Recently, USA Today ran an article on how John Deere is leading the fight against Lightsquared plans to put up more than 40,000 new cell towers in rural America. John Deere is worried that the spectrum that Lightsquared wants to use will bump the GPS spectrum and lead to farmers having issues running their GPS on tractors and combines.
Since this is most likely a political fight, it may make sense for farmers to let their representatives know how important precision farming is.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Monday, August 29, 2011
HOBBY LOSSES - HOW TO DO IT RIGHT AND HOW TO DO IT WRONG
Horse breeding losses aren’t always hit by the hobby loss disallowance rules as a recent tax court case shows.
First how to do it right. A couple bought, bred and trained horses in addition to working regular jobs. They had a detailed business plan and adjusted it after consulting with experts. They used recognized horse farm accounting software, opened a separate bank account and set up a website for their breeding operations. After several years of red ink, they prudently realized they couldn’t make a go of it and shut down the business. This convinced the Court that they had a profit motive and their breeding operation was more than a hobby (Blackwell, TC Memo. 2011-188).
But another breeder wasn’t so lucky. Instead of getting his hands dirty, he let others do the work for him by investing in a tax shelter deal that was intended to create large up-front losses before the mares were sold at a profit. The Tax Court gave short shrift to his claimed breeding losses (Van Wickler, TC Memo. 2011-196).
First how to do it right. A couple bought, bred and trained horses in addition to working regular jobs. They had a detailed business plan and adjusted it after consulting with experts. They used recognized horse farm accounting software, opened a separate bank account and set up a website for their breeding operations. After several years of red ink, they prudently realized they couldn’t make a go of it and shut down the business. This convinced the Court that they had a profit motive and their breeding operation was more than a hobby (Blackwell, TC Memo. 2011-188).
But another breeder wasn’t so lucky. Instead of getting his hands dirty, he let others do the work for him by investing in a tax shelter deal that was intended to create large up-front losses before the mares were sold at a profit. The Tax Court gave short shrift to his claimed breeding losses (Van Wickler, TC Memo. 2011-196).
Saturday, August 27, 2011
DEBT DEAL TALK
First of all, I don’t think that anybodyIt seems like a lot of the talk these days is about the Congressional Committee that is to come up with a deficit plan to present to Congress and the President. On top of that, the President has been saying on his bus tour that he has a plan that he is going to unveil in September. How is this going to impact income taxes? Here are my thoughts:
First of all, I don't that anybody thinks that the committee will offer a plan that will be passed, so we will default (bad choice of words), to the 1% cutback called for in the deficit bill.
Right now, House Republicans appear to have blocked any new taxes. And all seven Republican candidates participating in the recent presidential debate pledged to oppose new taxes even if they were accompanied by ten times that amount in spending cuts. So, new taxes appear off the table for now.
But look out! The Bush tax cuts expire right after the 2012 election, and rates on ordinary income, capital gains, and qualified dividends will automatically go up unless Congress gets their act together to extend them. Democrats and Republicans are united in wanting to preserve them for "middle class" taxpayers. But the White House has pledged not to extend those cuts for single taxpayers making above $200,000 or joint filers above $250,000. If Obama wins in November, he may have the leverage to pass "enhanced revenues."
A final comment.
I love how the spin doctors in Washington use terms like "enhanced revenues" to mask new taxes. My favorite is the 3.8% "Unearned Income Medicare Contribution" imposed on investment income by last year's legislation that Washington laughingly refers to as “Healthcare Reform.” I swear, those guys have more euphemisms for "tax hikes" than Eskimos have words for snow.
First of all, I don't that anybody thinks that the committee will offer a plan that will be passed, so we will default (bad choice of words), to the 1% cutback called for in the deficit bill.
Right now, House Republicans appear to have blocked any new taxes. And all seven Republican candidates participating in the recent presidential debate pledged to oppose new taxes even if they were accompanied by ten times that amount in spending cuts. So, new taxes appear off the table for now.
But look out! The Bush tax cuts expire right after the 2012 election, and rates on ordinary income, capital gains, and qualified dividends will automatically go up unless Congress gets their act together to extend them. Democrats and Republicans are united in wanting to preserve them for "middle class" taxpayers. But the White House has pledged not to extend those cuts for single taxpayers making above $200,000 or joint filers above $250,000. If Obama wins in November, he may have the leverage to pass "enhanced revenues."
A final comment.
I love how the spin doctors in Washington use terms like "enhanced revenues" to mask new taxes. My favorite is the 3.8% "Unearned Income Medicare Contribution" imposed on investment income by last year's legislation that Washington laughingly refers to as “Healthcare Reform.” I swear, those guys have more euphemisms for "tax hikes" than Eskimos have words for snow.
Friday, August 26, 2011
ACCOUNTANTS IN THE MOVIES
In Hollywood, accounting can seem like a pretty glamorous profession, or not.
May 17, 2011 - The Producers
Gene Wilder co-starred as accountant Leo Bloom in "The Producers," the 1968 Mel Brooks madcap comedy. Teamed with Zero Mostel (left) as Max Bialystock, the womanizing theatrical impresario, they try to create the biggest flop ever to hit Broadway, a musical tribute to Adolf Hitler. Their roles were later reprised by Matthew Broderick and Nathan Lane in a hit Broadway musical and a 2005 remake.
Gene Wilder co-starred as accountant Leo Bloom in "The Producers," the 1968 Mel Brooks madcap comedy. Teamed with Zero Mostel (left) as Max Bialystock, the womanizing theatrical impresario, they try to create the biggest flop ever to hit Broadway, a musical tribute to Adolf Hitler. Their roles were later reprised by Matthew Broderick and Nathan Lane in a hit Broadway musical and a 2005 remake.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
WHICH WAY SHOULD I GO - MARRIED FILING JOINTLY OR MARRIED FILING SEPARATELY?
Q. We have not filed our 2010 return. We are trying to decide if we should file married filing joint or married filing separately. What should we look at?
A. You really need to be working with a tax professional on this. If you are married, you generally have two choices: married filing jointly and married filing separate. In most cases, if you are married and choose to file as married filing separate, you will usually pay more tax. Usually. Some exceptions apply. But in the great majority of cases, you will pay more tax.
If you file as married filing separate, you still have to coordinate a bit with your spouse.
• While you include only your own income, deductions, exemptions and tax credits, you still have to include your spouse’s information, including Social Security Number or Taxpayer ID.
• You also have to elect the same deduction option as your spouse: you must both opt to itemize or you must both opt to take the standard deduction. You may not each independently elect itemized or standard deductions.
• If you file as married filing separate, you lose the option of claiming some tax preference items. For example, you cannot take the student loan interest deduction, the tuition and fees deduction, the education credits, or the earned income credit.
So why do it? There are a few scenarios where electing married filing separate status makes sense:
• Privacy. It’s rare that your spouse’s tax return will be made public but if it is, filing separately ensures that your own returns stay private. Who falls into this category? Generally, the spouses of politicians. Think Teresa Heinz-Kerry or Cindy McCain, both wealthy women in their own right who might not want the world to know their business.
• Trust (or lack thereof). These days, many married couples maintain separate accounts and have separate assets. Sometimes it’s for convenience purposes. Sometimes it’s to keep some semblance of independence. And sometimes it’s for professional reasons. That doesn’t always translate into separate tax returns. However, if you maintain separate financial lives to the point where you don’t understand/care/want to know what’s going on with your spouse’s finances, you may also not wish to file a joint tax return. You can’t simply claim ignorance if your spouse makes a significant error: the IRS expects you to review and understand your tax return before you sign it. If you don’t have a level of comfort signing a joint return, don’t. That’s a great reason to file separately.
• Protection. There’s a great line in the movie, Steel Magnolias when Truvy says to Clairee, “If you can achieve puberty, you can achieve a past.” It’s true. Many taxpayers these days marry someone with a past… past tax debts, defaulted student loans, you name it. It happens. Filing separately may preserve a spouse’s right to claim a refund (yes, you can file some extra papers to achieve the same goal but that’s an awful lot of work).
• Medical or Other Expenses. Occasionally one spouse has significant medical or other expenses but little income. Since medical expenses must meet that 7.5% floor before you can deduct them, joint filers may have a hard time meeting that threshold. However, a taxpayer filing separately with a relatively low income can hit the floor much more quickly. Ditto for miscellaneous expenses subject to the 2% floor. Keep in mind, though, that your spouse has to itemize if you do, so this only works if there are enough combined deductions between the both of you.
• Money. Sometimes, the numbers just work out better. And why pay more than you have to?
So there you go. There is no rule that says, “Thou shalt elect married filing jointly.” Sometimes it makes sense to elect married filing separate. Sometimes. Run the numbers – or discuss with your tax pro – to see if it makes sense for you.
A. You really need to be working with a tax professional on this. If you are married, you generally have two choices: married filing jointly and married filing separate. In most cases, if you are married and choose to file as married filing separate, you will usually pay more tax. Usually. Some exceptions apply. But in the great majority of cases, you will pay more tax.
If you file as married filing separate, you still have to coordinate a bit with your spouse.
• While you include only your own income, deductions, exemptions and tax credits, you still have to include your spouse’s information, including Social Security Number or Taxpayer ID.
• You also have to elect the same deduction option as your spouse: you must both opt to itemize or you must both opt to take the standard deduction. You may not each independently elect itemized or standard deductions.
• If you file as married filing separate, you lose the option of claiming some tax preference items. For example, you cannot take the student loan interest deduction, the tuition and fees deduction, the education credits, or the earned income credit.
So why do it? There are a few scenarios where electing married filing separate status makes sense:
• Privacy. It’s rare that your spouse’s tax return will be made public but if it is, filing separately ensures that your own returns stay private. Who falls into this category? Generally, the spouses of politicians. Think Teresa Heinz-Kerry or Cindy McCain, both wealthy women in their own right who might not want the world to know their business.
• Trust (or lack thereof). These days, many married couples maintain separate accounts and have separate assets. Sometimes it’s for convenience purposes. Sometimes it’s to keep some semblance of independence. And sometimes it’s for professional reasons. That doesn’t always translate into separate tax returns. However, if you maintain separate financial lives to the point where you don’t understand/care/want to know what’s going on with your spouse’s finances, you may also not wish to file a joint tax return. You can’t simply claim ignorance if your spouse makes a significant error: the IRS expects you to review and understand your tax return before you sign it. If you don’t have a level of comfort signing a joint return, don’t. That’s a great reason to file separately.
• Protection. There’s a great line in the movie, Steel Magnolias when Truvy says to Clairee, “If you can achieve puberty, you can achieve a past.” It’s true. Many taxpayers these days marry someone with a past… past tax debts, defaulted student loans, you name it. It happens. Filing separately may preserve a spouse’s right to claim a refund (yes, you can file some extra papers to achieve the same goal but that’s an awful lot of work).
• Medical or Other Expenses. Occasionally one spouse has significant medical or other expenses but little income. Since medical expenses must meet that 7.5% floor before you can deduct them, joint filers may have a hard time meeting that threshold. However, a taxpayer filing separately with a relatively low income can hit the floor much more quickly. Ditto for miscellaneous expenses subject to the 2% floor. Keep in mind, though, that your spouse has to itemize if you do, so this only works if there are enough combined deductions between the both of you.
• Money. Sometimes, the numbers just work out better. And why pay more than you have to?
So there you go. There is no rule that says, “Thou shalt elect married filing jointly.” Sometimes it makes sense to elect married filing separate. Sometimes. Run the numbers – or discuss with your tax pro – to see if it makes sense for you.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
13 ESSENTIAL TALKING POINTS FOR THE EARTHQUAKE ENTHUSIAST
Since Virginia had a 5.9 magnitude earthquake and Colorado was also hit with earthquakes yesterday, I thought you might want some earthquake talking points.
1. The first recorded earthquake was in China in 1177 B.C.E.
2. China is also the birthplace of the first seismograph. Built in 132 C.E. by a man named Cheng Heng, it consisted of eight metal dragons holding eight carved balls over eight frog figurines. If an earthquake made the ground vibrate, the dragon facing the quake’s source would (naturally) drop a ball into the mouth of its corresponding frog.
3. Of course, it didn’t really work.
4. But it did look cool.
5. While dragons aren’t that good at predicting earthquakes, other animals might be. According to ancient reports, critters in the Greek city of Helice headed for the hills just before a massive quake leveled the city in 373 B.C.E.
6. There’s some modern evidence, as well. In 1975, Chinese officials evacuated Haicheng days before a massive earthquake, based both on warnings from seismologists and the strange behavior of local pets.
7. Before leaving Alabama, Shawnee leader Tecumseh told a Creek chief, “I … shall go straight to Detroit. When I arrive there, I will stamp on the ground with my foot, and shake down every house in Tuckhabatchee.” Coincidentally (or was it?), he arrived in Detroit on December 16, 1811, the day of the New Madrid earthquake—the largest ever recorded in the contiguous United States.
8. The most violent earthquake ever measured in the world hit Chile in 1960, coming in at a terrifying 9.5 on the Richter scale.
9. The atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, was “only” considered a 5 on the Richter scale.
10. In theory, a quake can actually measure 11, or even higher. The formula for the Richter scale has no upper limit.
11. Speaking of Charles Richter, the American scientist was supposedly an avid nudist. Rumors persist that his wife was so distressed by his penchant for hanging out in the buff that she divorced him.
12. One guy not to trust for earthquake predictions? British soldier William Bell. In 1761, right after two earthquakes uncannily hit England 28 days apart, Bell smelled opportunity. He claimed a follow-up quake would be hitting the country four weeks later. Accounts depict Bell running through the streets of London ranting about the impending destruction. Amazingly, it worked. Folks were so panicked that hundreds actually slept in boats on the Thames thinking it would be safer than their homes. Luckily, the quake never hit. But Bell quickly lost his street cred and eventually ended up in an insane asylum.
13. In early 2001, FEMA prophetically listed the three most likely disasters to hit America: a terrorist attack on New York City (check), a hurricane in New Orleans (check), and a massive earthquake in San Francisco. Nervous yet?
This article was written by Jeff Fleischer, and originally appeared in the May-June 2007 issue of Mental Floss magazine.
1. The first recorded earthquake was in China in 1177 B.C.E.
2. China is also the birthplace of the first seismograph. Built in 132 C.E. by a man named Cheng Heng, it consisted of eight metal dragons holding eight carved balls over eight frog figurines. If an earthquake made the ground vibrate, the dragon facing the quake’s source would (naturally) drop a ball into the mouth of its corresponding frog.
3. Of course, it didn’t really work.
4. But it did look cool.
5. While dragons aren’t that good at predicting earthquakes, other animals might be. According to ancient reports, critters in the Greek city of Helice headed for the hills just before a massive quake leveled the city in 373 B.C.E.
6. There’s some modern evidence, as well. In 1975, Chinese officials evacuated Haicheng days before a massive earthquake, based both on warnings from seismologists and the strange behavior of local pets.
7. Before leaving Alabama, Shawnee leader Tecumseh told a Creek chief, “I … shall go straight to Detroit. When I arrive there, I will stamp on the ground with my foot, and shake down every house in Tuckhabatchee.” Coincidentally (or was it?), he arrived in Detroit on December 16, 1811, the day of the New Madrid earthquake—the largest ever recorded in the contiguous United States.
8. The most violent earthquake ever measured in the world hit Chile in 1960, coming in at a terrifying 9.5 on the Richter scale.
9. The atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, was “only” considered a 5 on the Richter scale.
10. In theory, a quake can actually measure 11, or even higher. The formula for the Richter scale has no upper limit.
11. Speaking of Charles Richter, the American scientist was supposedly an avid nudist. Rumors persist that his wife was so distressed by his penchant for hanging out in the buff that she divorced him.
12. One guy not to trust for earthquake predictions? British soldier William Bell. In 1761, right after two earthquakes uncannily hit England 28 days apart, Bell smelled opportunity. He claimed a follow-up quake would be hitting the country four weeks later. Accounts depict Bell running through the streets of London ranting about the impending destruction. Amazingly, it worked. Folks were so panicked that hundreds actually slept in boats on the Thames thinking it would be safer than their homes. Luckily, the quake never hit. But Bell quickly lost his street cred and eventually ended up in an insane asylum.
13. In early 2001, FEMA prophetically listed the three most likely disasters to hit America: a terrorist attack on New York City (check), a hurricane in New Orleans (check), and a massive earthquake in San Francisco. Nervous yet?
This article was written by Jeff Fleischer, and originally appeared in the May-June 2007 issue of Mental Floss magazine.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
FARM ACREAGE
Q: "I'm thinking of purchasing a farm acreage with three newer farm equipment buildings and some old grain storage buildings. Could I take advantage 100% depreciation since they are new buildings to me and will be used for my farm in 2011?"
A: On the bonus depreciation rules for farm equipment and buildings, the rule is that the property must be new, as in the first time that this property is put into use. For example, when a farmer buys a new tractor, if it came directly from the dealer and had not been used in production ever before, then this is new property that qualifies for the 100% bonus depreciation. However, if the farmer bought a "new" combine from the dealership that had been used for 20 hours by another farmer before being traded in, this is not new equipment. Even though it is new to the farmer, it is not new to farming (since it had been used previously).
In the case of the question, even if the farm buildings were only two months old, since they were in use by the previous owner, they will not qualify for the bonus depreciation.
One rule of thumb is that anytime you purchase farmland from another party, it is VERY unlikely that any of the property purchased will qualify for bonus depreciation. Some will qualify for the Section 179 deduction, but none of it should qualify for 100% bonus depreciation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
