President Trump and Republican lawmakers currently are considering a second round of tax reform legislation as a follow-up to last year’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). As of this writing, there’s been no actual bill drafted. However, House Ways and Means Committee Chair Kevin Brady (R-TX) just released a broad outline or framework of what the tax package may contain.

Proposed framework

One of the main themes of the proposed legislation is to make permanent certain provisions in the TCJA, including:

• Federal income tax rate cuts for individual taxpayers,
• The doubled child tax credit, and
• The deduction for up to 20% of qualified business income (QBI) from pass-through entities (sole proprietorships, partnerships, LLCs and S corporations).

These pro-taxpayer changes are scheduled to expire at the end of 2025 along with several other TCJA changes, some of which are not taxpayer-friendly.

The framework released by Brady also would help Americans save more for retirement. It would create a new Universal Savings Account that would allow tax-free withdrawals for a variety of needs and would expand Section 529 education savings plans to allow tax-free withdrawals to pay for apprenticeship fees to learn a trade, cover the cost of home schooling and help pay off student debt. Contributions to Universal Savings Accounts would be made with after-tax dollars, like contributions to Roth IRAs. The framework also proposes to permit families to access their retirement accounts penalty free after a birth or adoption and allow new businesses to write off more of their start-up costs.

President Trump has separately suggested lowering the corporate federal income tax rate from 21% to 20%. The TCJA permanently lowered the corporate rate from a maximum of 35% under prior law to a flat 21% for tax years beginning in 2018 and beyond.

Chairman Brady has indicated that indexing capital gains for inflation is also under consideration for Tax Reform 2.0. Indexing would allow taxpayers to increase the tax basis of capital gains assets — such as stocks, mutual fund shares and real estate — to account for inflation. Indexing would result in lower taxable gains when affected assets are sold for a profit. Some observers have argued that indexing could be achieved without the need for legislation by simply issuing IRS regulations that allow indexing.

No “extenders” in Tax Reform 2.0

Chairman Brady has indicated that any Tax Reform 2.0 package probably won’t include extensions of a number of tax breaks that Congress habitually allows to expire and then retroactively extends. These so-called “extenders” will likely be addressed by separate legislation. For individual taxpayers, the two important extenders are the deduction for up to $4,000 of qualified higher-education tuition and fees and tax-free treatment for up to $2 million of forgiven home mortgage debt. Both of these breaks expired at the end of 2017. Other extenders that expired at that time include several business depreciation and expensing breaks and energy related breaks.

Possible technical corrections legislation

Like most major legislation, the TCJA included some errors, oversights and omissions that Congress didn’t intend. Such glitches are typically fixed retroactively by so-called “technical corrections legislation.” House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) has indicated that a technical corrections bill, mainly focused on international tax fixes, may be introduced after the November midterm election — when it would hopefully garner some support from congressional Democrats. Any technical corrections bill would probably be separate from the Tax Reform 2.0 bill.

Retirement savings bill

Separate from the Tax Reform 2.0 discussions, bipartisan legislation has been introduced in the U.S. Senate to help encourage Americans to save more for retirement. The Retirement Enhancement and Savings Act contains a number of incentives that include allowing employees to buy an annuity; making it easier for small companies to offer retirement plans; and permitting people older than age 70½ to contribute to traditional IRAs. It’s possible these provisions could be part of a 2.0 bill or they could make up a stand-alone bill.

Stay tuned

Chairman Brady is encouraging House Republicans to hold “listening sessions” with their constituents during the upcoming August recess with a view toward a committee vote in September. If all goes well, Republicans are tentatively scheduling a House vote on a Tax Reform 2.0 bill by the end of September. Bear in mind that the November midterm election may play into the final package of legislation, as vulnerable Republicans plead their cases for specific provisions. Contact us if you have questions about how the proposed legislation may affect your individual or business tax planning.

© 2018

It may be difficult to consider, but funeral arrangements are a critical component of your estate plan. Failure to clearly communicate your wishes regarding the disposition of your remains can lead to tension, disputes and even litigation among your family members during what is already a difficult time.

Address these issues

The methods for expressing these wishes vary from state to state, and may include a provision in your will, language in a health care proxy or power of attorney, or a separate form specifically designed for this purpose.

Whichever method you use, it should, at a minimum, state:

• Whether you prefer burial or cremation,

• Where you wish to be buried or have your ashes interred or scattered (and any other special instructions), and

• The person you’d like to be responsible for making these arrangements. Some people also request a specific funeral home.

Beware of prepaid funeral plans

To relieve their families of the burden of the costs of a funeral, some people pay for them in advance. Unfortunately, prepaid funeral plans can be fraught with potential traps. Some plans end up costing more than the benefits they pay out. And there may be a risk that you’ll lose your investment if the funeral provider goes out of business or you want to change your plans.

Some states offer protection — such as requiring a funeral home or cemetery to place funds in a trust or to purchase a life insurance policy to fund funeral costs — but many do not. If you’re considering a prepaid plan, find out exactly what you’re paying for. Does the plan cover merchandise only (casket, vault, etc.) or are services included? Is the price locked in or is there a possibility that your family will have to pay additional amounts?

How the state can intercede

If you fail to make your burial wishes clear, and your family members disagree about how you would want your remains disposed of, the outcome will depend on applicable state law. Absent express instructions from the deceased, some states give priority to the wishes of certain family members, such as spouses or children, over other family members, such as siblings.
To avoid this situation, talk to us about your wishes. We can help ensure that they’re properly documented.

© 2018

Meal, vehicle and travel expenses are common deductions for businesses. But if you don’t properly document these expenses, you could find your deductions denied by the IRS.

A critical requirement

Subject to various rules and limits, business meal (generally 50%), vehicle and travel expenses may be deductible, whether you pay for the expenses directly or reimburse employees for them. Deductibility depends on a variety of factors, but generally the expenses must be “ordinary and necessary” and directly related to the business.

Proper documentation, however, is one of the most critical requirements. And all too often, when the IRS scrutinizes these deductions, taxpayers don’t have the necessary documentation.

What you need to do

Following some simple steps can help ensure you have documentation that will pass muster with the IRS:

Keep receipts or similar documentation. You generally must have receipts, canceled checks or bills that show amounts and dates of business expenses. If you’re deducting vehicle expenses using the standard mileage rate (54.5 cents for 2018), log business miles driven.

Track business purposes. Be sure to record the business purpose of each expense. This is especially important if on the surface an expense could appear to be a personal one. If the business purpose of an expense is clear from the surrounding circumstances, the IRS might not require a written explanation — but it’s probably better to err on the side of caution and document the business purpose anyway.

Require employees to comply. If you reimburse employees for expenses, make sure they provide you with proper documentation. Also be aware that the reimbursements will be treated as taxable compensation to the employee (and subject to income tax and FICA withholding) unless you make them via an “accountable plan.”

Don’t re-create expense logs at year end or when you receive an IRS deficiency notice. Take a moment to record the details in a log or diary at the time of the event or soon after. The IRS considers timely kept records more reliable, plus it’s easier to track expenses as you go than try to re-create a log later. For expense reimbursements, require employees to submit monthly expense reports (which is also generally a requirement for an accountable plan).

Addressing uncertainty

You’ve probably heard that, under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, entertainment expenses are no longer deductible. There’s some debate as to whether this includes business meals with actual or prospective clients. Until there’s more certainty on that issue, it’s a good idea to document these expenses. That way you’ll have what you need to deduct them if Congress or the IRS provides clarification that these expenses are indeed still deductible.

For more information about what meal, vehicle and travel expenses are and aren’t deductible — and how to properly document deductible expenses — please contact us.

© 2018

Technology is tricky. Much of today’s software is engineered so well that it will perform adequately for years. But new and better features are being created all the time. And if you’re not getting as much out of your financial data as your competitors are, you could be at a disadvantage.

For these reasons, it can be hard to decide when to upgrade your company’s accounting software. Here are three keys to consider:

1. Your users are ready. When making a major change to your accounting software, the sophistication of the system needs to align with the technological savvy of its primary users. Sometimes companies buy expensive software only to have many of its features gather virtual dust because the employees who use it are resistant to change.

But if your users are well trained and adaptable, they may be able to extract added value from a more sophisticated accounting system. For instance, they could track key performance indicators to generate more meaningful financial reports.

2. The price is right. You’ll of course need to consider the costs involved. As holds true for any technology purchase, project leaders must set a budget and focus the search on products and vendors offering only the functions your company needs.

But don’t stop there. Explore add-on services such as free trials, initial training and ongoing support. You want to get the most value from the software, which goes beyond the new and improved features themselves.

3. You need to integrate. This is the concept of networking your accounting system with your other mission-critical systems such as sales, inventory and production.

For most companies today, integration is essential to maximizing the return on investment in accounting software. So, if you haven’t yet implemented this functionality, an upgrade may be highly advisable. Just be aware that a successful companywide integration will call for buy-in from every nook and cranny of your business.

Typically, if a company doesn’t need any major accounting process changes, it probably doesn’t need a major accounting software change either. But if upgrading both will help grow your business, it’s absolutely a step worth considering. We can provide further guidance and info.

©2018

In a much-anticipated ruling that confounded the expectations of many court watchers, the U.S. Supreme Court has given state and local governments the green light to impose sales taxes on out-of-state online sales. The 5-4 decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. was met by cheers from brick-and-mortar retailers, who have long believed that the high court’s previous rulings on the issue disadvantaged them, as well as state governments that are eager to replenish their coffers.

The previous rulings

The Supreme Court’s holding in Wayfair overruled two of its precedents. In its 1967 ruling in National Bellas Hess v. Dept. of Revenue, the Court tackled a challenge to an Illinois tax that required out-of-state retailers to collect and remit taxes on sales made to consumers who purchased goods for use within the state.

That case involved a mail-order company. The high court found that, since the company’s only connection with customers in Illinois was by “common carrier” or the U.S. mail, it lacked the requisite minimum contacts with the state required by the Due Process and Commerce Clauses of the U.S. Constitution to impose taxes. It held that the state could require a retailer to collect a local use tax only if the retailer maintained a physical presence, such as retail outlets, solicitors or property in the jurisdiction.

Twenty-five years later, in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, the Supreme Court reconsidered the so-called physical presence rule in another case involving mail-order sales. Although it overruled its earlier due process holding, it upheld the Commerce Clause holding. The Court based its ruling on the Commerce Clause principle that prohibits state taxes unless they apply to an activity with a “substantial nexus” — or connection — with the state.

Criticism of the physical presence rule

The rule, established in Bellas Hess and affirmed in Quill, has been the subject of extensive criticism. This has been particularly true in recent years as traditional stores have lost significant ground to online sellers. In 1992, the Court noted that mail-order sales in the United States totaled $180 billion, while in 2017 online retail sales were estimated at $453.5 billion. Online sales represented almost 9% of total U.S. retail sales last year.

This market dynamic is highlighted in the new case. As South Dakota argued in its petition for Supreme Court review:

Quill has grown only more doctrinally aberrant … But while its legal rationales have imploded with experience, its practical impacts have exploded with the rapid growth of online commerce. Today, States’ inability to effectively collect sales tax from Internet sellers imposes crushing harm on state treasuries and brick-and-mortar retailers alike.

Indeed, it’s been estimated that states lose $8 billion to $33 billion in annual sales tax revenues because of the physical presence rule. States with no income tax, such as South Dakota, have been especially hard hit. South Dakota’s losses are estimated at $48 million to $58 million annually.

The sales tax at issue

In response to the rise in online sales and the corresponding effect on sales tax collections, South Dakota enacted a law requiring out-of-state retailers that made at least 200 sales or sales totaling at least $100,000 in the state to collect and remit a 4.5% sales tax. The 2016 law also included a clause declaring an emergency in light of the need “for the support of state government and its existing public institutions …”

South Dakota subsequently sued several online retailers with no employees or real estate in the state. It sought a declaration that the sales tax was valid and applicable to the retailers, along with an injunction requiring the retailers to register for licenses to collect and remit the tax. A trial court dismissed the case before trial, and the State Supreme Court affirmed, citing its obligation to follow U.S. Supreme Court precedent, however persuasive the state’s arguments against the physical presence rule might prove.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning

The majority opinion — penned by Justice Kennedy but joined by the unusual mix of Justices Thomas, Ginsburg, Alito and Gorsuch — didn’t mince words. It described the physical presence rule as “unsound and incorrect.” According to the Court, the rule becomes further removed from economic reality every year.

Quill, the opinion said, creates market distortions. It puts local businesses and many interstate businesses with a physical presence at a competitive disadvantage compared with remote sellers that needn’t charge customers for taxes. Kennedy wrote that the earlier ruling “has come to serve as a judicially created tax shelter for businesses that decide to limit their physical presence and still sell their goods and services to a State’s consumers — something that has become easier and more prevalent as technology has advanced.”

In addition, the Court found that Quill treats economically identical actors differently for arbitrary reasons. A business with a few items of inventory in a small warehouse in a state is subject to the tax on all of its sales in the state, while a seller with a pervasive online presence but no physical presence isn’t subject to the same tax for the sales of the same items.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that the South Dakota tax satisfies the substantial nexus requirement. Such a nexus is established when the taxpayer “avails itself of the substantial privilege of carrying on business” in the jurisdiction. The quantity of business the law required to trigger the tax couldn’t occur unless a seller has availed itself of that substantial privilege.

Of course, as the Court acknowledged, the substantial nexus requirement isn’t the only principle in the Commerce Clause doctrine that can invalidate a state tax. The other principles weren’t argued in this case, but the high court observed that South Dakota’s tax system included several features that seem designed to prevent discrimination against or undue burdens on interstate commerce, such as a prohibition against retroactive application and a safe harbor for taxpayers who do only limited business in the state.

The impact

The significance of the Supreme Court’s ruling was felt almost immediately in the business world, with the share prices of major online retailers quickly dropping (even those that do collect and remit sales taxes). It’s not just the behemoths that could be affected, though.

The Court recognized that the burdens of nationwide sales tax collection could pose “legitimate concerns in some instances, particularly for small businesses that make a small volume of sales to customers in many States.” But, it said, reasonably priced software eventually may make it easier for small businesses to cope. Perhaps in response to this assertion, prices for shares in a company that makes a popular tax-processing software climbed after the Court released its opinion. The ruling also pointed out that, in this case, the law “affords small merchants a reasonable degree of protection,” such as annual sales thresholds.

Further, the Court noted, South Dakota is one of more than 20 states that are members of the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement (SSUTA). These states have adopted conforming legislation that provides uniform tax administration and definitions of taxable goods and services, simplified tax rate structures and other uniform rules.

What next?

Only about 15 states currently have sales tax laws similar to South Dakota’s, so it’s likely there will be a staggered imposition of sales tax collection and remittance responsibilities on online retailers. Other states may need to revise or enact legislation to meet the relevant constitutional tests — including, but not limited to, the substantial nexus requirement. If you have questions regarding sales tax collection requirements for your business in light of the Supreme Court’s decision, please contact us.

© 2018