Finance Tax Time

A point on a mortgage loan is one percentage point of the loan. For example, two points on a $200,000 mortgage loan would be $4,000 ($200,000 x 2%). Points represent prepaid interest.

A taxpayer who uses the cash method of accounting may deduct points paid on a loan to buy or improve a principal residence as long as the points are a normal business practice in the area, are reasonable in amount, and the loan is secured by the residence (Sections 163(h)(3)(B) and 461(g)(2)). Interest, including points, on a loan to acquire or improve the taxpayer’s residence is limited to the interest on the first $1,000,000 of the mortgage loan.

The limit on deductibility of interest on a loan to acquire a residence applies to the taxpayer’s principal residence and one other residence (Section 163(h)(4)(A). However, a taxpayer may deduct points paid in the year paid only in connection with a mortgage loan on the taxpayer’s primary residence (Section 461(g)(2)). If a taxpayer pays points on a mortgage loan to purchase a second home, the taxpayer must amortize the points over the life of the loan.

A taxpayer claims the deduction on Schedule A of Form 1040. A buyer may deduct the points even if the seller pays them (Rev. Proc. 94-27, 1994-1 CB 613). A taxpayer who uses the accrual basis of accounting must amortize the points over the life of the loan.

If a taxpayer pays points on a home equity loan, the taxpayer may not deduct the points immediately unless the taxpayer uses the proceeds of the home equity loan to improve the property. If the taxpayer does not use the proceeds of a home equity loan to improve the property, the taxpayer must amortize the points over the life of the loan (Sections 163(h)(3)(C) and 461(g)(1)).

The deduction of interest, including points, on a home equity loan is limited to the interest on a home equity loan up to $100,000 unless the taxpayer uses the home equity loan for business purposes. If the taxpayer pays the loan off early, the taxpayer may deduct the unamortized points in the year paid (Temp. Regs. Sec. 1.163-10T(j)(3)).

The same rule that applies to a home equity loan also generally applies to a refinancing of a taxpayer’s mortgage loan. The taxpayer may not deduct the points immediately. The taxpayer must amortize the points over the life of the loan. If the taxpayer pays the loan off early, the taxpayer may deduct the unamortized points in the year paid.

However, for taxpayers who live under the jurisdiction of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, if the taxpayer pays points on a mortgage loan and uses the proceeds to pay off a short-term bridge loan, the taxpayer may deduct the points in the year paid (Huntsman v. Commissioner, 90-2 USTC Para. 50,340, CA-8, 1990, rev’g 91 TC 917). The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has jurisdiction over taxpayers in the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.

If a taxpayer pays points on a mortgage loan to acquire undeveloped land, a commercial building, or rental real estate, the taxpayer must amortize the points over the life of the loan. If the taxpayer pays the loan off early, including a sale of the property, the taxpayer may deduct the unamortized points in the year paid.

Taxpayers should remember to deduct points paid in connection with a mortgage loan to purchase or improve their principal residence, whether the purchaser or seller pays the points. For points paid in connection with a refinancing of a mortgage, to obtain a home equity loan, or to obtain a mortgage loan on rental or commercial property, taxpayers should remember to deduct the points over the life of the loan and deduct the unamortized points in the year the taxpayer pays the loan.

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

Share This

Filed under: Tax Infomation by admin
No Comments »

The vast majority of Americans are investors, although many don’t realize it. The vast majority of Americans are creative with their 1040 numbers, although most won’t admit it. The majority of Americans would agree that investing, retirement planning, and estate preservation would be easier to manage if the Internal Revenue Code was comprehensible. A landslide of American voters would elect any candidate championing IRC replacement surgery.

All of us aspire to some degree of economic security and none of us would be so critical of the wealthy if we had a shot at joining their ranks. One side of the legislative mouth encourages savings and investment while the other treats it with totally “unearned” disrespect. One wealthy political party wants us to hate anyone with indoor plumbing while the other (wealthier) one spends most of its time trying to protect its diminishing turf and powerful cronies. All levels of government view businesses small and large as their all-purpose Reserve Accounts and, as a result, both prices and taxes suffer from a terminal case of “downward stickiness”. Not surprisingly, in a DC crowded with 10,000 combative fiefdoms, nowhere can a PhD in dot connecting be found. We can change this!

It is likely that most of you are more familiar with the controversial Fair Tax Legislation than I am, but what I have found most shocking is just how thoroughly The Act’s refreshingly new ideas have been swept under the congressional carpet. Neither political party really wants to change the sacred IRC, and why are our media heroes keeping their heads in the sand on this one? Let’s squeeze some meaningful change out of the next administration. From an Investor’s point of view, implementation of just three elements of the Fair Tax would be an outstanding starting point, even without the more sweeping changes that the Bill addresses.

[The Fair Tax Act of 2003 was authored by Representative John Lindner and co-sponsored by 54 others. Its purpose is: To promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.]

Now this is pretty heady stuff, for sure, but every bit as easy to implement as real Social Security reform would be. The three changes reviewed briefly below would be an excellent Phase One.

1) Eliminate the Corporate Income Tax, and all other nuisance fees and taxes that businesses must pay just for existing. Whatever any business is charged in fees, taxes, and mandatory assessments is translated into higher prices for goods and services and at more than a 1/1 ratio. Governments need to look at businesses as employers and wealth generators, not as rateables. Lower expenses should result in lower prices and higher profits, and this would be comparatively easy to monitor for compliance.

Corporations would have more incentive to control their general expenses if such savings would actually make it to a bottom line that could be used to grow the business, compensate owners, and reward employees. More, higher paid, employees and more spendable (untaxed) corporate dividends are good for the economy. How many billions in lobbyist fees would be removed from corporate pricing formulae? With no income taxes or mandated charges to fork over, corporations could focus on growth and innovation. Investors would own more viable companies, selling more competitive products, to a more affluent population. Additionally, fewer jobs would be exported, more foreign companies would invest in the US of A, and GNP would rise at a faster pace. Rising profits would increase dividend payouts, stock repurchases, debt retirement, and employment opportunities.

2) Eliminate the Capital Gains Tax: I’ve often referred to taxes (or tax avoidance decisions) as one of two “Tails” that “Wag the Investment Dog”. Every year, millions of people go out of their way (with professional encouragement) to lose money on perfectly good securities. Those who take profits too soon are punished severely and those whose behavior is tax-wise may severely damage their investment portfolios’ future. Although it is clear that the Capital Gains Tax was originally designed to pick the pockets of those terrible folk wealthy enough to play the stock market for profit, it now inflicts considerable pain on all of us particularly those who foolishly subscribe to the archaic Buy ‘n Hold investment (mismanagement) strategy. Times have changed, and the average investor is now a pretty average guy indeed, willing to build a future if Uncle will let him.

A Government that bemoans the population’s low savings and investment rates has only itself to blame, and Wall Street Institutions are happy to exacerbate the problem with their own financial pandemic of products, strategies, and tax deferral/avoidance schemes. Fair Tax advocates estimate that Billions of Dollars, Hours, and Antacids could be allocated more productively every year, just from eliminating this portion of the tax form preparation process not to mention the trees.

3) Eliminate taxation on all forms of investment and Retirement income: Dividends, Interest, Rents, Royalties, Social Security, Pension, IRA, 401(k), etc. It just makes abundant sense, doesn’t it? Without taxation, interest rates, rents, and professional’s fees, just to name a few, could fall. Personal disposable income would rise and a much larger number of retirees would be able to live comfortably. Isn’t this what periodic IRC tinkering is all about? Wouldn’t it be cool if all of those different IRAs and self directed plans could be combined and relabeled: “My Untouchable Retirement Plan”? We would all save more and spend more if we had more to deal with.

No one expects a hundred million taxpayers to agree 100% on the final plan. I have problems with taxing education and health care spending, for example, and there is no doubt that displaced IRS bureaucrats will populate new compliance entities that monitor corporate operations. And most would agree that three separate sales taxes would be unacceptable. But real win/win/win change is in sight. We just need a positive leader with some

Here’s my proposed 2006 (and beyond) Voting Resolution for anyone with even the smallest start-up IRA account: “I promise to never, ever, cast my vote for any incumbent, at any level of government and from any political party, that has not clearly demonstrated that the repeal and replacement of the existing IRC is at the very top of his or her political agenda.” It’s time to reinvent this wheel!

Steve Selengut
http://www.sancoservices.com http://www.valuestockbuylistprogram.com
Professional Portfolio Management since 1979

Author of: “The Brainwashing of the American Investor: The Book that Wall Street Does Not Want YOU to Read”, and “A Millionaire’s Secret Investment Strategy”

Share This

Filed under: Finance-Tax Detail by admin
No Comments »

Problem? Yes and No. No because you can file ASAP. Yes, because penalties and interest can be fairly steep. (Generally, interest is charged on any unpaid tax from the due date of the return until the date of payment. The interest rate is determined every three months and is the federal short-term rate plus 3 percent. Interest is compounded daily)

(If you owe tax and don’t file on time, the total late-filing penalty is usually four and one-half percent of the tax owed for each month, or part of a month, that your return is late up to five months. If your return is over 60 days late, the minimum penalty for late filing is the smaller of $100 or 100 percent of the tax owed)

If IRS has sent you communications that you had to sign for - then your time may be short before they start the process to levy your wages or your bank account. Once this happens you will need to talk to them one way or another, either by calling them or by contacting a tax professional who will call them for you. (I recommend the second option)

If IRS levies your bank account, your bank must hold funds you have on deposit - up to the amount you owe, for 21 days. This period allows you time to solve any problems from the levy or to make other arrangements to pay. After 21 days, the bank must send the money, plus interest if it applies to the IRS. Contact Us (Note: If you own Real Estate or have a Small Business and IRS has sent an intent to Levy, it is best to contact an Enrolled Agent or a Tax Professional as soon as possible).

Your question might be, at this point, “If I did NOT file my taxes, how do they know how much I owe”?
Answer: IRS completes your tax return for you; based upon 1099s and W-2 information from your employer. The tax liability that IRS computes stands as the collection amount UNTIL you file your tax return for that year. And of course their tax return almost always generates a higher tax liability then if you had filed your own taxes!

Taxes Will Travel specializes in filing Back Taxes for Individuals. A consent form from the client is necessary in order to obtain income information from IRS for the year(s) in question. Once this task is completed and SS numbers, dependents, deductions, etc information is received the tax return(s) can be completed immediately.

Share This

Filed under: Finance-Tax Info by admin
No Comments »