billed rather than amount paid (see boxes 1 and 2), ask when the tuition was paid. You should also verify that the 1098-T is correct. Be sure Box 9 is not checked (student is a graduate student, indicating they are likely no longer in their first four years of collect).
  • How much is the tuition?
  • Did your child receive any scholarships or grants?
  • Do you have a 529 or 530 plan for the child? (If yes, was it used?) Is the taxpayer/child eligible for other education tax benefits that may be more beneficial? Did they receive any tax-free education assistance from his/her employer?
Here are some tougher questions for the AOTC:
  • Did you child receive academic credit for at least one semester of the tax year? This is a tough one as parents might not know the answer, particularly if the child dropped out after the refund period. Box 8 on Form 1098-T asks if the student was at least a half-time student. Perhaps that being checked is sufficient. Also, if not enrolled per how that term is defined at the university, a 1098-T likely should not have been issued. So, this might be a tough question if there is no 1098-T and the parent insists the child was in college during the year.
  • Does the student have a felony conviction for possession or distribution of a controlled substance?
Perhaps it would be best to put these questions on a checklist for the client to complete and sign. It should include the reason why the question is asked.  You might want to refer clients to the AOTC information in Publication 970 and FAQs.
The AOTC includes amount paid for books and related materials that are required by the university, even if not paid to the university. Before making any effort to determine these amount, see if the tuition paid for the year is high enough to max out the AOTC. In most cases, it will be (unless the student attends a community college in California). You max out the AOTC with $4,000 of tuition paid for the year (the credit is 100% of the first $2,000 and 25% of the next $2,000 for a maximum credit of $2,500).
The questions asked by the paid preparer and the answers/documents received from the client must be kept for three years after the return is filed. The Form 8867 is attached to the client’s return to avoid a $510 penalty to the preparer. Do note that even with the attached form, a preparer can still be subject to the penalty for not doing the required due diligence. This reminder is in the “what’s new” section of the Form 8867 instructions (although this is not new):
“Completing the form is not a substitute for actually performing the necessary due diligence and completing all required forms and schedules when preparing the return.”
I think the Form 8867 will help improve compliance with the child credit and AOTC as it will likely lead many preparers to review these credits in more detail and some may find that there were parts that they were not aware of before (such as that the AOTC is only for the first four years of college, even if that is only the first fall semester, if the student was at least half-time, that is a year of college). If a student attended a California community college for the first two years of college, parents might feel cheated because the tuition paid is not enough to max out the AOTC for those years (although books and other required materials, perhaps even a computer will help – see FAQ7). So, they might want to use the AOTC when the child transfers to a more expensive university, but it doesn’t work that way. The AOTC is only for the first four years of college. So, that parent (or student) doesn’t max out the AOTC, but they also aren’t paying a lot of tuition!
On a policy note, if a state university or college isn’t charging enough tuition to max out the credit, the California Legislative Analyst described this as the state giving a reverse subsidy to the federal government (that is, to students in other states). [See LAO’s February 1998 report]
Should the Form 8867 due diligence documentation requirement to avoid a penalty be expanded to other complex items claimed on a tax return? I don’t’ think so. Preparers already have required due diligence requirements such as the preparer penalty of §6694. Many preparers are also subject to licensing rules and those of professional organizations they belong to, as well as Treasury’s Circular 230. Congress likely expanded the §6695(g) penalty to these additional credits due to errors in claiming them. But, there are other solutions to address tax law complexity: (1) simplification, (2) required continuing education for all preparers (to address those not covered by licensing requirements for continuing education), (3) some assurance that paid preparers have adequate training including research skills and access to resources beyond IRS pubs and form instructions, and (4) due diligence checklists from the IRS to help preparers (and the IRS).
The PATH Act also requires the Treasury Department “to conduct a study evaluating the effectiveness of tax return preparer due diligence requirements for the EITC, child tax credit and AOTC. The study with respect to the EITC shall be completed one year from the date of enactment (December 18, 2015), and the study regarding the child credit and the AOTC shall be due two years from the date of enactment.” [JCT Bluebook to 2015 legislation, page 231]
The only study I find (at 12/24/16; 6 days after the 12/18/16 due date for the EITC report) is a 27-page report issued by Treasury in July 2016.  It addresses preparer due diligence, but doesn’t reference the PATH Act (only House Report 114-194). Per H. Rpt 114-194, the July report is tied to this request: “The Committee directs the Office of Tax Policy (OTP) and the IRS Office Research,  Analysis and Statistics to conduct data-driven analysis to  improve EITC compliance in collaboration with the tax  preparation community. Successful analysis will identify solutions effective for both paid preparers and self-preparers, ensure ease of taxpayer understanding. The Committee directs OTP and IRS to submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations in the House and Senate not later than six months after enactment of this Act on meeting this goal.” The report explains various initiatives the IRS used to improve EITC compliance (a subject for a future blog or article – looks interesting). So, it seems that we are still waiting for the §6695(g) EITC report due 12/18/16.

What do you think? (about the expanded due diligence for preparers for 2016 returns, preparer obligations in general, complexity, or anything else in this post)

Wednesday, December 14, 2016

Employer EITC Notice to Employees - New California Requirement!


Several states require employers to notify employees that they may be eligible for the federal (and perhaps also state) Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). This year, California law was changed to require employers to also notify employees about the California EITC recently added to the law.

AB 1847 (Chapter 294, 9/12/16) – Expands the current employee notification requirement for the federal EITC to also include the California EITC, effective after 2016. Per the introduction to AB 1847: “This bill would require those same employers currently required to notify employees who may be eligible for the federal earned income tax credit to also notify these employees that they may be eligible for the California Earned Income Tax Credit under the same conditions.
Amends R&T 19853, including as follows:
 (a) An employer shall notify all employees that they may be eligible for the federal and the California EITC within one week before or after, or at the same time, that the employer provides an annual wage summary, including, but not limited to, a Form W-2 or a Form 1099, to any employee.
R&T 19854:
 (a) The notice furnished to employees regarding the availability of the federal and the California EITC shall state as follows:

BASED ON YOUR ANNUAL EARNINGS, YOU MAY BE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE THE EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (FEDERAL EITC). THE FEDERAL EITC IS A REFUNDABLE FEDERAL INCOME TAX CREDIT FOR LOW-INCOME WORKING INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES. THE FEDERAL EITC HAS NO EFFECT ON CERTAIN WELFARE BENEFITS. IN MOST CASES, FEDERAL EITC PAYMENTS WILL NOT BE USED TO DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY FOR MEDICAID, SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME, FOOD STAMPS, LOW-INCOME HOUSING, OR MOST TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES PAYMENTS. EVEN IF YOU DO NOT OWE FEDERAL TAXES, YOU MUST FILE A FEDERAL TAX RETURN TO RECEIVE THE FEDERAL EITC. BE SURE TO FILL OUT THE FEDERAL EITC FORM IN THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX RETURN BOOKLET. FOR INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR ELIGIBILITY TO RECEIVE THE FEDERAL EITC, INCLUDING INFORMATION ON HOW TO OBTAIN THE IRS NOTICE 797 OR ANY OTHER NECESSARY FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS, CONTACT THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE BY CALLING 1-800-829-3676 OR THROUGH ITS WEB SITE AT WWW.IRS.GOV.

YOU ALSO MAY BE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE THE CALIFORNIA EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT (CALIFORNIA EITC) STARTING WITH THE CALENDAR YEAR 2015 TAX YEAR. THE CALIFORNIA EITC IS A REFUNDABLE STATE INCOME TAX CREDIT FOR LOW-INCOME WORKING INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES. THE CALIFORNIA EITC IS TREATED IN THE SAME MANNER AS THE FEDERAL EITC AND GENERALLY WILL NOT BE USED TO DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY FOR WELFARE BENEFITS UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW. TO CLAIM THE CALIFORNIA EITC, EVEN IF YOU DO NOT OWE CALIFORNIA TAXES, YOU MUST FILE A CALIFORNIA INCOME TAX RETURN AND COMPLETE AND ATTACH THE CALIFORNIA EITC FORM (FTB 3514). FOR INFORMATION ON THE AVAILABILITY OF THE CREDIT, ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS, AND HOW TO OBTAIN THE NECESSARY CALIFORNIA FORMS AND GET HELP FILING, CONTACT THE FRANCHISE TAX BOARD AT 1-800-852-5711 OR THROUGH ITS WEB SITE AT WWW.FTB.CA.GOV.

Thus, AB 1847 modifies the required notice about the federal EITC and adds the information about the California EITC.
Effective 1/1/17.
Also see:


x  What do you think?