House Passes Extension of Bush Tax Cuts and Unemployment Benefits

House Passes Extension of Bush Tax Cuts and Unemployment Benefits

WASINGTON DC – The House approved an $858 billion extension of the Bush-era tax rates and unemployment benefits late Thursday night, a day after the Senate approved the bill, sending the bill to President Obama’s desk.

After procedural hurdles held up the vote for much of the day on Thursday, the House reconvened in the evening to settle the terms of the debate. Amid widespread dissatisfaction among House Democrats over the terms of the deal struck by President Obama and Republican congressional leaders, especially on setting the estate tax at a rate of 35 percent for estates over $5 million, they agreed to first hold a vote on an amendment by Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., which would set the estate tax rate at 45 percent for inheritances over $3.5 million. That amendment was defeated by a vote of 233 to 194.

The House next proceeded to a vote on the bill passed by the Senate on Wednesday, and that passed by a vote of 277-148 (see Senate Passes Bush Tax Cut and Unemployment Extension).

The bill includes a two-year extension of the Bush-era income tax rates, including those for dividends and capital gains. It also extends emergency unemployment insurance for another 13 months. The bill would also lower Social Security payroll taxes by 2 percentage points from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent for a year. Several lawmakers, however, criticized that provision, saying it would weaken the Social Security trust fund and pointing out that it would not be open to those government employees who do not pay Social Security withholding taxes.

The bill would also extend the Child Tax Credit, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the American Opportunity Tax Credit for college tuition. It would also allow businesses to deduct 100 percent of investments in plant and equipment in the first year, and extend for two years the state and local sales tax deduction. In addition the bill would “patch” the AMT, extending Alternative Minimum Tax relief for two years to prevent the AMT from ensnaring millions more taxpayers. The bill also includes extensions of the Research and Experimentation Credit for businesses.

It also would extend a variety of popular tax breaks, including the ability of schoolteachers to expense purchases of school supplies. The bill also includes energy tax breaks for biodiesel fuel, ethanol and renewable energy sources.

During the debate earlier in the evening, many of the lawmakers expressed misgivings about the bill and its effect on the deficit, but said they felt the need to pass the legislation outweighed those concerns. Others could not bring themselves to support the bill and denounced the continuation of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, especially the exemption on estate taxes for inheritances below $5 million for individuals and $10 million for couples.

“I salute President Obama for getting in the bill what is in there,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. “I am sorry for the price that has to be paid by our children and our grandchildren to the Chinese government to pay for the increase in the deficit that the Republicans insisted upon.”

Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., who is expected to chair the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee in January when Republicans become the majority party in the House, complained that Democrats had not settled the question of the Bush tax cuts extension prior to the midterm elections.

“There is some explaining to do,” he said. “Why wasn’t this issue dealt with before the election? Why didn’t the majority bring a bill to the floor before the election? Now, as Americans face these tax increases, here we are just a few short days before the end of the year, and now because there is a bipartisan compromise that incidentally passed the Senate by 81-19 there is a recognition that this is no time to be playing games with our economy. The failure to block these tax increases would be a direct hit to families and small businesses and employers and further delay our economic recovery, and for those reasons I support this.”

Here is a sampling of other comments by lawmakers during the debate:

Rep. Danny Davis, D-Ill.: “I was at a meeting of CEDA, the organization in Chicago and Cook County that services low-income families, trying to figure out how to help my constituents get their homes heated because it might be snowing in Washington, but it’s cold in Chicago. The telephone rings and somebody said, ‘Could you take a call from the President?’ I said, ‘Which President?’ ‘Well, the President of the United States.’ I said, ‘Of course I’ll take it.’ I got on the phone and the President said to me, ‘Danny, we need to pass this bill and we need to pass it because, even though it’s cold, it’s going to get colder, and there are going to be people who don’t have any unemployment compensation benefits, and they can’t pay their heating bill. There are going to be people who want to send their kids to college, and without the tax credits for college tuition, they won’t be able to pay the tuition.’ I said, ‘Yeah, but Mr. President, what about those people way up at the top that’s getting all of this money?’ He said, ‘Well, there might be an opportunity to reduce that,’ and I’m looking forward to voting on the Pomeroy amendment, so that we can reduce some of that money that they’re going to keep in their pocket, put it into the Treasury so that we can help the poor people in Chicago who are cold and don’t have any heat.”

Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif.: “Unemployed Americans desperately need their benefits extended, and I proudly voted to do so every time I’ve had the chance. This bill also contains tax cuts for hardworking families, tax cuts I voted for two weeks ago on this very floor. But this bill holds these good policies hostage to a giant handout to those who need help the least. It’s political bullying at its very worst, an affront to American working families waged by Republicans whose irresponsible decisions got us into this mess in the first place. This bill contains a radical change to the inheritance tax that will concentrate wealth and power in even fewer hands than it is now. In a country that prides itself on being a meritocracy and not an aristocracy, such a giveaway is irrational. It completely neuters our ability to invest in people and infrastructure. This bill contains tax breaks for those who make more than $250,000 a year, breaks that our country can ill afford when teachers are being laid off and libraries are being closed, when those who have been unemployed for the longest are losing their safety net and young men and women are still being asked to serve and die in Iraq and Afghanistan. The payroll tax cut is another bad idea. Not only does it make Social Security less secure, many public servants including California teachers won’t see any tax cut at all. Overall, this bill adds over a trillion dollars to the deficit while doing very, very little to create jobs, spur economic growth or invest in America’s future.”

Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va.: “The two-year cost of the bill is about the same as the 10-year cost of the health care reform bill, and at least we paid for that. We need to make tough, unpopular choices to balance the budget. Obviously letting tax cuts expire would be unpopular, but when we ever decide to get serious about the deficit, we will find that the alternatives are even more unpopular because after today’s vote, the choices will necessarily include cuts to Social Security, Medicare, education and other popular programs. If we don’t have the political will to end the disastrous Bush-era tax cuts now, we certainly won’t have that political will during the middle of a presidential election. The job creation in this bill is paltry. It’s around $400,000 a job. We can do better than that.”

Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore.: “What we’re about to do here today is extraordinary, and the impact will be felt by our kids and grandkids for the next 30 years. With one vote, we are going to increase the already projected record deficit for this year of $1.3 trillion to $1.7 trillion. Every penny of income foregone here tonight will be borrowed, much of it from China and some of it from our Social Security trust fund, for the first time in our history. For what? For continuing the failed economic policies of the last nine years. We’ve got these tax cuts in place today. How many jobs are they creating? But you tell me we can’t afford to invest. We can’t rebuild our nation’s crumbling infrastructure. We don’t have the money to do that. We know we can create real jobs there. We can increase the productivity of our nation. We can compete better worldwide if we invest in our infrastructure and our education system and our people, but no, we’re going to have debt-financed, consumption-driven recovery as people buy goods made in China and of course the $112 billion taken out of Social Security. And the Republicans have made it painfully clear tonight that the temporary cut in Social Security income is not temporary. They’ve said it time and time and time again. There is no such thing as a temporary tax cut. I hope the White House is listening. They’re about to spring the trap and next year they’ll say, ‘Oh, Mr. President, you’re going to raise taxes on every working American by making Social Security whole? You can’t do that. Oh, and by the way, we’re tired of subsidizing that program with money we’re borrowing.’ That is a horrible, horrible step.”

Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas: “As I look at the legislation, it’s the classic challenge of is the glass half empty or half full. I for one have decided the glass to be half full. Mr. Speaker, clearly there are items in this legislation that I find not just empty, but frankly atrocious. Yes, there is tax pork in this legislation. There is unpaid-for extension of unemployment benefits. And Mr. Speaker, at some point I would hope the majority, soon to be minority, in this institution would realize we’ve got to concentrate on the paychecks, the paychecks. Americans want paychecks, not unemployment checks, and if we’re going to have them, they need to be paid for. And worst of all, yes, what’s happening to Social Security with the payroll tax without putting any fundamental reform on the table. And what I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle is it is you who brought that to the table. Mr. Speaker, I made a pledge to my constituents. I told them I would fight any tax increases. I told them I would try to bring certainty to this economy because that’s what businesses need.”

Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn.: “To the people who die, the richest in our nation, we give them, the Steinbrenners, who died with $1.1 billion, we’ll be giving them this year a $450 million free ride, and the differences in the taxes of 35 or 45 percent, $100 million. This is wrong and that’s why I oppose the bill.”

Rep. Patrick Tiberi, R-Ohio: “The road to prosperity is not through tax increases. The road to prosperity in America is not through class warfare.”
Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md.: “The President of the United States has a responsibility to all Americans, and like every President, he can’t get everything he wants. To that extent, he’s like us. We don’t get everything we want. This bill does not represent everything I want. … This bill, the President of the United States believes, and I believe, will have a positive effect on the economy, and I think we need that. … I am going to vote for this bill because I think it does help the economy, but we are paying too great a price for it. … Ladies and gentlemen, there probably is nobody on this floor who likes this bill, and therefore the judgment is, is it better than doing nothing. Some of the business groups believe it will help, and I hope they’re right. Not only do I hope they’re right, but I hope that if we pass this bill that they respond and create the jobs that we know they have the resources to do. This is a jobs bill, in my view, which is why I will vote for it. It could be a better jobs bill if we invested the money that we’re giving to the wealthiest in America in job growth. It is a bill that will help those who have been unemployed for week after week after week, and whose angst has grown and grown and grown.”
By Michael Cohn
Accounting Today
Moves to make now that can help minimize how much taxes you pay

Moves to make now that can help minimize how much taxes you pay

Q: What tax moves should investors make by the end of the year to minimize what Uncle Sam takes in taxes?



A: If you don’t pay attention to the tax hit of your stock moves, you might be paying Uncle Sam too much.

There are several simple maneuvers you can make when it comes to you portfolio to make sure your tax hit is as small as possible.
The first step all investors should take is tax-loss harvesting. If there are some money-losing dogs in your portfolio, now’s the time to start selling them. If you sell your losers, you can use those capital losses to offset any capital gains you might have had from selling winning stocks. It gets better. If your capital losses outstrip your capital gains, you can use those capital losses to reduce your ordinary income by up to $3,000 a year. And you can then carry those losses forward indefinitely until you exhaust them.
These capital losses are very lucrative already, but could be even more attractive depending on what Congress decides with tax rates and what happens with tax rates in the future, says Barbara Weltman, contributing editor to J.K. Lasser and author of 1001 Deductions and Tax Breaks.
Just be careful. When you sell a stock, you can’t buy it back for more than 30 days or you risk triggering a so-called wash sale. If you buy a stock that you sold for a loss back, you may lose out of the capital loss deduction.
There is a dilemma with tax loss selling, too. What if you sell a stock for tax reasons, but still like the stock? It would be somewhat tragic if the stock you’ve been losing money on for so long rallied in December after you sold it for tax reasons.
There are ways to manage this situation and the wash sale rule, Weltman says. For instance, let’s say you have a large loss in shares of a drugmaker, but you still like the pharmaceutical industry and don’t want to be out of the market for more than 30 days. You might consider buying shares of a competitor in the drug industry you think also has good prospects. You can also purchase a stock index mutual fund or exchange-traded fund that owns the stock and hold that while you wait the 30 days.

By Matt Krantz
USA Today

Do You Know What a Forced Liquidation Can Do to the Value of Your Business? Check out NFS Business Briefs
http://ping.fm/hNKnA

Weirdest Tax Laws of 2010

Weirdest Tax Laws of 2010

From hot air balloons to bagels, 2010 proved to be yet another year in which states and municipalities passed some strange tax laws in a desperate bid to raise revenues and close their budget gaps.

The Tax & Accounting business of Thomson Reuters has compiled a sampling of some of the year’s quirkiest sales and use tax changes, emphasizing the importance of technology and expertise to help navigate the dynamic sales and use tax landscape.

A few of the “quirky” sales and use tax highlights of 2010 include:

• Candy without flour in Washington: In June, Washington State enacted legislation that made candy without flour taxable. According to a list published by the Washington Department of Revenue, “Rainbow Whirly Pops” and “Lemon Drops” were taxable, but “Twizzlers” and “Peppermint Bark Shortbread” remained exempt. However, because the law caused so much confusion, and after push-back from voters and large candy makers, Initiative 1107 was passed, repealing the tax on candy effective Dec. 2, 2010.

• Belt buckles in Texas: Every year before it is time to go back to school, several states allow for a tax holiday on school supplies and clothing, with several oddities seemingly infiltrating the exemptions. In Texas, belts are exempt, but belt buckles are not. Cowboy boots and hiking boots are also exempt, but rubber boots and climbing boots are taxable.

• Bagels in New York: In 2010, New York cracked down on its enforcement of the tax on prepared food, specifically targeting a New York staple: bagels. If you buy a whole bagel and take it home with you, it is exempt from tax. However, if you purchase that same bagel, but eat it at the bagel shop (even without cream cheese), bagel shops must charge sales tax on the purchase price. Apparently, the mere slicing of a bagel kicks your bagel purchase into a taxable transaction. As a result, New Yorkers are paying approximately 8 to 9 cents more per bagel.

• Cup lids in Colorado: Effective March 1, 2010, Colorado eliminated the exemption for non-essential food items and packaging provided with purchased food and beverage items. So, while cups are considered essential, lids are not.

• Hot air balloons in Kansas: On June 30, the Kansas Department of Revenue issued a private letter ruling discussing the taxability of hot air balloon rides. Kansas generally taxes sales of admissions to “any place providing amusement, entertainment or recreation services.” The question was not whether or not balloon rides are entertaining, but whether or not federal law pre-empts the imposition of state sales tax on sales of those rides. Under the Anti-Head Tax Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 40116, states and local jurisdictions are prohibited from imposing fees and charges on airlines and other airport users. The department determined that un-tethered balloon rides where the balloon is actually piloted somewhere “some distance downwind from the launching point” would be considered carrying passengers in air commerce and would be pre-empted by the law. However, state sales tax can be imposed on tethered balloon rides.

• Haunted houses in New York: According to TSB-A-10(11)S, admissions to haunted houses are subject to the New York sales tax.

By Accounting Today Staff
Moves to make now that can help minimize how much taxes you pay

Bush Tax Cut Extension Advances in Senate

WASHINGTON DC – The Bush tax cut and unemployment benefit extension legislation passed a key procedural hurdle in the Senate on Monday, overcoming the 60-vote threshold needed to come up for a vote later in the week.

The measure advanced Monday evening by a vote of 83 to 15, with 45 Democrats and 37 Republicans voting to invoke cloture and cut off debate. A final vote on the legislation is expected on Tuesday in the Senate, and then it will be sent to the House.

The status of the $858 billion bill in the House is in question, however, as a majority of House Democrats voted in a resolution within their caucus last week to express their disapproval of the bill.

Many congressional Democrats are upset that President Obama struck a deal with Republican congressional leaders to extend the Bush-era tax rates for two years even for those earning over $250,000 a year, violating a campaign pledge. Another possible deal breaker is that the estate tax will be set at 35 percent, with a $5 million exemption for individuals, instead of the 55 percent rate for estates over $1 million that it was scheduled to return to at the beginning of next year. Democrats will try to introduce amendments to increase the estate tax and add other provisions, but Republicans have warned that they are not open to allowing many changes in the legislation.

The bill includes some provisions that are seen as favorable trade-offs by the Obama administration, including a 13-month extension of unemployment benefits and a 2 percent cut in the Social Security payroll tax for a year, lowering the rate from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent.

The bill also extends the Research & Experimentation Credit, the Child Tax Credit, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the American Opportunity Tax Credit for college tuition, along with patching the alternative minimum tax to prevent it from affecting millions more taxpayers. Obama has argued that it is necessary to pass the legislation to extend tax cuts for the middle class and avoid jeopardizing the economic recovery.
 
By Michael Cohn
Accounting Today