Tax Guru – Ker$tetter Letter

Helping real people win the tax game.

Archive for June, 2006

Corporate Complications

Posted by taxguru on June 11, 2006

 

From a CPA in California:

Hi Kerry

One if my clients sent me the article you wrote about The negatives of Sub-S corporations.  With what you say you have some valid points i.e. the used of Multiple Section 179 deductions.  Which would be valid if you have a machine shop or other company with a lot of new equipment purchases. 

What you did not mention is the high cost of Social security taxes  (15%) of the earned income also the Double taxation of retained earnings distribution and the deferred taxes for the retirement contributions.

While I can see why you did not go into detail on them you should least give them mention as being considered in the overall picture of the clients tax situation. 

If I can be of any help please call or e-mail.

My Reply:

Having to address each of those issues, plus dozens more, is the very reason I insist that nobody make decisions on what entity structure to use without consulting with a qualified tax pro.

Thanks for writing.

Kerry Kerstetter

 

Posted in 179 | Comments Off on Corporate Complications

Tax Exempt Partnerships?

Posted by taxguru on June 11, 2006

 

Q-1:

Subject: tax-exempt partnership
 
I got some info today about the 5 Cees Compaines and a “tax-exempt
partnership” for use in real estate holdings.
I dislike anything sold as seminars. But I usually research the ideas they
pitch in their marketing.
I can’t find much info on tax-exempt partnerships and hope that you might
enlighten me. Could it be a tool for long held real estate? Could this be
used with existing partnerships? What exacty is it.

 

A-1:

I’m not clear on what kind of arrangement you’re referring to.

Please send me a link to the company you are working with and I will check out their info.

Kerry Kerstetter

 

Q-2:

I can’t find much about the company or the technique.
http://5cees.com/

How it works
1.        The owner establishes a family Limited Partnership with two types
of family interests.
a.    One is the general partner who has total control
b.   The other is the limited partner who has no voting rights or control.
2.     Forming a corporation that holds the general partners interest can
provide the owners “Limited Liability Benefits”.
3.      By gifting limited partners interest to a tax-exempt organization –
creates a tax-exempt partnership.
4.      The owner exchanges the property for partnership interests and
maintain 100% ownership of the general partners
5.       The owner now acquires a large income tax deduction, avoids estate
tax and grows tax-free based upon percentage gifted.
a.   When the property is sold it avoids capital gains tax and the owner
maintained 100% control to buy more property or other assets of choice.
 
A-2:
I checked out the website and it doesn’t give me a lot of confidence of being legitimate with no names of real people.

Also, the basic premise is completely flawed.  Giving a share of a partnership to a tax exempt entity doesn’t make the entire partnership tax exempt.  Whoever came to that conclusion is completely nuts and not to be trusted.

Unless there is more to back up this plan, I would stay as far away from it as possible.

Kerry Kerstetter

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Tax Exempt Partnerships?

Not True!

Posted by taxguru on June 10, 2006

And any tax advisor who recommends intentionally losing real money in order to save on taxes should be avoided at all costs.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Not True!

Posted by taxguru on June 10, 2006

Exotic Mortgages Remain Popular Despite Their Increasing Risks

 

Why the super-rich don’t mind the death tax – Interesting take on the matter, even though the supporters of Karl Marx’s wealth confiscation program seem to currently be winning the debate with their exploitation of class envy.  As always, the big winners from retaining this form of grave robbery will be those of us in the wealth preservation profession.  For those practitioners who fear a loss of business due to do it yourself tax and accounting programs, I constantly have to remind them that, as long as the government wants to confiscate anyone’s money, there will never be a shortage of clients for us to work with.

 

Mutual Fund Investors Unite! – Gail Buckner looks at a pending bill in Congress that would allow deferral of taxes on reinvested income.

  

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on

Section 179 Income

Posted by taxguru on June 10, 2006

 

Q:

Subject: When is my AIG NOT really AIG?
 
I  have tried to do a section 179 on my business expenses for 2006. It seems as thought I cant exceed the 22k that was reported on my W-2’s even though the IRS is saying my early withdrawal of IRA funds is being reported, taxed, and penalized as 2006 income. My total income was about 67K but i cant go higfher in my business losses than the 22k reported on my W-2? Something doesnt seem right here. The IRS is counting my 1099 income as income only when it is beneficial to them? Why wont they count it as income for my business losses?
 
  Thanks in advance,


A:

The rules are very clear. The kind of income that qualifies as an offset to Section 179 is “earned” income, which is the kind that is subject to Social Security taxes.  IRA withdrawals are not subject to SS tax, and thus do not count, even though they are subject to normal income taxes.  The same thing applies to all other kinds of unearned income, including pensions and investments (interest, dividends and non-business capital gains).

You should be working with a professional tax advisor before making any of these kinds of moves so that you aren’t surprised by the consequences.

Good luck.

Kerry Kerstetter

 

Posted in 179 | Comments Off on Section 179 Income

1031 With Low Equity

Posted by taxguru on June 10, 2006

 

Q:

Subject: 1031 Exchange Question

 Dear Sir:

    I wish to sell my house  in Los Angeles, which is an investment property now, and in which i have not lived for over 3 years, for about a million dollars in a few months, and then within 180 days i wish to have closed escrow on a 600,000 dollar property, planning in time to knock down the shabby building on it, but borrowing a million dollars to build 8 units where that shabby property was within the 180 day period of the sale of my original property. 
 
Question 1.  It I have bought the new cheaper property, and received the construction loan to build on the site where that shabby property is, within the 180 days of selling my original home, will this quality as a 1031 exchange?  Or is such a project not covered by the 1031 program since it would take more than 180 days to build the 8 units, or for any other reason?
 
Question 2.  I bought my original home long time ago for 275,000, and i invested 100,000 dollars in renovating it.  But now I owe 540,000 on this property since i refinanced it in the interim.   If i sell this original house for a million dollars, satisfying all relevant 1031 exchange requirements,  are these following steps  the steps which would occur in this transaction?  First, the 540,000 loan is paid back, and then my net return now  due to me after the sale of my original home, which should probably be a million dollars minus the 540,000  ( and also minus  real estate commissions), is put into the new building or real estate project, plus a new loan is obtained for whatever additional moneys are needed to get into the new building or real estate project, keeping in mind that the new project would need to exceed the one million dollar value of the original building?
 
I thank you in advance for your answers to these 2 questions, and any helpful further thoughts which you may have on my planned project.  I will also keep you in mind for all my 1031 exchange needs, including conveyances, and facilitations.
Sincerely,

A:

You really need to be working on this kind of plan with your own personal professional tax advisor who can look at your actual figures.  In fact, we always advise people contemplating a 1031 exchange to have their tax advisors do the calculations on the tax effect of a full cash sale in order to see if an exchange makes economic sense.

With the brief description that you gave, it will probably be worthwhile to look into an exchange. One of the issues that you need to discuss with your personal tax advisor is the adjusted cost basis of the original property.  If you did take out equity via a mortgage, and did not use that money to make capital improvements, it is very likely that the current loan balance is much higher than the cost basis, especially after reducing the basis for depreciation.

In regard to the rules for reinvesting the exchange proceeds, it isn’t required that the new property be completely finished within the 180 days.  You just have to spend, via cash and debt, an amount equal to or higher than the net proceeds within the 180 days.  With unfinished construction projects, you need to be very careful in regard to prepaying the contractor because there have been plenty of cases where the contractor disappears without finishing the job.   

Good luck.

Kerry Kerstetter

 

Posted in 1031 | Comments Off on 1031 With Low Equity

Oil Wells

Posted by taxguru on June 10, 2006

 

Q:

Subject: tax question
 
thanks for your interesting blog.
 
i have question for you.
 
suppose i invest 10k in an oil well.do i get to write it off? is the income it produces, say 5k/yr deductible against my initial investment?
 
regards


A:

There is no one size fits all answer because of the multiple varieties of investments that could be involved.

For example, if you are purchasing oil drilling equipment, it could possibly be expensed under Section 179.

If you are buying the royalty rights to a well, there is a potential to deduct the investment over time as the oil is extracted, as a depletion allowance.

You really need to be working with your own personal professional tax advisor who can look at your proposed investment and give you more accurate advice for that particular situation. 

As I’ve pointed out in other examples, the last person you should trust for this kind of tax advice is the person trying to sell you the investment.  Those kinds of high commission sales people will tell you anything to make a sale and will be long gone when you discover that the lucrative tax deduction was a lie.

Good luck.

Kerry Kerstetter

 

Posted in 179 | Comments Off on Oil Wells

IRC RIP?

Posted by taxguru on June 10, 2006

GOP Policy Chair Wants Vote on Tax Code Termination – Letting the Internal Revenue Code die on 12/31/09 is an excellent idea. However, the reason this kind of legislation has no possibility of success is the fact that it would only be applicable “provided an alternative is in place by July 4, 2009. “ Such a weasel clause effectively nullifies the entire sunset provision. It should be that the IRC expires 12/31/09 no matter what.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on IRC RIP?

Why different tax rates for interest and dividends?

Posted by taxguru on June 9, 2006

Q:

Subject: Interest Income vs. Dividend Income

Kerry (Tax Guru),

My name is … I am currently a Doctoral student studying financial planning at Texas Tech University. I was searching for an answer to a question posed to me by one of my students and I stumbled upon your site. Funny enough I grew up in Harrison, Arkansas. Small world I guess. Anyways… I was talking in class last semester about the current tax cuts and there effect on the financial planning community. More specifically, how clients should diversify their tax retirement vehicles just as they would a portfolio.

One of my students posed the questions, “Why has the government cut rates on capital gains and dividends, yet did not reduced that tax rates on interest income (taxed as ordinary income)?” I suppose it has something to do with double taxation, but I am not an accountant nor an economist.

I was wondering do you have a short answer to this question or at least a sense of direction as to where I might look?

Thanks,


A:

I wasn’t part of the discussions in Congress as to the different taxation on dividends versus interest; but I do have a theory to explain it. It has to do with both the concepts of the tax benefit rule and double taxation on C corporations.

Under the tax benefit rule, when one taxpayer deducts an expense, another taxpayer reports that same amount as income. It’s a kind of balancing act. Interest is an example of this. Banks, businesses, and other payers of interest deduct it on their tax returns, thereby saving taxes at their ordinary income tax rates. The recipients of those interest payments then report them as ordinary income on their tax returns.

Dividends, on the other hand do not currently qualify as deductible expenses on the corporate tax returns. Since dividends are after tax dollars, this results in a second income tax on the same income.

While those of us who believe in capitalism would love to see a complete elimination of the double taxation through either a deduction on the corporate tax return or completely tax free on the stockholders’ tax returns, that has never been politically feasible in this country, where hatred of evil corporations and rich people is stock in trade for politicians.

Over the decades, we have had some very minor offsets to the double taxation, usually designed to only assist the smaller investors. For example, there used to be an annual tax free exclusion of $100 in dividend income per person. This latest change, to tax dividends at the lower long term capital gains rates was explicitly designed as a mid-way compromise between those who believe there should be no double taxation at all and those who still want to stick it to corporations and their shareholders.

I hope this helps you understand some of the history behind the taxation of dividends.

Thanks for writing.

Kerry Kerstetter


Follow-Up:

Thank you so much,

Very Helpful!

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Why different tax rates for interest and dividends?

Posted by taxguru on June 8, 2006

Tracts Like $1M Bills Seized By Secret Service – From Texas, where some idiot actually tried to deposit one of the bills.

 

Proposition 13 Still Has Dangerous Enemies – There are always enemies of anything that helps keep taxes lower.

 

50-year mortgage gains momentum – This may make more sense than refinancing every few years to pull out equity.

 

Yeager suit accuses children of diverting money from fund – With all of the news about companies screwing their employees out of their retirement benefits, now it’s your kids you need to watch out for.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on