Playing Games With Employees: IRS Temporary Tax Break Ends June 30, 2013

Employers illegally treating employees as independent contractors can come clean through a program called the Voluntary Classification Settlement Program (VCSP).  To explore in more detail the merits of this VCSP program and how it works, readers should look at Risky Business: Playing Fast and Loose with Worker Classification.  Basically, this program allows employers to voluntarily correct erroneously classified workers from independent contractors to employees in exchange for paying less taxes and penalties than if audited by the IRS.

The IRS has temporarily modified this program to expand the group of employers that can benefit from this program.  However, this expanded eligibility is only available until June 30, 2013.  So employers need to act fast.  Here are some of the details and clarifications of this expanded program under IRS Announcement 2012-46:

• Temporary Expanded Eligibility For Not Filing Form 1099s for the last three (3) years:  To qualify under this provision the employer must:
  • Furnish all workers being reclassified all required Form 1099s for the last three years.
  • Electronically file with the IRS all required Form 1099s for the last three years.
  • Pay 25% (not the 10% penalty under the normal VCSP program) of the employment taxes due on compensation paid to the reclassified workers for the most recent tax year as if classified as employees as calculated under the reduced rates under Section 3509(b).   Generally, this amounts to anywhere between 1 to 3 %  of the payroll involved.  For more on this please read Employers Playing Tax Games with Workers: IRS Offers Way to Come Clean
  • Pay a reduced penalty for Form 1099s not filed for the previous three years.
  • File all required IRS forms.
  • Enter into a closing agreement.
• Employers who enter the program successfully will:
  • Not be liable for any interest and penalties on the liability,
  • Not be subject to an employment tax audit for worker classification issues for earlier years, and
  • Not have to agree to extend the limitation period on employment tax assessments as part of the closing agreement.  Under the original VCSP program, employers had to extend the statute of limitation for three years for the three taxable years after the date of the closing agreement. This is not required under the temporary program.

Here are some clarifications of this standard VCSP program under IRS Announcement 2012-46:

• An employer can now be eligible for this program even if being audited by the IRS, except for a payroll tax audit.
• An employer that is part of an affiliated group can not use the VCSP program where an employment tax audit involves one of its group members.
• An employer that is in court contesting classification of workers from a previous audit by the IRS or Department of Labor is not eligible for the VCSP program.
• An employer no longer has to agree to extend the limitation period on employment tax assessments as part of the closing agreement.  Under the original VCSP program, employers had to extend the statute of limitation for three years for the three taxable years after the date of the closing agreement.  This is no longer required under the standard VCSP program.

Additional Information and Insights:

For those interested in gaining greater insight into this problem and a lot more, please give a listen to my guest appearance on Money For Lunch.  We discuss not only the VCSP program but also explore the allowable “piercing of the corporate veil” by the IRS to impose individual personal tax liability on shareholders and officers for corporate tax obligations under Section 6672 of the Internal Revenue Code.  We also discuss related criminal tax implications.  So please click on the triangle to hear our discussion:

Bottom Line:

Employers should objectively and carefully review their employment policies.  If they are playing fast and loose with their classification of employees it could blow up in their face down the road.  The voluntary payments under this special program could be far less than the cost of an IRS employment tax audit for all open years resulting in the required payment of back taxes, interest and penalties.  With the IRS audit presence in this area, this may end up being a costly and in some cases a fatal gamble for a business and its shareholders or owners.  The sure thing is to use the current or the temporary VCSP to clean up a looming and expensive tax problem.

Read Full Post »

Estate Planning 2013: Now What? A Must Read For Everyone

We now know what the federal estate tax laws will be this year and in the future.  Our federal government has stated that these estate tax rules are now permanent after a decade of uncertainty.  (A cynic may say that these federal tax laws are permanent until our federal government says they are not!). Anyway, here are some of the more important federal estate tax law changes made on December 31, 2012 along with some related estate planning strategies:

• The federal estate and gift tax exemption is now permanently (there is that word again) $5,000,000, with annual inflation adjustments.  These inflation adjustments generate exemptions of $5,120,000 in 2012 and $5,250,000 in 2013.
  • A husband and a wife each have this exemption, so a family can transfer $10,500,000 free of federal estate taxes in 2013. These very generous tax exemptions will allow the opportunity to transfer large amounts of wealth during lifetime or at death free of federal taxes.
  • Planning Point:  Taxpayers who used their full $5,120,000 exemption in 2012 can now make more gifts of $130,000 in 2013.
  • Planning Point:  With inflation adjustments each year, taxpayers can continue to transfer more each year.
  • Important Shift in Focus To State Inheritance Taxes:  Understand that we are only talking about federal estate and gift taxes and that these large exemptions are only applicable at the federal level. With these large federal exemptions, for most people, estate tax planning now will focus more on minimizing state inheritance taxes. For example, Pennsylvania does not follow the federal exemption rules and taxes almost all assets owned by a decedent.  To learn more about Pennsylvania inheritance tax rules see Pennsylvania Inheritance Tax: The Basics.
• Once assets are above the exemption threshold the estate tax rate is 40%.  This results in a very heavy tax bite and is a real concern for anyone above the threshold.  The following taxpayers may end up above the threshold:
  • A taxpayer or a surviving spouse with assets above the exemption threshold or
  • A family (husband and wife) that has accumulated wealth above the $10,500,000 threshold, or
  • A taxpayer that has made lifetime gifts that have exhausted or substantially depleted their exemption.  See the following Example 1.
• The tax law changes have once again unified the exemption for lifetime gifts and transfers at death.  So, if you use your exemption during your lifetime it is not available when you die.
  • Example 1:  Generous John, gave away his shares of stock of his business corporation valued at $5,000,000 to his son in 2012.  He uses his $5,000,000 exemption to transfer such shares free of gift tax.
  • Example 1A: Generous John dies in 2013 with other assets of $1,250,000 that make up his taxable estate. In 2013, he has a remaining exemption of $250,000 (2013 exemption of $5,250,000 less the $5,000.000 of his exemption used in 2012). Generous John has a taxable estate of $1,000,000 which results in a $400,000 in federal estate tax liability.
• Portability is now permanent.  Portability allows for the exemption that was not used by the first spouse to die to be used by the surviving spouse.  In theory, this provision protects those who have failed to plan or for those who have made errors in estate planning.
  • Important Planning Point:  Portability should be looked at as a fallback position where there was no estate planning done.
    • Employing traditional estate planning techniques may prove more advantageous and in some cases is essential in crafting a well conceived estate plan. For example, in most situations the combined use of a unified credit and a marital deduction trust (or the use of a disclaimer trust mechanism) would result in better tax outcome than relying on portability.
    • In second marriages, it is often imperative to use  a certain form of marital deduction called a Qualified Terminable Interest Property (QTIP) trust, to provide for both the surviving spouse and children of a first marriage.
    • Where assets are expected to appreciate in value over time, use of a by-pass or unified credit trust would offer a better result than relying on portability.
  • There are some very important limitations and concerns with using portability, especially in second marriages or where the surviving spouse remarried.  These issues are more fully explored in my article entitled Estate Planning Mistakes: 5 Not So Easy Pieces.
  • Portability Does Not Save the GST Exemption:   The new tax act provides that the Generation-Skipping Transfer (GST) tax exemption also remains at the same level as the gift and estate tax exemption ($5,000,000, adjusted for inflation). The GST tax, which is in addition to the federal estate tax, is imposed on amounts transferred (by gift or at death) to grandchildren or others more than one generation below the decedent.  The important point here is that “portability” does not apply to the generation skipping transfer (GST) tax rules. Where grandchildren and future generations are part of an estate plan, portability will not save the unused GST tax exemption of the first spouse to die.  In such cases, using something called a “dynasty” or GST exempt trust is the better course of action.
    • Caveat:   In situations where there the estate size is large and there are many generations who are going to share the estate, failure to understand and use the more traditional dynasty trust could result in a very expensive and disastrous mistake.
• Annual Donee Exclusion:  Although not part of the tax law changes, this traditional estate and gift tax planning tool allows for annual tax-free gifts of $14,000 in 2013 (up from $13,000 in 2012 as a result of the annual inflation adjustment).  As a result, taxpayers can now give up to $14,000 to as many people as they wish each year and not use up their unified credit or pay a gift tax.
  • Important Note:  Only gifts that qualify as “present interest” gifts are eligible for the annual donee exclusion.
  • Planning Point:  If you are married, your spouse can join you and, together, you can give up to $28,000 per person per year.
  • Planning Point:  This exclusion is in addition to the $5,250,000 estate tax exclusion and can be combined with such exclusion.  For more insight into how to combine these exclusions as well as the lack of marketability and minority interest discounts please read Gifting Shares of Stock In A Bad Economy.
• Capital Gains and Basis Implications:  Lifetime Gifts versus Transfers At Death:  Although not an estate tax rule, under the new federal tax rules, capital gains on appreciated assets will now be taxed at a 20% rate for taxpayers with income above certain thresholds.  Capital gains below these thresholds will be taxed at the previous 15% rate.  These rules bear heavily in the estate tax planning context especially where recipients receive lifetime gifts versus gifts received at death.
  • Important Tax Basis Rule:  Taxpayers who receive appreciated property by a lifetime gift take a carryover basis, while beneficiaries who receive assets at the decedent’s death get a step up in basis to the date of death value of such assets received.
  • Tax Disaster for the Uninformed, Do It Yourself Estate Planners:  Many times elderly people transfer real estate to children during their lifetime in trying to avoid probate.  For a recipient of such lifetime gift, a disastrous income tax result awaits the uninformed taxpayer as illustrated by the following Example 2.
  • Example 2:  Sam Senior is very sick and wants to avoid probate.  He transfers by quit-claim deed his real estate to his son, Sad Son.  Sam Senior bought his house in the 1970s for $17,000 and made improvements over time of $23,000.  As a result his adjusted basis is $40,000.  The house is now worth $540,000.
    • Sam Senior transfers the house to Sad Son in 2012.  Sad Son takes a carryover basis for the house of $40,000. Sad Son sells the house for $540,000 shortly afterwards and has a capital gain of $500,000 which he surprisingly and sadly finds out will cost him $100,000 (20% x $500,000) in federal taxes alone.  His accountant tells him there will also be state income taxes on this gain. Since he is a Pennsylvania resident, he will pay an extra $15,350 in Pennsylvania income taxes.
    • Alternate Universe:  Sam Senior consults with his tax/estate attorney who drafts a will that transfers the house to son at death. Sad (who now legally changes his name to Happy), has a basis of $540,000 upon his receipt of the house from the estate.  Happy, now sells the house and has zero, yes, zero capital gain (Sale Price, $540,000 less basis of $540,000 = 0)!
      • Note, state inheritance taxes may be applicable in certain states.  For example, in Pennsylvania there would be a 4.5% inheritance tax on the real estate, but this is a lot smaller cost than the capital gains that results from taking a carryover in basis via a lifetime gift.

Final Thoughts and Recommendations:

Federal Estate Tax Implications: The federal estate tax law changes provide for some very generous federal estate tax breaks.  For those close to or above the federal estate tax threshold, the discussion above has explored some of the many planning opportunities to save federal estate taxes.  Such taxpayers should not rely on portability and should meet with an estates attorney to plan the proper course of action based on their particular family situation, needs and goals.

Shift In Focus To State Inheritance Tax Matters: Taxpayers below the federal estate tax thresholds also must continue to plan but the tax focus needs to shift to minimizing state inheritance taxes.

Create An Estate Plan That Fits Your Particular Family and Financial Situation:  It is most important to recognize that everyone has a unique situation with various assets, family members and ideas on how their family members are to be provided for and who should be in charge once they are gone.  As a result, all taxpayers still need to set up an estate plan for non-tax issues such as making sure their assets go to their loved ones in the way they wish.  They need to choose the proper people to administer their estates and any trusts they create.

Young Families:  In younger families, determining a proper guardian for their children and setting up trusts for the protection of their assets and a distribution scheme for such children is of paramount importance and has little to do with taxes.  An objective and unbiased assessment of how much life insurance is required is often needed.

Second Marriages:  Many with second marriages face unique challenges.  An estate plan needs to be developed and implemented to meet the diverse needs and goals of such blended families.

Special Needs Trust:  Those with disabled children or those receiving government benefits may need special needs trusts.

Do Not Try This On Your Own:  Get an Experienced Estate Attorney:  Having experienced estate counsel explore these issues and offer various strategies is at the heart of estate planning.  Coordinating probate and non-probate assets into an integrated estate plan is often overlooked and little understood.

Attention To Details and Documentation: Finally, make sure that you have an experienced estate attorney that can create an integrated estate plan.  Such attorney should have the skills to draft appropriate wills, trusts, durable powers of attorney, living wills and other related documents tailored to your specific family and financial needs.

Please feel free to post comments or ask questions.  Liking and sharing this blog anywhere in cyberspace and recommending the site via the blue Alexa box on the right is always welcomed and appreciated.

As always, do not hesitate to contact me if they want further insight or need my advice or legal assistance.

Copyright © 2013 – Steven J. Fromm & Associates, P.C., 1420 Walnut Street, Suite 300, Philadelphia, PA 19102. All rights reserved. 

Read Full Post »

Can I Trash It Now? Tax Record Retention Guidelines

Papers, papers and still more papers.  When can I destroy these documents?

There are no hard and fast rules in this area.  The following offers some general guidance to carefully consider when determining any destruction of documents.

Against the urge to purge, remember that maintaining documents and records is often essential if a tax audit by the IRS, state or local taxing authority occurs.  Be aware that it is the burden of the taxpayer to provide sufficient proof and support for any tax position taken on a tax return.  Prematurely disposing of relevant documentation and proof supporting a tax deduction or tax position could have a disastrous tax impact.

Tax rules offer some guidance as to minimum document retention periods. It is imperative to keep records such as receipts, canceled checks, and other documents that support an item of income or a deduction, or a credit appearing on a return until the statute of limitations expires for that return. Here are some of the key statute of limitation rules for federal tax returns:

• For most returns the statute of limitations is 3 years from the date you filed the return. However, the following are some very important exceptions to this 3 year statute of limitation.
• There is no period of limitations to assess tax when a return is fraudulent or when no return is filed.
• If income that you should have reported is not reported, and it is more than 25% of the gross income shown on the return, the time to assess is 6 years from when the return is filed.
• For filing a claim for credit or refund, the period to make the claim generally is 3 years from the date the original return was filed, or 2 years from the date the tax was paid, whichever is later.
• For filing a claim for a loss from worthless securities the time to make the claim is 7 years from the date the return was due.
• If you are an employer, you must keep all of your employment tax records for at least 4 years after the tax becomes due or is paid, whichever is later.

Additionally, it is often imperative to check state and local statute of limitation rules before destroying files and records.

Keep in mind that documents may need to be retained and preserved for legal reasons other than taxation, such as, insurance claims or facilitating the transfer of  assets in the case of deceased family member.  Documents like death certificates, estate tax closing letters should be kept indefinitely.

For more detailed guidance on how long to keep specific documents and other document retention considerations and safeguards, please read my article Record Retention For Individuals .

For more detailed guidelines for record retention rules and other protective housekeeping measures for businesses see Record Retention Guidance For Business: A Conservative and Basic Approach.

A discussion with your tax attorney and tax accountant may be a prudent and conservative course of action before destroying any documents or files.

Read Full Post »

Philadelphia Now Allows A Tax Credit for Hiring Veterans

Philadelphia has recently amended its Business Privilege Tax (business income and receipts tax)  to allow a credit for employment of veterans of the Armed Forces.  This new Philadelphia tax law defines a “veteran” as a person who has received an honorable discharge, served a minimum of six months in active full-time duty within the past 10 years and has met the qualifications under the federal Vow to Hire Heroes Act of 2011. The period of eligibility for hired veterans is between July 1, 2012, and June 30, 2014.

The law requires that the veteran’s compensation is to other employees in the same position or, if a similar position does not exist, at an average hourly rate of at least 150% of the federal minimum wage.

The business will receive a credit of $2,000 for a full-time position, multiplied by the percentage of the tax year that the veteran worked for the business or $1,000 for a part-time position, multiplied by the percentage of the tax year that the veteran worked for the business.

The credit is available for a total of 24 months of employment, and the total amount of credit a business may receive for a full-time employee over all tax years is $4,000. For a part-time employee for the 24 months of employment, the total credit allowable for the business is $2,000.

This new law is the result of Bill No. 120491, City of Philadelphia, effective June 27, 2012

Read Full Post »

Risky Business: Playing Fast and Loose with Worker Classification

In light of the IRS’s new Voluntary Worker Classification Settlement Program (VCSP), employers need to consider the benefits and risks of their current classification of employees as independent contractors. This window of opportunity is only available before the IRS or Department of Labor initiates an examination.

Small companies and businesses of many sizes have classified their workers as independent contractors and not employees to gain the following illegal advantages and savings:

• Avoid paying payroll taxes including Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment, and Federal tax withholding.
• Avoid having to pay for medical insurance.
• Avoid making payments of contributions into employer retirement plans.
• Obtaining services at a fixed rate, no matter what the time required to complete the assignment.
• Reducing employee record keeping, clerical and other administrative cost savings.

These tempting advantages have created a tremendous incentive for employers to classify workers as independent contractors when they are truly employees.  The IRS has warned that it is stepping up its policing of this area.  Here are some of the costs and penalties employers face if caught by the IRS:

• Payroll tax liability, plus significant penalties and interest.
• Various civil and criminal sanctions brought by the IRS, including fines and imprisonment.
• Retirement plan disqualification or remediation and penalties.  If these workers were wrongly excluded from coverage under any and all retirement plans, such plans would not meet certain plan qualification tests and could be disqualified.  In the alternative,  the employer would have to go through an IRS plan remediation application and pay various penalties and costs to salvage the plan. For more details on plan remediation see Failing To Update Retirement Plans: Avoid Plan Disqualification & Penalties By Using the VCP Program
• Personal liability for corporate officers of up to 100% of the amount the employer should have withheld from the employee’s compensation in payroll taxes.  Section 6672 imposes personal liability on officers, shareholders and board of directors as “responsible persons.”  For more details read Personal Liability For Corporate Employment Taxes.
• Legal fees, the lost time spent litigating this matter and the related out-of-pocket costs of litigation.  In these cases, payments to accountants and other experts are necessary for the attorney to prepare for the case and for such experts to appear in court. Even if the case avoids full-blown litigation, legal fees and out-of-court settlement fees will result.

A battle with the IRS is only part of the employer’s problem.  Additionally, a disgruntled or vengeful worker can make real trouble for the employer by making the following claims against the employer:

• Medical coverage:  If the employer had medical plans for its other employees, these excluded workers may make claims for lack of coverage.
• Retirement Benefits:  For all the years in which they were erroneously treated as independent contractors, such workers may demand to have contributions made to the employer’s profit-sharing, 401(k), pension or other retirement plan.  This could be a very large liability if the claim involves multiple employees over multiple years.
• Other Fringe Benefits: In addition to retirement plans, workers may demand stock options, disability payments, workers’ compensation and any other fringe benefits being offered by the employer to its other employees.
• Overtime Pay:  These workers would be entitled to overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act if the hours he or she provided to the employer in the past exceeded the standard workweek.
• Unemployment claims.  For those workers erroneously treated as independent, they may assert a claim to collect unemployment for past employment.
• Lawsuits:  Lawsuits brought against the worker may trigger legal action against the employer to hold the employer legally responsible.

Where the worker seeks reclassification and complains to the authorities, the IRS or the Department of Labor may then get involved by auditing the employer  on how it classifies all of its independent contractors. A full-blown audit could result in economic disaster or ruin for an employer.

Bottom Line:  Any employer playing fast and loose in this area needs to look at their employment practices very carefully.  For determining whether a worker is truly independent please read my article Employee or Independent Contractor?  Finally, see Employers Playing Tax Games with Workers: IRS Offers Way to Come Clean for the details and qualification requirements for coming within the IRS’s Voluntary Worker Classification Settlement Program (VCSP).

The key here is to get with your tax attorney to review your situation and take advantage of the VCSP before the IRS comes knocking on your door.

Read Full Post »

Employers Playing Tax Games with Worker Classification: Part II: Employee or Independent Contractor?

Our previous post discussed the IRS new Voluntary Worker Classification Settlement Program (VCSP) offering past payroll tax relief when the employer agrees to reclassify workers as employees.  For the details and discussion of this VCSP program please see our just published article at my website at the following link: 
http://www.sjfpc.com/IRS_Payroll_Taxes_VCSP.html
.  Many have inquired as to what distinguishes an employee from an independent contractor.  For a discussion of this issue and the IRS and case law criteria involved please see our article entitled Employee or Independent Contractor? at
http://sjfpc.com/IRS_tax_rules_employee_versus_independent-contractor.html
.  Both of these articles can be seen at our website  (www.sjfpc.com).

Read Full Post »

Failing To Update Retirement Plans: How to Avoid IRS Plan Disqualification & Penalties by Using VCP

In our fast paced world, many retirement plans are drafted and then often neglected.  In extreme cases, plans are put aside without ever being updated.  Some plan sponsors have failed to restate their plans for years or even decades.  For many individuals, retirement plan accounts represent the largest portion of their wealth.  As the following discussion will illustrate, the failure to protect this most valuable and important asset by keeping the retirement plan in full compliance with applicable retirement plan laws could result in some very nasty, costly and unforeseen financial repercussions.

The retirement plan laws have always required that plans be updated for tax law changes.  Before 2003, the IRS allowed plans to be periodically restated for tax law changes that occurred over many years.  This resulted in large, periodic major plan restatements.  However, since 2003 the IRS has required amendments to retirement plans for each new tax law resulting in more frequent “interim amendments.”  [For those of you interested in a more detailed discussion of these required interim amendments since 2003, please go to my questions answered at my Linked-In profile.]  For many plans, the deadlines for many of these plan restatements or interim amendments have now expired.  Current rules provide that plans that have not been redrafted to comply with required prior restatements or interim amendments cease to be qualified as of their applicable deadlines.

In the worst case scenario, the IRS may demand that the plan be retroactively disqualified.  If the IRS is successful in disqualifying the plan, the plan sponsor’s tax deductions for contributions taken in the year of disqualification and in later years would be disallowed.  The taxes owed by the plan sponsor due to the disallowance of previously claimed retirement plan deductions plus applicable interest and penalties could be enormous.  In addition, participants of the plan would have to treat as taxable income the value of their plan account as of the date of such disqualification.  The taxes, interest and penalties to the participants from the date of plan disqualification could be equally exorbitant. This would be a truly disastrous and harsh result for both the employer plan sponsor and participants in the disqualified plan.

However, in most cases, the current policy of the IRS is to impose monetary penalties instead of the more severe penalty of plan disqualification.  Even so, when the IRS raises these failures as the result of an audit the penalties can be quite severe.   Penalties can range from $2,500 to $80,000 depending on the failures involved and the size of the plan.  It is worth noting that in recent years, the IRS has increased its auditing of retirement plans.

 Here is Good News: How to Solve This Looming Problem 

The IRS has a voluntary remedial program called the VCP (voluntary compliance program) to correct these plan document deficiencies.  The IRS position is that retirement plans may be re-qualified only by having the plan sponsor voluntarily come forward before an IRS audit by submitting the newly drafted delinquent restatements and/or interim amendments to the IRS in accordance with some very detailed procedures and documentation pursuant to Revenue Procedure 2008-50.  Once the IRS reviews and hopefully approves the application and the newly drafted required documentation, the plan is deemed to be in full compliance with applicable law and such plan is retroactively tax qualified.

Instead of paying a steep monetary penalty, the VCP submission results in the paying of a filing fee to the IRS.  Sometimes, if the violation is quite limited the filing fee can be as low as $375.  (Remember, you will still need to pay for documentation services associated with plan restatements and interim amendments.  However, these costs would have been incurred in any event to keep your plan in full compliance with the law.)  The important point here is that the use of the VCP program avoids the risk of plan disqualification or the imposition of a large monetary penalty.

 How We Can Help:

Numerous VCP program applications under the applicable Revenue Procedure 2008-50 have been submitted by this office.  This application along with the needed plan restatements and interim amendments must be carefully drafted to ensure efficient negotiations and a successful outcome with the IRS.

The Bottom Line:

Plan sponsors should immediately and voluntarily move to correct plan deficiencies pursuant to the more taxpayer friendly and cheaper VCP program before the IRS audits your plan.  Once the IRS commences an audit, the VCP submission strategy is no longer an option and your plan is exposed to disqualification and/or severe monetary penalties.

Looking forward, you must establish a program with your plan adviser to ensure that your plan is kept in compliance with the laws concerning plan restatements, interim amendments and the changing IRS submission requirements and deadlines.  This will avoid having to deal with all of these problems again in the future.  In fact, the Revenue Procedure requires a disclosure in the VCP application as to what new procedures the plan sponsors will use to avoid this problem in the future.

 Do Not Wait

Do not wait for the IRS to audit your retirement plan as it then will be too late to get the cheaper and less painful VCP deal.  For a free initial consult to assess your retirement plan situation, please do not hesitate to call me, Steven J. Fromm, Esquire at 215-735-2336.  All consultations are confidential and covered by attorney-client privilege.

Copyright © 2009, Steven J. Fromm

Read Full Post »

THE SILVER LINING OF A BAD ECONOMY: GIFTING OF SHARES OF STOCK IN A CLOSELY HELD BUSINESS

As with most things in life, when things are bad, there usually is something good that can come out of it.  Our current economic troubles have resulted in many closely held or small businesses being worth far less then they used to be.  This is not a good situation for businesses that are hanging on to survive or have to be sold for various reasons.  However, for people wanting to minimize estate and gift taxes and have been putting off taking a cold hard look at their estate plan, now may be the perfect time to explore the gifting of shares in their businesses.

For example, some businesses have senior family members who own all or most of the shares of the outstanding stock of their corporation.  With the value of the business being down right now, more shares could be gifted to younger family members involved in the business.

Example:  Mr. Senior owns 80% of Deflated, Inc., while his two sons who work in the business own 10% each.  Deflated was worth $3,000,000 in 2007.  By the end of 2008, it was worth $2,500,000.  Mr. Senior talks to tax counsel and after exploring the tax strategies and planning tools discussed below decides to gift 20% of his shares worth $500,000 to each of his sons, leaving him with a 40% stock interest.

The tax advantages are as follows:

1.  The stock gifted to each son was previously worth $600,000. The current market value of such stock to each son is now only $500,000.  If Deflated, Inc. goes back to its value once the economy recovers, then Mr. Senior has just transferred $200,000 ($100,000 to each son) to his sons estate and gift tax free.  At a current marginal estate tax rate of 45%, Mr. Senior’s family can save $90,000 (45%*$200,000).

2.  The gifts to each son are gifts of a minority interest in Deflated, Inc. and such gifts lack marketability due to the limited market for such shares.  Estate and gift tax rules allow discounts for these factors that reduce the value of assets transferred.  (Caveat: There are some legislative proposals being floated in Washington seeking to limit this tax strategy. Stay tuned.) These discounts for minority interests and lack of marketability conservatively can be 25%, sometimes more.   With such discounts the gift of each $500,000 is reduced by $125,000. At a current marginal estate tax rate of 45%, Mr. Senior’s family can save another $112,500 (45%*$250,000).

3.  Outright gifts of stock are eligible for the annual donee exclusion of $13,000.  In addition, Mr. Senior has a spouse who will join in this gift, which will allow for a second $13,000 exclusion.  So the taxable gift to each son is now reduced by $26,000 (Mr. Senior’s annual exclusion of  $13,000 and his spousal joinder of another $13,000).  Additional savings to the family is $23,400 (45%*26,000*2 sons).

4.  If Mr. Senior makes no further gifts and dies with his reduced ownership interest of 40%,  his estate can claim the minority interest and lack of marketability discounts against his remaining shares.  If Mr. Senior dies in 2014, when deflated is worth $4,000,000, his family can take a 25% lack of marketability/minority interest discount, saving his family another $180,000 (45%*$400,000 marketability/minority interest discount[$1,600,000 forty-percent interest*25%]).

Bottom Line:  Mr. Senior can take advantage of the lousy economy, the lack of marketability and minority interest discounts and the annual donee exclusions with a spousal joinder to save his family a tremendous amount of future estate and inheritance taxes.

Caveat:  Remember that this type of planning depends on the particular factual setting of each client.  One difference in the facts can change the outcome.  Also, be aware that state inheritance taxes have not been considered in the above example.  Finally, the above should not be considered as legal advice.  Please consult with tax counsel to discuss your particular factual situation.

Copyright © 2009, Steven J. Fromm.

Read Full Post »