Posts Tagged ‘Income Tax’

Car Deductions

Sunday, January 8th, 2012

In recent year-end planning meetings, several of my business-owner clients asked their accountants if they could “find” more deductions.  Legitimate ones, of course.

Here’s one that is often goofed up by taxpayers, but could result in worthwhile tax savings.  If you drive your vehicle for business, you are entitled to take deductions using two different methods. Many advisers suggest considering both methods to figure out which will produce a bigger deduction.

The first method involves calculating the actual costs of using your vehicle, which include oil, gas, tolls, depreciation, licenses, lease payments, insurance and repairs.  If you want to use this method, you have to keep a detailed log of your expenses.   This log needs to include miles driven for business use versus for personal use. You can then multiply your total expenses by the percentage of time driving your car for business use (unless you can otherwise show through your record-keeping that certain expenses related exclusively to business use).  More information can be found in IRS publication 463.

The second option is to use the standard mileage rate issued by the IRS each year. For 2012, business use of vehicles will result in a deduction of 55.5 cents per mile, the same rate as the second half of this year.  For many of us, this standard mileage rate is easier to keep track of, because you simply have to keep a log of miles driven for business. if you are a business owner, this means that your company can reimburse you for this amount, which results in a tax deduction for the business.

In either case, it is important to think about what it means to drive your car for business. Your commute to and from your home to your office does not count. Instead, driving from one office to another or from one job site to another would count.

Payroll tax increases for everyone!

Sunday, November 20th, 2011

Late last year in an effort to “stimulate” our economy, employees were given a 2% payroll tax reduction.  In years’ past, employees were taxed at 6.2% for Social Security (capped at a specific income amount, which is adjusted for inflation) and another 1.45% for Medicare (which is not capped).  Employers pay an identical amount on wages.

The tax reduction means that the Social Security tax is limited to 4.2% for the employee’s expense.  Some articles that I have read suggested that the average American wage earner can expect to receive an additional $1,000 in net income this year.   Unfortunately, unless Congress acts by the end of this year, this tax savings will be lost in 2012, as the old rules of taxing at 6.2% would return.  President Obama, though, wants this tax savings to be continued and perhaps expanded so that the rate is reduced to 3.1%.  Without an extension of payroll tax relief, all Americans, including those with lower incomes, would be facing a tax hike!

The idea behind passing a law that reduced payroll tax was that Americans would receive more money in each paycheck, which they would spend.  In theory, that additional spending would somehow stimulate our economy.

If the government wants to stimulate the economy, it should consider offering that savings (the 2% payroll tax reduction) to employers.  Using the “average” tax savings number of $1,000 per American worker, if an employer had 50 employees earning $50,000/year, this savings would allow that employer to hire one additional person without increasing its payroll expense.  The net out-of-pocket cost to the employer would payroll taxes and employee benefits, such as health insurance.   Could you imagine spending $8,000-10,000 for a $50,000/year worker?  Maybe that would stimulate our economy – especially when you realize how many employers have hundreds or thousands of employees!

Please contact your senator and house representative to ask them to support continued payroll tax savings, including a tax break for employers.

Taxing Annual Wealth?

Sunday, September 25th, 2011

If you want to be fired up this morning, take a look at an opinion in the paper.   I hesitate to call it an article, because it is not newsworthy, but it does raise an interesting idea.

Basically, the authors believe that the disparity in wealth in our nation is just too great, and so the wealthiest of Americans should pay an annual tax on their wealth at a rate of 2% of assets that exceed $7.2 million.  In other words, for those of you who were able to achieve this level of wealth, please pay more – ANNUALLY.

I work with many families who would be faced with this penal tax.  They would likely be disgusted by this tax.  After all, it’s not just about paying this tax.  If you owned a business, how would you determine its value?  You would need to shell out thousands of dollars each year to get a business appraisal.  Or, what if you owned real estate?  You would need to get updated real estate appraisals.  Commercial appraisals can be expensive, too.  I guess this might stimulate the economy for the appraisal industries!

The good news is that, like most of the other taxes that we have in this country, the informed could plan around it.  For example, perhaps a business owner would use a complicated (and legal) ownership structure to drive down the value of his or her business.   He or she could also set up trusts to own their businesses, which may be outside the purview of this tax.

Unfortunately, this type of tax could lead to an even more overpopulated prison system filled with people who conveniently “valued” their assets below the $7.2 million exemption.

Come on already…enough about increasing taxes to a segment of our population that pays most of the tax collected in this country.  That gives our Congress more money to waste.  How about reducing wasteful spending?  I wonder if we have any of that…