Not exactly tax related, but…

The other day, I heard on the news over the radio about a study that shows that roughly one third of all car loans taken out are for 7 years or longer. They were of the opinion that this is a sign of a bad economy, but I see this as a sign of many people making dumb financial decisions. If you have to finance a car for 7 years or longer, in my view you are buying too much car for your budget. There are a couple of reasons I see this as a dumb financial decision:

  1. Cars tend to depreciate rather quickly in value so for most people, as soon as you drive it off the lot, you owe more on the vehicle than it is worth.
  2. Most people don’t even keep there cars for 7 years or longer, which means you would usually either have to pay more out of pocket to get rid of the loan on the car you no longer have, or you could keep making payments on a car that you no longer own.

In my mind, neither of these is a wise option. I know a lot of people who make very good money, but do not know how or don’t pay attention to how there money is spent so they end up struggling financially. I have clients that make 5 times as much as I do that are living paycheck to paycheck because they haven’t taken control of how they spend money. In our society, no matter how much money you make, it is easy to outspend your income.

Last year, I bought a car for cash, but let’s say instead that I took out a 7 year loan to buy it. Let’s assume I budgeted 800 per month for the car payment. (67,200 over the life of the loan) I could get a lot of car for that amount of money. Instead, I paid a fraction of that amount for a used Toyota Prius with low miles. With the rest of that money I can finish paying off my wife’s masters degree, finance our 3 week trip to Europe next summer and put the balance towards retirement savings.

If you can afford a great luxury car, then great, go buy it. But to me, financing a car for 7 years or more is a good sign you are buying more car than you can afford.

Employee vs. Independent Contractor – it’s getting interesting in California

Over the years in my tax practice, one common question that keeps coming up is whether a worker should be treated as an independent contractor or as an employee. The answer to that question is quickly evolving in California. For many years the rules for determining worker status were the same for federal and California. But last year, thanks to a decision in the California Supreme Court, that changed.

Under the old rules numerous factors were evaluated to determine whether someone was an employee or an independent contractor. The Supreme Court case decided last year used a 3 part test sometimes called the ABC test to determine the proper classification of workers. The 3 part test is more restrictive than the multi-factor test. The main difference is that in the ABC test you are presumed to be an employee unless you meet all 3 of the tests. The biggest difference in the two approaches is that the 2nd test of the 3 is that anyone hired to do a core function in your business must be an employee. As an example, if Big Trucking Company hires a truck driver, he must be an employee since he is involved in the core function of the business. On the other hand, if Big Trucking hires someone to fix the office copy machine, that worker could be deemed an independent contractor since repairing copy machines is not a core function in a trucking company.

Last years Supreme Court case only applied to wage claims so for regular employment tax purposes, California still evaluated workers based on the multi-factor test, but wage claims (handled by the Department of Industrial Relations) used the ABC test to determine the correct worker status. Last week I attended a payroll tax seminar sponsored by EDD and DIR and the representatives of both agencies confirmed that they were using different methods to determine worker classification.

However, that was last week. Also last week the California legislature passed AB 5. On Wednesday of this week Governor Newsom signed this law which makes the ABC test mandatory for all California employers unless they meet one of numerous exceptions enumerated in the law. Most of this law takes effect on January 1, 2020 so many independent contractors in California will need to be reclassified as employees to comply with this new law.

If you are a California employer, I urge you to meet with your tax professional to determine if you need to make any changes for your workers. The full text of AB 5 can be found here. We would be happy to answer any questions you may have regarding how this new law will impact your business in California.

Can the IRS revoke your passport?

Thanks to the FAST act passed by congress in 2015, the IRS now has another tool to use to collect back taxes by revoking the passports of taxpayers with seriously delinquent tax debt. As of now, seriously delinquent tax debt must be at least 52,000 dollars and meet other criteria. If the IRS determines that a person has “seriously delinquent tax debt”, they can now notify the State Department who can then deny a passport application or renewal and can also revoke a current passport. Before notifying the state department, the IRS will send Notice CP508C to the taxpayer.

So, if you owe less than 52,000 you will not receive this notice. If you owe more than 52,000 but have made arrangements to pay your back taxes or are experiencing a financial hardship and are deemed to be “currently not collectible ” then you should not receive this notice. The moral of this story is that ignoring IRS collection letters can cause you to lose your passport. But, if you are working with them, you should not have this problem. Anyone receiving Notice CP508C who needs help dealing with this issue can contact a local tax professional such as an Enrolled Agent to review your options to resolve the matter as quickly as possible.

Both parties unite to repeal Obamacare Provision

In a rare instance of unity in the House of Representatives, both parties voted overwhelmingly in favor of repealing a provision of Obamacare known as the “cadillac tax.” The vote was 419 to 6 to repeal this unpopular provision which would levy a 40% surcharge on employers for providing too much health insurance to their employees. This surcharge was supposed to help pay for the cost of Obamacare but the implementation has already been delayed until 2022 and now if it passes the senate and gets signed into law the provision will be gone for good.

There was a lot of opposition to this provision from unions and other employers who tried to attract the best employees by offering exceptional health insurance. If the cadillac tax is not repealed, it will be much more expensive for employers to be able to continue providing the kind of health care that there employees have been accustomed to receiving in recent years.

Trump’s Tax Returns

It seems that the obsession to obtain our president’s tax returns is still alive and well among certain democrats and members of the media. Some democrats say that Trump must turn over his returns based on an “obscure 1924 law” that gives the House Ways and Means committee the right to review anyone’s tax returns. One argument I have heard multiple times is that the Ways and Means committee can obtain the returns and then vote to release them to the public. The Trump administration has made various arguments claiming that there are other laws which override the request from the House Ways and Means Committee.

I’m certainly not a constitutional law expert, so I won’t attempt to comment on the administrations arguments, but I am familiar with tax law. The “obscure 1924 law” that the democrats are referring to is currently known as Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code. The general rule that the IRS must follow is that tax return information is confidential and cannot be shared with anyone for any reason. Exceptions to that general rule are found in Section 6103. If Section 6103 overrides any other laws, then the democrats are partially correct. IRC Section 6103 (f) gives 3 congressional committees the authority to review any tax return. However, at the end of IRC 6103(f)(1) it reads ” only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure. ” So there are 3 committees that have the authority to review any tax return in closed executive session, but they do not have the authority to release any return information without the written consent of the taxpayer.

Personally, there are many things I think are more important than finding out what is on President’Trump’s tax returns. However, one positive thing I see in this whole debate is that apparently the IRS takes it’s mission to protect the confidentiality of private tax information very seriously. In recent years we have seen numerous leaks of information from congress, the executive branch and the nations top law enforcement agencies. But to date, no one at the IRS has leaked the private tax information of the president, in spite of the public outcry for that information. At least in this area, the IRS is doing it’s job well.

Charitable giving and tax reform

I saw several predictions from various sources that charitable organizations would suffer greatly from the tax reform act. Because of the large increases to standard deductions in the tax reform act, far less taxpayers are itemizing deductions. Therefore the prediction was that since less people would get a tax benefit from charitable deductions that many would stop donating to charities.

I have always believed that people donated to charity because they cared about the particular cause they were supporting and not because of the tax deduction. According to a survey by the Blackbaud Institute, apparently I was right. Although far less taxpayers benefited from charitable deductions, overall charitable giving increased by roughly 1.5% according to their data.

Many people are very confused when it comes to tax law and believe that anything that lowers their tax liability must be a good thing. Let me briefly explain how a taxpayer benefits from a charitable contribution. Let’s assume that Tommy Taxhater is single and makes over 500,000 in income and is in the top tax bracket of 37%. If he already has enough deductions to benefit from itemizing deductions, an additional 10,000 donation to a qualified charity would save him 3,700 in federal taxes. (10,000 x 37%) What a great deal. Tommy just paid 10,000 for a 3,700 dollar benefit. If Tommy is passionate about the charity and wants to give them 10,000 then he gets to support the charity of his choice and also as a bonus he gets a tax deduction, but donating solely for a tax deduction makes no sense.

If you happen to know anyone who still insists on doing things solely because they are tax deductible, I would be happy to direct them to a number of local charities that could make good use of however much they would like to donate.

Who can you trust for tax advice?

The IRS has a website with some useful information for taxpayers but is their information always accurate?  This morning I was looking at a news release from their site containing a table comparing business tax provisions before and after TCJA.  Here’s a snippet from their explanation about the new limitation on deducting business interest.

“The change limits deductions for business interest incurred by certain businesses. Generally, for businesses with 25 million or less in average annual gross receipts, business interest expense is limited to business interest income plus 30% of the business’s adjusted taxable income and floor-plan financing interest”

Unfortunately the opposite is true.  Businesses with over 25 million in gross receipts are subject to the new limitations while businesses with gross receipts of 25 million or less are exempt.  I suppose that they will eventually find and correct this error, but I would suggest that if you want accurate advice you go to a competent tax professional to verify what you see from the IRS.  We at L&S Tax Services can help you with any questions you may have about how the new changes can affect your individual situation.

Wesley Snipes loses to IRS again.

After serving 3 years in prison for failing to file tax returns and filing fraudulent claims, Wesley Snipes still can’t win with the IRS.  He owed roughly 23.5 million in federal taxes and filed an Offer In Compromise offering to pay roughly 850,000 to settle his debt with the IRS.  The Offer In Compromise program allows people to settle their debt by offering less than they owe, but the offer will not be accepted by the IRS unless it reflects the RCP.  (Reasonable Collection Potential)  The IRS originally calculated his RCP as over 17 million dollars.  Their investigation showed that he owned numerous assets through various entities he controlled.  After further negotiations they reduced their calculation to 9.5 million dollars.  

Wesley appealed their decision to tax court but lost again.  He couldn’t convince the judge that the IRS position was wrong. The Offer In Compromise is one of several alternatives available for someone who owes back taxes.  A competent tax professional such as an Enrolled Agent can assist you in determining the best options available for your given situation.