U.S. Supreme Court Divided Over Obamacare Challenge

On Wednesday March 4th, the U.S. Supreme Court appeared divided on ideological lines as it heard oral arguments on IRS’s regulations under the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA’s) premium tax credit provision. In this second major challenge to President Barack Obama’s healthcare law (Obamacare), Justice Anthony Kennedy appeared to be the possible swing vote in a final decision.

Background on ACA provisions:

The ACA credit is designed to make health insurance affordable for taxpayers who meet certain qualifying requirements. It is available for individuals who purchase affordable coverage through Exchanges.

States may establish and operate Exchanges, or the federal government may establish and operate an Exchange in place of the state where a state has chosen not to do so consistent with federal standards.

Exchanges make premium assistance payments (also called “subsidy” or “advance” payments) on the individual’s behalf to health plans, based on information available at the time of enrollment; then, at return time, the individual reconciles the actual credit that he is due with the amount of the subsidy payments that were made.

In describing the premium assistance amount,  ACA tax credit refers to “the monthly premiums for…qualified health plans offered in the individual market…which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State“.

Code Section 5000A requires non-exempt U.S. citizens and legal residents for tax years ending after December 31, 2013 to maintain minimum essential health insurance coverage (e.g., government-sponsored programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Program; eligible employer-sponsored plans; plans purchased in the Exchange) or pay a penalty. This requirement is referred to as the “individual mandate” and the penalty as the “shared responsibility payment.”

There are a number of situations in which individuals are exempt from the penalty imposed by Code Sec. 5000A , including where individuals do not have an affordable health insurance coverage option available (i.e., whose required contribution for minimum essential coverage exceeds a percentage of the taxpayer’s household income-8% for 2014, 8.05% for 2015).

The issue:

In May of 2012, IRS issued regulations that interpreted the ACA tax credit to allow credits for insurance purchased on either a State or federally-established Exchange. Specifically, the regulations provide that a taxpayer may receive a tax credit if he is enrolled in one or more qualified health plans through an Exchange, which IRS defined as an Exchange serving the individual market for qualified individuals, regardless of whether the Exchange is established and operated by a State (including a regional Exchange or subsidiary Exchange) or by Health and Human Services (HHS).

By making credits more widely available, the regulation gives the individual and employer mandates-key provisions of the ACA-broader effect than they would have if credits were limited to state-established Exchanges. As noted above, the individual mandate requires individuals to maintain “minimum essential coverage” and enforces that requirement with a penalty. However, the penalty doesn’t apply to individuals for whom the annual cost of the cheapest available coverage, less any tax credits, would exceed 8% of their projected household income.

Most of the 50 states have not created exchanges. Thirteen states and the District of Columbia have set them up, with another 34 run by the federal government and three operating as state-federal hybrids. Thus, by making tax credits available in the states with federal Exchanges, IRS through its regulations significantly increases the number of people who must purchase health insurance or face a penalty.

If the Supreme Court rules against the Obama administration, up to 7.5 million people in at least 34 states would lose the tax subsidies that help low- and moderate-income people buy private health insurance, according to the consulting firm Avalere Health.

Court challenge:

Taxpayers brought suit against IRS and HHS (Health and Human Services), arguing that regulation § 1.36B-1(k) invalidly interpreted the ACA tax credit provision. On November 7, 2014, the Supreme Court agreed to resolve a Circuit split between the Fourth Circuit upholding the regulation.

Oral arguments before the Supreme Court:

In the Supreme Court’s oral arguments on March 4th, Justice Kennedy, a conservative on the nine-member court who often casts the deciding vote in close cases, raised concerns to lawyers on both sides about the possible negative impact on states if the government loses the case, suggesting he could back the Obama administration. But he did not commit to supporting either side.

The Court’s four liberals all appeared supportive of the government, while conservatives Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito asked questions sympathetic to the challengers. Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, sticking to his usual practice, asked no questions.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who supplied the key vote in a 5-4 ruling in 2012 upholding the law in the previous challenge, said little during the argument to signal how he might vote.

Justice Kennedy’s concerns focused on the possibility that if the law allows subsidies only for states that set up their own insurance exchanges, it would raise a new, more serious question about whether the law is unconstitutionally coercive by essentially punishing states that fail to establish exchanges. “There’s a serious constitutional problem if we adopt your argument,” he said to the challengers’ lawyer, Michael Carvin. Justice Kennedy later said the states would not be giving states a “rational choice” if they had to either set up exchanges or face losing subsidies for their residents. Justice Kennedy said throwing out subsidies would potentially unlawfully pressure states and cause an insurance “death spiral: but Kennedy added that the challengers may win anyway based on the plain meaning of the provision at issue.

Justice Alito disputed Obama administration lawyer Donald Verrilli’s assertions about the disruptive impact of a ruling that allows subsidies only in states that set up their own exchanges. Justice Alito said states could simply establish new exchanges. “Going forward, there would be no harm,” Alito told Verrilli. It was when Mr. Verrilli noted that people would lose tax credits immediately if the government loses, that Justice Alito suggested that if the court rules against the government in the conservative challenge to Obama’s signature domestic policy achievement, it could give states time to prepare for the impact by saying the ruling would only go into effect at the end of the year.

Justice Scalia also noted that Congress could potentially amend the law, although Mr. Verrilli expressed skepticism that the Republican-led House of Representatives and Senate would do so.

One possible outcome is that the Court could find that the law is ambiguous and defer to the government interpretation of the law. In one of his few remarks, Roberts said that would allow a future president to reverse course.

A decision is due by the end of June.

The Small Business Health Care Credit

What is the Credit?

The Small Business Health Care Credit is designed to help you provide health insurance coverage to your employees. For tax years 2010 through 2013, the credit can be up to 35% of your share of your employees’ health insurance premiums; or, if you’re an eligible tax-exempt employer, up to 25% of your share of premiums.

You are an eligible small employer for the tax year if you meet these three requirements.

  1. You paid premiums for employee health insurance coverage under a qualifying arrangement.
  2. You had fewer than 25 full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) for the tax year. You may be able to meet this requirement even if you had 25 or more employees.
  3. You paid average annual wages for the tax year of less than $50,000 per FTE.

For tax years 2014 and later, there are changes to the credit:

  • The credit can be up to 50% of your share of your employees’ health insurance premiums, or, if you’re an eligible tax-exempt employer, up to 35 percent of your share of premiums.
  • You must purchase insurance for your employees through the Small Business Health Options (SHOP) Marketplace.
  • The credit is only available to you for two consecutive years.

For more information contact a Templeton Tax Professional.

 

 

Benefits of a Health Savings Account

Given the ever-escalating cost of providing employee health care benefits we wanted to inform you of a more cost-effective method of providing these benefits; a health savings account (HSA). For eligible individuals, HSAs offer a tax-favorable way for employees to set aside funds (or their employer can do so) to meet future medical needs. Here are the key tax-related elements:

  • contributions employees make to an HSA are deductible, within limits,
  • contributions employers makes aren’t taxed to you,
  • earnings on the funds within the HSA are not taxed, and
  • distributions from the HSA to cover qualified medical expenses are not taxed.

Employee Requirements:

Who is eligible? To be eligible for an HSA, you must be covered by a “high deductible health plan” (discussed below). You must also not be covered by a plan which (1) is not a high deductible health plan, and (2) provides coverage for any benefit covered by your high deductible plan. (It’s okay, however, to be covered by a high deductible plan along with separate coverage, through insurance or otherwise, for accidents, disability, or dental, vision, or long-term care.)

For 2015, a “high deductible health plan” is a plan with an annual deductible of at least $1,300 for self-only coverage, or at least $2,600 for family coverage. For self-only coverage, the 2015  limit on deductible contributions is $3,350. For family coverage, the 2015 limit on deductible contributions is $6,650. Additionally, annual out-of-pocket expenses required to be paid (other than for premiums) for covered benefits cannot exceed $6,450 for self-only coverage or $12,900 for family coverage.

An individual (and the individual’s covered spouse as well) who has reached age 55 before the close of the tax year (and is an eligible HSA contributor) may make additional “catch-up” contributions for 2015 of up to $1,000.

A high deductible health plan does not include a plan if substantially all of the plan’s coverage is for accidents, disability, or dental, vision, or long-term care, insurance for a specified disease or illness, or insurance paying a fixed amount per day (or other period) of hospitalization.

HSAs may be established by, or on behalf of, any eligible individual.

Deduction limits. You can deduct contributions to an HSA for the year up to the total of your monthly limitations for the months you were eligible. For 2015, the monthly limitation on deductible contributions for a person with self-only coverage is 1/12 of $3,350. For an individual with family coverage, the monthly limitation on deductible contributions is 1/12 of $6,650. Thus, deductible contributions are not limited by the amount of the annual deductible under the high deductible health plan.

Also, taxpayers who are eligible individuals during the last month of the tax year are treated as having been eligible individuals for the entire year for purposes of computing the annual HSA contribution.

However, if an individual is enrolled in Medicare, he is no longer an eligible individual under the HSA rules, and so contributions to his HSA can no longer be made.

Contributions may be made to an HSA by or on behalf of an eligible individual even if the individual has no compensation, or if the contributions exceed the individual’s compensation. Contributions made by a family member on behalf of an eligible individual to an HSA (which are subject to the limits described above) are deductible by the eligible individual in computing adjusted gross income.

Further, on a once-only basis, taxpayers can withdraw funds from an IRA, and transfer them tax-free to an HSA. The amount transferred can be up to the maximum deductible HSA contribution for the type of coverage (individual or family) in effect at the time of the transfer. The amount so transferred is excluded from the taxpayer’s gross income, and is not subject to the 10% early withdrawal penalty.

Employer contributions. If you are an eligible individual, and your employer contributes to your HSA, the employer’s contribution is treated as employer-provided coverage for medical expenses under an accident or health plan and is excludable from your gross income up to the deduction limitation, as described above. Further, the employer contributions are not subject to withholding from wages for income tax or subject to FICA or FUTA. The eligible individual cannot deduct employer contributions on his federal income tax return as HSA contributions or as medical expense deductions.

An employer that decides to make contributions on its employees’ behalf must make comparable contributions to the HSAs of all comparable participating employees for that calendar year. If the employer does not make comparable contributions, the employer is subject to a 35% tax on the aggregate amount contributed by the employer to HSAs for that period.

Contributions are comparable if they are either: (1) the same amount; or (2) the same percentage of the annual deductible limit under the high deductible health plan covering the employees. For these purposes, comparable participating employees (1) are covered by the employer’s high deductible health plan and are eligible to establish an HSA; (2) have the same category of coverage (either self-only or family coverage); and (3) have the same category of employment (either part-time or full-time). (IRS regulations provide detailed guidelines for comparable contributions.)

An exception to the comparable contribution requirements applies for contributions made on behalf of non-highly compensated employees. Under this exception, an employer may make larger HSA contributions for non-highly compensated employees than for highly compensated employees.

Employer contributions are also excludable if made at the election of the employee under a salary reduction arrangement that is part of a cafeteria plan (i.e., a plan which allows you to elect to use part of your salary towards a variety of benefits). Although contributions to an employee’s HSA through a cafeteria plan are treated as employer contributions, the comparability rule does not apply to contributions made through a cafeteria plan.

Earnings. If the HSA is set up properly, it is generally exempt from taxation, and there is no tax on earnings. However, taxes may apply if contribution limitations are exceeded, required reports are not provided, or prohibited transactions occur.

Distributions. Distributions from the HSA to cover an eligible individual’s qualified medical expenses, or those of his spouse or dependents, are not taxed. Qualified medical expenses for these purposes generally mean those that would qualify for the medical expense itemized deduction. If funds are withdrawn from the HSA for other reasons, the withdrawal is taxable. Additionally, an extra 20% tax will apply to the withdrawal, unless it is made after reaching age 65, or in the event of death or disability.

Distributions from an HSA exclusively to pay for qualified medical expenses are excludable from the gross income of the account beneficiary even though the beneficiary is no longer an “eligible individual,” e.g., the individual is over age 65 and entitled to Medicare benefits, or no longer has a high deductible health plan.

As you can see, HSAs offer a very flexible option for providing health care coverage, but the rules are somewhat involved. Again, please call if you would like to discuss this topic further.

Property Tax Exemptions on the Radar

Tax-exempt hospitals are entitled to a multitude of federal and state tax benefits, with an estimated total annual value of $12 billion.

By Laura Kalik, JD, LLM in Tax

With numbers this large, just as the federal government has upped the requirements for 501(c) (3) hospitals in the financial assistance and community benefit areas, many jurisdictions are also calling for a return benefit in order to qualify for the property tax exemption. At a minimum, jurisdictions are asking for some kind of compensation to pay for the
benefits provided to the nonprofit. In the case of nonprofit hospitals, some states have enacted legislation that requires a certain amount of charity care or community benefit in order to justify property tax exemptions. Other jurisdictions, however, such as Boston, have entered into arrangements with nonprofits titled “payments in lieu of taxes,” or PILOTs, in which nonprofits compensate local governments for some of the foregone property tax revenue. These payments help subsidize police and fire protection, construction of public schools and other vital operations, and are provided by all types of nonprofit entities, ranging from hospitals to universities.

While common, however, PILOTs are not without controversy. A lack of transparency, the possible political nature of a favorable deal and the question of whether institutions are actually paying their “fair share” are common criticisms of the arrangements.

STATE LEGISLATION

After the Illinois Department of Revenue denied exemptions to several prominent taxexempt hospitals, arguing that they were not operating in a charitable manner, the state enacted a law in 2012 requiring tax-exempt hospitals to provide a certain level of charity care and community benefits commensurate with the value of their property tax exemption. Today, Illinois-based nonprofit hospitals can enjoy a property tax exemption only if they can prove that various factors – including, among others, charity care, preventive care, medical research and professional training – are equal to the value of the property tax exemption.

In Texas, as well, nonprofit hospitals must provide community benefits as a condition of their state tax exemption. Texas law gives a hospital four alternatives that cover combinations of charity care and governmentsponsored indigent health care in amounts equal to varying sums of net patient revenue.

For jurisdictions that do not have laws in place, critics are starting to challenge such exemptions.

A hospital that loses its tax-exempt status or its property tax exemption could face financial
disaster. Bond covenants could require that tax-exempt bonds be called in, turning longer term liabilities into current liabilities. The hospital’s financial difficulties could also ripple out toward the community it serves as, in many jurisdictions, nonprofit hospitals are major employers, and layoffs might be an unintended consequence. Thus, it is critical that communities and nonprofit hospitals come to an agreement on whether some kind of payment arrangement in lieu of taxes is appropriate and useful.

FEDERAL LEGISLATION

The Affordable Care Act introduced section 501(r) into the Internal Revenue Code, which requires a 501(c)(3) hospital to prepare a community health needs assessment (CHNA) and have an implementation strategy to address the findings of the assessment. Though the new federal tax requirements for 501(c)(3) hospitals also include financial assistance, billing and collection, and chargespolicy requirements, there is no requirement to provide a dollar amount or percentage of revenue in charity care or community benefits.

With varying policies on the state and federal level, nonprofit organizations must navigate complex waters in order to maintain their exemptions while carrying out their mission.

If you have any questions regarding property tax exemptions, contact a Templeton Advisor at info@templetonco.com.

This article originally appeared in BDO USA, LLP’s “Nonprofit Standard” newsletter (Summer 2014). Copyright © 2014 BDO USA, LLP. All rights reserved. www.bdo.com

Tax Development Highlights

The following is a summary of the most important tax developments that have occurred in the past three months that may affect you, your family, your investments, and your livelihood. Please call us for more information about any of these developments and what steps you should implement to take advantage of favorable developments and to minimize the impact of those that are unfavorable.

Developments concerning the Affordable Care Act (ACA). 

In the lead-up to the roll out of the health insurance exchanges on Oct. 1, 2013, the IRS issued the following guidance on the ACA:

Individuals:

  • The IRS released Questions and Answers (Q&As) on the health insurance premium tax credit on its website. This credit is designed to make health insurance affordable to individuals with modest incomes (i.e., between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level, or FPL) who are not eligible for other qualifying coverage, such as Medicare, or “affordable” employer-sponsored health insurance plans that provide “minimum value.” To qualify for the credit, individuals must purchase insurance on a health exchange. The Q&As note that individuals can choose to have the credit paid in advance to their insurance company to lower what they pay for their monthly premiums, and then reconcile the amount paid in advance with the actual credit computed when they file their tax return. Alternately, individuals can claim all of the credit when they file their tax return for the year. The Q&As explain exactly who is eligible for the credit and address other important aspects of it.
  • The IRS issued final regulations on the “shared responsibility” payment under the ACA, which is the enforcement mechanism for the ACA’s mandate that most individuals maintain health insurance coverage. Starting in 2014, the individual shared responsibility provision calls for each individual to have basic health insurance coverage (known as minimum essential coverage), qualify for an exemption, or make a shared responsibility payment when filing a federal income tax return. Individuals will not have to make a payment if coverage is unaffordable, if they spend less than three consecutive months without coverage, or if they qualify for an exemption under one of several other reasons, including hardship and religious beliefs. The final regulations address these and other aspects of the shared responsibility payment.

Small Businesses:

  • The IRS issued proposed regulations on the tax credit available to certain small employers that offer health insurance coverage to their employees. This credit is available to an employer with no more than 25 full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) employed during its tax year, and whose employees have annual full-time equivalent wages that average no more than $50,000. However, the full credit is available only to an employer with 10 or fewer FTEs and whose employees have average annual full-time equivalent wages from the employer of not more than $25,000. The proposed regulations would become effective when they are formally adopted as final regulations. However, employers may rely on the proposed regulations for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2013, and before Dec. 31, 2014.

Tax treatment of same-sex spouses. 

The IRS and other Federal agencies issued guidance on the treatment of same-sex spouses and couples for tax and other purposes in light of the Supreme Court’s landmark Windsor  decision striking down section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which had required same-sex spouses to be treated as unmarried for purposes of federal law. The key developments are as follows:

  • Effective as of Sept. 16, 2013, the IRS adopted a “state of celebration” rule in recognizing same-sex marriages. This means that same-sex couples who were legally married in jurisdictions that recognize their marriages (i.e., “state of celebration”) will be treated as married for federal tax purposes, regardless of whether their state of residence recognizes same-sex marriage. Spouse may retroactively apply this rule to open years.
  • Same-sex spouses who were legally married in a state that recognizes same-sex marriages must file their 2013 federal income tax return using either “married filing jointly” or “married filing separately” status, even if they now reside in a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage. Same-sex spouses who file an original 2012 tax return on or after Sept. 16, 2013 also generally must file using a married filing separately or joint filing status. Same-sex spouses may file original or amended returns choosing to be treated as married for federal tax purposes for one or more prior tax years still open under the statute of limitations on refunds.

The IRS provided optional special administrative procedures for employers to use to correct overpayments of employment taxes for 2013 and prior years for certain benefits provided and remuneration paid to same-sex spouses.

The Department of Labor’s (DOL)’s Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) announced that it is following the IRS in recognizing “spouses” and “marriages” based on the validity of the marriage in the state of celebration, rather than based on the married couple’s state of domicile, for purposes of interpreting the meaning of “spouse” and “marriage” as these terms appear in the provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and in Internal Revenue Code provisions that EBSA interprets.

  • In Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) posted on the IRS’s website, the IRS made clear that same-sex and opposite-sex individuals who are in registered domestic partnerships, civil unions, or other similar formal relationships that aren’t marriages under state law aren’t considered as married or spouses for federal tax purposes.

New rules for deducting or capitalizing tangible property costs. 

The IRS issued new regulations for determining whether amounts paid to acquire, produce, or improve tangible property may be currently deducted as business expenses or must be capitalized. Among other things, they provide detailed definitions of “materials and supplies” and “rotable and temporary spare parts” and prescribe rules and elective de minimis and optional methods for handling their cost. They also have rules for differentiating between deductible repairs and capitalizable improvements, among many other items. The regulations generally are effective for tax years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2014, but taxpayers can elect to apply them to certain pre-2014 years.

New rules for dispositions of certain depreciable property. 

The IRS issued proposed regulations that change several of the rules for dispositions of Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System (MACRS) property. While the regulations are not final but merely proposed, taxpayers may rely on them. Included among the changes are rules that no longer treat structural components of a building as separate from the building and rules providing that partial dispositions generally are treated as dispositions.

New simplified relief for late elections pertaining to S corporations. 

The IRS provided simplified methods for taxpayers to request relief for late elections pertaining to S corporations. The relief covers the S corporation election itself, the electing small business trust (ESBT) election, the qualified Subchapter S trust (QSST) election, the qualified Subchapter S subsidiary (QSub) election, and late corporate classification elections which the taxpayer intended to take effect on the same date that the taxpayer intended that an S corporation election for the entity should take effect.

Simplified per-diem increase for post-Sept. 30, 2013 travel.

An employer may pay a per-diem amount to an employee on business-travel status instead of reimbursing actual substantiated expenses for away-from-home lodging, meal and incidental expenses (M&IE). If the rate paid doesn’t exceed IRS-approved maximums, and the employee provides simplified substantiation, the reimbursement isn’t subject to income- or payroll-tax withholding and isn’t reported on the employee’s Form W-2. In general, the IRS-approved per-diem maximum is the GSA per-diem rate paid by the federal government to its workers on travel status. This rate varies from locality to locality. Instead of using actual per-diems, employers may use a simplified “high-low” per-diem, under which there is one uniform per-diem rate for all “high-cost” areas within the continental U.S. (CONUS), and another per-diem rate for all other areas within CONUS. The IRS released the “high-low” simplified per-diem rates for post-Sept. 30, 2013 travel. The high-cost area per-diem increases $9 to $251, and the low-cost area per-diem increases $7 to $170.

Supreme Court to decide FICA tax treatment of severance pay. 

The Supreme Court agreed to review a decision of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit which held that severance payments aren’t wages for purposes of Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax. Thus, the Supreme Court will resolve a circuit split that currently exists between the Sixth and Federal Circuit Courts on the issue.

Please don’t hesitate to contact us at info@templetonco.com or 561-798-9988 to begin discussing options specific to your tax situation.

What you need to know about the tax provisions in the 2012 American Taxpayer Relief Act

The 2012 American Taxpayer Relief Act, signed into law on Jan. 2, 2013 by President Obama, is a sweeping tax package that addresses the permanent extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for most taxpayers, revises the tax rates on ordinary and capital gain income for high-income individuals, modifies the estate tax, offers permanent relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax [AMT] for individual taxpayers, limits the deductions and exemptions of high-income individuals, and provides a host of retroactively resuscitated and extended tax breaks for individual and businesses. Here’s a rundown of the package:

  • Tax rates. For tax years beginning after 2012, the 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35% tax brackets from the Bush tax cuts will remain in place and are made permanent. This means that, for most Americans, the tax rates will stay the same. However, there will be a new 39.6% rate, which will begin at the following thresholds: $400,000 (single), $425,000 (head of household), $450,000 (joint filers and qualifying widow(er)s), and $225,000 (married filing separately). These dollar amounts will be inflation-adjusted for tax years after 2013.
  • Estate tax. The new law prevents steep increases in estate, gift and generation-skipping transfer (GST) tax that were slated to occur for dying individuals and gifts made after 2012 by permanently keeping the exemption level at $5,000,000 (as indexed for inflation). The new law, however, permanently increases the top estate, gift, and GST rate from 35% to 40% It also continues the portability feature that allows the estate of the first spouse to die to transfer his or her unused exclusion to the surviving spouse. All changes are effective fore individuals dying and gifts made after 2012.
  • Capital gains and qualified dividends rates. The top rate for capital gains and dividends beginning in 2013 will be 23.8% if income falls in the 39.6% tax bracket. For lower income levels, the tax will be 0%, 15%, or 18.8%.
  • Personal exemption phase-out. Beginning in 2013, personal exemptions will be phased out (i.e., reduced) for adjusted gross income over $250,000 (single), $275,000 (head of household) and $300,000 (joint filers). Taxpayers claim exemptions for themselves, their spouses and their dependents. Last year, each exemption was worth $3,800.
  • Itemized deduction limitation. Beginning in 2013, itemized deductions will be limited for adjusted gross income over $250,000 (single), $275,000 (head of household) and $300,000 (joint filers).
  • AMT relief. The new law provides permanent AMT relief. Prior to the Act, the individual AMT exemption amounts for 2012 were to have been $33,750 for unmarried taxpayers, $45,000 for joint filers, and $22,500 for married persons filing separately. Retroactively effective for tax years beginning after 2011, the new law permanently increases these exemption amounts to $50,600 for unmarried taxpayers, $78,750 for joint filers and $39,375 for married persons filing separately. In addition, for tax years beginning after 2012, it indexes these exemption amounts for inflation.
  • Tax credits for low to middle wage earners. The new law extends for five years the following items that were originally enacted as part of the 2009 stimulus package and were slated to expire at the end of 2012: (1) the American Opportunity tax credit, which provides up to $2,500 in refundable tax credits for undergraduate college education; (2) eased rules for qualifying for the refundable child credit; and (3) various earned income tax credit (EITC) changes.
  • Cost recovery. The new law extends increased expensing limitations and treatment of certain real property as Code Section 179 property. It also extends and modifies the bonus depreciation provisions with respect to property placed in service after Dec. 31, 2012, in tax years ending after that date.
  • Tax break extenders. Many of the “traditional” tax extenders are extended for two years, retroactively to 2012 and through the end of 2013. Among many others, the extended provisions include the election to take an itemized deduction for state and local general sales taxes in lieu of the itemized deduction for state and local income taxes, the $250 above-the-line deduction for certain expenses of elementary and secondary school teachers, and the research credit.
  • Pension provision. For transfers after Dec. 31, 2012, in tax years ending after that date, plan provision in an applicable retirement plan (which includes a qualified Roth contribution program) can allow participants to elect to transfer amounts to designated Roth accounts with the transfer being treated as a taxable qualified rollover contribution.
  • Payroll tax cut is no more. The 2% payroll tax cut was allowed to expire at the end of 2012.

Tax breaks for businesses from the 2012 American Taxpayer Relief Act

In addition to the lofty package of tax relief for individuals, the recently enacted 2012 American Taxpayer Relief Act extends a host of important tax breaks for businesses. We’ve put together a list to give you an overview of its impact. For more detailed information and to determine how it will affect your business, give us a call at 561-798-9988.

The following depreciation provisions are retroactively extended by the Act:

  • Fifteen-year straight line cost recovery for qualified leasehold improvements, qualified restaurant buildings and improvements, and qualified retail improvements.
  • Seven-year recovery period for motor sports entertainment complexes.
  • Accelerated depreciation for business property on an Indian reservation.
  • Increased expensing limitations and treatment of certain real property as Section 179 property;
  • Special expensing rules for certain film and television productions; and
  • The election to expense mine safety equipment.

The new law also extends and modifies the bonus depreciation provisions with respect to property placed in service after Dec. 31, 2012, in tax years ending after that date.

The following business credits and special rules are also extended:

  • The research credit is modified and retroactively extended for two years through 2013.
  • The temporary minimum low-income tax credit rate for nonfederally subsidized new buildings is extended to apply to housing credit dollar amount allocations made before Jan. 1, 2014.
  • The housing allowance exclusion for determining area median gross income for qualified residential rental project exempt facility bonds is extended two years.
  • The Indian employment tax credit is retroactively extended for two years through 2013.
  • The new markets tax credit is retroactively extended for two years through 2013.
  • The railroad track maintenance credit is retroactively extended for two years through 2013.
  • The mine rescue team training credit is retroactively extended for two years through 2013.
  • The employer wage credit for employees who are active duty members of the uniformed services is retroactively extended for two years through 2013.
  • The work opportunity tax credit is retroactively extended for two years through 2013.
  • Qualified zone academy bonds are retroactively extended for two years through 2013.
  • The enhanced charitable deduction for contributions of food inventory is retroactively extended for two years through 2013.
  • Allowance of the domestic production activities deduction for activities in Puerto Rico applies for the first eight tax years of the taxpayer beginning after Dec. 31, 2005, and before Jan. 1, 2014.
  • Exclusion from a tax-exempt organization’s unrelated business taxable income (UBTI) of interest, rent, royalties, and annuities paid to it from a controlled entity is extended through Dec. 31, 2013.
  • Treatment of certain dividends of regulated investment companies (RICs) as “interest-related dividends” is extended through Dec. 31, 2013.
  • Inclusion of RICs in the definition of a “qualified investment entity” is extended through Dec. 31, 2013.
  • The exception under subpart F for active financing income (i.e., certain income from the active conduct of a banking, financing, insurance or similar business) for tax years of a foreign corporation beginning after Dec. 31, 1998, and before Jan. 1, 2014, for tax years of foreign corporations beginning after Dec. 31, 2005, and before Jan. 1, 2014.
  • Look-through treatment for payments between related controlled foreign corporations (CFCs) under the foreign personal holding company rules is extended through Jan. 1, 2014.
  • Exclusion of 100% of gain on certain small business stock acquired before Jan. 1, 2014.
  • Basis adjustment to stock of S corporations making charitable contributions of property in tax years beginning before Dec. 31, 2013.
  • The reduction in S corporation recognition period for built-in gains tax is extended through 2013, with a 10-year period instead of a 5-year period.
  • Various empowerment zone tax incentive, including the designation of an empowerment zone and of additional empowerment zones (extended through Dec. 31, 2013) and the period for which the percentage exclusion for qualified small business stock (of a corporation which is a qualified business entity) is 60% (extended through Dec. 31, 2018).
  • Tax-exempt financing for New York Liberty Zone is extended for bonds issued before Jan. 1 2014.
  • Temporary increase in limit on cover over rum excise taxes to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands is extended for spirits brought into the U.S. before Jan. 1, 2014.
  • American Samoa economic development credit, as modified, is extended through Jan. 1, 2014.

For additional information, contact either Steve Leone, CPA, sleone@templetonco.com or Emma Pfister, CPA,epfister@templetonco.com.

2013 Tax Planning

People get ready.

More individuals will be snared by the alternative minimum tax (AMT), and various deductions. Other tax breaks will be unavailable. As a result of expiring Bush-era tax cuts, individuals will face higher tax rates next year on their income, including capital gains and dividends, and estate tax rates will also be higher. AMT became problematic this year because exemptions have dropped and fewer personal credits can be used to offset them.

Additionally, a number of tax provisions expired at the end of 2011 or will expire at the end of 2012. For example, rules that expired at the end of 2011 include:

  • Research credit for businesses.
  • Election to take an itemized deduction for state and local general sales taxes instead of the itemized deduction permitted for state and local income taxes.
  • Above-the-line deduction for qualified tuition expenses.
  • Rules that expire at the end of 2012 include:
  • Generous bonus depreciation allowances and expensing allowances for business.
  • Expanded tax credits for higher education costs.


Remember, these adverse tax consequences are by no means a certainty as Congress and President Obama could extend the Bush-era tax cuts for some or all taxpayers and retroactively “patch” the AMT for 2012. This would increase exemptions and availability of credits, revive some favorable expired tax rules and extend those that are slated to expire at the end of this year. 

But – this is not the time for inaction. The prospect of higher taxes next year makes it even more important to engage in year-end planning now.

We’ve put together a list of considerations for individuals and businesses that will guide you through these challenges. While not all actions will apply to your particular situation, many of these moves may benefit you. For further explanation or clarification, please call us at 561-798-9988.

Year-End Tax Planning Moves for Individuals

• Increase your FSA. Set aside more for next year in your employer’s health flexible spending account (FSA). Next year, the maximum contribution to a health FSA is $2,500. Remember – you will no longer be able to set aside amounts to get tax-free reimbursements for over-the-counter drugs, such as aspirin and antacids. 
• Make HSA contributions. If you became eligible to make health savings account (HSA) contributions late this year (even in December), you can make a full year’s worth of deductible HSA contributions even if you were not eligible to make HSA contributions for the entire year. 
• Realize losses on stock while preserving your investments. There are several ways this can be done. For example, you can sell the original holding then buy back the same securities at least 31 days later. It would be advisable for us to meet to discuss year-end trades you should consider making. 
• Sell assets before year-end. If you are thinking of selling assets that are likely to yield large gains, such as inherited, valuable stock, or a vacation home in a desirable resort area, make the sale before year-end while still paying attention to the market. 
• Sell and repurchase stock. You may own appreciated-in-value stock and want to lock in a 15% tax rate on the gain, but you think the stock still has plenty of room to grow. In this situation, consider selling the stock and then repurchasing it. You’ll pay a maximum tax of 15% on long-term gain from the stock you sell. You also will wind up with a higher basis (cost, for tax purposes) in the repurchased stock. 
• Make contributions to Roth IRAs. Roth IRA payouts are tax-free and immune from the threat of higher tax rates, as long as they are made after a five-year period, and on or attaining age 59-½, after death or disability, or for a first-time home purchase. 
• Convert traditional IRAs to Roth IRAs. This will help you avoid a possible hike in tax rates next year. Also, although a 2013 conversion won’t be hit by the 3.8% tax on unearned income, it could trigger that tax on your non-IRA gains, interest, and dividends. Conversions, however, should be approached with caution because they will increase your adjusted gross income [AGI] for 2012. 
• Take required minimum distributions from retirement plans. This is applicable if you have reached age 70-½. Failure to take a required withdrawal can result in a penalty equal to 50% of the amount of the RMD not withdrawn. If you turn age 70-½ this year, you can delay the first required distribution to 2013, but if you do, you will have to take a double distribution in 2013—the amount required for 2012 plus the amount required for 2013. Think twice before doing this. 
• Deduct your medical expenses. This year, unreimbursed medical expenses are deductible to the extent they exceed 7.5% of your AGI, but in 2013, for individuals under age 65, these expenses will be deductible only to the extent they exceed 10% of AGI. 
• Shelter gifts. Make gifts sheltered by the annual gift tax exclusion before the end of the year to save gift and estate taxes. You can give $13,000 in 2012 to each of an unlimited number of individuals but you can’t carry over unused exclusions from one year to the next. 

Year-End Tax Planning Moves for Business Owners

• Consider stock redemption. If your business is incorporated, consider taking money out of the business through a stock redemption. The buy-back of the stock may yield long-term capital gain or a dividend, depending on a variety of factors. But either way, you’ll be taxed at a maximum rate of only 15% if you act this year. Wait until next year and your long-term gains or dividends may be taxed at a higher rate if reform plans are instituted or the Bush-era tax cuts expire. Contact us for help on executing an effective pre-2013 corporate distribution. • Hire a veteran. If you are thinking of adding to payroll, consider hiring a qualifying veteran before year-end to qualify for a work opportunity tax credit (WOTC). Under current law, the WOTC for qualifying veterans won’t be available for post-2012 hires. The WOTC for hiring veterans ranges from $2,400 to $9,600, depending on a variety of factors (such as the veteran’s period of unemployment and whether he or she has a service-connected disability). 
• Put new business equipment and machinery in service. This will allow you to qualify for the 50% bonus first-year depreciation allowance. Unless Congress acts, this bonus depreciation allowance generally won’t be available for property placed in service after 2012. (Certain specialized assets may, however, be placed in service in 2013.) 
• Make expenses qualifying for the business property expensing option. The maximum amount you can expense for a tax year beginning in 2012 is $139,000 of the cost of qualifying property placed in service for that tax year. The $139,000 amount is reduced by which the cost of qualifying property placed in service during 2012 exceeds $560,000 (the investment ceiling). For tax years beginning in 2013, unless Congress makes a change, the expensing limit will be $25,000 and the investment ceiling will be $200,000. 
• Buy a SUV. If you are in the market for a business car, and your taste runs to large, consider buying heavy SUVs (those built on a truck chassis and rated at more than 6,000 pounds gross (loaded) vehicle weight). Due to a combination of favorable depreciation and expensing rules, you may be able to write off most of the cost this year. Next year, the write off rules may not be as generous. 

These considerations are just the beginning to creating a plan that will work for you. Whether you are planning for your family or business, contact us to discuss these options further.

Health care

Health care continues to be one of the more contemptuous issues our country faces. And no wonder, in 2011 alone, the U.S. spent $8,400 per person compared to the next highest-spending country, Norway at $5,352.

Since 2002, family premiums for employer-sponsored health care have increased by a whopping 97 percent placing the cost burdens on employers and workers.

The drivers of these cost increases include an aging Baby Boomer generation that is creating more patients and more treatments, a need for long term care for chronic illnesses, more sophisticated treatments and technology, and increasing inefficiencies, malpractice and administrative costs.

On March 23, 2010 President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (otherwise known as ObamaCare) into law. This law, while intending to offer more affordable health care to individuals and families, requires much employer compliance and action.

Overall the Act requires most U.S. citizens and legal residents to have health insurance by creating state-based American Health Benefit Exchanges through which individuals can purchase coverage, with premium and cost-sharing credits. These credits are available to individuals and families with income between 133-400 percent of the federal poverty level.

Separate Exchanges will also be created that will allow small businesses to purchase coverage. Employers will be required to pay for penalties for employees who receive tax credits for health insurance through an Exchange, with exceptions for small employers. New regulations on the health plans in these Exchanges will also be imposed in the individual and small group markets. Medicaid will also be expanded to 133 percent of the federal poverty level.

As this law moves into action and even if it is repealed, one thing is certain – change. It’s clear that quality, price and service are often sacrificed in the current health care model. So the change will have to come from employers, providers, physicians, payers and insurers. This is how:

• Employer driven change – 60 percent of the under 65 population have insurance through their employers and all are negatively impacted by escalating costs and inadequate quality. As a result, educating those employees is a must as well as focusing more on wellness and prevention.

• Provider/Physician change – Health care providers will go from a fee-based model to a newer value-based model and focus on being more accountable in their care. There will be consolidation and newer business models that require increased use of data analytics and clinical intelligence.

• Payer/Insurer change – By moving the focus away from claims processing to more collaboration in an effort to improve care and manage costs. There will also be a shift from administrator to supplier of data analytics/clinical intelligence.

So the question becomes for employers – are you going to pay or play ObamaCare?

Play means employers offer minimum essential coverage to all of your full-time employees.

Pay is an excise tax if you do not offer minimum essential coverage (or any coverage) and at least one of your full-time employees is certified as having enrolled in coverage through a state health exchange for which he or she received a premium tax credit or cost sharing reduction. This tax is applicable to employers with 50 or more full-time employees on average per business day. The monthly penalty (non deductible) is $166.67 (1/12 of $2,000) times the total number of full-time employees for the month minus 30.

What to do?

Look at your workforce Employers need to evaluate their workforce and look at their employees (both full-time and part-time) and see if any could be reclassified as employees for purposes of the mandate.

Business structure Employers also need to understand if their current business structure or model could cause the company to be subject to the employer mandate – and see if there are circumstances under which they could restructure to avoid the mandate.

Learn about Health Insurance Exchanges Examine the relationship between the employer mandate and the individual mandate and how the health insurance Exchanges that will be put in place in 2014 will provide opportunities for some employers and many individuals to acquire such coverage.

Florida recently returned $1 million planning grant to the federal government and has set up a non-ACA compliant health care initiative. However, if the state doesn’t set up an ACA compliant exchange, the federal government will.

Employers need to act now and consider an overall benefit redesign with an emphasis on better employee health. They should also set up and access information systems and reporting for compliance and start discussions with payers and providers that consider risk sharing.

Though overturning ObamaCare would mean relief from this compliance burden and potential penalties, it doesn’t necessarily change the need for an employer’s strategic evaluation of their workforce, business structure, overall plan design and employee communications.

This work upfront can save you a lot of heartache and expense down the road.

 For more information, please e-mail info@templetonco.com.

Issues facing businesses

By: Steven Templeton, CPA, CVA, Managing Partner

International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS)

After the Enron debacle, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) assumed a leadership role in the rush toward an international set of accounting standards (IFRS).  The long and proud independent standard setting process in the United States of America is being phased out in favor of an international standard setting process with an international governing body, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB).  So what’s the big deal?

Confusing Standards?

So will we have a single, simple, principles-based global set of accounting standards?  Not so fast, my friend!  Initially, public companies will be required to convert to IFRS while private US companies could choose to adopt IFRS for small- and mid-sized entities or could, along with not-for-profit organizations, continue to report under generally accepted accounting principles in the United States.  Bankers, investors, analysts and other users of financial statements will need to be cognizant of the differences and understand them in order to properly analyze financial statements and make useful industry comparisons.

The AICPA released results of a survey showing that more than 80% of AICPA Council members strongly support GAAP differences for U.S. private companies and not-for-profit entities from the international GAAP that will be required for U.S. public companies.  It’s safe to say that the support for a universal adoption of IFRS for public and private companies alike is weak.

Interestingly, Charles Niemeier is also more broadly challenging the conversion to IFRS. He was a member of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board and was previously the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission chief accountant in the Division of Enforcement and co-chair of the SEC Financial Fraud Task Force. Overall, he is not in favor of switching from U.S. GAAP to IFRS, and suggests that we continue to fix what’s broken as opposed to converting to a whole new set of less mature standards.

Convergence or Conversion?

Early on, the IFRS conversation centered around “convergence,” giving one the impression of an evolutionary process whereby US standard setters would work with the global International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) to achieve a common set of high-quality, accepted accounting principles.  As it stands today, there are broad areas of disagreement between IFRS and US GAAP and a myriad of issues addressed by US GAAP with a non-existing IFRS counterpart.  In short, US public companies are being required to convert from US GAAP, the gold standard of accounting principles, to the inferior, less developed international standards.  Rather than allow IFRS to converge with US GAAP over time, the international G-20 leaders have called for the new global set of accounting standards to be completed by June 2011, ready or not!

Here’s what Mr. Niemeier had to say about the process of converging United States generally accepted accounting principles with IFRS:

“I agree with the original goal of the International Accounting Standards Board and Financial Accounting Standards Board to enhance comparability of financial reporting by converging their standards based on quality.  Unfortunately, in the last few months the focus has changed from achieving comparability of financial reporting to establishing a set timetable to switch the U.S. to IFRS. This change de-emphasizes the quality of the standards in favor of speed, and appears to be more based in politics than in what is in the best interests of investors.  For a number of reasons, I believe that this new path has the potential of de-linking us from our current regulatory model. Instead, in my view, we need to return to a policy of convergence, where we focus on substantive milestones, not timing.”

At What Cost?

Larger public companies are beginning to assess the enormous cost and effort required to convert their transaction processing and financial reporting systems to accommodate IRFS.  If accounting is the language of business, IFRS adopter company personnel, including accounting staff, business managers, executives, and board members, must learn this new foreign language.

Barry C. Melancon, AICPA president and CEO, has called for a permanent, independent funding mechanism for the International Accounting Standards Committee Foundation, the governing body of the IASB.  In the United States, the AICPA will encourage the Securities and Exchange Commission to use part of the current levy on U.S. public companies for accounting standard setting activities as a permanent funding source for the IASB, Melancon said.

Who Will Write the Rules and Who Pays?

There will be 16 IASB standard writers of which only two will be from the United States.  Naturally, the United States will provide the super majority of the IFRS funding.

It’s Time to Get Involved.

IFRS is not an issue best left to the back office bean counters to deal with.  Now is the time for all U.S. financial system stakeholders to understand the movement toward IFRS and consider the possible ramifications, good or bad.  Interested parties should take the following steps:

  • Monitor the progress of the IFRS convergence/conversion and take appropriate action.
  • Learn: Attend relevant seminars on the subject matter
  • Share: Inform others within and without your organization to properly prepare for the transition.
  • Speak out: Let the AICPA, the SEC and others know your views on IFRS, its applicability to U.S. public and private companies, and the proposed implementation timetable.

It is our responsibility to our profession and our clients to stay abreast of this issue and do what we can to make sure that international politics do not trump good sense and that the baby is not discarded with the bathwater.

For more information on IFRS or any other accounting concerns,  please contact: info@templetonco.com