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

    • 348,357 hits
  • Posts By Day

    June 2026
    M T W T F S S
    1234567
    891011121314
    15161718192021
    22232425262728
    2930  
  • Subscribe

  • Special Pages

Too much paperwork?

Posted by taxguru on February 21, 2007

Q:

Subject: Frustrated in Missouri

Dear Kerry,
I am a professor at a nice Midwestern state university.  To save my university embarrassment, please do not include my email address or last name if you elect to post this on your blog (as you are welcome to do). I am writing because I am frustrated by all the steps my bureaucratic organization has placed in the way of quickly accomplishing some tasks under the guise of following the law.  If my university is correct, then I have been doing something wrong in my part-time business.  Therefore I am asking for your guidance.

When an organization hires someone to perform a service (in this case our department decided to hire two guest speakers for the benefit of our students), what are the legal obligations of the organization to obtain their social security number or other tax identification number?  Is there a cut off (in dollars) where this is necessary?  If so, what is this amount?

I can understand the IRS requiring us to obtain this information once a certain threshold has been reached (say $5,000 or more) so my organization could issue a 1099-Misc.  However, this seems a very poor use of time for small expenses like the $175 stipend we are trying to pay our guest lecturers.  In my own small business, I do not ask for a SSN or a TIN when I hire a consultant.  I recently paid an independent contractor $550 to design a website for my business.  When he finished the job, I simply paid him.  Did I break the law or a IRS regulation by doing so?  If not, is there one rule for private businesses and another rule for public (or semi-public) institutions?

If you tell me that there is no IRS requirement to collect this information for small services (and please be specific), I will take up the quixotic challenge of trying to change my institution.  On the other hand, if you tell me my institution is simply following the law by requiring us to collect this information (and then requiring a formal contract for even the smallest service), then I will apologize to my administrators and bring this up with my legislators.

Thank you,

 

A:

You really should check the IRS’s instructions for filing 1099 forms  to see the official requirements.

Basically, for payments to most unincorporated individuals for services, a 1099-MISC form is required to be filed with IRS if total payments during the calendar year are $600 or more.

From a logistical perspective, when to use Form W-9  or other means to ascertain a payee’s tax ID number is a little tricky.  Some businesses do require that info before any payments are made because it is too much hassle for  them to keep a running total during the year and only ask people when they are close to reaching the $600 threshold.  That is probably the case for your school and does seem to be fairly standard practice around the country. 

While this information gathering may technically be unnecessary for persons who will definitely not be receiving at least $600 during the calendar year; convincing them to stop asking for it is going to feel like spitting in the wind.  It has become so accepted a practice that you will have a very tough time convincing them to change.  It is unfortunately the case in this country that people (your school administrators) are so petrified of offending the IRS that they do go overboard and over-report payments made.  IRS actually likes this and will be of no help in persuading them to reduce their record keeping in this regard

As the 1099 instructions do explain, most payments to corporations are not required to be reported on 1099s.  Payments to attorneys are the main exception to this rule.  I have seen cases where both the payers and payees have only conducted business with other corporations.  If you are pursuing this on behalf of friends, you may suggest that they consult with their personal tax advisors regarding incorporating their businesses.

If you have been following the discussions of how IRS is supposed to close the tax gap, the main culprits they are after are small businesses who have all been tarred as being tax cheats.  This means that it’s only a matter of time before that $600 threshold is reduced to just 51cents (which rounds up to one dollar) and the exemptions for payments to corporations is removed.  This will make your entire crusade to reduce the ID gathering requirements at your school a moot point.

Although I’m obviously not being very helpful in your goal of reducing the bureaucratic paperwork at your school, I hope I have at least helped you understand more about why they are doing things that way.

Good luck.

Kerry Kerstetter

  

Follow-Up: 

Kerry,
Thank you for a fast and clear reply.  I found you (and your blog) today when I was searching for a CPA blogger in my frustration.  While I am still not happy about the paperwork (and may still aim at my school’s need to have contracts in place for basic services), you have convinced me that I would be wasting my time asking them to quit asking for ID numbers.
 
You’ve also gained a new reader.
 
Best regards,
 
 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Too much paperwork?

Tax Scams

Posted by taxguru on February 20, 2007

IRS has updated its list of the Dirty Dozen Tax Scams.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Tax Scams

Bonus points for creativity?

Posted by taxguru on February 20, 2007

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Bonus points for creativity?

Understanding Child Support

Posted by taxguru on February 20, 2007

Q:

From: “Marian Crenshaw” <mariancontrarian@gmail.com>
Subject: Child Support: 29% isn’t even enough. Try 50%
 
Dear Kerry,
 
I came across your web site while doing some academic research. I just wanted to let you know that there is a simple and obvious reason why child support is based on a percentage of the non-custodial parent’s income—-it’s because your children are entitled to the lifestyle that you can afford whether you live with them or not. Otherwise, why not just provide the bare minimum they need to survive? Or why provide anything at all? 
 
Think about it: they are, after all, YOUR children, not just your ex-wife’s. They deserve to have what you are able to provide for them and if that happens to result in a slight improvement in what your ex’s lifestyle might otherwise be, well tough toenails. Maybe you should have tried harder to work things out. Child support is about providing for YOUR kids (you know, the ones who are carrying YOUR name and YOUR DNA), not about spiting your ex.
 
Clearly, you are not thinking straight enough to consult with anyone on taxes. Perhaps you should re-consider whether a web site is appropriate. 
 
But then, who would seriously take tax advice from the Ozarks?
 
Marian Contrarian

 

A:

Marian:

Thanks for sharing your opinion on this matter.

I still can’t accept that as valid reasoning; especially in the context of the example I had written about.  In that case, as it is with countless other parents, the client was required to pay 29% of his tax return’s adjusted gross income, most of which consisted of purely paper income which was not in any way available for him to live on, much less for the benefit of his children. 

Your tone implied that I wrote my comments from a selfish perspective.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  I have never had any children, nor will I ever have any.  My comments were purely based on a sense of fairness.  To use the force of law to require a parent to share a fixed percentage of his/her wealth with his/her children is not right.  If a parent wants to voluntarily do this, that would be great.  It’s much like the issue of charity versus taxation that I posted on my blog yesterday.

You are obviously entitled to your own opinions on matters such as this, even if they are clouded by bigotry towards those of us who choose to live here in the beautiful Ozark Mountains.  I can assure you that my opinions wouldn’t be any different if I were still living in the more sophisticated San Francisco Bay Area, where I spent the first 38 years of my life.

Thanks for writing, whoever you are with your Nom de Plume.

Kerry Kerstetter

 

Go Daddy Domain Names

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Understanding Child Support

Converting C to S Corp

Posted by taxguru on February 20, 2007

Q:

Subject: Quick Tax question

We formed an Corporation in 1999 (C corp) and bought a parcel of Land in October 2003. After the purchase we have had No income or activities in the prior years and no tax forms were filed.
In 2006 we got approved from IRS as an S corp for the tax year starting Jan 1, 2006. How do we handle the transfer of the parcel from the “C” to the “S” corp? What tax consequences will this have January 1, 2006.? We have income from a option on the land in 2006 and are preparing to file tax return on this, you understanding is that the “profit” of this income will be passed through to the partners?

Appreciate your comments.

 

A:

This is an issue that you must work on with an experienced tax pro.  If it is the same corp that is now being converted to an S, you aren’t technically transferring the land. 

However, there is a potential for what is called the Built In Gains Tax of 35% for IRS when there are appreciated assists in a corp that has converted from C to S and the assets are sold or distributed within 10 years after the conversion. 

You really should have discussed this entire mater with a tax pro before making the conversion; but hopefully a good tax pro can help you minimize or at least reduce the tax hit after the fact.

Good luck.

Kerry Kerstetter

 

 

TaxCoach Software: Are you giving your clients what they really want?

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Converting C to S Corp

SIMPLE SEP?

Posted by taxguru on February 20, 2007

Q:

Subject: question….

Dear kmk:

 I overheard a conversation about a corporation or a savings plan the other day regarding a SEP vs. SIMPLE. What were they talking about? Thanks

 

A:

SEP = Simplified Employee Pension
SIMPLE = Savings Incentive Match Plans for Employees

These are just two of the rapidly growing number of types of retirement plans that small companies and self employed individuals can set up for themselves and their workers.

The rules, limits and basic pros and cons of each type are varied.

You should work with your personal professional tax advisor, as well as an experienced employee benefits consultant, if you are considering offering retirement plans for your employees and/or setting one or more plans up for yourself. 

As I constantly have to remind everyone, there is no such thing as “one size fits all” in tax and financial planning.  Everything needs to be set up based on the unique circumstances and plans of those involved.

Good luck.

Kerry Kerstetter

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on SIMPLE SEP?

Sec. 179 & IRS Math Skills

Posted by taxguru on February 19, 2007

Q-1:

Subject: Looking for Section 179 2007 Number
 
Dear Mr. Kerstetter:
 
I am interested in finding the upper dollar limit for 2007 Section 179 property. In 2005 the upper limit was $525,000 and in 2006 it was $535,000 — do you know the limit for 2007?  I understand that presently the rules change for 179 in 2008 and upper limit will be $200,000 (b/c max section 179 deduction drops back to $25,000). Thanks for your help, I saw your article on the web in looking for a source for this number. I had no luck in IRS sources. Thanks in advance for any help.
 
Regards,

A-1:

Your info is out of date.  A tax law was passed last year extending the fall-back in Sec 179 amounts to 2010.  I have had this on my website since the day that law was enacted.
 
In regard to the phase-out, check the numbers at the bottom of the above referenced page.  For 2007, it starts at  $450,000 and goes until $562,000, with the $112,000 maximum deduction allowed for 2007.

These numbers will be adjusted upwards for 2008 and 2009 based on the official cost of living calculations, before dropping in 2010 if our rulers don’t extend it again.

Good luck.  I hope this helps.

Kerry Kerstetter

 

Q-2:

 Dear Mr. Kertstetter:

Thanks so much for writing and the information this is what I was looking for. Especially thanks for updating  my old information — good to hear there was an extension passed. Thanks so much again!!

Just as an FYI. What was confusing me was the Year 2006 max amount. See paragraphs from IRS pub 946 below, which I just copied and pasted off of www.irs.gov:

“Dollar Limits
The total amount you can elect to deduct under section 179 for most property placed in service in 2005 generally cannot be more than $105,000 ($108,000 in 2006). If you acquire and place in service more than one item of qualifying property during the year, you can allocate the section 179 deduction among the items in any way, as long as the total deduction is not more than $105,000. You do not have to claim the full $105,000.

Reduced dollar limit for cost exceeding $420,000.   If the cost of your qualifying section 179 property placed in service in a year is more than $420,000 ($430,000 in 2006), you generally must reduce the dollar limit (but not below zero) by the amount of cost over $420,000. If the cost of your section 179 property placed in service during 2005 is $525,000 ($535,000 in 2006) or more, you cannot take a section 179 deduction.”

In 2005 the max deduction was $105,000 — with a dollar for dollar reduction in that amount above $420,000.  This means that you run out of deduction at 420+105 = $525,000 (which is the figure in the IRS text).

In 2006, the max deduction is given as $108,000 and the phase out starts at $430,000. From that one would think that the top-end number is 430+108 = $538,000. However, in the IRS pub you see the number is $535,000 ???

Your top-end number for 2007 makes sense (450+112 = $562,000), but is it the REAL number ??

Do you have any insight on the 2006 number and the source for your 2007 number? Perhaps the 2005 number is a typo (smile)?

Thanks so much!!

Regards,


A-2:

That $535,000 figure is either a typo or a reflection of the quality of the basic math skills of IRS employees.

The numbers on my page are accurate and obviously more reliable than those in the IRS publications.

Kerry

Follow-Up:

Hi Kerry!
 
Being a state employee of NC (university professor) I didn’t want to make a comment about government workers (smile) — but I assumed that it was a typo/error of some sort. It only makes sense that once you run out of dollar-for-dollar reduction (i.e. it goes to zero) then you have hit to top-end. But, one never knows what goes through lawmakers, lawyers and accountants minds sometimes (I can say that b/c I have several in my family -smile). Thanks so much for your info and good cheer. It has been my pleasure, and if there is anything that I can ever do for you please do not hesitate to write. Thanks again!

Regards,

 

 

 

Posted in 179 | Comments Off on Sec. 179 & IRS Math Skills

Generosity

Posted by taxguru on February 18, 2007

Mallard Fillmore, with the well documented fact that conservatives are much more generous with their own money than are liberals; while liberals are much more generous with the money they have their IRS henchmen confiscate from the taxpayers.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Generosity

Posted by taxguru on February 18, 2007

Cash-Hungry States Eye Business Tax Why the cat and mouse games of income sourcing between states with different tax rates will never end, guaranteeing a steady stream of income for those of us in the tax minimization profession.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on

Inherited IRA Rollovers

Posted by taxguru on February 17, 2007

Ed Slott has a handy explanation of the latest on the IRS’s confusing application of the new tax law regarding IRA rollovers by non-spouse beneficiaries.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Inherited IRA Rollovers