Posts Tagged election

Start-up Costs – How To Deduct Them

A new business owner incurs start-up costs before beginning the business. Under Section 195(c)(1), start-up costs are costs the taxpayer incurs to investigate the creation or acquisition of a business or in creating a business. The costs must be costs that would be deductible as an ordinary and necessary business expense if the taxpayer was actively conducting the business.

In general, a taxpayer may not deduct start-up costs until the taxpayer sells the business. That is the default rule of Section 195(a). However, for start-up costs paid or incurred after October 22, 2004, a taxpayer may elect to deduct start-up costs to the extent allowed by Section 195(b)(1)(A). Under Section 195(d)(1), a taxpayer has until the due date of the tax return, including extensions, to make the election.

A taxpayer makes the election by claiming the deduction on the appropriate form. For example, a taxpayer who is a sole proprietor would claim the deduction on Schedule C of Form 1040. The taxpayer should attach a statement to the form showing the start-up costs for which the taxpayer is making the election.

If a taxpayer failed to make the election when the taxpayer filed a timely tax return, the taxpayer has six months to file an amended return and make the election under Regulations Section 301.9100-2(b). The IRS has no authority for allowing any other late elections.

If the taxpayer elects to deduct start-up costs, the taxpayer may deduct up to $5,000 of startup costs in the year the taxpayer begins the active conduct of the business. However, if the start-up costs exceed $50,000, the $5,000 limit on the deduction for start-up costs is reduced by the amount by which start-up costs exceed $50,000.

For example, assume that the start-up costs are $52,000. The taxpayer may claim an immediate deduction of $3,000 [$5,000 - ($52,000 - $50,000)]. If the start-up costs are $55,000 or more, the taxpayer may not deduct any of the start-up costs in the year the taxpayer begins the active conduct of the business except as an amortization deduction as explained below.

The taxpayer may deduct the remaining start-up costs ratably over 180 months beginning in the month in which the taxpayer begins the active conduct of the business under Section 195(b)(2). For example assume that a taxpayer\’s start-up costs were $23,000. The taxpayer may deduct $5,000 immediately. In addition, the taxpayer deducts the remaining $18,000 of start-up costs at the rate of $100 a month [($23,000 - $5,000) / 180].

The ratable deduction of start-up costs over 180 months is called an amortization deduction. A taxpayer claims an amortization deduction on Form 4562 and then carries the total deductions on Form 4562 to the appropriate form.

If the taxpayer sells the business before deducting all of the start-up costs, the taxpayer may deduct the remaining start-up costs as a loss as allowed by Sections 165 and 195(b)(2).

A taxpayer should take advantage of these rules to ensure the highest possible tax deductions. Because the time for making the election is quite limited, a taxpayer should be sure to make the election in a timely manner.

Alan D. Campbell is a CPA in Arkansas and Florida and is self-employed primarily as an author of tax publications. He earned a Ph.D. in accounting with an emphasis in taxation from the University of North Texas. He is also admitted to practice before the United States Tax Court. He has published numerous articles on tax topics in professional journals. He is the co-author of the book Tax Strategies for the Self-Employed and the revision editor of CCH Financial and Estate Planning Guide, 15th edition. For more tax savings strategies, please see his blog: http://taxsavingsstrategies.blogspot.com

Writen By : Alan D Campbell

Tags: , , , , , ,

No Comments

Minimizing The Income Tax On The Receipt Of Lump-Sum Social Security Benefits

Sometimes a taxpayer will receive Social Security benefits in one lump sum. A taxpayer might have to pay income taxes on up to 85 percent of these benefits. However, a taxpayer may make an election under Section 86(e) of the Internal Revenue Code to minimize the income tax on the receipt of the lump-sum Social Security benefits.

Why would a taxpayer receive lump-sum Social Security benefits? A taxpayer could have been receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI), which is tax free. Then, the Social Security Administration determines that the taxpayer should have been receiving Social Security disability benefits for the last several years instead of SSI. Another reason that a taxpayer could receive Social Security benefits in one lump sum is that the Social Security Administration may have initially denied the individual\’s application for Social Security disability benefits, but the individual wins those benefits on appeal.

Social Security benefits are not taxable for taxpayers with relatively low amounts of adjusted gross income. At moderate levels of adjusted gross income, 50 percent of the Social Security benefits are taxable. At high levels of adjusted gross income, 85 percent of Social Security benefits are taxable.

This graduated system for including Social Security benefits in gross income and the progressive nature of income tax rates can have a very bad effect on individuals who receive lump-sum Social Security benefits. Such individuals might have to pay a much larger amount of income taxes than they would have if they had received the Social Security benefits when they should have received them. If the taxpayer does not take action to make an election allowed by Section 86(e) of the Internal Revenue Code, that is what will happen.

Sometimes the taxpayer does not receive any cash for the lump-sum payment. For example, if the taxpayer had been receiving SSI and the Social Security Administration determines that the taxpayer should have been receiving Social Security disability benefits, the Social Security Administration will reduce the disability benefits by the amount of the SSI paid to the taxpayer. The taxpayer will receive a Form 1099-SSA showing the amount of the lump-sum Social Security disability benefits and yet the taxpayer received little, if any, cash.

Section 86(e) of the Internal Revenue Code allows a taxpayer who receives lump-sum Social Security benefits to elect to include in gross income only the sum of the Social Security benefits that the taxpayer would have included in gross income in prior years if the taxpayer had received the benefits in the years to which the lump-sum payment is attributable. A taxpayer may also make the election if the taxpayer received Railroad Retirement benefits in one lump sum.

Section 86(e)(2)(B) states that the taxpayer should make the election in the manner prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury in regulations. However, the Secretary of the Treasury has not issued any regulations under Section 86. Once a taxpayer makes the election, the taxpayer may not revoke it with the consent of the IRS.

Because no regulations exist that prescribe the manner of the election, a taxpayer should make the election according to the guidance the IRS provides in IRS Publication 915, \”Social Security and Equivalent Railroad Retirement Benefits.\” IRS Publication 915 has helpful worksheets and other information about making this election. Taxpayers who received Social Security benefits or Railroad Retirement benefits in one lump sum should consult IRS Publication 915 and determine whether the election will reduce their taxes.

Alan D. Campbell is a CPA in Arkansas and Florida and is self-employed primarily as an author of tax publications. He earned a Ph.D. in accounting with an emphasis in taxation from the University of North Texas. He is also admitted to practice before the United States Tax Court. He has published numerous articles on tax topics in professional journals. He is the co-author of the book Tax Strategies for the Self-Employed and the revision editor of CCH Financial and Estate Planning Guide, 15th edition. For more tax savings strategies, please see his blog: http://taxsavingsstrategies.blogspot.com

Writen By : Alan D Campbell

Tags: , , , , , ,

No Comments

Stock Research And Market To Be Affected Big Time Post November Election

Stock research normally tells us that pick the right stocks and it really doesn?t matter what the market does. When you survey history however, this seemingly true statement turns out not to be the case. You can have all the stock research in the world, but if the market goes against you, it doesn?t matter.

The stock market is making new highs with the Dow Jones Industrial Average piercing the 12000 barrier for the first time since the Dow Jones was created. The question now becomes which way is the next 1000 or 2000 points, up or down. The market has always told us that it doesn?t like uncertainty. Far better is the devil you know, than the devil you don?t know.

The massive uncertainty facing the country is which way does Iraq go? Iraq is eating at the social fabric of this country. Traditionally, Presidents are held on a short leash when it comes to wars, and entanglements. Yes, as a country we have always fully supported the President initially, as we rally around the flag. As time moves on, Americans become impatient with their Presidents. This has been true in the past, and it is true today. Patriotism will only carry a President so far. Harry Truman was a very popular President at the end of World War II. A year into the Korean War, he saw his approval ratings fall to such lows that he couldn?t even think of running again for the Presidency in 1952.

Viet Nam destroyed Lyndon Johnson?s Presidency in spite of being elected up until then, by the largest popular vote landslide in history, almost 16 million more votes than his opponent. Jimmy Carter found himself entangled by the Iranian hostage situation, and lost his Presidency as a direct result. During the last 2 weeks of the 1980 election, I was told by Ronald Reagan?s campaign manager that if Carter secured the release of the hostages from Iran, Carter would win the election. The release never came, and Carter was driven out of office in a landslide.

We now see President Bush entangled by the Iraqi conflict. How does the war work itself out from this point forward? All Washington insiders if quizzed privately would tell you that the President is between a rock, and hard place. The wish that the Iraq people would embrace freedom, and democracy has turned out to be a Presidential vision that the Iraq people never shared, or embraced.

Democracy is every Iraqis? second choice. If you are a Kurd, your first choice is that the Kurds be in power, and you are willing to fight and wage terror for that goal. The same is true of the majority based Shia, and the minority based Sunnis. When Saddam Hussein was in power there was an old story, ?Did Saddam make Iraq, or did Iraq make Saddam.? It is inconceivable to believe, but nevertheless may be true that only a despotic, merciless dictator like Saddam Hussein could shape Iraq into a country. In Saddam?s case, he embraced and required terror to govern.

How does Iraq play out?

Enter the Iraq Study Group (ISG), a group headed by former Secretary of State James Baker, and former Democratic Congressman Lee Hamilton. The public purpose of the group doesn?t matter, the private purpose does. This President knows that his policies in Iraq have FAILED. He needs political cover to effectuate massive change. The Iraq Study Group will give him that cover. They will probably propose everything, and anything that is different from the current course we are on.

If the President is shrewd enough, he will embrace those portions that suit his purpose. That purpose is to change our current policies. The President also recognizes that the momentum this November is for the Democrats to take over the House, and perhaps come close to taking the Senate. As I write this, the Senate is in play, which means the Senate could also go either way. If either chamber of Congress changes party affiliation, the President?s hands could be tied severely.

Only the Congress has the authority vested in it constitutionally to appropriate and authorize the spending of funds. We could reach a point in time where spending for our military activities in Iraq will not be authorized. President Bush must act before we get to that point. The Iraq Study Group will provide the alternatives that this Administration will pick and choose from, to change our direction and get us out of the mess, which we have put ourselves in.

Two of the issues the ISG must deal with is why do we have the same number of troops (140,000) when the police and military in Iraq now number 300,000 plus. A few years ago, there were no police and the military was sent home – what gives? A second question is how do we leave Iraq, and not destabilize the country to the point where we throw the country into the hands of Iraq?s long-time enemy, Iran.

We are in a dilemma which is defined as a situation requiring the choice of two equally undesirable alternatives. The President will have to act very quickly after the election. He will not have much time if there is a new party in control in either chamber of Congress. The stock market will begin to act in a downward manner due to the uncertainty as to future policy choices.

We will probably have to consult and deal with both Syria and Iran, even though we do not want to. Both countries are major players in the region. Our dealings will be independent of other policy considerations involving Iran?s desire to possess nuclear armaments. The great experiment in creating democracy in Iraq is coming to an end. It could have worked, but the steps necessary had a brief window of opportunity, and that window has now closed.

The disbanding of the Iraq army years ago, along with the police, plus the firing of the top layers of the people who ran the government were all retrospectively MISTAKES. There is NO GOING BACK to revisit them. When the Iraq Study Group makes its recommendations after the November election, President Bush will have a brief window with political cover to change directions. If he does, the stock market in this country will more than likely continue to prosper. If he doesn?t take decisive and long overdue action, all bets are off.

Goodbye and Good Luck

Richard Stoyeck?s background includes being a limited partner at Bear Stearns, Senior VP at Lehman Brothers, Kuhn Loeb, Arthur Andersen, and KPMG. Educated at Pace University, NYU, and Harvard University, today he runs Rockefeller Capital Partners and StocksAtBottom.com

http://www.stocksatbottom.com

Writen By : Richard Stoyeck

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments