Tax Guru – Ker$tetter Letter

Helping real people win the tax game.

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 690 other subscribers
  • Blog Stats

    • 334,074 hits
  • Posts By Day

    March 2009
    M T W T F S S
     1
    2345678
    9101112131415
    16171819202122
    23242526272829
    3031  
  • Subscribe

  • Special Pages

Archive for March, 2009

Recession-proof professions…

Posted by taxguru on March 17, 2009

Posted in comix, Death, taxes | Comments Off on Recession-proof professions…

Setting up a corp…

Posted by taxguru on March 16, 2009

Q-1:

Subject:  S-Corp vs. C-Corp

Kerry,

I read your article on S-corporations vs. C-corporations.  Thank you.  The article was very informative.

I suppose one benefit of S-Corp status would be in a situation where the entity generates significant losses early in the life of the company and the individual has other taxable ordinary income from which these losses can be deducted.  The present value of deducting those losses would likely be beneficial versus being trapped as NOL’s in a C-Corp. 

Am I thinking about this correctly?


A-1:

That is one way to look at this. However, you have fallen into the trap of believing that a business only needs one entity for its entire existence.

A more useful approach would be to use an S corp during the loss years if they will be helpful on the 1040s of the owners and then, when it becomes profitable, set up a new C corp to use to accomplish such things as smoothing out the income, doubling the potential Section 179 deduction, and shifting income between fiscal years.

Any creative tax pro should be able to know how to use multiple entities for maximum tax savings.  Anyone who claims that you have to select one single entity at the beginning and use it exclusively for the lifetime of the business should be avoided.

Thanks for writing.

Kerry Kerstetter

 

Q-2:

Thank you.

If you expect losses in excess of your basis due to the use of debt to finance an acquisition, is there a structure that makes the most sense
to deduct those losses against other income?

Thanks again.

 

A-2:

There are far too many options to consider and possible scenarios that can be used to achieve your goals for me to even begin giving you specific advice via this medium.  You will need to work directly with an experienced tax pro who can analyze your unique circumstances.

I wish I could be more help; but I already have too many clients to take care of properly; so we are still trimming back on the difficult clients and are not accepting any new ones at this time.

Unfortunately, we don’t have anyone specific to whom we could refer you. I did recently post some names and links for some like-minded tax pros around the country.   

If you haven’t already done so, you should check out my tips on how to select the right tax preparer for you.  

You should note that geographic location should not be the main criterion for selecting a tax pro.

I wish I could be of more assistance; and I wish you the best of luck.

Kerry Kerstetter

Follow-Up:

Thank you

 

 

Posted in corp | Comments Off on Setting up a corp…

Mandatory repeat business…

Posted by taxguru on March 13, 2009

This reminds me of a conversation several years ago with a client who was an attorney. He told me how much he envied my profession because the clients are forced by law to use our services every year, while his clients only need his services on rare occasions.

Posted in comix, Death, taxes | Comments Off on Mandatory repeat business…

Posted by taxguru on March 13, 2009

A Strategy For Capital Gains – Bruce Bartlett looks at a topic I have been following for decades, indexing the cost basis of capital assets for inflation.  Expecting that to be done in light of 0bambi’s very vocal hatred of investors and any perceived special tax breaks for them, as well as the fact that neither Bush 41 nor Bush 43 had the balls to issue the executive order to allow this kind of indexing, mean that this is going to be an unfulfilled wish for at least several more years.

 

Posted in CapGains | Comments Off on

IRS Drops Interest Rates

Posted by taxguru on March 13, 2009

Per their news release, the following rates will be in effect for the quarter starting April 1, 2009.

four (4) percent for overpayments [three (3) percent in the case of a corporation];

four (4) percent for underpayments;

six (6) percent for large corporate underpayments; and

one and one-half (1.5) percent for the portion of a corporate overpayment exceeding $10,000.

 

Posted in IRS | Comments Off on IRS Drops Interest Rates

Posted by taxguru on March 12, 2009

Posted in comix, Crooks, Dims | Comments Off on

Sec. 179 Phase-Out

Posted by taxguru on March 11, 2009

Q:

I do not understand the phase out concept for Sec. 179 accelerated depreciation. For 2009 for example, the maximum deduction is $250,000, so what does it mean to have higher phase outs? You would never claim more than $250,000, so how would it ever phase out?

A:

The expensing election under Section 179 was always intended to be for smaller businesses. To make sure that larger businesses weren’t able to benefit from it, our rulers in DC added the phase-out thresholds based on the dollar amounts of equipment that were acquired during the year. The underlying concept is that, any company large enough to be able to afford those large amounts of new equipment purchases didn’t need the additional tax help from Section 179 because their normal deprecation deductions would be large enough.

Whether this makes sense or not isn’t the key. It’s how our rulers have decided to limit the application of Section 179.

I hope this clears up any confusion you have.

Kerry Kerstetter

Follow-Up:

I get it now. By making sense, I did not mean in the ultimate sense, but in the limited sense of whether there was even an arguable policy rationale. Without one, I would not be sure whether the explanation was correct. Now I get it.

Business Plan Pro

Posted in 179 | Comments Off on Sec. 179 Phase-Out

Taxing tax critics?

Posted by taxguru on March 11, 2009

Posted in comix, TaxHikes | Comments Off on Taxing tax critics?

Acceptable torture?

Posted by taxguru on March 10, 2009

Posted in comix, IRS | Comments Off on Acceptable torture?

Vehicles qualifying for maximum Section 179

Posted by taxguru on March 9, 2009

From a client with a 3/31/09 corp year-end:

Dear Kerry:

Our corp is considering purchasing a van such as a delivery van (GMC, Chevy, etc.). 

Could you please inform me of the IRS specifications that must be met to allow us to expense the entire amount.

Before we would purchase the vehicle I will check with you to make sure it meets the requirements.

Thanks.

My reply:

As you requested, here are the specifications for what a vehicle has to have in order to qualify for deducting all of its cost in the first year. Basically, these rules are most important if a vehicle either weighs less than 6,000 pounds or costs less than $25,000.

I excerpted this from my main tax reference source, TheTaxBook. Section 280F is the part of the tax code that severely limits the deprecation deduction for vehicles.

Vehicles not subject to Section 280F. The following vehicles are not subject to the depreciation limitations under Section 280F or any of the other listed property rules:
• Clearly marked police and fire vehicles.
• Unmarked vehicles used by law enforcement officers if the use is officially authorized.
• Ambulances used as such and hearses used as such.
• Any vehicle with a loaded gross vehicle weight of over 14,000 pounds that is designed to carry cargo.
• Bucket trucks (cherry pickers), cement mixers, dump trucks, garbage trucks, flatbed trucks, and refrigerated trucks.
• Combines, cranes and derricks, and forklifts.
• Qualified specialized utility repair trucks.
• Tractors and other special purpose farm vehicles.
• A vehicle used directly in the business of transporting persons or property for pay or hire, including school buses, and other buses with a capacity of at least 20 passengers.
• A truck or van that is a qualified nonpersonal-use vehicle.

Qualified nonpersonal-use vehicles.
These are vehicles that by their nature are not likely to be used more than a minimal amount for personal purposes. They include trucks and vans that have been specially modified so that they are not likely to be used more than a minimal amount for personal purposes, such as by installation of permanent shelving and painting the vehicle to display advertising or the company’s name. Delivery trucks with seating only for the driver, or only for the driver plus a folding jump seat, are qualified nonpersonal-use vehicles.

Trucks and vans.
Trucks and vans are passenger autos built on a truck chassis, including minivans and sport utility vehicles (SUVs) that are built on a truck chassis. They have the same definition as passenger autos, except that instead of unloaded gross vehicle weight, the definition is gross vehicle weight not more than 6,000 pounds. The Section 280F depreciation limits for trucks and vans are higher than the limit for cars.

Vehicles over 6,000 pounds.
Passenger autos rated at more than 6,000 pounds unloaded gross vehicle weight, or trucks and vans rated at more than 6,000 pounds loaded gross vehicle weight are not subject to the Section 280F depreciation limits. However, such vehicles may still be considered listed property for purposes of the other listed property rules, including the requirement that the vehicle be used more than 50% for business to take the Section 179 deduction.

Remember that the expensing deduction is only allowed if you actually place the vehicle into service before the end of your tax year. It won’t be sufficient to prepay for it by March 31 and then take delivery later in your next fiscal year. You need to actually use it before the end of the day on March 31 in order to claim it on this year’s tax return.

I hope this helps. Let me know if you have any specific questions.

Kerry

Follow-up:

Kerry:

Could you please let me me know if any or all of the following vehicles qualify for deducting all of the cost in the first year.

1)  2009 GMC Sierra 2500 crew cab pickup.  GVWR = 9600 lbs.  Bed length = 77 inches.  This is the same model we purchased nd were able to deduct in 2006.  Price = $39,480

2)  2009 GMC Savanna 12 passenger van.  GVWR = 9600 lbs.  The seats can be removed.  Price = $33,027

3)  The dealer also has the same model 2008 GMC Savanna available for about $21,000

Thanks.

My Reply:

I looked over the vehicle descriptions you faxed over and compared them to the rules for the first year expensing.

1.  Because the 2009 GMC Sierra has an exterior bed of larger than 72 inches, it would qualify for deducting the entire purchase price of $39,480 plus the sales tax.

2.  Because the 2009 GMC Savanna has seats for so many people, it would only qualify for a first year deduction of $25,000 of its purchase price.  The remaining cost would be depreciated over five years.

3.  Because the 2008 GMC Savanna costs less than the $25,000 limit, its entire $21,000 purchase price plus sales tax could be expensed in the first year.

Besides the fact that the vehicle needs to be actually placed into service before the end of 3/31/09, which I mentioned last time, another important point is that the dollar figure we are working with is after deducting any trade in value the dealer may give you if you are swapping another vehicle for the new one.  For example, with vehicle number 1 above, if you are receiving a trade in credit of $10,000, only the net cost of $29,480 will be available to deduct in the first year.

I hope this is clear and not too confusing.  Let me know if you have any more questions.

Kerry

 

TaxCoach Software: Finally! Plain-English Tax Planing That Builds Your Business!

 

Posted in 179, Vehicles | Comments Off on Vehicles qualifying for maximum Section 179