All posts by Nancy McClelland

Role of the Board of Directors & Audit Committee Within a Cooperative

One of my favorite educational organizations is the National Society of Accountants for Cooperatives.  They have regular webinars and live seminars, as well as their annual conference.  This upcoming webinar on the role of a cooperative’s board of directors and audit committee sounds like it might be of particular interest to many of my clients and colleagues.

An overview of the duties, legal responsibilities and issues related to service as a Director in a Cooperative, including the interaction of Directors with Officers and Members and how the Audit Committee fits into the “best practices” model of cooperative governance.

This webinar will be held on Tuesday, January 24, 2017 @ 02:00 PM ET / 01:00 PM CT / 12:00 PM MT / 11:00 AM PT.

Source: NSAC Cooperative Learning Network – The Role of the Board of Directors and Audit Committee Within a Cooperative

New Due Dates for Many Tax Returns in 2017

The biggest news for 2017, in the world of tax preparers, came back in 2015, but didn’t make much of a splash outside of our world.

Lady Gaga: They’re changing the due dates for partnership returns, C-corps, and 1099s!

Nancy: THEY’RE CHANGING THE DUE DATES FOR PARTNERSHIP RETURNS, C-CORPS AND 1099S???

Lady Gaga: Yes, that’s what I said! Can you believe it?!!

Nancy: Aaaaaaaaaaaaauuuuuuuuuuuuugggggggggggggggggggaaaaaaaaaaaaaaggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

We were all a-flutter, but no one else really cared. From our perspective, having lobbied for it for so long, it’s seriously one of the most significant pieces of tax legislation for years. So I get that maybe this doesn’t seem like big news to non-tax-preparers, but for us, this is huge. The IRS never changes due dates. I mean, sure — you’ve got your weekends and totally random federal holidays (Emancipation Day, anyone?) here or there, but that just temporarily pushes things forward a day or two. We’re talking about a permanent change for all eternity. Or until the next time. As I said: THIS IS HUGE.

And it’s ultimately a good thing. But it is going to be a major challenge for us this season, so we’re asking you to be patient. And kind. (Please both.)

So what are these huge changes I’m going on about?

The main bits:
1) 1099s used to be due to recipients postmarked January 31, and e-filed with the IRS by March 31. The due date for recipients hasn’t changed, but now they’re due to be efiled with the IRS two months earlier, on January 31.
2) Partnerships used to be due April 15. They’re now due a month earlier, on March 15.
3) C-Corps used to be due March 15. They’re now due a month later, on April 15.

Why? And so what?

I’ll deal with the “why?” first.

The problem with the prior due dates was that it was hard for the IRS to match reported income against the income you said you had on your personal return, and sometimes, it was even hard for you to tell them about it in a timely fashion. For example —

1099s: you’re a freelancer (or more likely, a Chicago landlord) and you get your 1099s from clients (or renters) in early February. You decide to ignore it, because you didn’t really want to report that income anyway. You file in mid-February and get your refund. The IRS receives your 1099 copies on March 31. Now they have to chase you down for the refund that you weren’t entitled to. Make it due two months earlier — problem solved.

Partnerships: so you get a partnership K-1 sent out on April 15. This is a flow-through document that needs to show up on your personal return… ALSO DUE ON APRIL 15. That’s an easy one. Make it due a month earlier — problem solved.

C-Corps: the opposite of above. No flow-through documents. No reason to have it due a month early.

Taxpayers and preparers were struggling with problems created when flowthrough entities’ Schedules K-1 arrived late, sometimes within days (before or after) of the extended due date of their partners’/owners’ personal returns and up to a month after the extended due date of their partners’/owners’ business returns. Late Schedules K-1 made it difficult, if not impossible, to file a timely, accurate return. The Tax Division found that much of the issue related to late Schedules K-1 were a result of the increasing quantity and complexity of flowthrough entities.
Source — http://www.thetaxadviser.com/issues/2016/aug/nex-season-due-dates-have-new-logical-order.html

Much of the issue related to late Schedules K­1 were a result of the increasing quantity and complexity of flowthrough entities. The interconnection of business entities and those that own them demanded a more logical flow of information between parties.
Source — http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/newsletters/2015/oct/new-tax-return-due-date-changes.html

Now, the “so what?”

Well, I’ll tell you what.

1099s: DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW HARD IT IS TO GET W-9 INFO (what you need to file a 1099) FROM PEOPLE WHO DON’T WANT TO GIVE IT TO YOU??? DO YOU???

No, you probably don’t. But try owning a business or consulting with business owners, and you’ll find out fast. People are either actively trying to avoid taxation of income, or they are simply not super-responsible about reading emails and following up with requests. Either way, getting W-9 info from folks by the due date of January 31 is nearly freaking impossible. (Which is why I STRONGLY suggest that small business owners get W-9s before they give vendors their initial check. See my blog post on the topic, here.)

So. Someone doesn’t get their info to you on time and their 1099 goes out late. The only way you’ll be penalized for this is if THEY report it to the IRS. Now… why would they report it to the IRS if THEY are the ones who didn’t respond to the request for a W-9 in a timely manner? Yes, that’s my point. In effect, if someone were impeding your ability to send them a 1099, you really sort of had an extra two months to follow up and argue with them about it — or rather, provide a persuading picture of what will happen if they DON’T respond. Furthermore, let’s say you’re in the rare situation of having a recipient’s W-9 info in a timely fashion, and you send them their 1099 on time… and it’s wrong, and they notice it! You have time to go back and fix the 1099 before it even gets filed with the IRS.

No longer. Now you are required to e-file those 1099s with the IRS on the same day you put them in the mail to recipients. Not only are we going to see a lot of late-filed 1099s, but we’ll also see a lot of amendments. This is all going to increase the burden on accountants during a time of year when they’re already trying desperately to help close out client books (and in my case, implement new Point-Of-Sale systems for clients who end up making the transition in January; don’t ask).

Partnerships: Okay, I’ll admit, I really do like this new due date, in theory. I’ve often been delayed in filing a client’s personal tax return by lingering K-1s, or I’ve filed their return and a K-1 gets submitted after the return is filed. This is a great change, in theory.

But I’m a small business accountant, and I’m the only one in my firm that does taxes! NOW ALL MY S-CORPS AND PARTNERSHIPS ARE DUE ON THE SAME DAY!

I no longer get to take a 5-day vacation at the begining of February. I deal with 4th-quarter taxes in the first two weeks of January, 1099s all-month-long, and launch straight into tax prep before the end of the month. By March 15th, I will be a shell of my former self.

Send help.

C-Corps: Oh, yay. We get an extra month. I’m sorry… are there actually non-fiscal-year small businesses who file as C-Corps? I think I have two. Yeah, this does not help me at all.

In summary — I may die, but it’s okay. These changes are ultimately a good thing. They make sense. I just don’t know how we’re going to deal with them as a firm without my completely losing it.

RESOURCES:

LOVE this chart that summarizes many of the new due dates and compares them to the old ones; one-stop shopping —
http://www.aicpa.org/interestareas/tax/resources/compliance/downloadabledocuments/due-dates-summary-chart.pdf

http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/newsletters/2015/oct/new-tax-return-due-date-changes.html

http://www.thetaxadviser.com/issues/2016/aug/nex-season-due-dates-have-new-logical-order.html

Some Restaurants Adding Surcharge in Response to Minimum Wage Hike

Just read a well-written article about how some restaurants are dealing with the quickly-rising (after years of stagnation) local minimum wage, which was shared by one of my most respected restaurant accounting colleagues, Stacey Byrne.  It hit home, as we’re dealing with many of the same issues in Chicago: my small business restaurant clients are committed to living wages and benefits for their workers, as well as a safe and inclusive work space, but their margins are already so narrow, in what is a famously competitive and labor-intensive industry; also, the discrepancy between the massive amounts front-of-house are taking home and the paltry amounts back-of-house are taking home is painful — many chef-owners make substantially less than their FOH staff, or are committed to trying to even out this inequity and internal struggle. Many of them are switching to service charges instead of tipping, or re-structuring so that back-of-house workers have customer interaction, and can therefore participate in tip pooling.

Definitely worth a read: California Restaurants Add Surcharge After Minimum Wage Hike.

And for a reminder on how tipping works, an earlier blog post: Restaurant Tipping — How It Works.

Safe Harbor Relief for 1099/W-2 Filers Who Make Mistakes (It Happens)

Great new ruling from the IRS — if you send out a 1099 or W-2 that turns out to be incorrect, but the amount is $100 or less ($25 or less for tax withholding), then you don’t have to amend it.

“Section 202 of the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-113) amended sections 6721 and 6722 to provide that an error on an information return or payee statement does not need to be corrected to avoid a penalty if the error relates to an incorrect dollar amount and differs from the correct amount by no more than $100 ($25 with respect to an amount of tax withheld).”

Not All High-Deductible Health Insurance Plans Are HSA-Eligible

I’m getting a lot of questions from clients right now about whether or not they should set up a Health Savings Account.  The answer — for most — is that it’s a moot question.  They probably aren’t eligible.

Just a high deductible isn’t enough. Health insurance plans must meet other criteria to become HSA-eligible.

As this article from The Finance Buff puts it, “a high-deductible health plan is not necessarily a High Deductible Health Plan” (HDHP): Not All High Deductible Plans Are HSA Eligible.

According to IRS Publication 969, to be an eligible individual and qualify for an HSA, you must meet the following requirements:

  • You must be covered under a high deductible health plan (HDHP) on the first day of the month.
  • You have no other health coverage.
  • You are not enrolled in Medicare.
  • You cannot be claimed as a dependent on someone else’s tax return.

The IRS defines a high deductible health plan as any plan with a deductible of at least $1,300 for an individual or $2,600 for a family, but as we just noted, not all plans that have a high deductible are eligible.  Value Penguin explains:

In actuality, few are HSA-eligible, because the IRS specifies—deep in its guidelines—that “except for preventive care, [the] plan may not provide benefits for any year until the deductible for that year is met.”

If you aren’t sure if your health insurance qualifies you for an HSA, call the insurer and ask. If you purchase a plan through the federal Marketplace, the answer should be in the plan information available through the exchange website.

Five New Year’s Resolutions Every Tax Pro Should Make for 2017

My favorite blogger is back again with his list of New Year’s Resolutions for Tax Pros. In his characteristically disarming comedic style (“…while being able to speak confidently about the tax law will undeniably make you more appealing to the opposite sex, that’s not my main motivation here…”), he walks us through some suggestions for making 2017 a better year as tax planners and preparers.

As Nitti explains, “the five resolutions discussed below share a common theme — each one will help you adjust to the changing landscape we’re sure to face as 2017 unfolds.”

1. Learn the Trump Tax Plan
2. Be Able to Explain the Difference Between Static and Dynamic Scoring
3. Understand the Tax Consequences of Entity Conversions
4. Learn the Ins-and-Outs of Section 1202
5. Understand How to Compute and Minimize S Corporation Built-In Gains

Read the full article here: The Five New Year’s Resolutions Every Tax Pro Should Make-2017

New IRS Tool to Look Up Tax Preparer Disciplinary Records

The IRS Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) has created an online lookup table — a searchable Excel file — that allows the public to find out if a tax practitioner has been reported for violations of their professional responsibility.  Until this new tool was released, one had to search every single IRS Bulletin for announcements.  Now the information is compiled into one document.  It includes 25 years of info (the IRS requirement for maintaining records on the topic) on more than 3,000 censures, suspensions, disbarments and other restrictions.

More info here, including how best to search the file: IRS Makes It Easier to Look Up Disciplinary Records of Tax Practitioners

I’ve inherited enough clients from unscrupulous prior preparers, that I intend to make searching this document a standard practice before beginning a new client’s return.

Congress Eliminates IRS Penalty on Employer Reimbursements for Health Insurance

The most popular post on my blog has always been the one explaining that HRAs (Health Reimbursement Arrangements) were no longer legal (as of mid-2015).  Well… that’s all changed.

The Senate passed legislation Wednesday eliminating a tax penalty on employers who reimburse employees for the cost of health insurance premiums, following passage of the measure last week in the House.

Source: Congress Eliminates IRS Penalty on Employer Reimbursements for Health Insurance

President Obama has already signed it into law, and it goes into effect January 1st.  Joe Biden’s really excited about it.

Title 18 of the new law, originally a separate bill called the Small Business Healthcare Relief Act, allows companies to use Health Reimbursement Arrangements to compensate employees who buy their own insurance.

Source: New Law Eases Small Business Health Care Burden

Health reimbursement accounts, or HRAs, are more simply recognized as the practice of reimbursing employees for the cost of their health insurance.  The reason they were made illegal with the advent of the ACA makes sense — an employee might have a personal tax situation whereby they can get Marketplace health insurance subsidized by the government, and it’s cheaper for the employer to simply reimburse the employee for that insurance than for the employer to provide an insurance plan. However, that’s unfair to the rest of us, whose tax dollars go to paying for that subsidy.

Previously, stand-alone HRAs were considered noncompliant under federal law. Beginning in 2014, a joint notice from the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury subjected employers using these noncompliant plans to fines of up to $36,500 per employee per year.

Source: The SBHRA Heads to the White House—What It Means for Small Business

Apparently that inequity no longer matters.  The IRS fees were seen as exorbitant, and Congress saw that it was hurting small businesses, who may not have been trying to game the system — they simply did not want to take on the administrative headache of offering health insurance when they weren’t required to do so.

Please spread the word to your small business accounting clients or friends/colleagues who own businesses and have employees.

UPDATE 3/4/17 — IRS Notice 2017-20 extends the period for an employer that provides a qualified small employer health reimbursement arrangement (QSEHRA) to furnish a written notice to its eligible employees. The period is extended to at least 90 days after additional guidance regarding the contents of the QSEHRA notice is issued. The notice also provides transition relief from penalties for failure to furnish the written notice until after further guidance has been issued.

For more info on what qualifies as a QSEHRA, see the Department of Labor Q3 on page 5 of their FAQ released 12/20/16.

(In other words, hang tight — the how-to’s are still to come.)

2017 Standard Mileage Rates

Beginning on Jan. 1, 2017, the standard mileage rates will be:

  • 53.5 cents per mile for business miles driven, down from 54 cents for 2016
  • 17 cents per mile driven for medical or moving purposes, down from 19 cents for 2016
  • 14 cents per mile driven in service of charitable organizations

The business mileage rate decreased half a cent per mile, and the medical and moving expense rates each dropped 2 cents per mile from 2016. The charitable rate is set by statute and remains unchanged.

Source: IRS — 2017 Standard Mileage Rates for Business, Medical and Moving Announced

Comparing Income, Corporate, Capital Gains Tax Rates: 1916-2011

I recently rediscovered a pretty fascinating chart I originally found a couple years back (when looking for holiday presents for my father — yes, I was born a nerd and came by it honestly), comparing various top tax rates through history.  It only contains data up through 2011, but I’m hopeful the author, Catherine Mulbrandon, will update it again at some point.  All of her graphics are pretty interesting — clear and to-the-point — and her Visualizing Economics blog is worth a visit whether you’re an economics nerd or a graphic design nerd.

Reminder: your marginal tax rate is the rate you pay on the “last dollar” you earn; but when you view the taxes you paid as a percentage of your income, your effective tax rate is less than your marginal rate, especially after you take into account the deductions and exemptions, i.e. income that is not subject to any tax.

Source: Comparing Income, Corporate, Capital Gains Tax Rates: 1916-2011 — Visualizing Economics