A state’s taxing authority is based on specific state statute and case law, which can vary from state to state. However, for years states have been prohibited under federal law (Public Law 86-272) from imposing a net income tax on an out-of-state business when the only connection with the state is the solicitation of orders for sales of tangible personal property, if such orders are accepted and shipped or delivered from outside the state.

The principles of P.L. 86-272 are based on the concept of business nexus, which describes the amount and degree of business activity that must be present before a business becomes subject to a state’s net income tax. Under the general rules of nexus, a business with more than a de minimis degree of “physical presence” in a state, may be subject to that state’s net income tax. Physical presence is a factual determination, and can take the form of:

• Owning or leasing facilities or property in the state
• Installing equipment or supervising the installation of equipment
• Repairing or maintaining the company’s product
• Approving or accepting orders in the state
• Employees living and working in the state

It is important to note two elements of P.L. 86-272, 1) it only applies to tangible personal property, and so the solicitation for the sale of real property, intangible property, or services, may cause a business to have to pay income tax in a state where such solicitation occurs, even when the business does not have any physical presence in the state; and 2) it only applies to taxes on or measured by net income of the business.

More recently, many states have expanded their taxing grasp across state lines under the guidance of “doing business”. In these states, physical presence is no longer the controlling factor for collecting a business tax from remote sellers. “Doing business” simply means engaging in any activity that is conducted for, or results in gain or profit at any time during the year. For example, Ohio recently added a Commercial Activities Tax (CAT), Michigan added a Single Business Tax (SBT), while Oklahoma added a Business Activity Tax (BAT), all of which are taxed based on gross receipts, instead of net income.

These non-traditional, non-income tax based taxes have added complexity to complying with state tax filing requirements. No longer do states need to prove “physical presence” to assess a tax against a business, instead, businesses that merely sell product in the state, may be liable for filing a tax return and paying tax in that state.

Please contact us with any questions you may have about these rules and we can provide additional guidance.

Written by Kevin Hogan, CPA, CMA
Kevin specializes in tax consulting for businesses and individuals. His education includes a B.S. in accounting and business administration from the University of Kansas, a M.B.A. from the University of Kansas and a Master’s degree in Tax from Northern Illinois University.

Higher Education Tax Credits
Education credits offset the cost of higher learning for taxpayers, their spouses and dependents. The following credits are claimed on Form 8863.

• American opportunity credit applies to the first four years of undergraduate study and is 100% of the first $2,000 of qualified expenses and 25% of the next $2,000 or $2,500 maximum credit. Qualified expenses include tuition, fees, and course-related books, supplies, and equipment, which do not have to be purchased directly from the school. It has been extended through December 31, 2012. It begins to phase out on single taxpayers with modified adjusted gross income of $80,000 ($160,000 married filing joint) and completely phases out at $90,000 for single taxpayers ($180,000 married filing joint.) This credit is 40% refundable.
• Lifetime learning credit is available for all years of postsecondary education and for courses to acquire or improve job skills. The credit can be up to $2,000 per eligible student, but is not refundable. Qualified expenses include tuition and fees. Course related books, supplies and equipment can be included only if the fees and expenses must be paid to the education facility as a condition of enrollment or attendance. For 2012, the modified adjusted gross income range over which the credit is phased out is $52,000 to $62,000 for single taxpayers and $104,000 to $124,000 for married filing joint.

Example: Bill and Janet paid $10,000 in qualified expenses for their son, a junior at the local university. They have adjusted gross income of $150,000, with an income tax liability of $20,000. They are eligible for the full American opportunity credit in the amount of $2,500.

Qualified Tuition Savings Programs for Missouri Deduction
Another savings opportunity is the state sponsored 529 plans. These plans are designed to help individuals and families save for college expenses through a tax advantaged investment plan. Money contributed to the Missouri plan is deductible from state taxable income in the amount of $8,000 per year for single and $16,000 for joint filers.

No federal deduction is allowed for this contribution, but the earnings from the investment are tax free for federal and state as long as the amount is used for qualified expenses. Qualified expenses include tuition, fees, supplies and equipment required for the enrollment or attendance of a beneficiary at an eligible education institution.

Certain room and board costs may qualify if incurred while attending the institution at least half-time. In determining whether or not the earnings are taxable, the qualified expenses must be reduced by scholarships received and expenses taken in figuring other educational credits, such as the American opportunity or lifetime learning credit.

Student Loan Interest Deduction
Student loan interest is generally treated as personal interest and thus isn’t deductible. However, individuals may deduct a maximum of $2,500 annually for interest paid on qualified higher education loans. This is claimed as an adjustment to gross income to arrive at adjusted gross income. You cannot deduct as interest on a student loan any amount that is an allowable deduction under any other provision of the tax law (for example, as home mortgage interest).

For 2012, the deduction phases out ratably for taxpayers with modified AGI between $60,000 and $75,000 for single and $125,000 and $155,000 for joint returns. A person who is claimed as a dependent on another’s return can’t claim the education interest deduction. The deduction may be claimed only by a person legally obligated to make the interest payments.

For additional information on any of the above credits or plans, please contact us today.

Written by Shelly Toft, CPA

Interfamily gifts
Because of the tax planning opportunities family partnerships present, they are closely scrutinized by the IRS. When a family member acquires a partnership interest by gift, however, the validity of the partnership may be questioned. For example, a partnership between a parent in a personal services business and a child who contributes little or no services is likely to be disregarded as an attempt to assign the parent’s income to the child. Similarly, a purported gift of a partnership interest may be ignored if, in substance, the donor continues to own the interest through his power to control or influence the donee’s business decision. When a partnership interest is transferred to a guardian or trustee for the benefit of a family member, the beneficiary is considered a partner only if the trustee or guardian must act independently and solely in the beneficiary’s best interest.

Capital or services
The determination of whether a person is recognized as a partner depends on whether capital is a material income-producing factor in the partnership. Any person, including a family member, who purchases or is given real ownership of a capital interest in a partnership in which capital is a material income-producing factor is recognized as a partner automatically. If capital is not a material income-producing factor (for example, if a partnership derives most income from services, a family member is not recognized as a partner unless all the facts and circumstances show a good faith business purpose for forming the partnership.

If the family partnership is recognized for tax purposes, the partnership agreement generally governs the partners’ allocations of income and loss. These allocations are not respected, however, to the extent the partnership agreement does not provide reasonable compensation to the donor for services he renders to the partnership or allocates a disproportionate amount of income to the donee. The IRS can re-allocate partnership income between the donor and donee if these requirements are not met.

Investment partnerships
The general rule for determining gain recognition for marketable securities does not apply to the distribution of marketable securities by an investment partnership to an eligible partner. An investment partnership is a partnership that has never been engaged in a trade or business (other than as a trader or dealer in the certain specified investment-type assets) and substantially all the assets of which have always consisted of certain specified investment-type assets (which do not include, for example, interests in real estate or real estate limited partnerships).

If a family limited partnership (FLP) qualifies as an investment partnership, the FLP could redeem the partnership interest of an eligible partner with marketable securities without the recognition of any gain by the redeemed partner. To qualify, substantially all the assets of the FLP must always have consisted of the eligible investment assets, and the holding of even totally passive real estate interests (real estate that does not constitute a trade or business), for instance, must be kept to a minimum. In addition, any eligible partner must have contributed only the specified investment assets (or money) in exchange for his or her partnership interest.

While tax reform is gaining momentum, it is unlikely to produce any change in the tax laws until 2013 or 2014. Considering that retirement planning necessarily looks long-term into the future, however, now is not too soon to pay some attention to the proposals being discussed.

Testimony
The Chief of Actuarial Issues and Director of Retirement Policy for the American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries testified that current federal tax incentives can transform taxable bonuses for business owners into retirement savings contributions that benefit both owners and employees. “This incentive for the business owner to contribute for other employees results in a distribution of tax benefit that is more progressive than the current income tax structure,” she observed.

An American Benefits Council representation warned at the hearing that the wisest course for lawmakers is to not enact new laws that would disrupt the success of the current system. Short-term retirement legislation designed to boost tax revenues generally do so by eliminating the existing savings incentives and eroding the amount that workers actually save.

Committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich. questioned whether the large number of retirement plans now existing with their different rules and eligibility criteria leads to confusion, reducing the effectiveness of the incentives in increasing retirement savings. Ranking member Sander Levin, D-Mich., questioned the value of making tax reform-inspired changes to retirement plans. “Tax reform should approach retirement savings incentives with an eye toward strengthening our current system and expanding participation, not as an opportunity to find revenue,” Levin said.

JCT report
In advance of the hearing, the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) summarized the tax treatment of current-law retirement savings plans and described some recent reform proposals in a report, “Present Law and Background Relating to the Tax Treatment of Retirement Savings” (JCX-32-12). The report highlighted several of the recent proposals on retirement savings:

Automatic enrollment payroll deduction IRA. President Obama has proposed mandatory automatic enrollment payroll deduction IRA programs. An employer that does not sponsor a qualified retirement plan, SEP, or SIMPLE IRA plan for its employees (or sponsors a plan and excludes some employees) would be required to offer an automatic enrollment payroll deduction IRA program with a default contribution to a Roth IRA of three percent of compensation. An employer would not be required to offer the program if the employer has been in existence less than two years or has 10 or fewer employees.

Expand the saver’s credit. The Administration has also proposed to make the retirement savings contribution credit, known as the saver’s credit, fully refundable and for the saver’s credit to be deposited automatically in an employer-sponsored retirement plan account or IRA to which the eligible individual contributes. In addition, in place of the current credit ranging from 10 percent to 50 percent for qualified retirement savings contributions up to $2,000 per individual, the proposal would provide a credit of 50 percent of such contributions up to $500 (indexed for inflation) per individual.

Consolidate plans. The JCT also reviewed two retirement proposals from the Bush administration: Consolidating traditional and Roth IRAs into a single type of account called Retirement Savings Accounts (RSAs) and creating Lifetime Savings Accounts (LSAs) that could be used to save for any purpose with an annual limit for contributions of $2,000. The JCT explained that the tax treatment of RSAs and LSAs would be similar to the current tax treatment of Roth IRAs (contributions would not be deductible, and earnings on contributions generally would not be taxable when distributed).
Additionally, the Bush Administration had proposed to consolidate various current-law employer-sponsored retirement arrangements under which individual accounts are maintained for employees and under which employees may make contributions into a single type of arrangement called an employer retirement savings account (ERSA).

The American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries (ASPPA) told the Ways and Means Committee that the large number of plans with different rules and criteria does not reduce the effectiveness of the incentives in increasing retirement savings. “Consolidating all types of defined-contribution type plans into one type of plan would not be simplification,” the ASPPA cautioned. “It would disrupt savings, and force state and local governments and nonprofits to modify their retirement savings plans and procedures.”

Challenges
Congress passed, and President Obama signed, the PPACA and HCERA in 2010. Almost immediately, several states and taxpayers challenged the laws in court. The lawsuits generally argued that Congress had exceeded its authority by requiring individuals to obtain health insurance.

The cases made their way from federal district courts to the various federal courts of appeal, which reached different conclusions. One circuit court invalidated the individual mandate; two circuit courts upheld the individual mandate and another circuit court dismissed the challenge on procedural grounds.

Supreme Court grants review
On November 14, 2011, the United States Supreme Court agreed to review the Eleventh Circuit Court’s decision in Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Supreme Court stated it would examine four issues: (1) the Constitutionality of the individual mandate; (2) whether the individual mandate is severable from the PPACA; (3) whether the challenge to the individual mandate is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act; and (4) whether PPACA’s expansion of Medicaid exceeded Congress’s authority. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case on March 26-28 in Washington, D.C.

Individual mandate and penalty
The individual mandate generally requires individuals to maintain minimum essential coverage for themselves and their dependents after 2013. Individuals will be required to pay a penalty for each month of noncompliance, unless they are exempt (such as individuals covered by Medicaid and Medicare). The PPACA also provides tax incentives to help individuals obtain minimum essential coverage. Beginning in 2014, individuals with incomes within certain federal poverty thresholds may qualify for a refundable health insurance premium assistance tax credit. The PPACA also provides for advance payment of the credit.

In Florida v. HHS, the Eleventh Circuit struck down the individual health insurance mandate but did not declare the entire PPACA unconstitutional. In contrast, the Sixth Circuit held that the individual mandate was a valid exercise of Congress’ power to regulate commerce (Thomas More Law Center v. Obama). The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also upheld the individual mandate (Mead v. Holder). The Supreme Court could find the entire PPACA unconstitutional or could find that the individual mandate is severable, thereby preserving other parts of the statute, including various tax provisions.

Tax provisions
While much attention has focused on the individual mandate, the Supreme Court may also decide the fate of many tax provisions in the PPACA and the HCERA. Among the tax provisions potentially affected by the Supreme Court’s decision are:

• Code Sec. 45R small employer health insurance tax credit
• 3.8 percent Medicare contribution tax on unearned income for higher income taxpayers after 2012
• Additional 0.9 percent Medicare tax on wages and self-employment income of higher income taxpayers after 2012
• Increased itemized deduction for unreimbursed medical expenses after 2012
• Prohibition on over-the-counter medicines being eligible for health flexible spending arrangement (FSA), health reimbursement arrangement (HRA), health savings account (HSA), and Archer Medical Savings Account (MSA) dollars.
• Additional tax on distributions from HSAs and Archer MSAs not used for qualified medical expenses
• Excise tax on high-dollar health plans after 2017
• Tax credit for therapeutic discovery projects
• Annual fees on manufacturers and importers of branded prescription drugs
• Reporting of employer-provided health coverage on Form W-2
• Codification of the economic substance doctrine

Anti-Injunction Act
The Supreme Court could decide that the challenge to the PPACA is premature. Under the Anti-Injunction Act, a taxpayer must wait to oppose a tax until after it is collected. The PPACA’s individual mandate and its related penalty do not take effect until 2014. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the penalty amounted to a tax and taxpayers could not challenge the tax until it took effect (Liberty University v. Geithner).

If you have any questions about the tax provisions in the health care reform laws, please contact our office. We will be following developments as they ensue after the Supreme Court issues its decision in June.

Successful filing season
The IRS reported that the 2012 filing season moved along without significant problems. The IRS continued to upgrade its return processing programs and systems. Early in the filing season, some filers experienced a short delay in receiving refunds but the delay was quickly resolved. The IRS reported just before the end of the filing season that it had processed nearly 100 million returns and issued 75 million refunds.

Extensions
Individuals are eligible for an automatic six-month extension until October 15 to file a return. To get the extension, taxpayers must estimate their tax liability and pay any amount due. When a taxpayer properly files for an extension, he or she avoids the late-filing penalty, generally five percent per month based on the unpaid balance, which applies to returns filed after the April 17 deadline. Any payment made with an extension request will reduce or eliminate interest and late-payment penalties that apply to payments made after April 17. The current interest rate is three percent per year, compounded daily, and the late-payment penalty is normally 0.5 percent per month.

Installment agreements
Installment agreements generally can be set up quickly with the IRS and help to spread out payments to make them more management. In 2012, the IRS increased the threshold for a streamlined installment agreement from $25,000 to $50,000. Installment agreements however, come with some costs. The IRS charges a fee to set up an installment agreement. If you cannot pay the full amount within 120 days, the fee for setting up an agreement is:

• $52 for a direct debit agreement
• $105 for a standard agreement or payroll deduction agreement
• $43 for qualified lower income taxpayers.

It’s important to make your scheduled payments timely and in full. The IRS expects you to pay the minimum amount agreed on; you can always pay more if you are able. If your installment agreement goes into default, the IRS can charge a reinstatement fee.

An installment agreement does not reduce the amount of the taxes, interest, or penalties owed, and penalties and interest will continue to accrue. In determining the amount of the penalty for failure to pay tax, the penalty is reduced from 0.5 percent per month to 0.25 percent per month during any month that an installment agreement for the unpaid tax is in effect.

You must specify the amount you can pay and the day of the month (1st-28th) on which you wish to make your payment each month. The IRS expects to receive your payment on the date you select. The IRS will respond to your request, usually within 30 days, to advise you as to whether your request has been approved or denied, or if more information is needed.

Amended returns
Taxpayers can file an amended return if they find an error, uncover unreported income or discover an item that will generate a deduction. Amended returns are filed on Use Form 1040X, Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, to correct a previously filed Form 1040, Form 1040A, Form 1040EZ, Form 1040NR, or Form 1040NR-EZ. If you are filing to claim an additional refund, wait until you have received your original refund. If you owe additional tax for a tax year for which the filing date has not passed, file Form 1040X and pay the tax by the filing date for that year to avoid penalties and interest.

Generally, to claim a refund, Form 1040X must be filed within 3 years from the date of your original return or within two years from the date you paid the tax, whichever is later. Returns filed before the due date (without regard to extensions) are considered filed on the due date. Taxpayers must file a separate Form 1040X for each year they are amending.

Targeted penalty relief
This year – for the first time – the IRS offered penalty relief to qualified individuals who were unable to pay their taxes by the April 17 deadline. Unemployed filers and self-employed individuals whose business income dropped substantially can apply for a six-month extension of time to pay, the IRS explained. Eligible taxpayers will not be charged a late-payment penalty if they pay any tax, penalty and interest due by October 15, 2012. Taxpayers qualify if they were unemployed for any 30-day period between January 1, 2011 and April 17, 2012. Self-employed people qualify if their business income declined 25 percent or more in 2011, due to the economy. However, income limits apply, which excluded many taxpayers from the program.

Records
The IRS advises that taxpayers maintain tax records for three years. In many cases, especially for individuals with complex returns, records should be kept longer. Our office maintains taxpayer records with the utmost care and confidentiality.

We encourage you to contact us if you have any questions about the end of the 2011 filing season and how your 2011 return can provide a roadmap to tax savings in 2012.

This article reviews some of those deductions for which the IRS requires you to generate certain records either contemporaneously as the expense is being incurred, or at least no later than when you file your return. We also highlight several deductions for which contemporaneous documentation, although not strictly required, is extremely helpful in making your case before the IRS on an audit.

Charitable contributions. For cash contributions (including checks and other monetary gifts), the donor must retain a bank record or a written acknowledgment from the charitable organization. A cash contribution of $250 or more must be substantiated with a contemporaneous written acknowledgment from the donee. “Contemporaneous” for this purpose is defined as obtaining an acknowledgment before you file your return. So save those letters from the charity, especially for your larger donations.

Tip records. A taxpayer receiving tips must keep an accurate and contemporaneous record of the tip income. Employees receiving tips must also report the correct amount to their employers. The necessary record can be in the form of a diary, log or worksheet and should be made at or near the time the income is received.

Wagering losses. Gamblers need to substantiate their losses. The IRS usually accepts a regularly maintained diary or similar record (such as summary records and loss schedules) as adequate substantiation, provided it is supplemented by verifiable documentation. The diary should identify the gambling establishment and the date and type of wager, as well as amounts won and lost. Verifiable documentation can include wagering tickets, canceled checks, credit card records, and withdrawal slips from banks.

Vehicle mileage log. A taxpayer can deduct a standard mileage rate for business, charitable or medical use of a vehicle. If the car is also used for personal purposes, the taxpayer should keep a contemporaneous mileage log, especially for business use. If the taxpayer wants to deduct actual expenses for business use of a car also used for personal purposes, the taxpayer has to allocate costs between the business and personal use, based on miles driven for each.

Material participation in business activity. Taxpayers that materially participate in a business generally can deduct business losses against other income. Otherwise, they can only deduct losses against passive income. An individual’s participation in an activity may be established by any reasonable means. Contemporaneous time reports, logs, or similar documents are not required but can be particularly helpful to document material participation. To identify services performed and the hours spent on the services, records may be established using appointment books, calendars, or narrative summaries.

Hobby loss. Taxpayers who do not engage conduct an activity with a sufficient profit motive may be considered to engage in a hobby and will not be able to deduct losses from the activity against other income. Maintaining accurate books and records can itself be an indication of a profit motive. Moreover, the time and activities devoted to a particular business can be essential to demonstrate that the business has a profit motive. Contemporaneous records can be an important indicator.

Travel and entertainment. Expenses for travel and entertainment are subject to strict substantiation requirements. Taxpayers should maintain records of the amount spent, the time and place of the activity, its business purpose, and the business relationship of the person being entertained. Contemporaneous records are particularly helpful.

Contact our office for more information about tax deductions and documentation.

Individual audits
Individual taxpayers collectively were audited at a 1.1% rate over the FY 2011 period, based on 1,564,690 audited returns out of the 140,837,499 returns that were filed. While this rate is about the same as in 2010, variations occurred within the income ranges. An uptick was particularly noticeable in the upper brackets (see statistics, below).

Both correspondence and field audits were counted within the statistics. Correspondence audits accounted for 75% of all audits for FY 2011 (down from 77.1% in FY 2010), while audits conducted face-to-face by revenue agents were only 25% of the total, albeit representing an increase from the 21.7% level in FY 2010. Business returns and higher-income individuals are more likely to experience an audit by a revenue agent; while correspondence audits are generally single-issue audits, a revenue agent is likely to explore other issues “while he or she is there.”

Examination coverage: individuals
The following audit statistics taken from the FY 2011 Data Book (and contrasted with FY 2010 Data Book stats) show an increase in the audit rate especially in proportion to adjusted gross income (AGI) level:

• No AGI: 3.42% (3.19% in 2010)
• Under $25K: 1.22% (1.18% in 2010)
• $25K-$50K: 0.73% (0.73% in 2010)
• $50K-$75K: 0.83% (0.78% in 2010)
• $75K-$100K: 0.82% (0.64% in 2010)
• $100K-$200K: 1.00% (0.71% in 2010)
• $200K-$500K: 2.66% (1.92% in 2010)
• $500K-$1M: 5.38% (3.37% in 2010)
• $1M-$5M: 11.80% (6.67% in 2010)
• $5M-$10M: 20.75% (11.55% in 2010)
• $10M and over: 29.93% (18.38% in 2010)

Examination coverage: business returns
For individual income tax returns that include business income (other than farm returns), the 2011 audit rate statistics based upon business income (total gross receipts) reveals the IRS’s recognition that audits of small business returns yield proportionately higher deficiency amounts:

• Gross receipts under $25K: 1.3% (1.2% in 2010)
• Gross receipts $25K to $100K: 2.9% (2.5% in 2010)
• Gross receipts $100K to $200K: 4.3% (4.7% in 2010)
• Gross receipts over $200K: 3.8% (3.3% in 2010)

The difference in audit rates between returns with and without business income, as measured by total positive income of at least $200K and under $1M provide further evidence of the IRS’s tendency toward auditing business returns: 3.6% for returns with business income versus 3.2% without in FY 2011 (2.9% versus 2.5% in FY 2010).

Corporate/other returns
The audit rates for corporations are consistent with the deficiency experience that the IRS has had examining corporations of varying sizes. Some selected audit rates include:

• For small corporations showing total assets of $250K to $1M, the audit rate for FY 2011 was 1.6% (1.4% in 2010); $1M to $5 million, the rate was 1.9% (1.7% in 2010), and for $5M to $10M, the rate was 2.6% (3% in 2010).
• For larger corporations showing total assets of $10M-$50M, the audit rate was 13.3% (13.4% in 2010) in contrast to those at the top end with total assets from $5B to $20B (50.5% (45.3% in 2010)).
• For S corporations and partnerships, the overall audit rate was 0.4% (same as in 2010), in contrast to an overall 1.5% rate for corporations (1.4% in 2010).

In other cases an identity thief might steal a person’s information to obtain a job, and the thief’s employer may report income to the IRS using the legitimate taxpayer’s Social Security Number, thus making it appear that the taxpayer did not report all of his or her income.

In light of these dangers, the IRS has taken numerous steps to combat identity theft and protect taxpayers. There are also measures that you can take to safeguard yourself against identity theft in the future and assist the IRS in the process.

IRS does not solicit financial information via email or social media
The IRS will never request a taxpayer’s personal or financial information by email or social media such as Facebook or Twitter. Likewise, the IRS will not alert taxpayers to an audit or tax refund by email or any other form of electronic communication, such as text messages and social media channels.

If you receive a scam email claiming to be from the IRS, forward it to the IRS at phishing@irs.gov. If you discover a website that claims to be the IRS but does not begin with ‘www.irs.gov‘, forward that link to the IRS at phishing@irs.gov.

How identity thieves operate
Identity theft scams are not limited to users of email and social media tools. Scammers may also use a phone or fax to reach their victims to solicit personal information. Other means include:

-Stealing your wallet or purse -Looking through your trash -Accessing information you provide to an unsecured Internet site.

How do I know if I am a victim?
Your identity may have been stolen if a letter from the IRS indicates more than one tax return was filed for you or the letter states you received wages from an employer you don’t know. If you receive such a letter from the IRS, leading you to believe your identity has been stolen, respond immediately to the name, address or phone number on the IRS notice. If you believe the notice is not from the IRS, contact the IRS to determine if the letter is a legitimate IRS notice.

If your tax records are not currently affected by identity theft, but you believe you may be at risk due to a lost wallet, questionable credit card activity, or credit report, you need to provide the IRS with proof of your identity. You should submit a copy of your valid government-issued identification, such as a Social Security card, driver’s license or passport, along with a copy of a police report and/or a completed IRS Form 14039, Identity Theft Affidavit, which should be faxed to the IRS at 1-978-684-4542.

What should I do if someone has stolen my identity?
If you discover that someone has filed a tax return using your SSN you should contact the IRS to show the income is not yours. After the IRS authenticates who you are, your tax record will be updated to reflect only your information. The IRS will use this information to minimize future occurrences.

What other precautions can I take?
There are many things you can do to protect your identity. One is to be careful while distributing your personal information. You should show employers your Social Security card to your employer at the start of a job, but otherwise do not routinely carry your card or other documents that display your SSN.

Only use secure websites while making online financial transactions, including online shopping. Generally a secure website will have an icon, such as a lock, located in the lower right-hand corner of your web browser or the address bar of the website with read “https://…” rather than simply “http://.”

Never open suspicious attachments or links, even just to see what they say. Never respond to emails from unknown senders. Install anti-virus software, keep it updated, and run it regularly.

For taxpayers planning to e-file their tax returns, the IRS recommends use of a strong password. Afterwards, save the file to a CD or flash drive and keep it in a secure location. Then delete the personal return information from the computer hard drive.

Finally, if working with an accountant, query him or her on what measures they take to protect your information.

The government has found that most employees want at least a partial lump sum payment at retirement, so that some cash is currently available for living expenses. However, under current rules, most employer plans do not offer a partial lump sum coupled with a partial annuity. Employees often are faced with an “all or nothing” decision, where they would have to take their entire retirement benefit either as a lump sum payment when they retire, or as an annuity that does not make available any immediate lump-sum cash cushion. For retirees who live longer, it becomes difficult to stretch their lump sum benefits.

Longevity solution
To address this dilemma, the government is proposing new retirement plan rules to allow plans to make available a partial lump sum payment while allowing participants to take an annuity with the other portion of their benefits. Furthermore, to address the problem of employees outliving their benefits, the government would also encourage plans to offer “longevity” annuities. These annuities would not begin paying benefits until ages 80 or 85. They would provide you a larger annual payment for the same funds than would an annuity starting at age 70 1/2. Of course, one reason for the better buy-in price is that you or your heirs would receive nothing if you die before the age 80 or 85 starting date. But many experts believe that it is worth the cost to have the security of knowing that this will help prevent you from “outliving your money.”

To streamline the calculation of partial annuities, the government would allow employees receiving lump-sum payouts from their 401(k) plans to transfer assets into the employer’s existing defined benefit (DB) plan and to purchase an annuity through the DB plan. This would give employees access to the DB plans low-cost annuity purchase rates.

According to the government, the required minimum distribution (RMD) rules are a deterrent to longevity annuities. Because of the minimum distribution rules, plan benefits that could otherwise be deferred until ages 80 or 85 have to start being distributed to a retired employee at age 70 ½. These rules can affect distributions from 401(k) plans, 403(b) tax-sheltered annuities, individual retirement accounts under Code Sec. 408, and eligible governmental deferred compensation plans under Code Sec. 457.

Tentative limitations
The IRS proposes to modify the RMD rules to allow a portion of a participant’s retirement account to be set aside to fund the purchase of a deferred annuity. Participants would be able to exclude the value of this qualified longevity annuity contract (QLAC) from the account balance used to calculate RMDs. Under this approach, up to 25 percent of the account balance could be excluded. The amount is limited to 25 percent to deter the use of longevity annuities as an estate planning device to pass on assets to descendants.

Coming soon
Many of these changes are in proposed regulations and would not take effect until the government issues final regulations. The changes would apply to distributions with annuity starting dates in plan years beginning after final regulations are published, which could be before the end of 2012. Our office will continue to monitor the progress of this important development.