Middle Class Tax Relief & Job Creation

On December 13th, 2011 the house passed  H.R. 3630, the “Middle Class Tax Relief & Job Creation Act of 2011. If the Middle Class Tax Relief & Job Creation Act of 2011does become law what real world implications would have?

First, maybe you noticed that at the beginning of 2011 you started taking home more in your paycheck. That is because there was a 2% reduction in workers payroll taxes and self-employment tax. So employees have been saving 2% of FICA taxes all thru 2011; H.R. 3630 extends that 2% reduction for 2012.

Also, 100% bonus depreciation “for most assets” is set to expire at the end 2011. Under current law, business taxpayers must generally depreciate the cost of capital assets over several years, with the exact period depending on the asset. Under legislation enacted in late 2010, qualifying property purchased (and placed into service) after September 8, 2010 and before January 1, 2012, is eligible as “100-percent bonus depreciation under which the cost of the property is immediately deductible that year. If H.R. 3630 is not passed, the tax benefit is set to expire. For small business owners, this means you can “expense” a new equipment all in one year.                                                                                                                                    

Now it isn’t certain the Middle Class tax Relief & Job Creation act of 2011 will become law. We should know in the next few weeks. We will update any changes as they become available.

If you would like to read more,  visit our website

 

Section by Section

Section-by-Section for The Middle Class Tax Relief &

Job Creation Act of 2011 – H.R. 3630

 TITLE I – JOB CREATION INCENTIVES 

Subtitle A – North American Energy Access 

Section 1001. Short Title: This section provides the short title of “North American Energy Security Act.”

Section 1002. Permit for Keystone XL Pipeline: Subsection (a) requires the President to grant a permit under Executive Order 13337 for the Keystone XL pipeline project application filed on September 19, 2008 (including amendments), subject to subsection (b).

Subsection (b) provides that the President is not required to grant the permit under subsection (a) if he determines that the Keystone XL pipeline would not serve the national interest.

If the President determines that the Keystone XL pipeline is not in the national interest, Subsection (b) requires that he, not later than 15 days after the date of the determination, submit to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, the majority leader of the Senate, the minority leader of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the minority leader of the House of Representatives a report that provides a justification for determination, including consideration of economic, employment, energy security, foreign policy, trade, and environmental factors.

Subsection (b) also provides that if the President takes no action under this section within 60 days after enactment of this Act, the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline described in subsection (a) that meets the requirements of subsections (c) and (d) shall be in effect by operation of law.

Subsection (c) Requires the permittee to comply with all applicable Federal and State laws (including regulations) and all applicable industrial codes regarding the construction, connection, operation, and maintenance of the United States facilities; to obtain all requisite permits from Canadian authorities and relevant Federal, State, and local governmental agencies; to take all appropriate measures to prevent or mitigate any adverse environmental impact or disruption of historic properties in connection with the construction, operation, and maintenance of the United States facilities.

Subsection (c) also provides that the final environmental impact statement issued by the Secretary of State on August 26, 2011, satisfies the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act; that any modification required by the Secretary of State to the pipeline Plan described in the final 2 environmental impact statement not require supplementation of the final environmental impact statement; and that no further Federal environmental review is required.

Subsection (c ) also requires that construction, operation, and maintenance of the facilities be similar to what was described in the application for construction authorization in 2008 and in accordance with the construction, mitigation, and reclamation measures in the final environmental impact statement of August 26, 2011, subject to: the modification described in subsection (d) and special conditions agreed to between the permittee and the Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration; the measures agreed to by the permittee for the Sand Hills region found in the final environmental impact statement (if the modified route submitted by the Governor of Nebraska under Subsection (d)crosses the Sand Hills); stipulations in appendix S of the final environmental impact statement; and other requirements that are standard industry practice or commonly included in similar Federal permits.

Subsection (d) requires the reconsideration of routing of the Keystone XL pipeline within the State of Nebraska; a review period during which routing within the State of Nebraska may be reconsidered and the route through Nebraska altered. This subsection also requires the President to coordinate review with Nebraska, to provide any necessary data and technical assistance; and to approve the route in Nebraska as submitted to the Secretary of State by the Governor of Nebraska.

Subsection (e) provides that If the President does not approve the reroute within Nebraska submitted by the Governor of Nebraska not later than 10 days after it is submitted, it is approved per the terms of this section by operation of law.

Subtitle B – EPA Regulatory Relief

Section 1101. Short Title: This section provides the short title of “EPA Regulatory Relief Act of 2011.”

Section 1102. Legislative Stay: Sections 1102(a) and 1102(b) direct the Administrator of the EPA to promulgate new rules to replace four recently published, interrelated EPA rules setting Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) and other performance standards for industrial, commercial and institutional boilers and process heaters, and commercial and industrial solid waste incineration units. These rules were issued under Sections 112 and 129 of the Clean Air Act, and Sections 2002(a)(1) and 1004(27) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Section 1102(a) directs the Administrator to finalize the new rules 15 months from the date of enactment of the Act. Section 1102(c) clarifies that the provisions of Section 112(j) and 112(g)(2), which direct the Administrator or State permitting authorities to establish on a case-by-case basis emission limits in certain circumstances where the Administrator has failed to promulgate a MACT standard, shall not apply prior to the effective date of the new standards.

Section 1103. Compliance Dates: Section 1103(a) extends the deadline for compliance with the new rules from 3 years to at least 5 years from the date of enactment of the Act to allow sufficient time for facilities to install equipment and comply with the new standards.

Section 1103(b) clarifies that for each of the new rules promulgated pursuant to the Act, the date on which the Administrator proposes the rule shall be treated as the proposal date for purposes of the definition of a “new source” under Section 112(a)(4), and of a “new solid waste incineration unit” under Section 129(g)(2) of the Clean Air Act. Section 1103(c) clarifies that nothing in the legislation should be construed to restrict the Administrator or a State permitting authority from granting an extension under Clean Air Act Section 112(i)(3)(B) allowing an existing source up to 1 additional year to comply if necessary for the installation of controls, or to restrict the President from granting limited national security related exemptions under Clean Air Act Section 112(i)(4).

Section 1104. Energy Recovery and Conservation: This section provides that in defining the terms “commercial and industrial solid waste incineration unit,” “commercial and industrial waste,” and “contained gaseous material,” the Administrator should adopt the meaning of those terms set forth in an EPA 2000 rule. These definitions provide that units designed for energy recovery should be regulated under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, and should not be classified as incinerators and regulated under Clean Air Act Section 129. This section is intended to ensure the continued use of a wide range of alternative fuels and encourage energy recovery.

Section 1105. Other Provisions: Section 1105(a) clarifies that the emissions standards set by the Administrator in the new rules must be achievable in practice. The section directs the Administrator to ensure that the emissions standards can be met under actual operating conditions consistently and concurrently for all pollutants regulated by the new rules. This section is intended to ensure that the standards are based on emission limits achieved in practice by real-world boilers, process heaters and incinerators.

Section 1105(b) clarifies that in promulgating the new rules, the Administrator should impose the least burdensome regulatory alternatives, consistent with the objectives of the Clean Air Act and Executive Order 13563 (published January 21, 2011).

Subtitle C — Extension of 100% Expensing

Section. 1201. Extension through 2012 and Expansion of Expensing:

Under current law, business taxpayers must generally depreciate the cost of capital assets over several years, with the exact period depending on the asset. Under legislation enacted in late 2010, qualifying property purchased (and generally placed into service) after September 8, 2010 and before January 1, 2012, is eligible for “expensing” (sometimes referred to as “100-percent bonus depreciation”), under which the cost of the property is immediately deductible that year. In addition, qualifying property purchased (and generally placed into service) during 2011 and 2012 is eligible for 50-percent bonus depreciation (i.e., half deductible immediately, and half depreciated over the balance of the property’s useful life). Thus, in 2011, taxpayers may elect 100-percent bonus depreciation, 50-percent bonus depreciation, or the regular depreciation schedule. For 2012, taxpayers may elect 50-percent bonus depreciation or the regular depreciation schedule. For 2013, no bonus depreciation is generally available (though expensing is available for certain capital purchases of small businesses under section 179 of the tax code). Also under current law, a corporation may elect to forgo bonus depreciation on property acquired after September 8, 2010, and placed in service in 2011 (when 100- percent or 50-percent bonus depreciation is available) or 2012 (when 50-percent bonus depreciation is available), and instead claim unused AMT credits from tax years before January 1, 2006. However, such credits are limited to 20 percent of the amount of the depreciation that the corporation forgoes by not using bonus depreciation. Such credits also cannot exceed the lesser of $30 million or 6 percent of the amount of AMT credit carryforwards for tax years beginning before January 1, 2006. Additionally under current law, a taxpayer that uses the percentage of completion method of accounting generally must take into account income associated with a deduction at the time the deduction is taken.

Under the bill, qualifying property purchased (and generally placed into service) during 2012 would be eligible for expensing (i.e., 100-percent bonus depreciation). This would effectively extend for an additional year, through 2012, the more generous depreciation allowance that is currently in effect for 2011. Thus, for 2012, taxpayers could elect 100- percent bonus depreciation or the regular depreciation schedule. The bill would also expand this expensing provision in two ways. First, for tax years ending after December 31, 2011, the provision would revise the election to claim AMT credits in lieu of bonus depreciation by allowing taxpayers to instead claim 20 percent of the amount of the depreciation that the corporation forgoes by not using bonus depreciation, limited to the lesser of: (1) unused AMT credits from tax years ending before January 1, 2011, or (2) 50 percent of the AMT credit for the first tax year ending after December 31, 2010. Second, for property placed in service during 2012, the bill would provide that, solely for purposes of taking into account bonus depreciation property under the percentage of completion method of accounting, only the cost of the property would be taken into account, not the higher bonus depreciation amount (but only with respect to property with a recovery period of seven years or less). According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the extension through 2012 and expansion of expensing would reduce Federal revenues by a total of $7.904 billion over 2012-2021 (reducing revenues by $58.274 billion over the first two years but recouping most of that revenue loss in the following eight years), with $1.899 billion of the $7.904 billion revenue reduction over 2012-2021 attributable to the expansion of the election for claiming unused AMT credits in lieu of bonus depreciation.

TITLE II – EXTENSION OF CERTAIN EXPIRING PROVISIONS AND RELATED MEASURERS

Subtitle A – Extension of Payroll Tax Reduction

Sec. 2001. Extension Through 2012 of the Social Security Payroll Tax Reduction:

Under current law, for 2011 only, employees and the self-employed are provided a 2- percentage point reduction in their Social Security payroll (or self-employment) tax rate, which decreases that rate from the generally applicable rate of 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent. This reduction applies to all covered wages up to the taxable wage base ($106,800 in 2011) and does not phase out with income. Employers continue to pay the generally applicable rate of 6.2 percent of wages. Under the provision in effect for 2011, the amount of revenue that is foregone to the Social Security Trust Funds as a result of the payroll tax reduction is replaced with General Fund transfers of the same amount. For 2012, the rate for the employee share is currently scheduled to revert to the usual 6.2 percent rate pursuant to underlying law.

Under the bill, the 2-percentage point reduction in the Social Security payroll (or selfemployment) tax rate applicable to employees and the self-employed for 2011 would be extended through 2012. As with the provision that is currently in effect for 2011, the amount of revenue that is foregone to the Social Security Trust Funds as a result of the extension of this payroll tax reduction would be replaced with General Fund transfers of the same amount. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), this provision would reduce Federal revenues by $119.6 billion over 2012-2021.

Subtitle B—Unemployment Compensation

Section. 2101: Title: This subtitled is called the ‘‘Extended Benefits, Reemployment, and Program Integrity Improvement Act’’.

Part 1—Reforms of Permanent State Unemployment Insurance (UI) Programs to Promote Work and Job Creation.

Section 2121: Consistent Job Search Standards: Creates basic job search requirements for everyone collecting State UI benefits – ensuring all are actively seeking work and have registered for employment services, posted resumes, and applied for work similar to what they previously performed. Effective after the next regularly scheduled session of each State’s legislature.

Section 2122: Participation in Reemployment Services Made a Condition of Benefit Receipt: Requires UI recipients who lack a high school diploma to be making progress toward a GED; allows the State to waive this requirement if it would be unduly burdensome in individual cases. Also expects individuals who have been referred to reemployment services to participate in those services to maintain their eligibility for UI. Effective after the next regularly scheduled session of each State’s legislature.

Section 2123: State Flexibility to Promote Reemployment: Allows States to apply for cost-neutral “waivers” of Federal law, so they can test innovative strategies to promote faster reemployment of unemployed workers. Consistent with recent Administration proposals, States may test wage subsidies and other reemployment activities. Effective upon enactment.

Section 2124: Assistance in Implementing Self-Employment Assistance Programs:

Drawing on S. 1826 introduced by Sen. Wyden (D-OR), instructs the Secretary of Labor to develop model legislative language and provide technical assistance to States interested in creating self-employment assistance programs. Effective upon enactment.

Section 2125: Drug Testing Applicants: Clarifies that States may drug test recipients they have determined are likely to be using illegal substances. Effective upon enactment.

Section 2126: Improving Program Integrity by Better Recovering Overpayments: Requires States to reduce current State UI benefits to recover prior UI overpayments, including overpayments owed to other States or the Federal government. Effective after the next regularly scheduled session of each State’s legislature.

Section 2127: Standardized data elements for improved data matching: Directs the Secretary of Labor to develop standardized data elements to be used in improving the accuracy and administration of UI benefits. Effective in October 2012.

Part 2—Provisions Relating to Extended Benefits.

Section 2141: Title: This section is called the “Unemployment Benefits Extension Act of 2011.”

Section 2142: Extension and Modification of Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) Program: Extends the Federal EUC program for 13 months through the end of January 2013. Reduces maximum weeks of EUC benefits per person from 53 weeks today to 33 weeks starting in January 2012 (with up to 20 weeks payable in all States, and another up to 13 weeks payable in States with an unemployment rate of 6% or higher). For individuals who are collecting EUC benefits in December 2011, allows them to complete the tier of benefits they are currently in, with some able to collect up to another 13 weeks of payments in 2012 if they are in a high unemployment State. Effective in January 2012.

Section 2143: Temporary Extension of Extended Benefit (EB) Provisions: Extends current EB program rules (including 100% Federal funding for up to 20 additional weeks of benefits) through the end of January 2013. Consistent with the President’s proposed American Jobs Act, States would be eligible for EB based on current law rules, including having high (at least 6.5%) and rising (at least 10% above the level in the same month in any of the last 3 years) unemployment rates. Effective in January 2012.

Section 2144: Additional Extended Unemployment Benefits under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act: Extends through the end of January 2013 the availability of railroad extended unemployment benefits. Effective in January 2012.

Part 3—Improving Reemployment Strategies Under the Temporary Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) Program.

Section 2161: Improved Work Search for the Long-Term Unemployed: Applies the same improved work search requirements from above to EUC. Effective upon enactment.

Section 2162: Reemployment Services and Reemployment and Eligibility Assessment Activities: Based on the Administration’s American Jobs Act proposal, establishes requirements for States to provide reemployment services and reemployment and eligibility assessments to EUC recipients. However, instead of mandating increased Federal spending of up to $200 per unemployed individual as the Administration proposed, this section allows States to support the cost of additional reemployment activities using State funds, or by reducing each EUC recipient’s weekly benefit by up to $5. Effective upon enactment.

Section 2163: State Flexibility to Support Long-Term Unemployed Workers with Improved Reemployment Services: Building on the Administration’s proposal to provide additional reemployment opportunities to the long-term unemployed States would be granted new flexibility to engage up to 20 percent of EUC recipients in improved reemployment services the Administration supports, using current EUC funds. Effective upon enactment.

Section 2164: Promoting Program Integrity through Enhanced Overpayment Recovery: In order to more quickly recover the current $12 billion in annual UI overpayments, this provision requires States to offset Federal EUC benefits to recover UI overpayments owed to other States or the Federal government, and converts a current 50% ceiling on such offsets into a 50% floor. Effective upon enactment.

Section 2165: State flexibility to improve unemployment program solvency: Repeals a provision that since the 2009 stimulus law has blocked States wanting to improve solvency from reducing State unemployment benefits while still receiving Federal EUC funds. The provision that would be repealed has left States no choice but to raise taxes if they want to improve UI program solvency. Effective upon enactment.

CBO estimates that together these provisions would increase Federal spending by $34.2 billion over ten years.

Subtitle C – Medicare Extensions; Other Health Provisions

Section 2201. Medicare Physician Payment Rates: This provision would prevent a 27.4 percent cut in Medicare physician payment rates slated to begin on January 1, 2012 and instead increase payment rates by 1 percent in 2012 and again in 2013. The two years of stable Medicare payment rates would be the most certainty physicians have had since 2004. During this period, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), Government Accountability Office (GAO), and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) are required to submit reports to Congress to assist in the development of a long-term replacement to the current Medicare physician payment system. CBO estimates this provision would increase spending by $38.9 billion over 10 years.

Section 2202. Ambulance Add-On Payments:This provision would extend through December 31, 2012, the following add-on payments: 2 percent for urban ground ambulance services, 3 percent for rural ground ambulance services, and an increase to the base rate for ambulance trips originating in qualified “super rural” areas as calculated by the Secretary (currently 22.6 percent). The bill additionally requires two reports – one from GAO on ambulance provider costs and another from MedPAC on whether or not the ambulance fee schedule should be reformed. These studies will help inform Congress as to whether these add-on payments should be continued in future years. CBO estimates these provisions would increase spending by $100 million over 10 years.

Section 2203. Outpatient Therapy Caps: This provision would extend the therapy caps exceptions process through December 31, 2013 with modifications that will require that the physician reviewing the therapy plan of care be detailed on the claim, reject all claims above the spending cap that do not include the proper billing modifier, and provide for a manual review of all claims for high cost beneficiaries to ensure that only medically necessary services are being provided. Furthermore, the spending caps ($1,880 in 2012), which have been in effect since 2006, would be extended to the hospital outpatient department setting to prevent a shift in the site of service to higher cost settings once enforcement of the current exceptions process begins. Exempting these services in the HOPD setting made sense when the hard therapy cap was in place, but it no longer makes sense with the exceptions process. Additionally, HHS would be required to collect data to assist in reforming the payment system for therapy services. MedPAC would be required to recommend improvements to the outpatient therapy benefit to reflect the individual needs of patients. CBO estimates this provision would reduce spending by $1.7 billion over 10 years.

Section 2204. Physician Work Geographic Adjustment: This provision would extend, through December 31, 2012, the current floor used in calculating the portion of Medicare physician payments that accounts for the geographic area where a physician practices. This provision would increase physician payment rates in roughly 54 of the Medicare program’s 89 geographic areas. Additionally, MedPAC would be required to examine whether and how these geographic work adjustments should be made, as they have been since 2004, to better inform Congress going forward. CBO estimates this provision would increase spending by $500 million over 10 years.

Section 2211. Qualified Individual (QI) Program: This provision would extend the QI program, which provides federal reimbursement for states to cover Part B premiums for seniors with incomes between 120 and 135 percent of poverty, through December 31, 2012. The provision would reduce the capped allotment states receive to administer the program from $1 billion in 2011 to $730 million in 2012, which is anticipated to still fully fund the program. CBO estimates that this provision would increase spending by $700 million over 10 years.

Sec 2212. Extension of Transitional Medical Assistance (TMA): This provision would provide for a one-year extension of TMA, through December 31, 2012, for low-income families transitioning into employment. In addition, this provision ensures that only those individuals with incomes below 185 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) can qualify for TMA benefits. CBO estimates this provision would increase spending by $1.2 billion over 10 years.

Section 2213. Relaxing Arbitrary Restrictions on Physician-Owned Hospitals: This provision would allow those physician-owned hospitals that were under construction but did not have Medicare provider numbers as of December 31, 2010, to open and operate under the whole hospital exception to the Stark antitrust laws. This will allow these hospitals to bill Medicare for services provided to Medicare beneficiaries in these facilities that were under construction prior to the ban on new physician-owned hospitals. This provision would also relax strenuous new requirements intended to prevent most existing physician-owned hospitals from renovating or expanding. CBO estimates this provision would increase spending by $300 million over 10 years.

Section 2221. ObamaCare Exchange Subsidy Recapture: The Democrats’ health care law fails to adequately protect taxpayers from overpayments of the federal subsidies to purchase health insurance, even in the case of fraud, by limiting the amount of subsidies that can be recaptured if an individual/family receives a greater subsidy than he/she/they are entitled to. This provision would increase the maximum amount of subsidy overpayments that must be repaid. Similar policies were overwhelming adopted in last year’s “doc fix” and the repeal of the onerous 1099 reporting requirement earlier this year. The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimates this provision would reduce the deficit by $13.4 billion over 10 years and reduce the number of people receiving health insurance in the Exchanges by roughly 170,000 in 2021. 

Subsidy Recipients’ Income (as percent of poverty level) CURRENT LAW Maximum Amount of Overpayments Recaptured from Individuals (amounts double for joint filers) PROPOSAL Maximum Amount of Overpayments Recaptured from Individuals (amounts double for joint filers)
Under 100% $300 $300
At least 100% but less than 150%   $400
At least 150% but less than 200%   $500
At least 200% but less than 250% $750 $750
At least 250% but less than 300% $750 $1,100
At least 300% but less than 350% $1,250 $1,250
At least 350% but less than 400% $1,250 $1,600
400% or above Full repayment Full repayment

Section 2222. Reduction in the Prevention & Public Health Fund: The Prevention and Public Health Fund, Section 4002 of Obamacare, is a $17.75 billion account (FY12- FY21) that provides the Secretary of HHS unlimited authority to spend above and beyond appropriated levels for any activity authorized by the Public Health Service Act. This provision would reduce the funding for the Prevention and Public Health Fund. CBO estimates this provision would reduce spending by $8 billion over 10 years.

Section 2223. Parity in Payments for Hospital Outpatient Department (HOPD) Evaluation and Management (E/M) Office Visit Services: Under current law, Medicare pays more for E/M office visit services furnished in the HOPD setting than it does for the exact same services performed in the physician office setting. While the amount Medicare pays physicians for these services in an HOPD would remain unchanged under the bill, the hospital facility fee payment would be reduced, equalizing total Medicare payments for identical services, regardless of where it is furnished beginning in 2012. The non-partisan Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) offered this policy as a potential offset to address the costs associated with addressing the Medicare physician payments. CBO estimates this provision would reduce spending by $6.8 billion over 10 years.

Section 2224. Reducing Bad Debt Payments: Under current law, Medicare reimburses hospitals and skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) for 70 percent of the beneficiary costsharing they are unable, or unwilling, to collect (“bad debt”). Certain other providers, such as federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) and dialysis centers, are reimbursed 100 percent for the bad debt. These high reimbursements are believed to discourage providers from doing enough to collect unpaid cost-sharing that they are required, by CMS, to take reasonable steps to collect. This provisionwould phase down the bad debt reimbursements to 55 percent over a three-year period beginning in 2013 (NOTE: President Obama  recommended that bad debt payments be reduced to 25%). CBO estimates this provision would reduce spending by $10.6 billion over 10 years.

Section 2225. Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) Allotments: This provision would rebase the DSH allotments for FY2021 and determine future allotments from the rebased level using current law methodology. CBO estimates this provision would reduce spending by $4.1 billion over 10 years.

Subtitle D—TANF Extension

Section. 2301. Short Title: The Welfare Integrity and Data Improvement Act.

Section. 2302. Extension of program: Extends TANF and related programs at current levels through FY 2012.

Section. 2303. Data Standardization: Improves program administration by standardizing data elements to improve integrity and collaboration.

A. Improves data matching and program integrity by requiring standardized data and HHS coordination of exchanges across State TANF programs.

B. This language is identical to language in the Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act that became law earlier this year (P.L. 112-210), which required standardization of child welfare data and is a continuation of efforts to standardize human services program data to allow for better sharing of information as well as to improve understanding of how individuals interact with multiple welfare programs.

Section. 2304. Spending Policies for Assistance Under State TANF Programs: Closes the current “strip club loophole.”

A. Ensures that welfare funds cannot be accessed in strip clubs, liquor stores, and casinos by blocking welfare EBT cards from working in ATMs in those locations.

B. Penalizes states that do not enforce this provision and report their efforts to the Department of Health and Human Services within two years of enactment.

C. This language is identical to language in the Welfare Integrity Now for Children and Families Act of 2011, introduced in by Senators Baucus and Hatch, Chairman and Ranking Member, respectively, of the Senate Finance Committee.

Section. 2305. Technical Corrections: Makes technical corrections to current statute.

TITLE III – FLOOD INSURANCE REFORM

Section 3001. Short Title and Table of Contents.

Section 3002. Extensions: The NFIP and its financing would be reauthorized for five years from October 1, 2011, through September 30, 2016.

Section 3003. Mandatory Purchase:

Temporary Mandatory Purchase Suspensions – Under the NFIP, federally regulated lenders are obligated to require flood insurance on any mortgage issued or guaranteed by the federal government in a Special Flood Hazard Area in a community that participates in the NFIP. This section allows the mandatory purchase requirement to be suspended on a community-by-community basis for one year at the request of a local governing authority if FEMA finds at least one of the following conditions apply to the community: (1) it has never been mapped as a high-risk area; (2) it is taking specific steps to rebuild or repair a dam or levee that has been decertified and is making adequate progress in securing financial commitments and completing that work; or (3) it has filed a formal appeal of the accuracy of a dam or levee decertification or flood risk map revision. This suspension could be extended for a maximum of two additional one-year periods (for a total of three years) for all qualifying communities at FEMA’s discretion. For certain qualifying communities determined by FEMA to be making more than adequate progress in the construction of their flood protection systems, FEMA may, at its discretion, further extend the suspension of the mandatory purchase requirement for existing mortgages for a maximum of two additional one-year periods (for a total of five years). Termination of Force-Placed Insurance – Mortgage lenders and servicers must terminate any force-placed insurance and refund any premiums paid for coverage overlap periods once property owners have obtained their required flood insurance. Equal Treatment of Private Flood Insurance – To encourage greater private sector participation, lenders would be required to accept non-NFIP backed flood insurance coverage provided by a private entity if that coverage meets all the same requirements as NFIP-backed flood insurance.

Section 3004. Reforms of Coverage Terms:

Minimum Deductibles – Minimum deductibles would be set at $1,000 for properties with full-risk rates and at $2,000 for properties with discounted rates. Maximum Coverage Limits – Limits would be indexed for inflation, starting in 2012. Optional Coverage for Additional Living Expenses/Business Interruption (ALE/BI) – FEMA would be authorized to offer optional coverage for additional living expenses ($5,000 maximum) and coverage for the interruption of business operations ($20,000 maximum) if FEMA: (1) charges full-risk rates for such coverage; (2) finds that a competitive private market for such coverage does not exist; and (3) certifies that the NFIP can offer such coverage without borrowing additional funds from the Treasury. Installment Payments – Policyholders would be allowed to pay their premiums for one year policies in installments. Flood in Progress Protections – New policyholders would not have their coverage limited by a FEMA-determined flood-in-progress exclusion if they have not sustained any actual damage or loss to their property within the initial 30-day waiting period required under a standard flood insurance policy before flood coverage can go into effect.

Section 3005. Reforms of Premium Rates:

Annual Limit on Premium Rate Increases – The annual cap on premium rate increases would be increased from 10 percent to 20 percent. 5 Year Phase-in of Full-Risk Rates for Newly-Mapped Areas – For primary residence properties mapped into a mandatory purchase area, initial rates would be set at 20 percent of full-risk rates and increase by 20 percent each year for four years thereafter. Full-Risk Rates for Certain Subsidized Properties – Full actuarial rates would be phased-in for roughly 350,000 properties currently receiving NFIP subsidies including: commercial properties, second and vacation homes, homes sold to new owners, homes substantially damaged or improved, Severe Repetitive Loss Properties (SRLPs) with multiple flood claims, and property owners who allowed their policies to lapse by choice. Use of State and Local Funding Considerations in Setting Flood Rates – FEMA would be required to update its standards for evaluating eligibility for special flood insurance rates by considering several factors, including state and local funding of flood control projects and other flood control reconstruction and improvement projects.

Section 3006. Technical Mapping Advisory Council: This section establishes a new Technical Mapping Advisory Council made up of federal, state, and local experts, with an adequate number of representatives from states at a high-risk for flooding, to review flood hazard risk mapping standards and propose new mapping standards to FEMA. The Council would have 12 months to develop and submit to FEMA and Congress its proposed new mapping standards, during which time FEMA would be prohibited from making effective any new or updated flood insurance rate maps based on its current mapping standards.

Section 3007. FEMA Incorporation of New Mapping Protocols: This section requires FEMA to update its flood maps according to the Technical Mapping Advisory Council’s recommendations within six months, or report to Congress why it rejected them.

Section 3008. Treatment of Levees: This section prohibits FEMA from issuing or updating flood insurance maps that do not factor in the actual protection afforded by existing levees regardless of their FEMA accreditation status (i.e., FEMA’s maps must award partial credit to existing dams and levees).

Section 3009. Privatization Initiatives: This section would require a variety of reports by FEMA and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) regarding various privatization initiatives, including: investigating options to begin privatizing the NFIP over time; determining the capacity of private insurers, reinsurers, and financial markets to underwrite NFIP flood risk; and assessing new ways to strengthen the NFIP’s ability to pay claims without having to borrow from the Treasury.

Section 3010. FEMA Annual Report on Insurance Program: This section requires FEMA to report annually to Congress on the status of the NFIP with detailed information about the financial status of the program.

Section 3011. Mitigation Assistance: This section would amend the current planning

assistance grants program to authorize $90 million in financial assistance for FEMA to (1) make assistance grants available to states and communities for flood mitigation activities, particularly activities that reduce flood damage to severe repetitive loss structures; and (2) direct grants available to property owners for flood mitigation activities. To become eligible for mitigation assistance, states must develop a new multihazard mitigation plan that examines the reduction of flood losses, including the demolition and rebuilding of properties, and requires states and communities to use mitigation assistance in a manner that is consistent with activities outlined in their mitigation plan. In awarding grants, FEMA may approve only mitigation activities that it determines are technically feasible, cost-effective and represent savings to the NFIP, with a priority given to mitigation activities that will result in savings for the NFIP.

Section 3012. Notification to Homeowners Regarding Mandatory Purchase Requirement Applicability and Rate Phase-Ins: This section would establish an annual notification process to inform individuals who reside in an area having special flood hazards that they are subject to the mandatory purchase requirement and provide estimates of what other homeowners in similar areas pay for their flood insurance.

Section 3013. Notification of Congress Regarding the Establishment of Flood Map Changes: This section requires FEMA to notify Members of the House and Senate whose districts or states are affected when it changes or updates floodplain areas or flood risk zones.

Section 3014. Notification and Appeals Process for Map Changes Based on Flood Elevations: This section would require that, when establishing new flood maps based on elevation, FEMA provide each effected property owner with written notification by first class mail of the proposed change and the appeals process, as well as provide a copy of the new maps to the chief executive officer of each community affected, and publish notice of the proposed change and the appeals process in the Federal Register and a prominent local newspaper.

Section 3015. Notification to Tenants of the Availability of Contents Insurance: This section would require FEMA to develop a notice to landlords to inform tenants if they live in an area having special flood hazards and details about NFIP insurance for the contents of their apartment.

Section 3016. Notification to Policy Holders Regarding Direct Management of Policy by FEMA: This section would require FEMA to annually notify all holders of policies transferred to the NFIP Direct program of their options to purchase flood insurance directly from another Write-Your-Own (WYO) insurance company.

Section 3017. Notice of the Availability of Flood Insurance and Escrow in RESPA Good Faith Estimate: This section would amend the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) to disclose as part of RESPA’s good faith estimate that flood insurance is generally available from the NFIP for all homes, and that the escrowing of flood insurance payments is required for many loans and may be an option available under other loans.

Section 3018. Reimbursement for Costs Incurred by Homeowners and Communities Obtaining Letters of Map Amendment or Revision: This section would allow homeowners or communities to be reimbursed for certain costs associated with a successful challenge to a bona fide mapping error made by FEMA resulting in a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) or Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), not including legal fees. Section 3019. Enhanced Communication to Communities with Non-Updated Flood Maps: When establishing new flood maps, this section would require FEMA to communicate with communities with flood insurance rate maps that have not been updated in 20 or more years to help resolve outstanding flooding issues, provide technical assistance, and disseminate information to reduce the prevalence of outdated maps in flood-prone areas.

Section 3020. Notification to Residents Newly Included in Flood Hazard Areas: This section would require FEMA to provide to each property owner newly mapped into a special flood hazard area with a copy of the revised or updated flood insurance map that affects their property, as well as the appeals process to challenge that mapping determination.

Section 3021. Treatment of Swimming Pool Enclosures Outside of Hurricane Season: This section would allow certain properties with swimming pools that are enclosed with non-supporting breakaway walls outside of hurricane season (November 20 through June 1) to be eligible for participation in the NFIP.

Section 3022. Information Regarding Multiple Perils Claims: This section would allow NFIP policyholders who also have non-NFIP wind or other homeowners insurance coverage and sustain damage to property covered under both policies to request the damage estimate, proofs of loss, and any expert or engineering reports used to determine the cause of the damage from FEMA and their NFIP-participating WYO insurance company.

Section 3023. FEMA Authority to Reject the Transfer of Policies to NFIP Direct: This section authorizes FEMA to refuse to accept the future transfer of any flood insurance policies from a WYO company to its NFIP Direct policy servicing program.

Section 3024. Media Notification of Proposed Map Changes and Extended Appeals Process: This section would require FEMA to notify local television and radio stations of proposed changes to flood maps, as well as require FEMA to grant property owners a 90-day extension of the existing appeals process period if their community certifies to FEMA that there are affected property owners who were unaware of the expiration of the appeals process period and that the community will use that 90-day period to inform affected property owners about the availability of the appeals process.

Section 3025. Establishment of a Reserve Fund for the NFIP: This section would establish a National Flood Insurance Reserve Fund within the Treasury Department where the NFIP would be required to maintain a reserve ratio balance of at least 1 percent of the sum of the total potential loss exposure of all outstanding flood insurance policies in force the prior fiscal year. FEMA would be authorized to establish and adjust the amount of aggregate annual insurance premiums it collects to maintain or achieve that reserve ratio. Starting in 2012, FEMA would be required to transfer to the Fund at least 7.5 percent of the amount needed to achieve its 1 percent reserve ratio balance each year until the full 1 percent reserve ratio is achieved. FEMA would also be required to submit a report to Congress for any year in which it cannot achieve a 1 percent reserve ratio.

Section 3026. CDBG Eligibility for Flood Insurance Outreach Activities and Community Building Code Administration Grants: This section would allow communities to use Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for local building code enforcement, as long as local matching funds are provided. It would also allow CDBG funds to be used by local governments for flood risk outreach and education activities.

Section 3027. Technical Corrections: This section would make a technical correction to the underlying National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 to update references in those statutes to the head of FEMA as its “Administrator” rather than its “Director.”

Section 3028. Requiring Competition for NFIP Policies: To address the rapid increase in the number of policies administered under FEMA’s NFIP Direct policy servicing program, FEMA would be required to report to Congress within 90 days on the procedures and policies it can implement to limit the size of NFIP Direct to no more than 10 percent of all flood insurance policies, and then implement those size reduction procedures and policies – without preventing agents handling policies transitioned out of the NFIP Direct from continuing to sell or service those policies – within one year of issuing that report.

Section 3029. Studies of Voluntary Community-Based Flood Insurance Options: This section directs FEMA and GAO to conduct a study to assess options, methods, and strategies for offering voluntary community-based flood insurance policies, and report their findings to Congress within 18 months.

Section 3030. Report on Inclusion of Building Codes in Floodplain Management Criteria: This section would direct FEMA to study the impact, effectiveness, and feasibility of including widely used and nationally recognized building codes as part of its floodplain management criteria, and report its findings to Congress within 18 months.

Section 3031. Study on Graduated Risk: This section requires the National Academy of Sciences to study methods for understanding graduated risk for properties and residential and commercial structures behind levees and report its findings to Congress within one year.

Section 3032. Report on Flood-In-Progress Determination: This section directs FEMA to review its processes and procedures for issuing a flood-in-progress determination and providing public notification of that determination, and report the results of that review to Congress within 6 months.

Section 3033. Study on Repaying Flood Insurance Debt: This section would require FEMA to submit a report to Congress within 6 months on its plan to repay all outstanding monies previously borrowed from the Treasury, with interest, over the next 10 years.

Section 3034. No Cause of Action: This section specifies that no cause of action against the federal government exists for failure to comply with any notification requirement under this Act.

Section 3035. State and Local Requests for the Corps of Engineers to Evaluate Corps- Constructed Levees: This section would allow state and local governments to ask the Army Corps of Engineers to evaluate their locally-operated levee systems, provided that the levee was constructed by the Corps and that the requesting state or local government agrees to fully reimburse the Corps for all costs associated with the evaluation.

 CBO estimates that these provisions would increase net income to the National Flood Insurance Program by $4.9 billion over ten years.

TITLE IV – JUMPSTARTING OPPORTUNITY WITH BROADBAND

SPECTRUM ACT OF 2011

Section 4001. Short Title.

Section 4002. Definitions.

Sections 4003-4: Rules of construction and enforcement provisions.

Section 4005: Prevents auction participation or receipt of funds made available under this

Act by those entities that are barred by agencies of the Federal government for national

security reasons.

Subtitle A – Spectrum Auction Authority

Section 4101: Establishes clearing and auction timelines for spectrum in 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz (the PCS H Block), 2155-2180 MHz (the AWS-3 block), 1755-1780 MHz, 15 MHz from the government spectrum at 1675-1710 MHz paired with 15 MHz to be determined by the FCC, and 3550-3650 MHz. This section also allows the President to substitute alternate spectrum for 1755-1780 MHz, subject to Congressional approval.

Section 4102: Reallocates the 700 MHz D Block from commercial to public safety use. Requires public safety to return the 700 MHz narrowband and guard band spectrum five years after standards have been set for the carriage of public safety voice communications over broadband networks. Provides public safety with up to $1 billion in grants from auction proceeds to transition end users to broadband voice. In combination, these provisions give public safety officials the contiguous, 20 MHz of spectrum they say they need for wireless broadband while providing for auction of the 700 MHz narrowband spectrum. This will help meet the ongoing demand for commercial wireless broadband services while providing funding to help migrate public safety officials from narrowband voice services to broadband once public-safety-grade voice over Internet protocol is available.

Section 4103: Grants the FCC authority to conduct incentive auctions under which it shares some of the proceeds with licensees who return spectrum. Limits FCC authority to those auctions in which there is competition on the “reverse” side of the auction – the portion of the auction that sets the buy-out price.

Section 4104: Grants the FCC special authority to conduct an incentive auction for the broadcast spectrum in the UHF band. Places special restrictions on both broadcasters and the FCC in order to facilitate the auction. FCC authority to conduct an auction is restricted to protect those broadcasters that choose not to participate and remain in the television band following the auction. Broadcasters’ administrative remedies to protest channel changes are curtailed in order to facilitate the “repack” that will be needed in order to accommodate both broadcasting and broadband in the UHF spectrum. Provides up to $3 billion for relocation costs of broadcasters and cable systems. Ensures that the auction is both self-funding and generates a profit for the treasury. Ensures that the auction is only consummated if there is sufficient spectrum to accommodate the broadcasters that wish to remain broadcasters following the auction and requires the FCC to make all reasonable efforts to preserve broadcasters’ service areas. The FCC is required to auction the spectrum it clears, but retains discretion to add to the approximately 675 MHz of unlicensed spectrum currently available below 6 GHz by allowing secondary, shared use of this spectrum or primary, dedicated use of other spectrum.

Section 4105: Prevents the FCC from excluding bidders from participating in spectrum auctions for reasons other than citizenship, character, financial, and technical qualifications. Also prevents the FCC from using its licensing authority to impose net neutrality or mandatory wholesaling on licensees. This does not, however, alter the FCC’s rulemaking authority in those areas.

Section 4106: Extends the FCC’s auction authority through 2021.

Section 4107: Instructs the FCC and NTIA to pursue additional secondary allocations of spectrum for unlicensed use by evaluating the viability of sharing spectrum with government operations in the 5 GHz band.

Subtitle B – Advanced Public Safety Communications

Section 4201: Assigns the spectrum for public safety broadband use to the Administrator that is created under Section 203.

Section 4202: Establishes a Public Safety Communications Planning Board within the FCC made up of government officials, public safety representatives, wireless network equipment manufacturers and commercial wireless providers. Establishes procedures for the creation, operation, and qualifications of the Board. Tasks the Board with the creation of the National Public Safety Communications Plan to govern the use of the public safety broadband spectrum. Details the minimum requirements for the Plan, including nationwide interoperability and improvements to public safety device availability.

Sections 4203-204: Establishes the procedures for choosing an Administrator, the role of the Administrator in governing the public safety broadband spectrum, limitations of the powers of the Administrator as a licensee, a mechanism for initial funding of the Administrator, and audit and reporting procedures for the Administrator. Creates an efficient and cost- effective governance structure that enables government oversight while capitalizing on private sector expertise without creating a large, new government bureaucracy.

Section 4205: Instructs the FCC to report on the use of amateur radio during times of emergency.

Sections 4221-224: Establishes and funds a $100 million grant program at the NTIA for State Broadband Implementation Offices. Defines the role of the State Broadband Offices in implementing the Plan through negotiations with commercial wireless providers for the buildout of the nationwide, interoperable broadband network, and establishes the procedure for Administrator approval of state public safety broadband plans and contracts. Also establishes a grant program at the NTIA for buildout of the state broadband networks. State-based negotiations allow the public safety network to accommodate local conditions, enables public safety officials to partner with commercial and other entities, such as utilities, that have established relationships in the community, and will promote competition.

Section 4225: Streamlines the process for siting of wireless facilities by preempting the ability of state and local authorities to delay collocation of, removal of, and replacement of wireless transmission equipment. Increases access by establishing a uniform process for access to Federal rights-of-way and easements. Establishes a master contract process for siting wireless facilities on Federal government owned property and buildings.

Section 4241: Establishes the Public Safety Trust Fund into which auction receipts are deposited and from which grant programs are administered. The grant program is funded with $5 billion plus 10 percent of any net auction revenues above $25.5 billion, up to a total of $6.5 billion. All funds above and beyond those delineated in the section are dedicated to deficit reduction.

Section 4261-4: Findings, definitions, and purposes of a subpart of next generation 911.

Section 4265: Establishes coordination offices in the NTIA an NHTSA to manage plans and implementation of next generation 911 systems. Establishes a grant program from NTIA and NHTSA to the states in order to achieve next generation 911 goals. Prohibits funding of grants in states that have diverted funds from their state 911 funds for other purposes.

Section 4266: Requires the GSA and FCC to report to the Congress on the 911 location capabilities of multi-line telephone systems used by the Federal government.

Section 4267: Requires the GAO to report on the use of state-imposed 911 surcharges.

Section 4268: Provides parity of legal protections for providers of 911 related services as 911 transitions to next generation services.

Section 4269: Instructs the FCC to begin a proceeding on a specialized database of Do- Not-Call numbers for 911 call centers.

Section 4270: Requires the NHTSA to develop a report on the cost to formulate requirements for and to implement next generation 911.

Section 4271: Requires the FCC to report to Congress on the regulatory and statutory hurdles to implementation of next generation 911.

Subtitle C – Federal Spectrum Relocation

Section 301: Amends the NTIA Organization Act, as amended by the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act, to address lessons learned in the AWS-1 clearing process. Permits the use of relocation funds to relocate government systems in order to permit spectrum sharing. Permits the use of relocation funds to upgrade government systems during the relocation process. Establishes a process for the timely publication of relocation plans by government incumbents. Creates a process for appeal of the technical and relocation decisions of government incumbents.

Section 302: Makes changes to the Spectrum Relocation Fund to accommodate the ability of the government to relocate systems in order to spectrum share. Provides a mechanism for OMB to transfer to NTIA funds to cover the pre-auction costs associated with a relocation.

Section 303: Amends the NTIA Organization Act to ensure the protection of classified and other sensitive national security information throughout the relocation process.

Subtitle D – Telecommunications Development Fund

Sections 401-402: Now that the Telecommunications Development Fund (TDF) is wellestablished, severs government ties and eliminates the requirement that the TDF maintain government officials as members of its board of directors to increase the ability of TDF to attract private capital investment.

CBO estimates that together these provisions will reduce the deficit by $16.5 billion over ten years.

TITLE V — OFFSETS

Subtitle A – Guarantee Fees

Section 5001. Guarantee Fees: This section directs the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase the guarantee fees that these Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) charge for assuming the credit risk on the loans they purchase in the secondary mortgage market. These fees should be set as if the GSEs were held to the same capital standards as private banks or financial institutions but shall increase by at least 10 basis points over 2011 levels. The increase is to be phased-in over the next two years. Amounts received as a result of the increased fees will be deposited directly into the Treasury. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac must also provide FHFA a description of changes made to up-front fees and annual fees as part of the guarantee fees negotiated with lenders; a description of changes to the riskiness of the new borrowers compared to previous origination years or book years; and an assessment of the changes in the guarantee fees. The provisions of this section expire on October 1, 2021. CBO estimates that this section will reduce the deficit by $35.7 billion over ten years.

Subtitle B – Social Security Provisions

Section 5101. Information for Administration of Social Security Provisions Related to Noncovered Employment: The provision would prevent Social Security overpayments by improving coordination with States and local governments. By requiring State and local government pension payers to identify whether a worker’s pension is based on government employment, the Social Security Administration (SSA) can improve enforcement of two benefit offset provisions affecting certain government workers. Both the Obama and Bush administrations have proposed similar policy in previous budget requests. CBO estimates that this provision would reduce spending by $3.19 billion over ten years.

Subtitle C – Child Tax Credit

Section 5201. Requiring a Social Security Number (SSN) in order to Collect the Refundable Portion of the Child Tax Credit:

Under current law, the tax code provides a child tax credit in the amount of $1,000 per child under the age of 17 ($500 after 2012), and this credit is partially refundable (meaning that if taxpayers do not have sufficient Federal income tax liability against which to use the credit, they receive a government check for the excess credit). Under the rules in effect through 2012, the refundable portion of the child tax credit – sometimes referred to as the additional child tax credit (ACTC) – is refundable to the extent of 15 percent of the taxpayer’s earned income above $3,000. Also under current law, individuals who are ineligible to work in the United States – and are thus ineligible for a Social Security Number (SSN) – can obtain an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) for tax purposes. In 1996, Congress enacted legislation making those without SSNs ineligible to receive the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and various other government benefits. However, when the ACTC was subsequently enacted in 2001, Congress included no similar limitation, and the Treasury Department has concluded that it lacks the statutory authority to limit the ACTC to those with an SSN. Thus, the refundable portion of the child tax credit currently remains available to individuals who are unable to obtain an SSN because they are ineligible to work in the United States.

Under Sec. 5201 of the bill – which is based on legislation (H.R. 1956) introduced by Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX) – individuals (or at least one spouse in the case of a joint return) would be required to include their SSN on their tax return in order to claim the ACTC. The provision would also provide the IRS ‘math error authority’ if a taxpayer fails to meet this requirement, permitting the IRS to refuse to pay out the ACTC for returns without an SSN, instead of making the payment and later seeking to recoup it. The provision would be effective for taxable years beginning after the date of enactment. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), this provision would reduce Federal outlays by $9.4 billion over 2012-2021.

Subtitle D – Eliminating Taxpayer Benefits for Millionaires

Section 5301. Ending Unemployment and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

Benefits for Millionaires:

Subsection (a). Means-Testing of Unemployment Compensation for Millionaires:

Under current law, unemployment compensation is treated as ordinary income for Federal income tax purposes, and there are no Federal income tests for eligibility for unemployment compensation. However, unemployment benefits are based on taxable wages, and States have established various limits on the amount of taxable wages used in determining benefit amounts, ranging, for 2011, from the first $7,000 of taxable wages (four states) to the first $37,300 of taxable wages (Washington). The nationwide average weekly unemployment benefit is $295. 

Under the bill, unemployment compensation for which certain high-income individuals would otherwise be eligible would be subject to means-testing. For taxpayers with adjusted gross income (AGI) of at least $750,000 ($1,500,000 in the case of a joint return), a portion of any unemployment compensation received – the recipient’s “excess unemployment compensation,” as determined under a specified formula – would be subject to a non-deductible 100-percent excise tax. Under this formula, for taxpayers with AGI of at least $1,000,000 ($2,000,000 in the case of a joint return), the entire amount of unemployment compensation received would be treated as “excess unemployment compensation” and subject to the 100-percent excise tax, meaning that millionaires would effectively be prevented from being able to retain any unemployment benefits. Upon receipt, the Federal government would send the excise tax revenues collected under this provision to the applicable State. The provision would be effective for unemployment compensation received after 2011. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), this provision would, on net, reduce Federal deficits by $20 million over 2012-2021 (through a combination of $127 million in reduced outlays for unemployment benefits and $107 million in reduced revenues owing to the lower take-up rate of those benefits by millionaires).

Subsection (b): Declares that any household with a member that receives income or assets with a fair market value of $1 million shall immediately be ineligible to receive SNAP benefits until such time as the household meets the income and asset requirements.

Subtitle E – Federal Civilian Employees

Section 5401. Short Title: Establishes the short title of the bill as the “Securing Annuities for Federal Employees Act of 2011.”

Section 5402. Retirement Contributions: Increases the employee contribution to the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) from 7 percent to 8.5 percent of salary over three years, beginning in calendar year 2013. The employee contribution for special occupational groups and Members of Congress is also increased by a total of 1.5 percent of salary over three years, beginning in calendar year 2013. The employer contribution is reduced by the increased employee contribution. The government will continue to pay the balance of the normal cost (25.8 percent for FY2011). The increased employee contribution and corresponding reduction in the employer contribution applies to CSRS Offset employees. This section increases the employee contribution to the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) from 0.8 percent to 2.3 percent of salary over three years, beginning in calendar 2013. The employee contribution for special occupational groups and Members of Congress is also increased by a total of 1.5 percent of salary over three years beginning in calendar year 2013, from 1.3 percent to 2.8 percent of salary. Under existing law, the employer contribution equals the normal retirement cost reduced by the employee contribution. Includes conforming changes required for Foreign Service, CIA, and TVA employees.

Section 5403. Amendments Relating to Secure Annuity Employees: Establishes new retirement rules for federal employees hired after December 31, 2012, with less than 5 years of credible service for retirement purposes. This section increases the employee contribution to FERS from 0.8 percent to 4 percent of salary, an increase of 3.2 percent over current law. The employee contribution for special occupational groups and Members of Congress is also increased by a total of 3.2 percent, from 1.3 percent to 4.5 percent. Under existing law, the employer contribution equals the normal retirement cost reduced by the employee contribution. This section also changes the FERS pension formula salary base for all retirees to highest-five years’ average salary. Existing CSRS and FERS employees remain subject to a highest-three years’ average salary base. Finally, this section changes the FERS pension formula multiplier for basic retirees to 0.7 percentage points, instead of 1 percent (or 1.1 percent with 20 or more years of service). Employees in special occupational groups are subject to a proportional adjustment to the multiplier (0.3 percentage points lower than current law). CBO estimates that together Section 5502 and 5503 would reduce the deficit by $36.7 billion over ten years.

Section 5404. Annuity Supplement: Eliminates the FERS minimum supplement for individuals not subject to mandatory retirement, beginning January 1, 2013. Individuals subject to mandatory retirement include certain categories of employees such as law enforcement, fire fighters, air traffic controllers, and nuclear materials couriers. Under current law, the FERS minimum supplement is paid to these employees and to federal employees who retire before the age of 62. The FERS minimum supplement represents the amount the employee would have received from Social Security if he were 62 years old on the day he retired, and is paid until the retiree reaches age 62 and begins receiving his actual Social Security payments. CBO estimates that this provision would reduce federal spending by $1.6 billion over ten years.

Section 5421. Extension of Pay Limitation for Federal Employees – Extends the current COLA freeze in effect for Federal civilian employees and Members of Congress through December 31, 2013. The current freeze expires at the end of 2012. Section 5422 and 5423. Reduction of Discretionary Spending Limits to Achieve Savings from Federal Employee Provisions: Reduces the non-security discretionary spending limits enacted as part of the Budget Control Act to reflect the savings achieved as a result of the one year pay freeze in Section 5521. Over ten years discretionary outlays are reduced by $26.2 billion compared to current law.

Subtitle F – Health Care Provisions

Sections 5501 and 5502. Increasing Medicare Premiums for High Income Beneficiaries: This provision would adopt President Obama’s recommendation to increase Medicare Part B and D premiums for high-income beneficiaries beginning in 2017. Specifically, this provision would: extend the current freeze of the income brackets beyond 2019 until 25 percent of beneficiaries are paying income-related premiums; increase the premiums that high-income beneficiaries pay by 15 percent; and reduce the initial high-income threshold from $85,000 for singles and $170,000 for couples to $80,000 and $160,000, respectively. CBO estimates this provision would reduce spending by $31 billion over 10 years.

TITLE VI – MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 6001. Repeal of Certain Timing Shifts of Corporate Estimated Tax Payments:

Under current law, companies are generally required to pay corporate estimated taxes according to a regular schedule set by statute. For companies with assets of $1 billion or more, that general payment schedule has occasionally been modified to shift the timing for payment of certain such installments. Typically, these provisions have increased covered corporations’ estimated tax payments that are due in the fourth quarter of particular years by a certain percentage, while decreasing those corporations’ payments by a corresponding amount in the first quarter of the following years.

Under the bill, a series of these recently enacted timing shifts would be repealed, restoring the regular payment schedule that applied prior to their enactment. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, this provision would have no revenue effect over 2012-2021.

Section 6002. Repeal of Requirement Relating to Time for Remitting Certain Merchandise Processing Fees: Repeals a requirement that importers pre-pay certain fees authorized under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985.

Section 6003. Points of Order in the Senate: Includes two Senate points of order related to (1) protecting the Social Security Trust Fund and (2) emergency spending.

Section 6004. PAYGO Scorecard Estimates: Provides that the budgetary effects of the bill shall not be entered on the statutory PAYGO scorecards provided that the bill is deficit neutral over 10 years.

2011 New Law Letter

Over the past 18 months, Congress has been passing tax legislation at a frantic pace. The primary “tax” themes underlying this legislation are Congressional attempts to provide temporary tax relief for both businesses and individuals and to spur a struggling economy by encouraging businesses to make capital investments. Examples of these tax relief provisions for Individuals include: extending all existing income tax rates for two years (through 2012); providing temporary estate and gift tax relief through 2012; extending a long list of tax breaks that would have otherwise expired; a “2011 only” Social Security tax cut of two percentage points; and an increased refundable adoption credit. Businesses also received their share of tax relief and incentives, including: a temporary increase from 50% to 100% for the §168(k) first-year bonus depreciation deduction; a temporary increase and expansion of the §179 deduction for business equipment, etc.; a 100% gain exclusion for “qualified small business stock;” and, relaxation of the S corporation built‑in gains tax rules. In addition, the IRS and the Courts have been busy issuing rulings and cases that impact both businesses and individuals.

Keeping up with these rapidly changing tax provisions is extremely challenging. To help you with that task, we are sending this letter that provides a summary of the key legislative, administrative, and judicial tax developments that we believe will have the greatest impact on our clients. Caution! We highlight only selected tax developments. If you have heard about other tax developments not discussed in this letter, and you need more information, please call our office for details.

Planning Alert! This letter also contains planning ideas. However, you cannot properly evaluate a particular planning strategy without calculating your overall tax liability (including the alternative minimum tax) with and without the strategy. You should also consider any state income tax consequences of a particular planning strategy. We recommend you call our firm before implementing any tax planning technique discussed in this letter, or if you need more information.

 

DEVELOPMENTS IMPACTING PRIMARILY INDIVIDUALS 

RECENT TAX LEGISLATION

EXISTING INCOME TAX RATES SCHEDULED TO CONTINUE THROUGH 2012

“INDIVIDUAL” TAX BREAKS SCHEDULED TO EXPIRE

ESTATE AND GIFT TAX RELIEF THROUGH 2012

TWO PERCENT SOCIAL SECURITY TAX HOLIDAY FOR “2011 ONLY”

ADOPTION CREDIT INCREASED AND MADE REFUNDABLE FOR 2010 AND 2011

TAX-FREE MEDICAL BENEFITS EXTENDED TO CHILDREN UNDER AGE 27

 

RECENT NON LEGISLATIVE TAX DEVELOPMENTS COURT CASES AND RULINGS 

IRS SAYS EMPLOYEE-USE OF EMPLOYER-PROVIDED CELL PHONE CAN BE TAX-FREE FRINGE BENEFIT IF PROVIDED PRIMARILY FORNONCOMPENSATORY BUSINESS REASONS

TAX COURT SAYS A CONSULTANT MAY NOT DEDUCT CONTRIBUTIONS TO SEP IF DETERMINED TO BE A “COMMON LAW” EMPLOYEE

DISTRICT COURT DECISION EMPHASIZES IMPORTANCE OF REVIEWING SPOUSAL RIGHTS UNDER 401(k) PLANS

IRS SAYS THAT SELF-EMPLOYED INDIVIDUALS MAY BE ENTITLED TO AN “ABOVE-THE-LINE” DEDUCTION FOR MEDICARE PREMIUMS

IRS PROVIDES “PASSIVE LOSS” RELIEF FOR REAL ESTATE PROFESSIONALS WHO OWN RENTAL REAL ESTATE

IRS ANNOUNCES THAT IT WILL NO LONGER APPLY RIGID 2-YEAR LIMITATION ON REQUESTS FOR “EQUITABLE” INNOCENT SPOUSE RELIEF

NEW REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR OWNERS OF CERTAIN “FOREIGN” INVESTMENTS OR ACCOUNTS

 

DEVELOPMENTS IMPACTING PRIMARILY BUSINESSES

RECENT TAX LEGISLATION

FIRST-YEAR §168(k) BONUS DEPRECIATION TEMPORARILY

INCREASED FROM 50% TO 100%

§168(k) BONUS DEPRECIATION FOR PASSENGER AUTOMOBILES, TRUCKS, AND SUVS

§179 DEDUCTION INCREASED FROM $250,000 TO $500,000 FOR 2010 AND 2011

TAXPAYERS CAN “ELECT” TO TREAT UP TO $250,000 OF “QUALIFIED REAL PROPERTY”

AS §179 PROPERTY FOR 2010 AND 2011

PROS AND CONS OF §179 DEDUCTION VERSUS §168(k) BONUS DEPRECIATION DEDUCTION

SELECTED “BUSINESS” TAX BREAKS SCHEDULED TO EXPIRE

“QUALIFIED SMALL BUSINESS STOCK” EXCLUSION TEMPORARILY INCREASED TO 100%

S CORP 10-YEAR BUILT-IN GAIN “WAITING” PERIOD TEMPORARILY SHORTENED TO 5 YEARS

CONGRESS REPEALS RECENTLY-ENACTED 1099 REPORTING RULES

IRS EXPANDS INTERIM RELIEF FROM REPORTING COST OF EMPLOYER-PROVIDED HEALTH INSURANCE ON W-2s

 

RECENT NON LEGISLATIVE TAX DEVELOPMENTS COURT CASES AND RULINGS  

HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS FOR S CORPORATION SHAREHOLDERS – INCLUDING MEDICARE PREMIUMS

COURT CONCLUDES THAT CPA’S FORMALLY-APPROVED SALARY FROM HIS S CORPORATION WAS UNREASONABLY LOW

 TAX COURT CONCLUDES THAT PASS-THROUGH INCOME TO LAW FIRM PARTNERS OPERATING AS A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP (LLP)

WAS SUBJECT TO SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE TAXES

IRS WARNS EMPLOYERS USING OUTSIDE PAYROLL FIRMS THAT THEY HAVE OBLIGATION TO MAKE SURE EMPLOYMENT TAXES ARE PAID

RECENTLY-UPDATED AUTOMATIC ACCOUNTING METHOD CHANGE PROCEDURES

THE IRS ANNOUNCES THAT MORE SMALL TAX-EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS MAY FILE A SIMPLIFIED ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN

FINAL COMMENTS

 

 DEVELOPMENTS IMPACTING PRIMARILY INDIVIDUALS

 

RECENT TAX LEGISLATION

Since March of 2010, Congress has enacted five tax bills which include the: HIRE Act (signed March 18, 2010), Health Care Act (signed March 30, 2010); Jobs Act of 2010 (signed September 27, 2010); Tax Relief Act of 2010 (signed December 17, 2010); and Comprehensive 1099 Taxpayer Protection Act ( signed April 14, 2011). Collectively, this legislation provides a host of tax relief for both “individuals” and “businesses.” However, many of these tax breaks are temporary and are scheduled to expire after 2011, or 2012. In this segment, we are highlighting the most significant tax relief for “individual” taxpayers, provided by the above tax bills, emphasizing the provisions that are expiring after 2011 or after 2012.

Existing Income Tax Rates Scheduled To Continue Through 2012. Over the past several months, President Obama has proposed several tax increases on higher-income taxpayers as part of his deficit reduction proposals. Due to the political uncertainty of these proposals, it is impossible to predict with any certainty what the tax rates may be after 2012. However, the existing individual income tax rates for all income levels are currently scheduled to remain in place through 2012. Consequently, the current 10% through 35% tax brackets for ordinary income, and the maximum 15% tax rate for long-term capital gains and qualified dividends (zero percent if the dividends or capital gains would otherwise fall in the 10% or 15% tax brackets) continue through 2012. Caution! Starting in 2013, absent Congressional action, the top individual income tax rates will generally increase to: 1) 39.6% for ordinary income; 2) 39.6% for qualified dividends; and 3) 20% for long-term capital gains. Planning Alert! In addition, starting in 2013, the Health Care Act imposes a new Medicare Surtax of 3.8% on the investment income (e.g., interest, dividends, capital gains) of higher-income individuals, and a Medicare Surtax of .9% on the earned income (e.g., W-2 income, self-employment income) of higher-income individuals.

 

•     No Personal Exemption Or Itemized Deduction Phase-Out Through 2012. For the past two decades, higher-income individuals have been subject to phase-out provisions that reduced their personal exemptions and itemized deductions as their income exceeded certain amounts. These phase-outs are eliminated for 2010, 2011, and 2012. Planning Alert! Starting in 2013, these personal exemption and itemized deductions phase-out rules will automatically re-appear, potentially causing the highest “effective” income tax rate for many higher-income individuals to be above the scheduled rate of 39.6% on ordinary income.

•     Marriage Penalty Relief Extended. Several tax provisions were enacted back in 2001 to reduce the so-called “marriage penalty” (i.e., provisions in the tax law causing married individuals filing jointly to pay more tax than if they were single filing separate returns). These relief provisions were originally scheduled to expire after 2010. However, these marriage penalty relief provisions (e.g., an enhanced standard deduction and larger 10% and 15% brackets for married taxpayers filing jointly) were extended through 2012. Absent future Congressional action, this marriage penalty relief will expire after 2012.

“Individual” Tax Breaks Scheduled To Expire. A host of other current tax breaks for individual taxpayers are scheduled to expire unless Congress takes action to extend these provisions. The expiration date for some of the more popular tax breaks are as follows:

•     Selected “Individual” Tax Breaks Expiring After 2011: 1) school teachers’ deduction (up to $250) for certain school supplies; 2) election to deduct state and local sales tax; 3) deduction (up to $4,000) for qualified higher education expenses; 4) expanded deduction and carryover limits for charitable contributions of “conservation easements”; 5) deduction for home mortgage “insurance premiums”; 6) “District of Columbia” first-time homebuyer’s credit; 7) tax‑free transfers from IRAs to charities for those at least age 70½;    8 ) 2% OASDI tax holiday; 9) “refundable” adoption credit; and 10) credit for energy-efficient improvements to your principal residence (Planning Alert! The maximum credit was $1,500 cumulative for 2009 and 2010, but dropped to a maximum life-time credit of $500 for installations during 2011).

••   Alternative Minimum Tax “Patch” Expires After 2011. For the past several years, Congress has enacted a series of temporary increases in the alternative minimum tax (AMT) exemption amounts to ensure that most lower and middle income taxpayers were not subject to the AMT. The current increased AMT exemption amounts expire after 2011. Also, the non-refundable personal income tax credits will not offset the AMT after 2011.

•     Selected “Individual” Tax Breaks Expiring After 2012: 1) enhanced rules for Coverdell education savings accounts; 2) enhanced student loan interest deduction; 3) enhanced earned income tax credit; 4) expanded and enhanced $1,000 child credit; 5) expanded child and dependent care credit; 6) expanded and enhanced American Opportunity Tax credit (formerly the “Hope” credit); 7) expanded rules for tax-free treatment of scholarships under the NHSC Scholarship Program and the Armed Forces Scholarship Program; and 8  )  tax-free employer-provided educational assistance up to $5,250 per year.

•     Planning Alert! Although Congress has traditionally extended a majority of expiring tax breaks in the past, there is no guarantee that it will do so in the future.

Estate And Gift Tax Relief Through 2012. Over the years, the estate tax has generally been imposed only on estates exceeding certain dollar amounts (“exclusion amounts”). In 2001, Congress increased the estate tax exclusion amount in stages and, by 2009, the estate tax applied only to taxable estates in excess of $3.5 million. The 2001 Act also repealed the estate tax for “2010 only.” The Tax Relief Act reinstated the estate tax retroactive to January 1, 2010. For 2010 through 2012, the Act increased the estate tax exclusion amount to $5 million ($5,120,000 for 2012). This legislation also reduced the tax rate on the amount of the estate in excess of $5 million to 35% (down from 55%). Caution! For individuals dying after 2012, the exclusion amount is scheduled to revert to $1 million, and the top rate is scheduled to go back up to 55%.

•           Election To “Opt Out” Of The Estate Tax For 2010 Only.  For individuals dying in 2010, the new law allows an executor the option to use the rules in effect prior to the reinstatement of the estate tax (i.e., the “no estate tax” rules), or the new rules (i.e., a “$5 million exclusion amount”). Although this option to use the “no estate tax” rules for 2010 only, could save “estate” taxes for larger estates (e.g., those over $5 million), it could have a negative “income” tax impact on the beneficiaries who receive appreciated property from the estate. This is because an individual who inherits an asset from an estate that elects out of the estate tax, generally acquires a basis for income tax purposes equal to the lesser ofthe decedent’s basis or the value of the asset on the date of the decedent’s death (commonly referred to as a “modified carryover basis”). However, under the modified carryover basis rule, there is a limited amount of basis increase for certain appreciated properties (e.g., generally up to a $1.3 million increase with an additional $3 million for assets passing to the surviving spouse). By contrast, if the executor does not elect out of the estate tax for 2010, heirs of the estate will generally acquire an income tax basis equal to the asset’s value on the decedent’s date of death (even if this value exceeds the decedent’s tax basis). In other words, there is no $1.3 million or $3 million limit on the basis increase to the heirs, if the executor does not elect out of the estate tax. Thus, if an estate with appreciated assets makes the “no estate tax” election for 2010, beneficiaries who later sell appreciated property they inherited from the estate might have a lower basis in the property and, therefore, a larger gain on the sale.

•     Tax Tip. For most estates of decedents dying in 2010 that are valued at $5 million or less, using the “new rules” (i.e., $5 million exclusion amount) will probably be preferable to the “no estate tax” election since: 1) there will be no estate tax, 2) no Federal estate tax return is required to be filed for 2010, and 3) the heirs of the estate will generally have a basis in appreciated assets received from the estate equal to the fair market value of the assets at the date of the decedent’s death. Estates choosing to use the “new rules” (i.e., the $5,000,000 exclusion) do not have to make an “election.” The new estate tax rules apply automatically unless the executor affirmatively elects out of the estate tax for 2010 by timely filing a Form 8939.

 •     Planning Alert! Most 2010 estates valued at more than $5 million will probably decide to make the “no estate tax” election in order to avoid having to pay any estate tax. However, for some estates in excess of $5 million with highly-appreciated assets, it may be preferable not to make the “no estate tax” election and pay some estate tax (i.e., 35% rate on estate’s value exceeding $5 million). This may be the case where the estate tax is small compared to the income tax savings resulting from the additional “step up” in basis of the appreciated assets received by the heirs. Caution! For estates of individuals who died in 2010 that exceed $5 million, determining whether to make the “no estate tax” election may involve complex calculations. Please call our office as soon as possible if you need assistance in making this decision. The deadline for making this election is January 17, 2012 (as discussed in more detail in the next segment).

 

  • Elections And Due Dates. For estates of decedents dying in 2010, the IRS has recently announced the due dates 1) for making the “no estate tax” election (which also requires the use of the modified carryover basis rules), and 2) for filing an estate tax return (if required) where the election is not made. The “no estate tax” election is made on Form 8939, and is due no later than January 17, 2012. If the estate makes this election, it will not be required to file a federal estate tax return (i.e., Form 706), because the election exempts the estate from any federal estate tax. If the estate does not wish to “elect out” of the estate tax for 2010, no election of any sort is required. Instead, the estate will “automatically” be subject to the retroactive estate tax rules and will generally be required to file a federal estate return (Form 706) only if the estate has a value exceeding $5 million. If a Form 706 is required to be filed, the filing deadlines are as follows: 1) if the decedent died after 2009 and before December 17, 2010, the due date was September 19, 2011 (unless the estate timely requested an automatic 6-month extension allowing it to file and pay taxes by March 19, 2012); and 2) if the decedent died after December 16, 2010 and before 2011, the due date is 9 months after the date of death (unless the estate timely requested an automatic 6-month extension for filing Form 706 and paying taxes).

 

  • Unused $5 Million Exclusion Amount Of First Spouse To Die Available To Surviving Spouse. Historically, each spouse’s estate has been entitled to a full estate tax exclusion amount (e.g., $3.5 million for 2009 and $5 million for 2010 through 2012). However, technical estate tax planning structures and strategies (e.g. credit shelter trusts) were often necessary to ensure that the estate tax exclusion amount of the first spouse to die was not partially or completely wasted. For individuals dying in 2011 or 2012, the personal representative of a deceased spouse’s estate may “elect” for any of the $5 million exclusion amount not used by the estate of the first spouse to die to be available to the surviving spouse. Thus, under this new “portability” feature, a surviving spouse could actually end up with an exclusion amount of up to $10 million (i.e., where the first spouse to die had no assets). Tax Tip! Unless this portability feature is extended by Congress, it will only be available to be used by a surviving spouse’s estate where the surviving spouse passes away before 2013, or for gifts made by the surviving spouse before 2013. Planning Pointer! Traditional estate planning, including the use of credit shelter trusts, should not be neglected! In addition to potential estate tax savings, use of a will and traditional estate planning techniques are often necessary to accomplish a decedent’s wishes. In addition, credit shelter trusts continue to be an important estate planning tool: 1) because the portability provision is currently scheduled to apply only for individuals dying in 2011 and 2012, 2) to keep post-death appreciation of assets in the deceased spouse’s estate from increasing the size of the surviving spouse’s estate, and 3) to accomplish non-tax goals and desires of the decedent. Planning Alert! The unused exclusion amount of the first spouse to die may be used to reduce the taxable estate or taxable gifts of the surviving spouse only if the deceased spouse’s estate timely files an estate tax return using Form 706 (even if the estate tax return is not otherwise required).

••   Filing Form 706. For decedents who pass away in 2011 or 2012, the estate is generally not required to file an estate tax return (Form 706) unless the value of the estate exceeds $5,000,000 ($5,120,000 for 2012). However, if a spouse dies in 2011 or 2012, the personal representative must complete and timely file an estate tax return (even if the value of the estate is not more than $5 million) in order for the deceased spouse’s unused $5 million exclusion amount to be available to the surviving spouse. An estate tax return is due 9 months after the date of death (unless the personal representative timely requests a 6-month extension). Consequently, for many spouses who pass away in 2011 or 2012 and who do not have a large enough taxable estate to fully utilize the $5 million exclusion amount, it may be advisable to timely file a Form 706 in order to preserve the unused exclusion amount for the surviving spouse. In most cases, it would be advisable for the personal representative to obtain an automatic 6-month extension for filing the Form 706, providing extra time to evaluate whether filing a Form 706 would be warranted. Caution! Even if the surviving spouse does not expect to use the unused exclusion amount of the deceased spouse for gifts before 2013 and is expected to live beyond 2012, Congress may extend this provision. Therefore, executors of estates of individuals dying in 2011 or 2012 should strongly consider filing a Form 706 to make the election where there is a surviving spouse. For example, an unused exclusion amount of $1,000,000 could possibly save the surviving spouse $350,000.

 

  • Gift Tax. For 2011 and 2012, there is a single, unified, lifetime “estate” and “gift” tax exclusion amount of $5,000,000 ($5,120,000 for 2012). The gift tax rate for 2011 and 2012 on amounts in excess of the exclusion amount is 35%. This exclusion amount may be used to reduce otherwise taxable gifts during life and any unused amount may be used to reduce estate tax at death. Planning Alert! After 2012, the exclusion amount is currently scheduled to revert to $1 million, and the top gift tax rate is scheduled to increase to 55%. Tax Tip.  Any unused $5 million exclusion amount that passes from a spouse dying in 2011 or 2012 to the surviving spouse (as discussed above), may be used by the surviving spouse to reduce other wise taxable gifts made before 2013. Any amount not used to offset pre-2013 gifts, may be used in the surviving spouse’s estate if the surviving spouse dies before 2013.

Two Percent Social Security Tax Holiday For “2011 Only.” For 2011 only, there is a 2% reduction in Social Security taxes for both employees and self-employed individuals. Therefore, if you are an employee, your take-home pay for 2011 is generally being increased by 2% of each dollar of compensation that you earn. However, since Social Security taxes apply only to the first $106,800 of compensation in 2011, your maximum savings will generally be $2,136 (i.e., $106,800 x 2%). Likewise, if you are self-employed, your Social Security taxes are reduced by 2% of your self-employment income for 2011 (up to $106,800). Therefore, if your self-employment income is $106,800 or more, your self-employment taxes will be reduced by $2,136. Tax Tip! This temporary Social Security tax reduction will not impact your future Social Security benefits.

 Adoption Credit Increased And Made Refundable For 2010 And 2011. For tax years beginning in 2010 and 2011, two significant changes were made to the adoption credit: 1) the maximum adoption tax credit was increased to $13,360 (for 2011) per child, and 2) the credit became “refundable” (this generally means that, to the extent the credit exceeds your income taxes before the credit, the IRS will send you a check for the excess). For 2011, the adoption credit is phased‑out as your modified adjusted gross income increases from $185,210 to $225,210 (whether you’re married filing a joint return, or single). Tax Tip. Generally, for “domestic” adoptions, you are allowed the adoption credit in the tax year following the year the qualifying adoption expense is “paid.” However, the credit is allowed for adoption expenses paid in the same tax year that the adoption is finalized. Therefore, qualified expenses for a “domestic” adoption paid during 2011 will generally result in a credit in 2012 (when the credit is no longer refundable). However, if you can finalize the adoption on or before December 31, 2011, your 2011 expenses will qualify for the credit in 2011 and the credit will be refundable if you have insufficient tax to utilize the credit. Tax Alert! For 2012, the adoption credit is scheduled to be reduced to $12,650 and will not be refundable. Foreign Adoptions. Expenses incurred in attempting to adopt a child who is not a citizen or resident of the United States, do not qualify for the adoption credit unless and until the adoption is actually finalized. Consequently, if you are currently pursuing the adoption of a foreign child, you will be entitled to the adoption credit for 2011 only if you finalize the adoption by the end of 2011.

Tax-Free Medical Benefits Extended To Children Under Age 27. Effective March 30, 2010, an employer‑provided health plan may provide tax-free reimbursements to an employee’s child who is under age 27 at the end of the tax year. This exclusion applies even if the employee cannot claim the child as a dependent for tax purposes. Previously, an employer could only reimburse “tax free” the medical expenses of an employee, the employee’s spouse and the employee’s “dependents.”   

In addition, if you are self-employed, you may take an “above-the-line” deduction (i.e., unrestricted by the limitations on “itemized deductions”) for health insurance premiums that you pay for your child who is under age 27 at the end of the year, even if the child is not your “dependent” for tax purposes.

RECENT NON LEGISLATIVE TAX DEVELOPMENTS  COURT CASES  AND RULINGS

In 2011, the IRS and the Courts have been busy issuing rulings and decisions that will affect many taxpayers. The following highlights some of the more important developments impacting individual taxpayers:

IRS Says Employee-Use Of Employer‑Provided Cell Phone Can Be Tax‑Free Fringe Benefit If Provided Primarily For Noncompensatory Business Reasons. If your employer provides you with a cell phone or similar communication device (e.g., PDA, Blackberry), the IRS has recently announced that this will be deemed a tax‑free fringe benefit so long as the phone is provided “primarily for non‑compensatory business reasons.” This generally means that if you are provided the phone because your employer needs to be able to contact you at all times for work‑related matters, your employer needs you to be available to speak with clients while you are away from the office, or you need to speak with clients in other time zones at times outside your normal work day, your phone will not be treated as taxable compensation to you. The IRS also announced that your employer may reimburse you for work‑related use of your personally‑owned cell phone, provided your employer requires you to use your personal phone for business purposes and the reimbursement is only for reasonable cell phone coverage. Planning Alert! The IRS warns that your employer‑provided phone (or your employer’s reimbursements for your personally‑owned phone) will be taxable if the arrangement is a substitute for compensation or there is no substantial business reason for you to have the cell phone. For example, if an employer provides you the phone primarily to promote goodwill among employees, or as a perk to attract employees, IRS says that this will constitute taxable compensation.

Tax Court Says A Consultant May Not Deduct Contributions To SEP If Determined To Be A “Common Law” Employee. Generally, if you are a sole proprietor or independent contractor, you can establish a qualified retirement plan (e.g., 401(k), SIMPLE Plan, SEP) and make deductible contributions. By contrast, if you are an “employee” and do not have another business, generally you may participate in your employer’s retirement plan, but you are not allowed to establish a separate 401(k) plan, SIMPLE Plan, or SEP for yourself. In a recent Tax Court case, an outside consultant was providing services primarily to one client that classified him as an “independent contractor” for tax reporting purposes. Consistent with that treatment, the consultant established a SEP to which he made deductible contributions. After an IRS audit, the IRS asserted that the consultant was really a “common law” employee of the client. The Court ultimately agreed with the IRS, and disallowed any deduction for the consultant’s contributions to his SEP, and also imposed an “excess contribution” excise tax on the contributions. Planning Alert!Determining whether a worker is an independent contractor or common law employee for tax purposes is a gray

area, and is generally a case‑by‑case determination. The IRS has recently advised its field agents to pay special attention to the “independent contractor” classification of professional “consultants” particularly former executives who are now providing similar services to their former employer as an independent contractor. Caution! If you are receiving income as an “independent contractor,” we should carefully analyze your classification before you establish a retirement plan for your business. This case illustrates that setting up a plan could be costly if you are later determined to be an employee and not an independent contractor.

District Court Decision Emphasizes Importance Of Reviewing Spousal Rights Under 401(k) Plans. Many employer‑sponsored retirement plans (e.g., a 401(k) plan) provide that if a participant dies, his or her plan balance must go to the surviving spouse unless the surviving spouse expressly waives survivorship rights to the plan account. In a recent case, a participant in a 401(k) plan named his three adult children as the beneficiaries of his 401(k) account after his first wife’s death. He later remarried and died 6 weeks after the wedding. Even though his children were expressly named as beneficiaries, the Court concluded that his 401(k) balance must go to his second spouse because she had not waived her spousal rights to the survivor benefit. Planning Alert! The participant could have avoided this problem by having his new spouse waive her spousal rights in the plan after he remarried, if she were willing to do so.

 IRS Says That Self‑Employed Individuals May Be Entitled To An “Above‑The‑Line” Deduction For Medicare Premiums. Generally, if you are self-employed, a partner in a partnership, or a more than 2% shareholder of an S corporation, you may qualify for an “above‑the‑line” deduction (i.e., unrestricted by the limitations on “itemized deductions”) for health insurance premiums you pay for yourself, your spouse, your dependents or your children who have not reached age 27 by the end of the tax year (even if a child is not your dependent). Until recently, there had been some confusion as to whether Medicare premiums paid by a self‑employed individual, a partner in a partnership, or a more than 2% shareholder of an S corporation, qualified for this treatment. The IRS has now confirmed that if you otherwise qualify for an above‑the‑line deduction for health insurance premiums, you may be able to deduct your Medicare premiums. Tax Tip. The IRS also says that if you are self-employed and failed to take this deduction for Medicare premiums in prior years for which the statute of limitations is still open (generally, three years back), we may be able to amend those returns and take the deduction. Please contact us if you think this applies to you and we will assist in determining if you may amend prior year returns and take the deduction. Planning Alert! If you are a partner in a partnership or a more than 2% shareholder in an S corporation and you are paying your 2011 health insurance premiums directly (including Medicare premiums), the IRS says that you should have the partnership or S corporation reimburse you for those premiums before the end of 2011 to qualify for the above‑the‑line deduction. If you are in this situation, please call our office and we will help you structure the reimbursement of the premiums to maximize your deduction. Note! If you own more than 2% of the stock of an “S” corporation, please see the section of this letter below concerning the tax treatment of health insurance premiums for S corporation shareholders for additional information.

IRS Provides “Passive Loss” Relief For Real Estate Professionals Who Own Rental Real Estate. Generally, any losses from renting real estate, where the average period rented is more than seven days, are deemed for tax purposes to be “passive” losses. Passive activity losses (PALs) are generally suspended, and are not allowed unless and until you have qualifying “passive” income to offset the losses (dividends, interest, wages, and income from business activities in which you materially participate, are not considered “passive income” for this purpose). However, if you are a “qualified real estate professional” (QREP) and meet certain “material participation” tests, you will be able to deduct losses from your rental real estate activities even if you do not have passive income (e.g., the losses could offset your W‑2 compensation, interest, dividend income, and income from businesses in which you materially participate). Generally to be a QREP, (assuming that you meet certain “material participation” tests) you must: 1) spend more than 750 hours for the year working in qualifying real estate activities in which you materially participate, AND 2) spend over 50% of your work time for the year working in qualifying real estate activities in which you materially participate. As a QREP, you are also allowed to make a “tax” election to treat all of your rental real estate activities as a “single” rental real estate activity. Planning Alert! If you have multiple rental properties, this election frequently makes it easier for you to qualify as a QREP and also to meet the required “material participation” tests, allowing your rental real estate losses to offset your non‑passive income. This “aggregation” election is generally made by filing a statement with your original income tax return for the tax year you want to treat all of your real estate rental properties as a single activity. However, under new IRS guidance, you may now be able to make this election for prior tax years on an amended return if you meet certain conditions. Tax Tip. Making this election for prior tax years may insulate rental real estate deductions that you have taken in prior years from future IRS attack. These rules can be complicated, please call our office for additional information if you think this election might benefit you.

IRS Announces That It Will No Longer Apply Rigid 2‑Year Limitation On Requests For “Equitable” Innocent Spouse Relief. Married couples filing a joint return are jointly and severally liable for any taxes, interest and penalties arising from their joint returns. There are three provisions in the law that potentially allow an “innocent” spouse to avoid this liability. One of those provisions will allow relief if a spouse can demonstrate that it would be “inequitable” to hold that spouse responsible for the tax liability, interest, and penalties arising from the joint return. However, an IRS regulation states that in order to qualify for this “equitable” relief, the spouse must submit an “equitable innocent spouse relief” request to the IRS no later than two years from the first collection activity against the spouse. The IRS has recently announced that it will no longer apply this rigid 2‑year filing deadline for equitable innocent spouse relief. Planning Alert! If you have previously requested equitable innocent spouse relief and relief was denied because you did not apply for relief within the previously required 2-year period, please call us, you may be able to reapply for relief under this new provision. Caution! The other innocent spouse relief provisions (other than the “equitable relief” provision) continue to require a request for relief within two years from the first IRS contact concerning the liability. Therefore, please call us if you have been contacted by the IRS concerning payment of taxes on a joint return and you wish to request innocent spouse relief. We can help you file for relief.

New Reporting Requirements For Owners Of Certain “Foreign” Investments Or Accounts.   Any U.S. person having interests in (or signature authority over) foreign financial accounts that in the aggregate exceed $10,000 at any time during the calendar year is required to file a foreign bank account report, Form TD F 90‑22.1 (FBAR), disclosing those accounts to the Department of Treasury. The FBAR is due by June 30 of the following year. Civil penalties for non‑willful failure to file the FBAR can range up to $10,000 per violation. The criminal penalties for willful failure to file a FBAR include a monetary penalty of up to $500,000 and a prison term of up to 10 years. Under the FBAR reporting rules, a “financial account” generally includes a securities, brokerage, savings, demand, checking, deposit, time deposit, or other account maintained with a foreign financial institution. A financial account also includes a commodity futures or options account, an insurance or annuity policy with a cash value, and shares in a mutual fund or similar pooled fund. Generally, a “foreign financial account” is a financial account located outside of the United States. For example, under the FBAR reporting rules, an account maintained with a branch of a United States bank that is physically located outside of the United States is a foreign financial account. An account maintained with a branch of a foreign bank that is physically located in the United States is not a foreign financial account. Tax Tip. The IRS recently clarified that owners and beneficiaries of IRAs or qualified retirement plans are not required to report a foreign financial account held in the IRA or qualified plan. In addition, IRS says that financial accounts maintained with a financial institution located on a U.S. military installation is not required to be reported.

The FBAR reporting rules have been in effect for years. However, recent legislation imposes a new reporting requirement on individuals who, for any tax year beginning after March 18, 2010, hold interests in “specified foreign financial assets” (SFFAs) exceeding certain threshold amounts. For example, IRS says reporting is required for individuals filing a joint return where the aggregate SFFAs are greater than $100,000 at the end of the year or greater than $200,000 at any time during the year. SFFAs include foreign financial accounts. However, according to the IRS, SFFAs also include other foreign financial assets held for investment including stock in foreign corporations; interests in foreign partnerships; notes, bonds and debentures, issued by foreign persons; interests in foreign trusts or estates; and many other types of foreign investment assets. SFFAs are required to be reported on Form 8938. Form 8938 is filed along with an individual’s income tax return for the applicable year. The penalty for failing to timely file Form 8938 generally ranges from $10,000 to $50,000. Planning Alert! For the vast majority of individuals subject to this new reporting requirement, the 2011 tax year will be the first year that the Form 8938 will be required to be filed. However, as we complete this letter, the IRS has not yet released its final Form 8938, or its regulations providing guidance on how these new reporting rules will work. Consequently, the IRS has announced that individuals are not required to file Form 8938 until the form is finalized and released to the public. Once it is finalized, Form 8938 will have to be filed with the individual’s next income tax return (and will have to include the required information for any previous “suspended” year). Caution! FBAR reporting is still required for persons with aggregate financial accounts (or signature authority over such accounts) in excess of $10,000. The Form 8938 reporting requirements are in addition to the FBAR reporting requirements. Tax Tip. If you need to file, or are uncertain whether or not you need to file a FBAR form or a Form 8938, we will be glad to assist you.

 

 

DEVELOPMENTS IMPACTING PRIMARILY BUSINESSES

 

RECENT TAX LEGISLATION

 The following highlights significant tax relief provisions of the five most recently-enacted tax bills that impact businesses. However, most of these tax breaks are temporary and are scheduled to expire after 2011, or 2012. Therefore, we are emphasizing the provisions that are available through 2011, or through 2012.

 First-Year §168(k) Bonus Depreciation Temporarily Increased From 50% To 100%. For qualifying “new” business property placed-in-service from 2008 through September 8, 2010, businesses were allowed a 50% first-year §168(k) bonus depreciation deduction. Recent legislation increased this deduction to 100% for new “qualifying business property” acquired and placed‑in‑service after September 8, 2010 and through December 31, 2011 (through December 31, 2012 for certain long-production-period property and qualifying noncommercial aircraft). In other words, for §168(k) property acquired and placed-in-service within this period, the entire cost of the property can be fully deducted. For qualifying §168(k) property placed-in-service during 2012, the §168(k) bonus depreciation deduction reverts back to 50%, and generally expires altogether for property placed-in-service after 2012. Tax Tip. Qualifying business property that is “acquired” after September 8, 2010 and generally before 2012 pursuant to a binding contract entered into before September 9, 2010 will still qualify for the 100% §168(k) bonus depreciation, provided that the binding contract was entered into after 2007 and the property is placed-in-service by December 31, 2011. Planning Alert! Fiscal year taxpayers must generally acquire and place-in-service qualifying assets by December 31, 2011 to qualify for the 100% §168(k) deduction. In other words, the deadline is generally December 31, 2011 for both fiscal year and calendar year taxpayers.

 

  • Qualifying 50%/100% §168(k) Bonus Depreciation Property. Property qualifies for the §168(k) bonus depreciation deduction if it is purchased new and it has a depreciable life for tax purposes of 20 years or less (e.g., machinery and equipment, furniture and fixtures, cars and light general purpose trucks, sidewalks, roads, landscaping, depreciable computer software, farm buildings, qualified motor fuels facilities and “qualified leasehold improvements”). Planning Alert! These are only examples of qualifying property. If you have a question about property that we did not mention, call us and we will help you determine if it qualifies.

 

  • Re‑Conditioning Used Property. Although §168(k) bonus depreciation property must generally be “new,” capital expenditures incurred to re‑condition or re‑build used property may qualify. Example. Tim purchases a used machine for use in his business during 2011 for $50,000. Also during 2011, Tim incurs $20,000 to recondition the machine. The $50,000 cost of the used machine does not qualify for the §168(k) bonus depreciation deduction. However, the $20,000 expenditure to recondition the machine would qualify for the 100% deduction.

 

  • Qualified Leasehold Improvement Property. Even though improvements to a commercial building do not generally qualify for the §168(k) bonus depreciation deduction, “qualified leasehold improvement property” (QLHIP) does qualify. Furthermore, QLHIP qualifies for the 100% deduction if it is “acquired and placed-in-service” after September 8, 2010 and before 2012. QLIP is generally any capital improvement to an interior portion of a building that is used for nonresidential commercial purposes, provided that 1) the improvement is made under or pursuant to a lease either by the lessee, sublessee or lessor of that interior building portion; 2) the interior building portion is to be occupied exclusively by the lessee or sublessee; and 3) the improvement is placed-in-service more than 3 years after the date the building was first placed-in-service. Planning Alert! QLIP does not include any improvement attributable to: the enlargement of the building; any elevator or escalator; any structural component benefitting a common area; or the internal structural framework of the building. Caution! Leasehold improvements made to property leased between certain related persons will not qualify.
  • Newly‑Constructed Buildings And Cost Segregation Studies. Depreciable components of newly‑constructed or newly‑renovated buildings that are properly classified as depreciable personal property under a cost segregation study with a depreciable life of 20 years or less, qualify for the 100% §168(k) bonus depreciation if “acquired and placed-in-service” after September 8, 2010 and before 2012. In certain situations, these nonstructural components of the building might qualify for the 100% bonus depreciation even if the construction or renovation of the building itself began before September 9, 2010, provided you make a timely election to apply the 100% §168(k) rules separately to the components.

 

  • 100% §168(k) Bonus Depreciation Property Generally Must Be “Placed-In-Service” By December 31, 2011. If you plan on making substantial acquisitions of machinery, equipment, business vehicles, or other property qualifying for the 100% §168(k) bonus depreciation, you must place the property in service on or before the end of 2011 (before the end of 2012 for certain long-production-period property and qualifying noncommercial aircraft). Generally, “placed-in-service” means the property is ready and available for use. To be safe, qualifying property should be set up and tested on or before the last day of 2011. Planning Alert! The §168(k) bonus depreciation reverts to 50% for qualifying property placed-in-service in 2012 (except for certain long-production-period property and qualifying noncommercial aircraft).

§168(k) Bonus Depreciation For Passenger Automobiles, Trucks, And SUVs. The maximum annual depreciation deduction (including the §179 deduction, discussed below) for most business automobiles is capped at certain dollar amounts. For a business auto first placed-in-service in calendar year 2011, the maximum first-year depreciation deduction is generally capped at $3,060 ($3,260 for trucks and vans not weighing over 6,000 lbs). However, Congress previously increased the first-year depreciation cap for vehicles qualifying for the §168(k) bonus depreciation deduction by $8,000 for 2008 and 2009. Recent legislation again extended this $8,000 increase through 2012 for new vehicles otherwise qualifying for the §168(k) bonus depreciation deduction. For example, let’s say you are self employed and you are planning to purchase a new vehicle weighing 6,000 lbs or less that will be used 100% in your business. If you buy a new car and place it in service during 2011, your first‑year depreciation deduction will be $11,060 ($11,260 if you bought a truck or van). Tax Tip! Trucks, vans, and SUVs with loaded vehicle weights over 6,000 lbs are generally exempt from the passenger auto annual depreciation caps discussed above. Therefore, if you buy a new “heavy” truck, van, or SUV and use it 100% in your business during 2011, you could deduct the “entire cost” for 2011 using §168(k).

§179 Deduction Increased From $250,000 To $500,000 For 2010 And 2011. For the last several years, Congress has increased the maximum §179 up-front deduction for the cost of qualifying new or used depreciable business property (e.g., business equipment, computers, etc.). For property placed-in-service in tax years beginning in 2010 and 2011, the §179 cap was increased from $250,000 to $500,000, and the beginning of the deduction phase-out threshold was also increased from $800,000 to $2,000,000. In addition, for 2010 and 2011 purchases, a taxpayer may elect for up to $250,000 of “qualified real property” (discussed in the next segment) to be §179 property. Prior to this change, real property generally did not qualify for the §179 deduction.

Taxpayers Can “Elect” To Treat Up To $250,000 Of “Qualified Real Property” As §179 

 

Property For 2010 And 2011. Traditionally, the up-front §179 deduction was only allowed for depreciable, tangible, “personal” property, such as equipment, computers, vehicles, etc. However, taxpayers may “elect” to treat up to $250,000 of qualified “real” property as §179 property, provided the property is placed-in-service in tax years beginning in 2010 or 2011. “Qualified Real Property” includes property within any of the following three categories: 1) Qualified Leasehold Improvement Property (generally capital improvements to the interior portion of certain leased buildings that are used for nonresidential commercial purposes); 2) Qualified Retail Improvement Property (generally capital improvements made to certain buildings which are open to the general public for the sale of tangible personal property); and 3) Qualified Restaurant Property (generally capital expenditures for the improvement, purchase, or construction of a building, if more than 50% of the building’s square footage is devoted to the preparation of, and seating for, the on‑premises consumption of prepared meals). If you elect to take a $250,000 §179 deduction for qualified real property, the $500,000 overall §179 deduction limitation is reduced to $250,000 ($500,000 – $250,000). In other words, the $250,000 §179 limitation for “qualified real property” is a part of the overall $500,000 §179 limitation and not in addition to the $500,000 limitation.

 Planning Alert! If you are currently acquiring or making capital improvements to “qualified real property,” and you want to take the §179 write-off for your tax year beginning in 2011, you must place the building (or capital improvements) in service by the end of your 2011 tax year. A certificate of occupancy will generally constitute placing the building or improvement in service.

Pros And Cons Of §179 Deduction Versus §168(k) Bonus Depreciation Deduction. For qualifying property purchased and placed-in-service in 2011, in many cases both the §179 deduction and the 100% §168(k) bonus depreciation deduction will be available for the same property. For example, both provisions would apply to new depreciable, tangible, “personal” property (e.g., new business equipment, computers, vehicles, etc.). Where both the §179 and the §168(k) deduction is available, generally the 100% §168(k) bonus depreciation deduction would be preferable to the §179 deduction because the §179 deduction is not allowed in excess of your business income, while the 100% §168(k) bonus depreciation has no such limit and can generate an overall tax loss (i.e., “net operating loss”). You can use a net operating loss to offset income in the preceding 2 years (allowing you to recoup taxes paid in those previous years) as well as up to 20 future years. However, the §179 deduction may be preferable where: 1) your business is purchasing “used” business property (§168(k) bonus depreciation only applies to “new” property); 2) your business is purchasing “qualified restaurant property” or “qualified retail property” which qualifies for the §179 deduction but does not qualify for the §168(k) bonus depreciation deduction; 3) your business is located in a state that allows some or all of the §179 deduction for state income tax purposes, while the state does not allow any or as much §168(k) bonus depreciation; or 4) your business is subject to the uniform capitalization (UNICAP) rules (the §179 deduction is not required to be capitalized into the cost of inventory while the §168(k) bonus depreciation deduction is not exempt from the UNICAP rules). Planning Alert! These rules are complex. If your business is considering significant asset purchases, please call us so we can help you develop a strategy to utilize these rules to maximize your tax savings.

Selected “Business” Tax Breaks Scheduled To Expire. A host of current tax breaks for businesses not previously discussed in this letter are scheduled to expire unless Congress takes action to extend these provisions. The expiration dates for some of the more popular tax breaks are as follows:

 

  • Selected “Business” Tax Breaks Expiring After 2011: 1) 15‑year (instead of 39‑year) depreciation period for qualified leasehold improvements, qualified restaurant property, and qualified retail improvement property; 2) 7‑year depreciation period for certain motor sports racetrack property; 3) research and development credit; 4) employer differential wage credit for payments to military personnel; 5) various tax incentives for investing in the District of Columbia; 6) favorable S corporation charitable contribution provisions; 7) 100% exclusion of the gain from the sale of certain small business stock (discussed in more detail below);  8 ) tax benefits for certain qualified energy-efficient expenditures; 9) enhanced charitable contribution rules for qualifying business entities contributing computer equipment, book, and food inventory; 10) work opportunity tax credit for qualified employees; and 11) temporary reduction in the waiting period for an S corporation to avoid the built-in gains tax (discussed in more detail below).

 

  • Selected “Business” Tax Breaks Expiring After 2012: 1) election for C corps to exchange bonus depreciation for refundable AMT credits; 2) up to $5,250 tax free employer-provided education assistance; 3) credit for employer-provided child-care facilities; and 4) the 15% “accumulated earnings” tax rate and “personal holding company” tax rate (both rates increase to 39.6% after 2012).

“Qualified Small Business Stock” Exclusion Temporarily Increased To 100%. If you sell “qualified small business stock” (QSBS) acquired after September 27, 2010 and before January 1, 2012, you may be able to exclude the entire gain from taxable income if you hold the stock for more than 5 years (the gain will also be exempt from the alternative minimum tax). QSBS is generally stock of a non-publicly traded domestic “C” corporation engaged in a qualifying business, purchased directly from the corporation, and held for more than 5 years; where the issuing corporation meets certain active business requirements and has assets at the time the stock is issued of $50 million or less. Businesses engaged in a professional service, banking, insurance, financing, leasing, investing, hotel, motel, restaurant, mining, or farming activity generally do not qualify. Planning Alert! If you are considering investing in a small business, we will gladly help you evaluate whether structuring your investment as QSBS will work to your overall tax advantage. However, you must act promptly to take advantage of this narrow window of opportunity to qualify for the 100% exclusion. Only stock acquired from September 28, 2010 through December 31, 2011 qualifies for the 100% exclusion (after you satisfy the 5-year holding requirement). Also, to qualify, you must purchase the stock directly from the corporation that is issuing the stock or from an underwriter of the stock (stock purchased from other third parties does not qualify).

S Corp 10-Year Built‑In Gain “Waiting” Period Temporarily Shortened To 5 Years. If a regular “C” corporation elects “S” corporation status (a “Converted S corporation”), the election itself generally does not trigger income. However, the Converted S corporation must generally pay a 35% corporate “built-in gains tax” on gain from the sale of any built-in gain asset (up to the amount of appreciation in that asset on the effective date of the S election), if the asset is sold during the first 10 years following the S election. A built-in gain asset is generally any asset with a market value greater than the asset’s basis on the effective date of the S election. The Jobs Act has temporarily reduced the 10-year waiting period to 5 years for S corp tax years beginning in 2011. That is, the Jobs Act provides that there will be no 35% built-in gains tax on the net recognized built-in gain of an S corporation for any taxable year beginning in 2011, if the 5th year in the waiting period (i.e., “recognition period”) preceded such taxable year. Planning Alert! For sales of “built-in gain” assets that occur in tax years beginning after 2011, the waiting period to avoid the built-in gains tax is scheduled to revert to 10 years. Caution! We have just summarized these extremely complicated rules in this letter. If your S corporation plans to sell a built-in gain asset, please call us. We will gladly help you determine if the S corporation qualifies under this special 5-year rule.

 Congress Repeals Recently-Enacted 1099 Reporting Rules. New rules enacted in 2010 expanded the 1099 reporting rules to include payments aggregating $600 or more made to “corporations” (previously, payments to corporate payees, other than attorneys and certain health care providers, were exempt from the 1099 reporting rules). These changes also expanded the 1099 reporting requirements to include payments of $600 or more for “property” (previously, the 1099 reporting rules generally applied to payments for “services”). Both of these changes were effective for payments made after 2011. In addition, effective for payments made after 2010, Congress imposed 1099 reporting requirements on taxpayers receiving real estate rental income, whether or not the taxpayers were in the rental real estate “trade or business.” The Comprehensive 1099 Taxpayer Protection Act of 2011 has now retroactively repealed all three of these provisions as if they had never been enacted. Practice Alert! If you are considered to be in the “trade or business” of renting real estate (traditionally a facts & circumstances determination), you may still be required to file a Form 1099 for payments of $600 or more to service providers (e.g., payments to a plumber or painter). Also, the 1099 reporting requirements continue to apply to payments made to corporations for attorneys’ fees, and to corporations providing medical or health care services.

IRS Expands Interim Relief From Reporting Cost Of Employer-Provided Health Insurance On W-2s. Beginning with 2011 W-2s, employers were generally required to report the cost of employer-provided health insurance coverage on Forms W‑2. In 2010, the IRS announced that this reporting would be “optional” for all employers for the 2011 Forms W-2 (generally given to employees in January, 2012). The IRS recently extended this interim relief by making the reporting of the health insurance cost “voluntary” for “2012 Forms W-2″ for employers that file less than 250 W-2s for the 2011 calendar. Therefore, if your business files less than 250 W-2s for compensation paid to employees in 2011, it will not be required to report the health insurance cost on the 2012 W-2s (generally filed in January 2013). Practice Alert! Reporting the health insurance cost on the W-2 is for information purposes only, it does not cause the premiums to be taxable to the employee.

 RECENT NON LEGISLATIVE TAX DEVELOPMENTS COURT CASES AND RULINGS

The following are highlights from some of the more important recent IRS rulings and Court cases that impact businesses:

Health Insurance Premiums For S Corporation Shareholders ‑ Including Medicare Premiums. Generally, if you own S corporation stock and the S corporation pays for your health insurance premiums, IRS says you can take an “above‑the‑line” deduction (i.e., unrestricted by the 7½% subtraction as an itemized medical expense deduction) for the premiums on your personal tax return if the S corporation timely reports the cost of the premiums paid on your W‑2 as wages. However, if the medical insurance policy is your personal policy, the IRS says that your S corporation must pay the premiums directly, or reimburse you for the premiums before the end of the year and timely report the payment (or reimbursement) on your W‑2 as wages for you to take an “above‑the‑line” deduction on your personal return. Planning Alert! Make sure your S corporation complies with these rules (including reimbursing any premiums you paid during 2011 by 12/31/11 and including any premiums the S corporation paid for you or reimbursed you on your 2011 W-2) so you will not be limited to a deduction only for the premiums in excess of 7½% of your AGI. Tax Tip. The above rules apply to premiums paid or reimbursed for you, your spouse, your dependents, and any of your children under age 27 at the end of the year (even if the child does not qualify as your dependent). In addition, the IRS has clarified that Medicare premiums qualify as medical insurance premiums. Therefore, the above rules also apply if the S corporation reimburses or pays your Medicare premiums.

 Court Concludes That CPA’s Formally‑Approved Salary From His S Corporation Was Unreasonably Low. For 2011, an employer must pay FICA taxes of 7.65% on an employee’s wages up to $106,800 and FICA taxes of 1.45% on wages in excess of $106,800. In addition, for 2011, an employer must withhold FICA taxes from an employee’s wages of 5.65% on wages up to $106,800 (normally 7.65%, but reduced to 5.65% for 2011 only) and 1.45% of wages in excess of $106, 800. If you are a stockholder/employee of an S corporation, this FICA tax applies to the salary (i.e., wages) you take from your S corporation. Other income that passes through to you or is distributed to you as a distribution on your stock is generally not subject to FICA taxes or to self-employment taxes. Planning Alert! If the IRS determines that you have taken an unreasonably “low” salary from your S corporation, the Service will generally argue that other amounts you have received from your S corporation (e.g., distributions) are disguised “compensation” and should be subject to FICA taxes. Determining “reasonable salaries” for S corporation stockholder/employees is a hot audit issue, and the IRS has a winning record on taking taxpayers to Court on this issue. The IRS has been particularly successful where S corporation owners pay themselves no salary even though they provided significant services to the corporation. However, in a recent case, the IRS took a CPA to Court who had paid himself $24,000 of salary from his S corporation, while receiving additional cash “distributions” from the S corporation of  approximately $200,000. The Court concluded that his salary (subject to payroll taxes) should be $91,000 rather than $24,000. Therefore, the Court treated $67,000 of the $200,000 of distributions from the S corporation as additional wages. Caution! Determining a “reasonable” salary for an S corporation shareholder is a case‑by‑case determination, and there are no “rules of thumb” for determining whether the compensation is “reasonable.” However, this case makes it clear that salaries to S corporation shareholders should be supported by independent data (e.g., comparable industry compensation studies), and be properly documented and approved by the corporation. Planning Alert! Keeping salaries low and minimizing your FICA tax could also reduce your Social Security benefits when you retire. Furthermore, if your S corporation has a qualified retirement plan, reducing your salary may reduce the amount of contributions that can be made to the plan on your behalf since contributions to the plan are based upon your “wages.”

 Tax Court Concludes That Pass‑Through Income To Law Firm Partners Operating As A Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) Was Subject To Social Security And Medicare Taxes. Partners of businesses operating as partnerships are generally subject to Social Security and Medicare taxes (SECA tax) on their business income from the partnership. For example, the pass‑through business income from a “general partnership” to a general partner is subject to SECA tax. By contrast, business income from a “limited partnership” to a limited partner is generally exempt from SECA tax except to the extent of any “guaranteed payments” made to the limited partner. However, it has never been entirely clear whether and to what extent pass‑through business income to the owner of a Limited Liability Company (LLC) or Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) is subject to SECA tax. Planning Alert! In a recent case, the Tax Court held that owners of a law firm operating as a “limited liability partnership” (LLP) should be treated as “general” (not “limited”) partners and, therefore, should be subject to SECA tax on all pass‑through business income from the LLP (whether or not distributed). The Court concluded that an owner of an LLP qualifies for the “limited partner” exception to SECA taxes only if the LLP owner is a “mere investor” who does not “actively participate” in the business operations of the LLP. Since the lawyers in this case were not mere investors and actively participated in the firm’s law practice, the Court imposed SECA tax on their business income from the partnership. Although this case dealt with an LLP and not a “limited liability company” (LLC), the IRS could easily try to extend the rationale of this decision to LLC owners.

IRS Warns Employers Using Outside Payroll Firms They Have Obligation To Make Sure Employment Taxes Are Paid. It has become an increasingly common practice for businesses to outsource their payroll to outside third parties, commonly referred to as Payroll Service Providers (PSPs), Professional Employer Organizations (PEOs), or “Employee Leasing Companies.” The IRS has recently announced that the outside firm may be held liable for failure to pay over payroll taxes. Planning Alert! The IRS also said that the mere use of an outside payroll firm does not eliminate the “common law employer’s” obligation for the payment of the payroll taxes even if the failure to pay is entirely due to the payroll service provider’s negligence or fraud. Caution!  For businesses using outside payroll firms, the IRS has offered the following advice: 1) It strongly suggests that the address of record with the IRS not be changed to that of the payroll service provider. If there are any issues with an account, the IRS will contact the employer. Changing the address may significantly limit the employer’s ability to be timely informed of tax matters involving its business. 2) The IRS advises employers to make sure that the payroll service provider is using the “Electronic Federal Tax Payment System” (EFTPS). EFTPS maintains a business’s payment history for 16 months and can be viewed and monitored by the employer on‑line. A red flag should go up the first time a payroll service provider misses a payment or makes a late payment. Tax Tip. The IRS cautions that there have been instances of individuals and companies acting under the guise of payroll service providers who have stolen funds intended for payment of employment taxes. IRS says that employers who believe that a bill or notice received is a result of a problem with their payroll service provider should contact the IRS as soon as possible by calling the number on the bill, or writing to the IRS office that sent the bill.

 Recently-Updated Automatic Accounting Method Change Procedures. Generally, if your business needs to change its tax accounting method, it must submit a request for approval to the IRS, pay a user fee, and wait until the IRS approves the change in writing. Tax Tip. In 2011, the IRS issued its most recent set of procedures for businesses to obtain “automatic” IRS approval for many common accounting method changes by submitting an accounting method change request with a timely filed tax return (including extensions) for the year of the change. There is no user fee if a taxpayer qualifies to use these “automatic accounting method change” procedures. In addition, if the request is properly completed, the request is “deemed” granted unless you hear from the IRS. In some cases, the request may even be filed with an amended return. Example. Let’s assume your business purchased or constructed a commercial building several years ago, and you have been depreciating the entire cost of the building over 39 years using the straight-line depreciation method. You now discover, after conducting a “cost segregation study” that 25% of the original cost of the building constitutes “nonstructural components,” depreciable over 5 to 7 years using an accelerated depreciation method. Based upon these facts, your company could deduct the additional depreciation it should have taken for all prior years (utilizing the shorter lives) by using this recently‑updated automatic accounting change procedure. By attaching a properly completed accounting method change form to the current year’s tax return and timely sending a copy to the IRS National Office, your business may deduct, in the current year, all the depreciation it failed to deduct in prior years. Please Note! This automatic accounting method change procedure applies to many other accounting method changes listed within the procedure. Planning Alert! Please do not attempt any accounting method change without contacting us first. The approval procedure does not apply to all accounting method changes and depends upon the proper completion and filing of Form 3115, and compliance with specific guidelines.

The IRS Announces That More Small Tax‑Exempt Organizations May File A Simplified Annual Information Return. For tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2010, tax‑exempt organizations with annual gross receipts of $50,000 or less can file Form 990‑N (“Electronic Notification e‑Postcard”). The threshold previously was $25,000 in annual gross receipts.

FINAL COMMENTS

Please contact us if you are interested in a tax topic that we did not discuss. Tax law is constantly changing due to new legislation, cases, regulations, and IRS rulings. Our firm closely monitors these changes. In addition, please call us before implementing any planning ideas discussed in this letter, or if you need additional information. Note! The information contained in this material represents a general overview of tax developments and should not be relied upon without an independent, professional analysis of how any of these provisions may apply to a specific situation.

Circular 230 Disclaimer: Any tax advice contained in the body of this material was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by the recipient for the purpose of 1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state or local tax law provisions, or 2) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.