Lu Gauthier of the Boston Tax Institute has given me permission to reproduce his email blasts. BTI is a great value for live tax continuing professional education. If you decided to contact BTI because you read about it here, be sure to mention it to Lu. It won’t get you a discount or me a commission, but it will show him that this blogging thing is a thing.
I’ve gotten a little behind. So this one represents a few installments.
Our thanks to Moore McLaughlin, CPA, Esq and Cory Bilodeau, Esq. for another update.
In an opinion issued on May 19, 2015, the Tax Court in Redisch, TC Memo 2015-95, held that a couple did not convert their Florida vacation home to property held for the production of income. The rental effort was not serious and the property was never rented. As a result, they could not deduct Schedule E deductions related to the home or claim a loss under Code Sec. 165 when the property was sold for less than what they paid for it. In general, no deduction is allowed for the expenses incurred in maintaining a personal residence. Similarly, a loss incurred on the sale of a personal residence generally is considered personal in nature and can not be deducted. However, taxpayers may deduct all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the tax year for the management, conservation, or maintenance of property held for the production of income. Whether an individual has converted his personal property to one held for the production of income is a question of fact. In the case of a converted residence, the Tax Court often looks to five factors to determine the taxpayer’s intent: (1) the length of time the house was occupied by the individual as his residence before placing it on the market for sale; (2) whether the individual permanently abandoned all further personal use of the house; (3) the character of the property (recreational or otherwise); (4) offers to rent; and (5) offers to sell. No one factor is determinative, and all of the facts and circumstances are considered. Similarly, in order for a taxpayer to deduct a loss, it must be incurred in a trade or business, be incurred in any transaction entered into for profit, though not connected with a trade or business, or arise from some sort of casualty or theft. A taxpayer can claim a loss on property purchased or constructed as a primary residence if, before its sale, it is rented or otherwise appropriated to income-producing purposes and is used for such purposes up to the time of its sale.
I noticed this case also and may be covering it on forbes.com
Our thanks to Moore McLaughlin, CPA, Esq. and Cory Bilodeau, Esq. for the following update.
In an opinion published on May 26, 2015, the Tax Court held in Fargo, T.C. Memo 2015-96, that the taxpayer’s sale of real estate in an unsolicited one-time bulk sale produced ordinary income and not capital gain, notwithstanding the absence of physical improvements over a ten year period. The Court found that the taxpayer’s original development intent continued throughout the entire holding period. The court analyzed 8 factors and found that 4 favored the Taxpayer and 4 favored the IRS. However, the Court noted that the taxpayer’s actions indicated a continued desire to develop the property until the time of the sale.
If the Taxpayer engaged in proper tax planning, it may have been possible to structure the transaction in a manner that locked in capital gains. This type of tax planning will be discussed at the update on Federal Income Taxation of Real Estate on June 3 in Waltham by tax attorneys Moore McLaughlin, CPA, Esq. and Cory Bilodeau, Esq., both from the tax law firm McLaughlin & Quinn, LLC.
I was pretty excited about this case, but ulitmately decided to pass on it. One thing that threw me was that the partnership had owned the property in 1997 giving the impression that it had been held in the partnership a really long time. On rereading I noted that the case has kicked around a long time with the sale being around 2001. It is pretty messy and complicated.
Our thanks to Paul Ferreira for the following email!
The IC-DISC: Are you still missing the boat on adding value to many of your clients?
The Interest Charge-Domestic International Sales Corporation (IC-DISC) is the last surviving export incentive available for privately-held companies whose products are delivered outside of the United States. Originally enacted by Congress in 1971, the IC-DISC is a tremendous federal income tax savings vehicle as well as a lucrative addition to the services for you and your firm to deliver to current and target clients. Many clients in a variety of industries qualify for the IC-DISC. Clients that manufacture products within the US as well as those that distribute US made products outside of the US will qualify for the IC-DISC. Likewise, seafood caught within the US and scrap metal processed within the US will qualify. Our 1/2 day seminar on IC-DISC will be presented from 9:00am-12:30pm on 6/8 in Waltham followed by a 1/2 day seminar entitled Federal & State R & D Credits from 1:30pm-5:00pm. Please remember that two 1/2 day seminars on the same day are only $225 instead of $150 each!
Now that seems like something worth looking into.
The nexus and apportionment provisions have been changing requiring both taxpayers and tax practitioners to reexamine whether or not their activities or client activities have subjected them to income taxation in states where no such requirement existed previously. No longer is a physical presence required within a state before its taxing jurisdiction is permitted. Taxpayers and their advisors need to re-evaluate their compliance positions in many states. Coupled with the change in nexus requirement in some 40 states, a growing number of states have adopted market-based sourcing requirements for purposes of sourcing receipts with 3 of the 6 New England States adopting the change. The new sourcing requirements can create either multiple inclusion or non-inclusion of particular sales receipts for purposes of income tax apportionment. These changes, coupled with the unique provisions of New Hampshire’s combined reporting, provide some potential tax benefits for businesses conducting activity in the State.
We will discuss the nexus changes and the market-based sourcing requirements that are developing across the country and where the New England States currently position themselves during the morning session. During the afternoon session, we will discuss the New Hampshire reporting requirements for combined groups. Join us at our June 5th seminar entitled Economic Nexus & Combined Reporting in Peabody, MA and determine whether your clients now have (1) filing responsibilities in one or more states where there was no such requirement in the past (2) the receipts apportionment methods changed requiring different documentation and possible double inclusion of income and (3) can benefit from filing combined returns in New Hampshire. Evaluate your clients’ exposure and risk before the Departments of Revenue knock on their door.
Those “Live Free Or Die” license plates and income tax exemption for wages give New Hampshire an undeserved reputation as a tax haven of sorts. If you ever contemplate doing business there, you might be surprised.
Our thanks to Kenneth J. Vacovec, Esq. for the following email!
Reminder to all:
The FBAR filings now must all be done electronically only, on Form 114. Third party filers are authorized to file on behalf of clients on Form 114 a, which must be signed by the client and provided to the third party filer for their records prior to the electronic filing. All the paperwork must be prepared and received in time to file by June 30, 2015 for the 2014 filings. There are no filing date extensions at all allowed. We fear that with all the FBAR publicity and focus by the IRS on these filings, that the IRS will begin a program of imposing penalties for filings after the June 30 date. Also, there are very specific requirements for the information needed in the filing which requires strict attention to the form instructions. Certain entries such as: AKA, DBA, SAME and UNKNOWN cannot be used. You must push your clients for complete information in time for the June 30 filing date!!!
I lose a lot of sleep over foreign reporting issues.
In a rather lengthy decision (Coastal Heart Medical Group, Inc., et al., v. Comm., TCM 2015-84 (5/4/15)), the Tax Court concluded that a medical doctor who failed to group his various business activities and failed to aggregate his various rental real estate activities failed to prove that he was a real estate professional and also failed to prove that he materially participated in each of his separate business activities so that losses from these passive activities were disallowed and the 20% taxpayer accuracy-related penalty applied. If you have a client with multiple business and/or rental real estate activities which have net losses, it may behoove you to take a fresh look at these activities to see if they have been grouped or aggregated in the most advantageous manner. If you would like to come up to speed on passive activity losses, grouping, real estate professionals and aggregation, material participation, the 3.8% tax on net investment income, and the treatment of rental real estate for purposes of the 3.8% tax, we are offering a number of seminars in various locations to help you. Please consult our 2015 Spring Brochure at the icon shown above for seminars, dates, and locations beginning with Passive Activity Losses on 5/27 in Waltham and The Treatment of Rental Real Estate for Purposes of the 3.8% Tax on 5/28 in W. Springfield.
Coastal Heart is one that I covered on forbes.com. There is a really wild back story to it which includes a doctor being framed with planted drugs and a gun
Our thanks to Robert E. Clark for the following email!
Can I collect Social Security as a spouse and wait until I am older to collect a higher amount on my own work record? Many married couples ask this question as they plan for their retirement.
For the answer to be yes, one member of a couple must have filed for benefits to open their record. Workers open their record by starting to collect their own Social Security. Or, if they have reached Social Security’s full retirement age, by filing and suspending benefits. A worker under full retirement age cannot file and suspend benefits.
Once your significant other’s record is open, you must be full retirement age to file only for benefits as a spouse and delay filing for your own retirement benefit. If you are under full retirement age, you must file for your own retirement benefit first before filing as a spouse.
I keep telling my covivant that marriage is not something that old people should do, but this social security thing has me thinking. The idea is that you collect on your spouse’s record until your 72 or something like that so your benefit is maxed.
Our thanks to Phillip R. Dardeno, CPA, MST for the following email!
Commissioner Mark Nunnelly, Massachusetts Department of Revenue
Mark Nunnelly has been appointed as the new Commissioner of the Department of Revenue. He is responsible for overseeing nearly 2,000 DOR employees in offices across the state who work in tax administration, child support enforcement and local services for cities and towns. He was appointed on March 30, 2015.
Commissioner Nunnelly formerly worked for Bain Capital. Commissioner Nunnelly joined Bain Capital, one of the world’s foremost private investment firms, in1989 as a Managing Director. He held a number of leadership roles as part of the firm’s growth and global expansion and worked extensively in the business services and technology industries. Prior to joining Bain Capital, the Commissioner was a Partner at the consulting firm Bain & Company, working in the US, Asian and European strategy practices. Previously, he worked at Procter & Gamble in product management. Additionally, Commissioner Nunnelly founded, and had operating responsibility for, several entrepreneurial ventures. He has been deeply involved in a number of Massachusetts and national philanthropic efforts, with a particular focus on children and national service.
Commissioner Nunnelly received an MBA with Distinction from Harvard Business School and an AB from Centre College.
A new Commissioner has always brought about change in the organization. New ideas, different priorities, and new focuses will certainly be seen over the next few months.
Putting somebody from Bain Capital in charge of the Revenue Department seems kind of odd. Can’t help but wonder whether it will be the fox watching the hen house or it takes a – well you know how that one goes.
In Jose A. Lamas v. Comm., TCM 2015-59 (03/25/15) the Tax Court concluded that two real estate development businesses (Shoma and Greens) could be GROUPED together because they met all five nonexclusive factors in Reg. 1.469-4(c) and were an appropriate economic unit in which T materially participated. The investor exception did not apply, and the work not customarily done by owners exception did not apply. Assuming arguendo that T worked < 500 hours in Shoma and Greens, T met the signification participation activity test #4 because he significantly participated in Bella Vista and in Shoma and Greens and materially participated for > 500 hours in all of his significant participant activities. Grouping as well as several other topics will be discussed in our full day seminar entitled Passive Activity Losses on 5/27 in Waltham. Grouping as well as all of the decided cases and administrative pronouncements on Grouping also will be discussed in detail in our new 1/2 day seminar entitled Grouping for Purposes of Sections 469 and 1411 on 6/12 in Waltham. Grouping can be used to deduct losses that otherwise would be passive and not deductible and also can be used to avoid reporting income as passive income subject to the 3.8% tax on net investment income. If you want to learn about Passive Activity Losses, Section 1411, and Grouping, come to a BTI seminar!!! Don’t waste your time and money elsewhere.
Lamas is another case I covered on forbes.com. There was another fascinating back story involving deforestation and political intrigue that the rest of the tax blogosphere let pass.
On 4/13/15, the Tax Court (in Richard Leyh v. Comm., TC Summary Opinion 2015-27 dated 04/13/15) concluded that taxpayers who elected to aggregate their rental real estate activities and who kept a detailed contemporaneous log of the time spent operating their 12 rental properties were real estate professionals (REPs)who could deduct $69,531 of losses against their non-passive income such as wages. The court allowed the taxpayer wife to include the travel time in driving from their principal residence to the rental properties to perform services. Although a Tax Court Summary Opinion cannot be cited as precedent, it is comforting to see pro sese taxpayers (taxpayers who represent themselves) beat the IRS with a detailed contemporaneous log and travel time. The election to aggregate the properties also was critical to the taxpayers’ victory. If you represent taxpayers who purport to be real estate professionals, you may want to advise them to make an election to aggregate (if they have not already done so), keep a detailed contemporaneous log of the time spent servicing the rental properties, and remember to include travel time in their original log. If you want to learn more about REPs, please join us at our full day seminar entitled Passive Activity Losses on 5/27 or at a special 1/2 day seminar entitled Real Estate Professionals on 6/12 in Waltham. Section 469 continues to be one of the most important, misunderstood, and heavily litigated areas of tax practice today!
I don’t know why I let this one pass. Probably too worried about Kent Hovind.
Our thanks to Todd Weaver of Strategies for College for the following email!
Think that your role as business advisor, family confidant, and tax savings guru is all that you need to be concerned with? Think about this: You can offer a client a choice of $18,000 in tax savings OR a $38,450 college grant. That’s a $20,450 difference. Attend our seminar and find out what actually happened. If you’re not paying attention to clients with college bound kids, you could be saving tax dollars and losing college funding dollars. The ramifications of not being well informed could be very costly.
Come to our seminar entitled Strategies For College on June 24th at the Hyatt house in Waltham in order to learn how to deal with opportunities like this.
I always worry that when tax planning concepts appropriate for the very well heeled get pushed down a level or two that things like college financial aid get lost in the shuffle.
I’ll try not to get so far behind on Lu’s updates again, but I can’t make that a firm promise.
Putting somebody from Bain Capital in charge of the Revenue Department seems kind of odd. Can’t help but wonder whether it will be the fox watching the hen house or it takes a – well you know how that one goes.
In Jose A. Lamas v. Comm., TCM 2015-59 (03/25/15) the Tax Court concluded that two real estate development businesses (Shoma and Greens) could be GROUPED together because they met all five nonexclusive factors in Reg. 1.469-4(c) and were an appropriate economic unit in which T materially participated. The investor exception did not apply, and the work not customarily done by owners exception did not apply. Assuming arguendo that T worked < 500 hours in Shoma and Greens, T met the signification participation activity test #4 because he significantly participated in Bella Vista and in Shoma and Greens and materially participated for > 500 hours in all of his significant participant activities. Grouping as well as several other topics will be discussed in our full day seminar entitled Passive Activity Losses on 5/27 in Waltham. Grouping as well as all of the decided cases and administrative pronouncements on Grouping also will be discussed in detail in our new 1/2 day seminar entitled Grouping for Purposes of Sections 469 and 1411 on 6/12 in Waltham. Grouping can be used to deduct losses that otherwise would be passive and not deductible and also can be used to avoid reporting income as passive income subject to the 3.8% tax on net investment income. If you want to learn about Passive Activity Losses, Section 1411, and Grouping, come to a BTI seminar!!! Don’t waste your time and money elsewhere.
Lamas is another case I covered on forbes.com. There was another fascinating back story involving deforestation and political intrigue that the rest of the tax blogosphere let pass.
On 4/13/15, the Tax Court (in Richard Leyh v. Comm., TC Summary Opinion 2015-27 dated 04/13/15) concluded that taxpayers who elected to aggregate their rental real estate activities and who kept a detailed contemporaneous log of the time spent operating their 12 rental properties were real estate professionals (REPs)who could deduct $69,531 of losses against their non-passive income such as wages. The court allowed the taxpayer wife to include the travel time in driving from their principal residence to the rental properties to perform services. Although a Tax Court Summary Opinion cannot be cited as precedent, it is comforting to see pro sese taxpayers (taxpayers who represent themselves) beat the IRS with a detailed contemporaneous log and travel time. The election to aggregate the properties also was critical to the taxpayers’ victory. If you represent taxpayers who purport to be real estate professionals, you may want to advise them to make an election to aggregate (if they have not already done so), keep a detailed contemporaneous log of the time spent servicing the rental properties, and remember to include travel time in their original log. If you want to learn more about REPs, please join us at our full day seminar entitled Passive Activity Losses on 5/27 or at a special 1/2 day seminar entitled Real Estate Professionals on 6/12 in Waltham. Section 469 continues to be one of the most important, misunderstood, and heavily litigated areas of tax practice today!
I don’t know why I let this one pass. Probably too worried about Kent Hovind.
Our thanks to Todd Weaver of Strategies for College for the following email!
Think that your role as business advisor, family confidant, and tax savings guru is all that you need to be concerned with? Think about this: You can offer a client a choice of $18,000 in tax savings OR a $38,450 college grant. That’s a $20,450 difference. Attend our seminar and find out what actually happened. If you’re not paying attention to clients with college bound kids, you could be saving tax dollars and losing college funding dollars. The ramifications of not being well informed could be very costly.
Come to our seminar entitled Strategies For College on June 24th at the Hyatt house in Waltham in order to learn how to deal with opportunities like this.
I always worry that when tax planning concepts appropriate for the very well heeled get pushed down a level or two that things like college financial aid get lost in the shuffle.
I’ll try not to get so far behind on Lu’s updates again, but I can’t make that a firm promise.