In my continued quest for some semblence of journalistic credibility, I had a column published in the Aspen Daily News today that seeks to bridge the disconnect between President Obama’s and Vice President Biden’s insistence that Mitt Romney’s tax plan represents a $5 trillion tax cut, with Romney’s and Paul Ryan’s insistence that no such cut exists. I hope you find it informative.
Posts Tagged ‘cpa’
Seminal moment in the Nitti household this weekend. I found a $5 bill shoved between the couch cushions. Oh, and my 3-year old boy learned to ride a bike. But how ’bout that fiver, huh?
The VP debate gets the SNL treatment.
S corporation sells substantially all of its assets on the installment method with contingent earn-out payments; IRS grants seller right to use special method to allocate basis to payments received when it is clear a portion of the earn-out payments will not be received.
The WSJ reminds us that the employee’s share of payroll taxes will return to 6.2% from 4.2% on January 1, 2013, and is kind enough to provide a calculator you can use to determine how much cash will be missing from your paychecks next year.
Now that was a debate; contentious, revealing, and filled with acrimonious exchanges between two candidates who could barely conceal their distaste for one another. If this were wrestling, Joe Biden would have concluded the night by beating Paul Ryan senseless with a coconut, a la Rowdy Roddy Piper. Tonight was, in short, everything the Obama-Romney debate wasn’t.
Before we get to the tax issues, a couple of quick thoughts:
- What a difference it makes to have a moderator that controls the flow of the discourse and asks the questions the public wants to hear. Great job by Martha Raddatz.
- While Obama’s campaign advisors may well have urged him to remain “Presidential,” they were apparently more than happy to take the reins off Joe Biden. Biden attacked everything we expected Obama to address: Romney’s infamous “47 percent” comment, his 13% effective tax rate, and his continued protection of the preferential tax rates afforded “carried interests” — often in an aggressive, accusing manner. (For more on carried interests, click here).
- While Biden’s candor was refreshing, his decorum was decidedly less so. Kudos to Paul Ryan for not getting angrier than he did with Biden’s constant laughing and gesticulating while Ryan was speaking. Ryan did strike a blow with that “I think the vice president very well knows that sometimes the words don’t come out of your mouth the right way” shot, but for whatever reason, it came off more as over-rehearsed and ill-timed than a memorable one-liner.
- Regardless of your political leanings, it’s hard to argue that Biden didn’t have the response of the night when he replied to Ryan’s criticism of the President’s stimulus spending by pointing out that Ryan had written him letters on two occasions imploring Biden to send stimulus money to Ryan’s home state of Wisconsin. To be fair, Ryan had to know Biden’s response was coming, but he was obligated to address the Obama administration’s rampant spending.
Now, on to the tax issues addressed throughout the debate; specifically, what did voters learn about the future of tax policy?
Joe Biden and the $500 Billion Tax Cut for the Wealthy
Tax policy made its first appearance earlier than anticipated, during a discussion on unemployment. Shortly after an impassioned rant about what he perceived to be Romney and Ryan’s apathy towards 47% of Americans, Biden added:
“They’re pushing the continuation of a tax cut that will give an additional $500 billion in tax cuts to 120,000 families. And they’re holding hostage the middle class tax cut because they say we won’t pass — we won’t continue the middle class tax cut unless you give the tax cut for the super wealthy.”
Unfortunately, debates don’t come complete with citations, so the viewing public was likely left struggling to make sense of the genesis of Biden’s statistics. Lucky for you, I’ve got a winning combination of an abundance of free time and a very understanding wife, so I’ve gone ahead and done the legwork for you.
As I discussed in detail here, the Bush tax cuts are set to expire on December 31, 2012. Should that occur, the top individual tax rate will rise from 35% to 39.6%, the next highest rate will jump from 33% to 36%, and each lower bracket will experience an increase as well.
Currently, the primary point of contention between Republicans and Democrats is what to do with those top two tax rates. The President wants to allow those two highest rates to reset to 36% and 39.6%, respectively, while preserving the reduced tax rates from the Bush-era for all of the lower tax brackets. Effectively, this would raise taxes in 2013 on only those taxpayers earning in excess of $200,000 ($250,000 if married filing jointly).
Republicans, on the other hand, have refused to allow an extension of the lower tax rates unless the two highest tax brackets are extended along with them.
So where does the $500 billion come in?
According to the President’s budget for the period 2013-2022, continuing the Bush tax cuts for those earning in excess of the $200,000 threshold — approximately 2% of the population — would cost the government $968 billion in revenue. Click the image below to enlarge the chart taken from the Budget proposal.
A separate study published by the Tax Policy Center indicated that 55% of the total benefit enjoyed by those top 2% of taxpayers that would be impacted by the expiration of the 33% and 35% brackets would inure to the top 0.1% of the population. The TPC then added that the top 0.1% of the population consists of approximately 120,000 taxpayers.
From there, Biden just does some basic math. $968 billion total benefit for the top 2% x 55% enjoyed by the top 0.1% = $532 billion benefit for the top 0.1%, or 120,000 families — if the Bush tax cuts are extended for all taxpayers.
This would be a statistic repeated several times throughout the night, and it served as the foundation for the ensuing argument, in which Biden accused Ryan and Romney of holding the middle class hostage by refusing to extend the Bush tax cuts for the lower brackets, while Ryan responded by claiming that the additional $968 billion in revenue generated by allowing the cuts to expire for the top 2% wouldn’t put a dent in the deficit.
So who’s right?
Quite frankly, they both are.
There really is no compelling need to extend the Bush cuts for the top 2%, unless you are a firm believer that a lower rate will stimulate economic growth, and many are. The idea fronted by blowhards like Bill O’Reilly that if you tax “the achievers,” they’ll simply stop achieving, is spurious and laughable. Rates have been as high as 70% under the Eisenhower administration, and best I can tell, no leading minds of that era put down their pencils and said “To hell with this… I was going to invent the Atari 2600, but a 70% tax rate? Forget it. I’ll just go back to bed.”
But Ryan is also dead on in his analysis: $968 billion — assuming that number is accurate — would not make a dent in our ever-growing deficit. If the Obama administration is serious about reducing the deficit, there would have to be significant spending cuts to make up for the fact that the top 2% simply isn’t big enough to foot the additional tax bill necessary to eat away at our mounting debt.
Of course, arguing that since the $968 billion of additional revenue wouldn’t make a dent, we needn’t bother to collect it isn’t the soundest fiscal argument either, but I get Ryan’s point. A recent study by the Tax Foundation suggested that simply by cutting the top tax rate to 28%, you could grow the GDP by 7.4% over a 5-10 year window, so perhaps Romney’s plan to cut rates and recover revenue through economic growth has merit. The problems that come with this proposal, as we’ll discuss shortly, lay in its implementation.
But here’s the real oddity of this portion of the debate: Romney’s tax plan does not involve extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich. It involves extending the tax cuts for all taxpayers, then reducing the Bush-era tax rates by an additional 20% across the board. As President Obama referenced several times during the presidential debate, this is expected to cost the government $5 trillion in tax revenue over the next decade, with nearly $2.4 trillion of that benefit going to the wealthiest 2% of taxpayers according to the now-famous Tax Policy Center study. This is a much more meaningful reduction in revenue — and potential corresponding increase to the deficit — then the $500 billion number Biden focused on.
Of course, as we discussed with regards to the previous debate and will do so again below, the Romney campaign promises to pay for any and all lost tax revenue with offsetting reductions or caps to deductions, making the $5 trillion tax cut — in their eyes — no tax cut at all. And while the two candidates did eventually get to discussing this rather important detail, it was through no impetus of their own, but rather the urging of Raddatz. Instead, the voting public had to watch the two candidates debate the merits of a tax plan that is not currently on the table, which likely only served to confuse.
How Do You Define Small Business?
Later in the night, when the discussion formally turned to tax policy, Ryan was asked by Raddatz what portion of the population would pay more, and what portion would pay less, in tax if Romney were elected. Ryan responded:
“Our entire premise of these tax reform plans is to grow the economy and create jobs. It’s a plan that’s estimated to create 7 million jobs. Now, we think that government taking 28 percent of a family and business’s income is enough. President Obama thinks that the government ought to be able to take as much as 44.8 percent of a small business’s income.”
Now, if I were sitting at home (I was) and owned a small business (I don’t), I would take this to mean that my tax rate was about to approach 50%. But there’s an issue of semantics that needs to be addressed:
When Romney and Ryan refer to “small businesses,” they are actually referring to the 36 million taxpayers who report their business income directly on their individual income tax return, and are therefore subject to the individual tax rates at the center of this debate. These business types include sole proprietorships, single-member LLCs, Subchapter S corporations, and partnerships.
What these business types have in common is that they do not pay tax to the government on their own behalf — unlike a Subchapter C corporation, which computes and pays its own tax at the corporate income tax rate — rather, the income of the business “flows through” and is taxed at the individual owner level.
But here’s the issue: of the 36 million taxpayers who own sole proprietorships, single-member LLCs, or an interest in a flow through entity, only 900,000 — or 2.5% — actually pay tax at the two highest tax rates. Stated in another manner, by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for those individuals earning more than $200,000, only 2.5% of all “small businesses” would actually pay higher taxes in 2013 than they do today. The other 97.5% of small business owners will pay the same 28% or lower tax rate that they pay today, assuming, of course, the Bush tax cuts are extended for all taxpayers earning less than $250,000.
Don’t believe me? Click to enlarge the chart:
And this is precisely the point Biden should have addressed. With Ryan accusing the President of raising taxes on small business owners, Biden should have been poised to react. And while he did point out that the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% would impact only 2.5% of small businesses, he should have added that if the Republicans continue to refuse to extend the Bush tax cuts for the lower brackets, then all small business owners will pay more tax in 2013, as the current rates of 10/15/25/28/33/35% will reset to 15/28/31/36/39.6%.
The Competing Goals of Focused Deduction Elimination and Tax Reform
Soon after the small business conversation, Moderator Raddatz delivered where Jim Lehrer failed miserably in the presidential debate by asking Ryan exactly how Mitt Romney plans to pay for his proposed 20% across-the-board tax cuts. [As a reminder, the reduction in tax rates is expected to cost the government approximately $5 trillion over the next decade, but Romney has promised to offset the lost revenue with additional revenue raisers] Unfortunately, Ryan’s response was nothing more than a vague string of misdirections, devoid of the details tax policy experts — and informed voters — have long coveted:
” Look — look at what Mitt Romney — look at what Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill did. They worked together out of a framework to lower tax rates and broaden the base, and they worked together to fix that. What we’re saying is, here’s our framework. Lower tax rates 20 percent. We raised about $1.2 trillion through income taxes. We forego about $1.1 trillion in loopholes and deductions. And so what we’re saying is, deny those loopholes and deductions to higher-income taxpayers so that more of their income is taxed, which has a broader base of taxation..so we can lower tax rates across the board. Now, here’s why I’m saying this. What we’re saying is, here’s the framework…Mitt — what we’re saying is, lower tax rates 20 percent, start with the wealthy, work with Congress to do it…
Now, before I continue, let me remind you that I’m not an Obama guy, I’m not a Romney guy, I’m a tax guy. (in fact, I plan on voting for Kodos) And here’s why you should care about this portion of the debate if you’re a voter.
The vagueness of Romney’s plan is more than frustrating; it is also misleading. For example, a middle-class taxpayer may vote for Romney believing he is voting for a reduction in his top rate from 28% to 22.4% that will leave him with additional after-tax income. However, depending on which deductions are eliminated or capped in order to make the plan revenue neutral, the taxpayer may actually see his federal tax obligation increase, despite the reduced rates.
Because Romney and Ryan have no plan for how they will generate the additional tax revenue necessary to offset the revenue lost to the rate cuts, they can’t possibly promise anyone what the effect of their tax plan will be. They cannot guarantee that those earning in excess of $250,000 won’t see their overall tax share go down, though that hasn’t stopped them from trying. They can’t guarantee that the middle class won’t see their tax obligation increase, though that hasn’t stopped them from trying. They can’t promise any of these things, because they have no idea how the plan will work.
Just one week ago, Romney used the Presidential debate to introduce the idea of capping certain deductions rather than eliminating them, which was taken seriously enough that Bloomberg had yours truly run a bunch of numbers quantifying what a cap would mean to the middle class. Yet tonight, Ryan made no mention of this potential $17,000/$25,000/$50,000 cap, and instead focused again on eliminating deductions. Either Ryan and Romney aren’t on the same page, or, much more concerning, there is no page.
Is it mathematically possible to fully pay for a 20% reduction in tax rates by eliminating deductions? Probably, as we’ve already covered that here. Is it possible without shifting a portion of the tax burden from those earning in excess of $250,000 to those earning less than the threshold? That’s up for debate, but it would require an extreme top-down approach, where the wealthy lost all their deductions first, and even then the result is in question. But the point is, neither Romney nor Ryan can know it’s possible, because they have no plan, only a framework.
And as a voter, you must keep this in mind, because you may be enticed by the promise of a 20% reduction in your tax rate, only to discover in April 2014 that your mortgage interest or state tax deduction is of limited or of no use, and your tax obligation has actually increased over prior years.
What I find most frustrating is that the calendar has turned to October, and I still can’t formulate an opinion as to whose tax plan — Obama’s or Romney’s — I prefer, solely because I don’t know exactly what Romney’s plan entails. Obama’s plan is unappealing to me for a number of reasons — not the least of which are the potentially damaging effect on the deficit and the painful ”Obamacare” surcharges – but at least it’s a known quantity.
One final thought for other tax eggheads: the idea that Ryan mentioned this plan and “tax reform” in the same breath is borderline offensive. True tax reform entails removing some of the countless loopholes from the Code for good, leaving the tax law more manageable than it was before. What Romney and Ryan are promoting is complexity to an unimaginable degree, attempting to cap certain deductions for a certain part of the population, while leaving the deductions in the Code for other taxpayers to enjoy.
On the bright side, it would keep me swimming in business.
Guillermo Arguello worked for Guggenheim Investments, a conglomerate of entities of uncertain purpose. Mr. Guggenheim struck up a business relationship with another corporation, Netrostar, that was intended to be symbiotic: Guggenheim Investments would share customer lists and provide financing, while Netrostar would provide web development work to the Guggenheim entities.
Times got tough at Netrostar, and Arguello, who performed some small bookkeeping services for the company, was asked to help bail it out.
First, Arguello spent $24,000 on a used Alfa Romeo that was needed — for some odd reason — to keep Netrostar alive, and sold it to the company in exchange for a note.
In addition, Arguello cosigned Netrostar credit card debt in excess of $35,000.
At the end of 2007, Arguello was still owed $21,000 on the Alfa Romeo note, and he was justifiably getting antsy with his precarious position as creditor of a dying corporation. As a result, Mr. Guggenheim worked up an agreement by which Netrostar would pay Arguello an additional $2,000 towards the note, and then Arguello would “forgive” the remaining $19,000 balance in exchange for his release as cosigner of the credit card debt.
On his 2007 tax return, Arguello claimed a worthless debt deduction of $19,000. The IRS promptly denied the debt, arguing that it had not become worthless during 2007.
Under Section 166, a taxpayer is entitled to a deduction for a debt, business or nonbusiness, that becomes wholly or partially worthless during the taxable year. There is no standard test for determining worthlessness; whether and when a ebt becomes worthless depends on all the facts and circumstances.[i] In general, the year of worthlessness must be established by identifiable events constituting reasonable grounds for abandoning any hope of recovery.[ii]
The Tax Court concluded that Arguello’s receivable from Netrostar did not become worthless during 2007, primarily because the debt was not forgiven due to Netrostar’s inability to pay, but rather in exchange for getting Arguello off the hook for this co-signed credit card debt:
We cannot assume, and do not find, that as of the close of 2007, Netrostar’s financial condition, although shaky, prompted petitioner to relinquish his rights to collect the balance on the note. The evidence shows, and we find, that the debt was extinguished not so much on account of Netrostar’s ability or inability to pay, but rather pursuant to an arrangement that allowed petitioner to avoid potential liabilities in connection with the credit card accounts.
The court summarized its decision thusly: “A debt is not worthless where the creditor for considerations satisfactory to himself voluntarily releases a solvent debtor from liability.”
The takeaway lesson, of course, is that in today’s economy, where debts are being forgiven left and right, when you are on the creditor side there is a distinction between a debt becoming uncollectible and simply forgiving the debt in exchange for some form of noncash consideration. Under the tax law, the debtor must establish that the debt has become wholly or partially worthless in order to secure a bad debt deduction.
[i] Dallmeyer v. Commissioner, 14 T.C. 1282, 1291 (1950).
[ii] See Crown v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. 582, 598 (1981).
Like me, Richard Cohen is a CPA who hails from the Garden State. Unlike me, Richard Cohen just lost millions of dollars at the hands of an apathetic IRS.
Cohen’s wife served as an executrix for an estate which held uncashed dividend checks from a public corporation. Due to some shenanigans, Cohen started to suspect that the corporation was retaining the proceeds from these uncashed dividend checks without including the amounts in taxable income.
In pursuit of hard evidence, Cohen requested information from the State comptroller under the Freedom of Information Law, and also reviewed allegations in pleadings from a civil case against the corporation. Cohen’s findings only buoyed his belief that the corporation was up to no good; with the amount of improperly retained unclaimed assets possibly reaching into the hundreds of millions.
At that point, Cohen filed a whistleblower claim with the IRS on Form 211, Application for Award for Original Information. As you may or may not know, Section 7623 provides that an individual who provides information that leads the IRS to pursue an administrative or judicial action against a taxpayer is entitled to receive an award equal to a percentage of the tax dollars collected by the IRS. [Ed note: pick the right taxpayer, and you can get paid $100 million, even if you're a convicted criminal].
Despite the fact that Cohen felt the IRS had a strong case against the corporation, a mere two weeks after he filed his application he was notified by the IRS that no action was commenced and no tax dollars recovered from the corporation; thus, Cohen was not entitled to an award.
Understandably frustrated, Cohen sued the IRS, presenting the Tax Court with an issue of first impression: Could the court force the IRS to pursue a case against the corporation, so that Cohen would be eligible for a future whistleblower award?
Interpreting the statute literally, the Tax Court held against Cohen and declined to compel the IRS to reopen the whistleblower case. In reaching its decision, the court noted that Section 7623 requires a condition precedent to the issuance of a whistleblower award: the IRS must first commence an administrative or judicial action against the accused taxpayer, and tax dollars must ultimately be collected.
In this case, because the IRS did not see fit to pursue the corporation for its alleged unclaimed assets, no award could be given. Equally as important, the Tax Court established a precedent for future whistleblower decision by concluding that it lacked the authority to direct the IRS to pursue a case; rather, it’s jurisdiction was limited to determining whether an award should be given after a case has been pursued and tax revenue collected.
The Obama administration addresses the math behind Mitt Romney’s $1 trillion $5 trillion tax cut. Wait…what?
Nation’s pastors agree to take a Sunday off from decrying same-sex marriage; taunt IRS instead.
From the WSJ: Be advised, the last chance to undo a Roth IRC conversion is October 15, 2012.
Xzibit — of “Pimp My Ride” fame — owes the IRS $130,000 for 2011. Weird, I would have thought that a guy who installs custom fish tanks into Honda Civics would understand the need for conservative spending and sound investment.
Could the U.S. really do away with corporate interest deductions?
Often ignored in the presidential campaigning is the growing problem of violence in the suburbs:
The following question came into Double Taxation HQ last night:
If I have a client with a 1,200,000 mortgage that was taken out to acquire a home and no home equity loan, am I limited to deducting interest on only $1,000,000 of mortgage, since it is all acquisition debt, or can I treat an additional $100,000 of the mortgage as home equity debt even though it’s “really” acquisition debt?
It’s an interesting question, because Section 163 provides a deduction for interest on $1,100,000 of mortgage interestfor “qualified residence interest,” which is further defined as “interest paid on acquisition indebtedness or home equity indebtedness…”
Section 163(h)(3)(B)(i) further provides that acquisition indebtedness is any indebtedness that is incurred in acquiring, constructing, or substantially improving a qualified residence and is secured by the residence. However, Section163(h)(3)(B)(ii) limits the amount of indebtedness treated as acquisition indebtedness to $1,000,000 ($500,000 for a married individual filing separately). Accordingly, any indebtedness described in Section 163(h)(3)(B)(i) in excess of $1,000,000 is, by definition, not acquisition indebtedness.
Under Section 163(h)(3)(C)(i) home equity indebtedness is any indebtedness secured by a qualified residence other than acquisition indebtedness, to the extent the fair market value of the qualified residence exceeds the amount of acquisition indebtedness on the residence. However, § 163(h)(3)(C)(ii) limits the amount of indebtedness treated as home equity indebtedness to $100,000 ($50,000 for a married individual filing separately).
In the question above, it would be reasonable to conclude that interest on only $1,000,000 of the $1,200,000 mortgage would be deductible, because there is only acquisition indebtedness; there is no home equity debt. In two court cases — Pau v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1997-43 and Catalano v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2000-82 — the Tax Court embraced this exact theory, denying a taxpayer an interest deduction on their mortgage balance in excess of $1,000,000 when there was ONLY acquisition debt.
In Revenue Ruling 2010-25, however, the IRS announced that it would not follow the Tax Court’s decisions in Pau and Catalano. Instead, in the fact pattern above, the IRS will allow the taxpayer to treat the first $1,000,000 of mortgage debt as acquisition debt, and a second $100,000 piece of the same debt as home equity debt, even though it is simply an additional part of the original debt. The theory being that by definition, acquisition debt cannot exceed $1,000,000 for purposes of Section 163(h)(3)(B)(ii).
This means that the first $100,000 debt in excess of that amount satisfies all the requirements of home mortgage debt: it is secured by the residence, it is not acquisition debt, and it does not exceed the FMV of the home.
Thus, even though the taxpayer has only one mortgage with a balance of $1,200,000 that was used to acquire the property, only $1,000,000 is treated as mortgage debt, and the next $100,000 is treated as home equity debt. This gives the taxpayer an interest deduction on an additional $100,000 of debt than was given to the taxpayers in Pau and Catalano.
After we discussed some of the questions surrounding Mitt Romney’s mid-week proposal to achieve the necessary base broadening necessary to pay for his proposed 20% across-the-board tax rate cuts by implementing a $17,000 cap on a taxpayer’s deductions, Bloomberg reached out to me to crunch some numbers in order to determine the impact such a cap would have on a hypothetical family of four.
The Bloomberg article is here, but the full computations are below:
- Family income is all ordinary income from wages: $150,000
- Family has an outstanding 30 year mortgage at 5 percent with a beginning balance in 2012 of $300,000. This gives rise to deductible mortgage interest for 2012 of $13,666.
- Family lives in Ohio, where it pays real estate taxes on its home of $5,000 annually.
- Family contributes $4,000 to charity.
- Family withholds $6,000 in deductible Ohio state tax from wages
- Family’s taxable income would fall in what is currently the 25% bracket, but would be the 20% bracket under Romney’s proposed 20% across-the-board reductions. The rates would be 8% on the first $17,400 of income, 12% on the next $53,300 of income, and 20% after that.
- Under proposed Obama rates, (Scenario 2), the rates would be 10%/15%/25%.
Scenario 1: Using Romney’s Projected 2012 Tax Rates; No Cap on Deductions
Itemized deductions: $28,666
Taxable Income: $106,535
Taxable Income: $106,134
Federal Income Tax: $14,874
Scenario 2: Using Obama’s Projected 2012 Tax Rates; No Cap on Deductions
Itemized deductions: $28,666
Taxable Income: $106,535
Taxable Income: $106,134
Federal Income Tax: $18,783
Scenario 3: Using Romney’s Projected 2012 Tax Rates; $17,000 Cap on Itemized Deductions Only; Personal Exemptions Allowed in Full.
Itemized deductions: $17,000
Taxable Income: $133,000
Taxable Income: $117,800
Federal Income Tax: $17,208
Scenario 4: Using Romney’s Projected 2012 Tax Rates; $17,000 Cap Applies to BOTH Itemized deductions AND Personal Exemptions
Itemized deductions: $17,000
Taxable Income: $133,000
Taxable Income: $133,000
Federal Income Tax: $20,248
As you will see, because of the effect of Romney’s reduction in the tax rates by 20%, even when he caps a taxpayer’s itemized deductions — but only his itemized deductions — (Scenario 3: Federal Tax of $17,208), our hypothetical family of 4 will stay pay-less under Romney’s plan than it would under that of Obama (Scenario 2: Federal Tax of $18,783).
When comparing Romney’s plan without a cap (which would be nearly impossible if he plans to keep the rate cuts revenue neutral) to that of his plan with a $17,000 cap on itemized deductions, our family of four saw their federal tax increase by $2,333.
Now, if we assume Romney will cap the benefit of BOTH itemized deductions and personal exemptions at $17,000, as his campaign seems to have indicated this week — our family of four would pay more (Scenario 4: Federal Tax of $20,248) than it would under the Obama plan (Scenario 2: Federal Tax of $18,783). This would also increase our family of four’s taxes by $5,374 when compared to a Romney baseline with no cap, and $1,465 when compared to a Romney baseline where the cap applies only to itemized deductions.
The devil, of course, is in the details, and at this point, they are sorely lacking. On Wednesday night, Romney again referenced the possibility of using a cap to pay for his tax cuts, but this time quoted “$25,000 or $50,000″ as a potential solution, which would obviously change the results dramatically.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the Romney campaign clarified this week that it would not seek to change the current tax-free nature of employer paid health insurance coverage, a change that would have greatly increased the tax burden of the middle class.
One hundred thousand views in a little over a year. That’s not too shabby. Though a closer inspection of this site’s hits reveals that many of our guests have stopped by unintentionally, and by the looks of it, left considerably disappointed. Below is a list of the Top 6 search terms that have led internet users to Double Taxation since its inception:
Canyonero: 886 (The fact that nearly 1,000 people came here because they were searching for the fictional SUV endorsed by The Simpsons’ Krusty the Clown warms my heart and renews my faith in humanity.)
Power Rangers Porn: 620 (For obvious reasons, this instantly renews my disgust for humanity)
Double Taxation: 606 (Picking a good blog title is key. Search engine optimization!)
Power Ranger Porn: 391 (You should all be ashamed of yourselves. Perverts.)
Tax Law Changes for 2013: 270 (I’m not sure what it says about the content of this site that it took until our fifth search term to yield a result that I actually wrote about.)
Things get slightly more comforting when we look at the most-read posts in our 16-month history:
Two things can be gleaned from this data:
1. People really seem to care about luxury audit for some reason, and
2. If you want to get page hits, here’s a simple yet full-proof business plan for any blog:
Phase 1: Put “porn” in title
Phase 2: ?????
Phase 3: PROFIT!
On the tax front, in advance of tonight’s presidential debate, Mitt Romney has finally started to cave to continuing pressure to share some details regarding his tax proposals; particularly, how he plans to keep his 20% acr0ss-the-board rate cuts revenue-neutral while not shifting the tax burden away from the rich and towards the middle class. In a speech given this week, Romney indicated that he might cap deductible itemized deductions at $17,000 per individual.
There are still a number of details missing — particularly whether the $17,000 would be doubled for MFJ and how the cap would handle credits — but according to Bloomberg, this cap is just the first in a three-part plan to achieve Romney’s tax goal of a cutting tax rates by 20% while remaining revenue neutral and progressive. From Bloomberg:
A second cap would apply to personal exemptions and a third cap would apply to the health care exclusion. The amount and details of the caps could be changed to meet Romney’s targets for revenue and distribution of the tax burden. The aide emphasized that the three-cap idea is only one option being considered.
While devoid of the details necessary to formulate any meaningful conclusion, it’s hard to see how this is a step in the right direction in achieving progressive, revenue-neutrual tax reform while also cutting rates. A study conducted by the Tax Policy Center earlier this year concluded that Romney would have to eliminate all deductions for those taxpayers earning in excess of $200,000 before limiting those deductions to a lesser extent to those earning below the threshold in order to pay for his tax cuts in a progressive manner. Clearly this proposal does not accomplish those goals, as it allows those earning over $200,000 to retain some of their deductions, while providing the same limitation to those earning below the threshold.
The key, in my mind, is how the third cap would treat excludable health care benefits, as this preference largely benefits the middle class. Do away with the Section 105 exclusion, and you will likely be right back to shifting the burden of tax increases to those taxpayers earning less than $200,000.
What I do like about Romney’s proposal, however, is that he could avoid the morass of trying to eliminate deductions and preferences from the Code, as any attempt to do so would leave special interest groups fighting to the death for their particular provision. By instituting a cap, you leave the mortgage interest deduction untouched, leave the state and local tax deduction, and leave the charitable contribution deduction in the Code, but cap their benefit. While this doesn’t neceessarily achieve the simplicity one seeks when base broadening, as it leaves those provisions in the Code, as we’ve discussed here before, sweeping Code reform isn’t particularly likely anyway.
So last night, as I was trolling the Drudge Report for the latest in election news and teacher-student sex scandals, I noticed an article tilted “These are the Top 5 Worst Taxes ‘Obamacare’ Will Impose in 2013.”
Apparently, the list was first authored by the Grover Norquist-founded Americans for Tax Reform, a Section 501(c)(4) lobbying group that opposes “all tax increases as a matter of principle.”
In running through the list, I came upon #2: The ‘Obamacare’ ‘Haircut’ for Medical Itemized Deductions, which read as follows:
Currently, those Americans facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). This tax increase imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. By limiting this deduction, Obamacare widens the net of taxable income for the sickest Americans. This tax provision will most harm near retirees and those with modest incomes but high medical bills.
This, as you might expect, led to a spate of misspelled, grammatically incorrect reader comments about how Obamacare unfairly punished the elderly. There’s just one problem with this sentiment: it’s not accurate.
Yes, Section 213(a) of the Code was amended to increase the AGI threshold from 7.5% to 10% starting in 2013, meaning taxpayers will now have to generate medical deductions in excess of an extra 2.5% of their adjusted gross income before they begin reaping tax benefits. This much is true. But when the Americans for Tax Reform write — This tax provision will most harm near retirees – and readers pile on by decrying President Obama’s willingness to screw over the elderly — it tells me that these people didn’t actually read the new law.
Had they bothered to continue reading a few lines further into Section 213, they would have discovered that Section 213(f) was also amended, and it now provides:
(f) Special rule for 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016.
In the case of any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2012, and ending before January 1, 2017, subsection (a) shall be applied with respect to a taxpayer by substituting “7.5 percent” for “10 percent” if such taxpayer or such taxpayer’s spouse has attained age 65 before the close of such taxable year.
In other words, the increase to the AGI threshold will not, as the AFTR’s report states, harm near retirees or the elderly, because for the next four years, the AGI threshold is not increased if either the taxpayer or the spouse is over 65. For all of those 65 and over in 2013, their medical expenses will be treated the exact same way in they were in 2012. And let’s be honest, in today’s economy, if you’re retiring before 65, you’ve got enough money that your medical expenses probably aren’t going to exceed 7.5, 10, or even 30% of your adjusted gross income.
Now that I’ve addressed that tiny bit of legislative minutiae and done my part to stem the spread of tax misinformation among people who are so rational they are still calling for the President’s birth certificate four years after his election, I can rest knowing that I’ve left the world a slightly better place.