WASHINGTON—The Internal Revenue Service will be resuming issuing collections notices to taxpayers that were previously suspending during the COVID-19 pandemic, although a date on when they will begin to be sent out has not been set.

WASHINGTON—The Internal Revenue Service will be resuming issuing collections notices to taxpayers that were previously suspending during the COVID-19 pandemic, although a date on when they will begin to be sent out has not been set.

"Right now, we are planning for restarting those notices," Darren Guillot, commissioner for collection and operation support in the IRS Small Business/Self Employment Division, said May 5, 2023, during a panel discussion at the ABA May Tax Meeting. "We have a very detailed plan."

Guillot assured attendees that the plan does not involve every notice just starting up on an unannounced day. Rather, the IRS will "communicate vigorously" with taxpayers, tax professionals and Congress on the timing of the plans so no one will be caught off guard by their generation.

He also stated that the plan is to stagger the issuance of different types of notices to make sure the agency is not overwhelmed with responses to them.

"The notice restart is really going to be staggered," Guillot said. "We’re going to time it at an appropriate cadence so that we believe we can handle the incoming phone calls that it can generate."

Guillot continued: "We want to also be mindful of the impact that it will have on the IRS Independent Office of Appeal. Some of those notices come with appeals rights and we want to make sure that we give taxpayers a chance to resolve their issues without the need to have to go to appeal or even get to that stage of that notice. So, it will be a staggered process."

In terms of helping to avoid the appeals process and getting taxpayers back into compliance, Guillot offered a scenario of what taxpayers might expect. In the example, if a taxpayer was set to receive a final Notice of Intent to Levy right before the pause for the pandemic was instituted, "we’re probably going to give most of those taxpayers a gentle reminder notice to try and see if they want to comply before we go straight to that final notice. That’s good for the taxpayer and it’s good for the IRS. And it’s good for the appellate process as well."

Guillot also said the agency is going to look at the totality of the 500-series of notices and taxpayers and their circumstances to see if there is a more efficient way of communicating and collecting past due amounts from taxpayers.

He also stressed that the IRS has been working with National Taxpayer Advocate Erin Collins and she has offered "input that we’re incorporating and taking into consideration every step of the way."

Collins, who also was on the panel, confirmed that and added that the IRS is "trying to take a very reasonable approach of how to turn it back on," adding that the staggered approach will also help practitioners and the Taxpayer Advocate Service from being overwhelmed as well as the IRS.

Guillot also mentioned that in the very near future, the IRS will start generating CP-14 notices, which are the statutory due notices. This is the first notice that a taxpayer will receive at the end of a tax season when there is money that they owe and those will start to be sent out to taxpayers around the end of May.

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

The Internal Revenue Service will use 2018 as the benchmark year for determining audit rates as it plans to increase enforcement for those individuals and businesses making more than $400,000 per year.

The Internal Revenue Service will use 2018 as the benchmark year for determining audit rates as it plans to increase enforcement for those individuals and businesses making more than $400,000 per year.

The agency is "going to be focused completely on … closing the gap," IRS Commissioner Daniel said April 27, 2023, during a hearing of the House Ways and Means Committee. "What that means is the auditrate, the most recent auditrate, we have that’s complete and final is 2018. That is the rate that I want to share with the American people. The auditrate will not go above that rate for years to come because for the next several years, at least, we’re going to be focused on work that we’re doing with the highest income filers."

Werfel added that even if the IRS were to expand its audit footprint a few years from now, "you’re still not going to get anywhere near that historical average for quite some time. So, I think there can be assurances to the American people that if you earn under $400,000, there’s no new wave of audits coming. The probability of you being audited before the Inflation Reduction Act and after the Inflation Reduction Act are not changed at all."

He also noted that many of the new hires that will be brought in to handle enforcement will focus on the wealthiest individuals and businesses. Werfel said that there currently are only 2,600 employees that cover filings of the wealthiest 390,000 filers and that is where many of the enforcement hires will be used.

"We have to up our game if we’re going to effectively assess whether these organizations are paying what they owe," he testified. "So, it’s about hiring. It’s about training. And it’s not just hiring auditors, it’s about hiring economists, scientists, engineers. And when I [say] scientists, I mean data scientists to truly help us strategically figure out where the gaps are so we can close those gaps."

Werfel did sidestep a question about the potential need for actually increasing the number of audits for those making under $400,000. When asked about a Joint Committee on Taxation report that found that more than 90 percent of unreported income actually came from taxpayers earning less than $400,000, he responded that "there is a lot of mounting evidence that there is significant underreporting or tax gap in the highest income filers. For example, there’s a study that was done by the U.S. Treasury Department that looked at the top one percent of Americans and found that as much as $163 billion of tax dodging, roughly."

And while answering the questions on the need for more personnel to handle the audits of the wealthy, he did acknowledge that "a big driver" of needing such a large workforce to handle the filings of wealthy taxpayers is due to the complexity of the tax code, in addition to a growing population, a growing economy, and an increasing number of wealthy taxpayers.

Other Topics Covered

Werfel’s testimony covered a wide range of topics, from the size and role of the personnel to be hired to the offering of service that has the IRS fill out tax forms for filers to technology and security upgrade, similar to a round of questions the agency commissioner faced before the Senate Finance Committee in a hearing a week earlier.

He reiterated that a study is expected to arrive mid-May that will report on the feasibility of the IRS offering a service to fill out tax forms for taxpayers. Werfel stressed that if such a service were to be offered, it would be strictly optional and there would be no plans to make using such a service mandatory.

"Our hope and our vision [is] that we will meet taxpayers where they are," he testified. "If they want to file on paper, we’re not thrilled with it, but we’ll be ready for it. If they want the fully digital experience, if they want to work with a third-party servicer, we want to accommodate that."

Werfel also reiterated a commitment to examine the use of cloud computing as a way to modernize the IRS’s information technology infrastructure.

And he also continued his call for an increase in annual appropriations to compliment the funding provided by the Inflation Reduction Act. He testified that modernization funds were "raided" so that phones could be answered and to prevent service levels from declining while still being able to modernize the agency, more annual funds will need to be appropriated.

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

The Supreme Court has held that the exception to the notice requirement in Code Sec. 7609(c)(2)(D)(i) does not apply where a delinquent taxpayer has a legal interest in accounts or records summoned by the IRS under Code Sec. 7602(a). The IRS had entered official assessments against an individual for unpaid taxes and penalties, following which a revenue officer had issued summonses to three banks seeking financial records of several third parties, including the taxpayers. Subsequently, the taxpayers moved to quash the summonses. The District Court concluded that, under Code Sec. 7609(c)(2)(D)(i), no notice was required and that taxpayers, therefore, could not bring a motion to quash. 

The Supreme Court has held that the exception to the notice requirement in Code Sec. 7609(c)(2)(D)(i) does not apply where a delinquent taxpayer has a legal interest in accounts or records summoned by the IRS under Code Sec. 7602(a). The IRS had entered official assessments against an individual for unpaid taxes and penalties, following which a revenue officer had issued summonses to three banks seeking financial records of several third parties, including the taxpayers. Subsequently, the taxpayers moved to quash the summonses. The District Court concluded that, under Code Sec. 7609(c)(2)(D)(i), no notice was required and that taxpayers, therefore, could not bring a motion to quash. The Court of Appeals also affirmed, finding that the summonses fell within the exception in Code Sec. 7609(c)(2)(D)(i) to the general notice requirement.

Exceptions to Notice Requirement

The taxpayers argued that the exception to the notice requirement in Code Sec. 7609(c)(2)(D)(i) applies only if the delinquent taxpayer has a legal interest in the accounts or records summoned by the IRS. However, the statute does not mention legal interest and does not require that a taxpayer maintain such an interest for the exception to apply. Further, the taxpayers’ arguments in support of their proposed legal interest test, failed. The taxpayers first contended that the phrase "in aid of the collection" would not be accomplished by summons unless it was targeted at an account containing assets that the IRS can collect to satisfy the taxpayers’ liability. However, a summons might not itself reveal taxpayer assets that can be collected but it might help the IRS find such assets.

The taxpayers’ second argument that if Code Sec. 7609(c)(2)(D)(i) is read to exempt every summons from notice that would help the IRS collect an "assessment" against a delinquent taxpayer, there would be no work left for the second exception to notice, found in Code Sec. 7609(c)(2)(D)(ii). However, clause (i) applies upon an assessment, while clause (ii) applies upon a finding of liability. In addition, clause (i) concerns delinquent taxpayers, while clause (ii) concerns transferees or fiduciaries. As a result, clause (ii) permits the IRS to issue unnoticed summonses to aid its collection from transferees or fiduciaries before it makes an official assessment of liability. Consequently, Code Sec. 7609(c)(2)(D)(i) does not require that a taxpayer maintain a legal interest in records summoned by the IRS.

An IRS notice provides interim guidance describing rules that the IRS intends to include in proposed regulations regarding the domestic content bonus credit requirements for:

An IRS notice provides interim guidance describing rules that the IRS intends to include in proposed regulations regarding the domestic content bonus credit requirements for:

• --the Code Sec. 45 electricity production tax credit,
• --the new Code Sec. 45Y clean electricity production credit,
• --the Code Sec. 48 energy investment credit, and
• --the new Code Sec. 48E clean energy investment credit.

The notice also provides a safe harbor regarding the classification of certain components in representative types of qualified facilities, energy projects, or energy storage technologies. Finally, it describes recordkeeping and certification requirements for the domestic content bonus credit.

Taxpayer Reliance

Taxpayers may rely on the notice for any qualified facility, energy project, or energy storage technology the construction of which begins before the date that is 90 days after the date of publication of the forthcoming proposed regulations in the Federal Register.

The IRS intends to propose that the proposed regs will apply to tax years ending after May 12, 2023.

Domestic Content Bonus Requirements

The notice defines several terms that are relevant to the domestic content bonus credit, including manufactured, manufactured product, manufacturing process, mined and produced. In addition, the notice extends domestic content test to retrofitted projects that satisfy the 80/20 rule for new and used property.

The notice also provides detailed rules for satisfying the requirement that at least 40 percent (or 20 percent for an offshore wind facility) of steel, iron or manufactured product components are produced in the United States. In particular, the notice provides an Adjusted Percentage Rule for determining whether manufactured product components are produced in the U.S.

Safe Harbor for Classifying Product Components

The safe harbor applies to a variety of project components. A table list the components, the project that might use each component, and assigns each component to either the steel/iron category or the manufactured product category.

The table is not exhaustive. In addition, components listed in the table must still meet the relevant statutory requirements for the particular credit to be eligible for the domestic content bonus credit.

Certification and Substantiation

Finally, the notice explains that a taxpayer that claims the domestic content bonus credit must certify that a project meets the domestic content requirement as of the date the project is placed in service. The taxpayer must also satisfy the general income tax recordkeeping requirements to substantiate the credit.

A taxpayer certifies a project by submitting a Domestic Content Certification Statement to the IRS certifying that any steel, iron or manufactured product that is subject to the domestic content test was produced in the U.S. The taxpayer must attach the statement to the form that reports the credit. The taxpayer must continue to attach the form to the relevant credit form for subsequent tax years.

A married couple’s petition for redetermination of an income tax deficiency was untimely where they electronically filed their petition from the central time zone but after the due date in the eastern time zone, where the Tax Court is located. Accordingly, the taxpayers’ case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

A married couple’s petition for redetermination of an income tax deficiency was untimely where they electronically filed their petition from the central time zone but after the due date in the eastern time zone, where the Tax Court is located. Accordingly, the taxpayers’ case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The deadline for the taxpayers to file a petition in the Tax Court was July 18, 2022. The taxpayers were living in Alabama when they electronically filed their petition. At the time of filing, the Tax Court's electronic case management system (DAWSON) automatically applied a cover sheet to their petition. The cover sheet showed that the court electronically received the petition at 12:05 a.m. eastern time on July 19, 2022, and filed it the same day. However, when the Tax Court received the petition, it was 11:05 p.m. central time on July 18, 2022, in Alabama.

Electronically Filed Petition

The taxpayers’ petition was untimely because it was filed after the due date under Code Sec. 6213(a). Tax Court Rule 22(d) dictates that the last day of a period for electronic filing ends at 11:59 p.m. eastern time, the Tax Court’s local time zone. Further, the timely mailing rule under Code Sec. 7502(a) applies only to documents that are delivered by U.S. mail or a designated delivery service, not to an electronically filed petition.

Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Daniel Werfel said changes are coming to address racial disparities among those who get audited annually.

Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Daniel Werfel said changes are coming to address racial disparities among those who get audited annually.

"I will stay laser-focused on this to ensure that we identify and implement changes prior to the next tax filing season," Werfel stated in a May 15, 2023, letter to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

The issue of racial disparities was raised during Werfel’s confirmation hearing an in subsequent hearings before Congress after taking over as commissioner in the wake of a study issued by Stanford University that found that African American taxpayers are audited at three to five times the rate of other taxpayers.

The IRS "is committed to enforcing tax laws in a manner that is fair and impartial," Werfel wrote in the letter. "When evidence of unfair treatment is presented, we must take immediate actions to address it."

He emphasized that the agency does not and "will not consider race as part of our case selection and audit processes."

He noted that the Stanford study suggested that the audits were triggered by taxpayers claiming the Earned Income Tax Credit.

"We are deeply concerned by these findings and committed to doing the work to understand and address any disparate impact of the actions we take," he wrote, adding that the agency has been studying the issue since he has taken over as commissioner and that the work is ongoing. Werfel suggested that initial findings of IRS research into the issue "support the conclusion that Black taxpayers may be audited at higher rates than would be expected given their share of the population."

Werfel added that elements in the Inflation Reduction Act Strategic Operating Plan include commitments to "conducting research to understand any systemic bias in compliance strategies and treatment. … The ongoing evaluation of our EITC audit selection algorithms is the topmost priority within this larger body of work, and we are committed to transparency regarding our research findings as the work matures."

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

The American Institute of CPAs expressed support for legislation pending in the Senate that would redefine when electronic payments to the Internal Revenue Service are considered timely.

The American Institute of CPAs expressed support for legislation pending in the Senate that would redefine when electronic payments to the Internal Revenue Service are considered timely.

In a May 3, 2023, letter to Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), the AICPA applauded the legislators for The Electronic Communication Uniformity Act (S. 1338), which would treat electronic payments made to the IRS as timely at the point they are submitted, not at the point they are processed, which is how they are currently treated. The move would make the treatment similar to physically mailed payments, which are considered timely based on the post mark indicating when they are mailed, not when the payment physically arrives at the IRS or when the agency processes it.

S. 1338 was introduced by Sen. Blackburn on April 27, 2023. At press time, Sen. Cortez Masto is the only co-sponsor to the bill.

The bill adopts a recommendation included by the National Taxpayer Advocate in the annual so-called "Purple Book" of legislative recommendations made to Congress by the NTA. The Purple Book notes that IRS does not have the authority to apply the mailbox rule to electronic payments and it would need an act of Congress to make the change.

"Your bill would provide welcome relief and solve a problem that taxpayers have been faced with, i.e., incurring penalties through no fault of their own because they believed their filings or payments were timely submitted through an electronic platform," the AICPA letter states. This legislation would provide equity by treating similarly situated taxpayers similarly. It would also improve tax administration by eliminating IRS notices assessing unnecessary penalties when the taxpayer or practitioner electronically submits a tax return by the deadline regardless of when the IRS processes it.

Tax policy and comment letters submitted to the government can be found here.

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

WASHINGTON—The Inflation Reduction Act Strategic Operating Plan was designed to be a living document, an Internal Revenue Service official said.

The plan, which outlines how the IRS plans to spend the additional nearly $80 billion in supplemental funds allocated to it in the Inflation Reduction Act, was written to be a "living document. It’s not meant to be something static that stays on the shelf and never gets updated, and just becomes an historic relic," Bridget Roberts, head of the IRS Transformation and Strategy Office, said May 5, 2023, at the ABA May Tax Meeting.

WASHINGTON—The Inflation Reduction Act Strategic Operating Plan was designed to be a living document, an Internal Revenue Service official said.

The plan, which outlines how the IRS plans to spend the additional nearly $80 billion in supplemental funds allocated to it in the Inflation Reduction Act, was written to be a "living document. It’s not meant to be something static that stays on the shelf and never gets updated, and just becomes an historic relic," Bridget Roberts, head of the IRS Transformation and Strategy Office, said May 5, 2023, at the ABA May Tax Meeting.

Roberts also described the plan as a tool to help bring the agency together and more unified in its mission.

"We intentionally wrote the plan to sort of break down some of those institutional silos," she said. "So, we didn’t write it based on business unit or function."

She framed the development of the plan a "cross-functional, cross-agency effort," adding that it "wasn’t like, ‘here’s how we’re going to change wage and investment or large business.’ It was, ‘here’s how we’re going to change service and enforcement and technology. And those pieces touch everything."

Roberts also highlighted the need for better data analytics across the agency, something that the SOP emphasizes particularly as it beings to ramp up enforcement activities to help close the tax gap.

"We are never going to be able to hire at a level that you can audit everybody," she said. "So, the ability to use data and analytics to really focus our resources on where we think there is true noncompliance," rather than conducting audits that result in no changes. "That’s not helpful for taxpayers. That’s not helpful for the IRS."

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

The IRS Independent Office of Appeals, in coordination with the National Taxpayer Advocate, has invited public feedback on how it can improve conference options for taxpayers and representatives who are not located near an Appeals office, encourage participation of taxpayers with limited English proficiency and ensure accessibility by persons with disabilities. Taxpayers can send their comments to ap.taxpayer.experience@irs.gov by July 10, 2023.

The IRS Independent Office of Appeals, in coordination with the National Taxpayer Advocate, has invited public feedback on how it can improve conference options for taxpayers and representatives who are not located near an Appeals office, encourage participation of taxpayers with limited English proficiency and ensure accessibility by persons with disabilities. Taxpayers can send their comments to ap.taxpayer.experience@irs.gov by July 10, 2023.

Appeals resolve federal tax disputes through conferences, wherein an appeals officer will engage with taxpayers in a way that is fair and impartial to taxpayers as well as the government to discuss potential settlements. Additionally, taxpayers can resolve their disputes by mail or secure messaging. Although, conferences are offered by telephone, video, the mode of meeting with Appeals is completely decided by the taxpayer. Recently, appeals expanded access to video conferencing to meet taxpayer needs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Further, taxpayers and representatives who prefer to meet with Appeals in person have the option to do so as, appeals has a presence in over 60 offices across 40 states where they can host in-person conferences.

Starting in 2010, the $100,000 adjusted gross income cap for converting a traditional IRA into a Roth IRA is eliminated. All other rules continue to apply, which means that the amount converted to a Roth IRA still will be taxed as income at the individual's marginal tax rate. One exception for 2010 only: you will have a choice of recognizing the conversion income in 2010 or averaging it over 2011 and 2012.

The Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 eliminated the $100,000 adjusted gross income (AGI) ceiling for converting a traditional IRA into a Roth IRA. While this provision does not apply until 2010, now may be a good time to make plans to maximize this opportunity.

The Roth IRA has benefits that are especially useful to high-income taxpayers, yet as a group they have been denied those advantages up until now. Currently, you are allowed to convert a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA only if your AGI does not exceed $100,000. A married taxpayer filing a separate return is prohibited from making a conversion. The amount converted is treated as distributed from the traditional IRA and, as a consequence, is included in the taxpayer's income, but the 10-percent additional tax for early withdrawals does not apply.

Significant benefits

While recognizing income sooner rather than later is usually not smart tax planning, in the case of this new opportunity to convert a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA, the math encourages it. The difference is twofold:

1. All future earnings on the account are tax free; and
2. The account can continue to grow tax free longer than a traditional IRA without being forced to be distributed gradually after reaching age 70 ½.

These can work out to be huge advantages, especially valuable to individuals with a degree of accumulated wealth who probably won't need the money in the Roth IRA account to live on during retirement.

Example. Mary's AGI in 2010 is $200,000 and she has traditional IRA balances that will have grown to $300,000. Assuming a marginal federal and local income tax of about 40 percent on the $300,000 balance, the $180,000 remaining in the account can grow tax free thereafter, with distributions tax free. Further assume that Mary is 45 years of age with a 90 year life expectancy and money conservatively doubles every 15 years. She will die with an account of $1.44 million, income tax free to her heirs. If the Roth IRA is bequeathed to someone in a younger generation with a long life expectancy, even factoring in eventual required minimum distributions, the amount that can continue to accumulate tax free in the Roth IRA can be staggering, eventually likely to reach over $10 million.

Planning strategies

Now is not too early to start planning to take advantage of the Roth IRA conversion opportunity starting in 2010. While planning to maximize the conversion will become more detailed as 2010 approaches and your assets and income for that year are more measurable, there are certain steps you can start taking now to maximize your savings.

Start a nondeductible IRA

The income limits on both kinds of IRAs have prevented higher income taxpayers from making deductible contributions to traditional IRAs or any contributions to Roth IRAs. They could always make nondeductible contributions to a traditional IRA, but such contributions have a limited pay-off (no current deduction, tax on account income is deferred rather than eliminated, required minimum distributions).

While a taxpayer could avoid these problems by making nondeductible contributions to a traditional IRA and then converting it to a Roth IRA, this option was not available for upper income taxpayers who would have the most to benefit from such a conversion. With the elimination of the income limit for tax years after December 31, 2009, higher income taxpayers can begin now to make nondeductible contributions to a traditional IRA and then convert them to a Roth IRA in 2010. In all likelihood, there will be little to tax on the converted amount.

What's more, taxpayers with $100,000-plus AGIs should consider continue making nondeductible IRA contributions in the future and roll them over into a Roth IRA periodically. As a result, the elimination of the income limit for converting to a Roth IRA also effectively eliminates the income limit for contributing to a Roth IRA.

Example. John and Mary are a married couple with $300,000 in income. They are not eligible to contribute to a Roth IRA because their AGI exceeds the $160,000 Roth IRA eligibility limit. Beginning in 2006, the couple makes the maximum allowed nondeductible IRA contribution ($8,000 in 2006 and 2007, and $10,000 in 2008, 2009, and 2010). In 2010, their account is worth $60,000, with $46,000 of that amount representing nondeductible contributions that are not taxed upon conversion. The couple rolls over the $60,000 in their traditional IRA into a Roth IRA. They must include $14,000 in income (the amount representing their deductible contributions), which they can recognize either in 2010, or ratably in 2011 and 2012.

Assuming they have sufficient earned income each year thereafter (until reaching age 70 1/2), John and Mary can continue to make the maximum nondeductible contributions to a traditional IRA and quickly roll over these funds into their Roth IRA, thereby avoiding significant taxable growth in the assets that would have to be recognized upon distribution from a traditional IRA.

Rollover 401(k) accounts

Contributions to a Section 401(k) plans cannot be rolled over directly into a Roth IRA. The lifting of the $100,000 AGI limit does not change this rule. However, they often can be rolled over into a traditional IRA and then, after 2009, converted into a Roth IRA.

Not everyone can just pull his or her balance out of a 401(k) plan. A plan amendment must permit it or, more likely, those who are changing jobs or are otherwise leaving employment can choose to roll over the balance into an IRA rather than elect to continue to have it managed in the 401(k) plan.

For money now being contributed to 401(k) plans by employees, an even better option would be for those contributions to be made to a Roth 401(k) plan. Starting in 2006, as long as the employer plan allows for it, Roth 401(k) accounts may receive employee contributions.

Gather those old IRA accounts

Many taxpayers opened IRA accounts when they were first starting out in the work world and their incomes were low enough to contribute. Over the years, many have seen those account balances grow. These accounts now may be converted into Roth IRAs starting in 2010, regardless of income.

Paying the tax

In spite of all the advantages of a Roth IRA, a conversion is advisable only if the taxpayer can readily pay the tax generated in the year of the conversion. If the tax is paid out of a distribution from the converted IRA, that amount is also taxed; and if the distribution counts as an early withdrawal, it is also subject to an additional 10-percent penalty. For those planning to convert who may not already have the funds available, saving now in a regular bank or brokerage account to cover the amount of the tax in 2010 can return an unusually high yield if it enables a Roth IRA conversion in 2010 that might not otherwise take place.

Careful planning is key

Transferring funds between retirement accounts can carry a high price tag if it is done incorrectly. For those who plan carefully, however, converting from a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA can yield very substantial after-tax rates of return. Please feel free to call our offices if you have any questions about how the 2010 conversion opportunity should fit into your overall tax and wealth-building strategy.

The AMT is difficult to apply and the exact computation is very complex. If you owed AMT last year and no unusual deduction or windfall had come your way that year, you're sufficiently at risk this year to apply a detailed set of computations to any AMT assessment. Ballpark estimates just won't work.

If you did not owe AMT last year, you still may be at risk. The IRS estimates that half million more individuals will be subject to the AMT in 2006 because of rising deductions and exemptions. If Congress doesn't extend the same AMT exclusion amount given in 2005, an estimated 3 million more taxpayers will pay AMT.

For a system that was intended originally to target only the very rich, the AMT now hits many middle to upper-middle class taxpayers as well. Obviously something has to be done, and will be, eventually, through proposed tax reform measures. In the meantime, expect AMT to be around for at least another year.

Basic calculations. Whether you will be liable for the AMT depends on your combination of income, adjustments and preferences. After all the computations, if your AMT liability exceeds your income tax liability, you will be liable for the AMT. Here are the basic steps to take to determine in evaluating whether you will owe the AMT:

• Step #1: Calculate your regular taxable income. If your regular tax were to be determined by reference to an amount other than taxable income, that amount would need to be determined and used in the next steps.
  
• Step #2: Calculate your alternative minimum taxable income (AMTI) by increasing or reducing your regular taxable income (or other relevant amount) by applying the AMT adjustments or preferences. These include business depreciation adjustments and preferences, loss, timing and personal itemized deductions adjustments, and tax-exempt or excluded income preferences. This is the step with potentially many sub-computations in determining increases and reductions in tax liability.
  
• Step #3:  If your AMTI exceeds the applicable AMT exemption amount, pay AMT on the excess.

While no single factor will automatically trigger the AMT, the cumulative result of several targeted tax benefits considered in Step #2, above, can be fatal. Common items that can cause an "ordinary" taxpayer to be subject to AMT are:

• All personal exemptions (especially of concern to large families);
• Itemized deductions for state and local income taxes and real estate taxes;
• Itemized deductions on home equity loan interest (except on loans used for improvements);
• Miscellaneous Itemized Deductions;
• Accelerated depreciation;
• Income from incentive stock options; and
• Changes in some passive activity loss deductions.

Starting for tax year 2005, businesses have been able to take a new deduction based on income from manufacturing and certain services. Congress defined manufacturing broadly, so many businesses -just not those with brick and mortar manufacturing plants-- will be able to claim the deduction. The deduction is 3 percent of net income from domestic production for 2005 and 2006. This percentage rises to 6 percent and then 9 percent in subsequent years.

Domestic production includes the manufacture of tangible personal property and computer software in the U.S. It also includes construction activities and services from engineering and architecture. Income from these activities must be calculated on an item-by-item basis and cannot be determined by division, product line or transaction. Direct and indirect costs are subtracted to determine "qualified production income." Land does not qualify as domestic production property.

The 3 percent rate is applied to the lower of net income from domestic production and overall net income. That amount is then capped at 50 percent of wages paid out by the employer for all its business activities.

Example. In 2005, Company X has $300,000 of income from domestic production activities. The company's overall net income was $500,000.  The 3 percent rate is applied to $300,000, yielding a potential deduction of $9,000.

Company X paid its employees $50,000 in wages and reported this amount on Forms W-2 for 2005.  Since the deduction is limited to 50 percent of wages paid and reported, Company X's deduction for 2005 is capped at $25,000 (50 percent of $50,000 in wages).  X is entitled to a $9,000 deduction.

W-2 wage limitation

In some cases, the W-2 wage limit can easily trip up taxpayers. A successful sole proprietor who earns income but has no employees would not have any W-2 wages and, therefore, could not take the deduction.  Self-employment income is not treated as wages. Neither are payments made to independent contractors. A small business that is incorporated but has no employees would have the same problem. Because payments to partners are not W-2 wages, a partnership with two partners and no employees also would be unable to take the deduction. Sole proprietors and other small businesses may want to consider putting a family member on the payroll, so that they have W-2 wages to satisfy this requirement.

An incorporated business, such as an S corporation, could put an owner on the payroll and apply the W-2 limit to reasonable wages paid to the owner. Employees include officers of the corporation and common law employees, as defined in the Tax Code.  The more labor-intensive the manufacturing process, the more likely that a deduction will not be reduced by the W-2 wage limitation. The more automated the manufacturing process, the more likely it is that the manufacturer will find itself restricted by the wage limitation and not be able to take the full manufacturing deduction.

Code Sec. 199 defines W-2 wages as the sum of the total W-2 wages reported on Forms W-2, "Wage and Tax Statement," for the calendar year ending during the employer's taxable year. W-2 wages are defined as wages and deferred salary that is included on Form W-2.  Deferred salary includes elective deferrals for a 401(k) plan or tax-sheltered annuity; contributions to a plan of a state and local government or tax-exempt entity; and designated Roth IRA contributions. IRS guidance provides three methods for calculating W-2 wages.

Our office can help you determine your eligibility for the manufacturing deduction and the amount of the deduction. Give us a call today.