| Home | Careers | Services | Industries | Press | Grant Thornton Thinking | Locations | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Tax Hot Topics From Grant Thornton's National Tax Office Feb. 11, 2009 No. 2009-03
Contents
Tax
thought leadership
Contact a tax
professional.
Take the Grant Thornton survey
on executive compensation programs
Section 367(a)(5)—Proposed regulations provide long-awaited guidance
All of the contracts were governed by Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR). FAR provides specific rules relating to each type of contract and allows for “severable service contracts” with respect to all three categories of contracts at issue in the TAM. FAR defines severable services as “services that are continuing and ongoing in nature — such as help-desk support, maintenance or janitorial services — for which benefit is received each time the service is rendered.” The taxpayer provided a broad range of services, some of which were severable in nature and some of which were non-severable. Under FAR, the government will pay the contractor the prices stipulated under the fixed-price contract upon submission of proper invoices or vouchers and acceptance by the contracting officer of the performed services. The taxpayer may submit invoices to the government with respect to payments under a fixed-price contract every two weeks as work progresses on the contract. Some fixed-price contracts are divided into interim tasks or deliverables (milestones). For cost-plus contracts, FAR provides for payment of allowable incurred costs to the extent prescribed in the contract. After contract performance, the fee payable to the contractor is determined in accordance with the formula. Under FAR, taxpayers may submit invoices to the government with respect to allowable costs under a cost-plus contract every two weeks as work progresses on the contract. For time-and-materials contracts, FAR provides for payment based on (1) direct labor hours (time) at specified fixed hourly rates, including wages, overhead, general/administrative expenses and profit, and (2) actual costs for materials (materials) to the extent they are reasonable, allocable and allowable under the FAR. FAR provides that the time portion of a time-and-materials contract is payable on a monthly (or more frequent) basis upon submission of a voucher substantiated by the contractor and approved by the contracting officer. FAR also provides that the government will pay the amount stated on the voucher less a five percent retainage. FAR provides that the materials portion of a time-and-materials contract is payable in the same manner as the “cost” portion of a cost-plus contract. Under FAR, a taxpayer may submit invoices to the government with respect to allowable costs of the materials portion of a time-and-materials contract every two weeks as work progresses on the contract. In the TAM, the taxpayer did not accrue revenue from each of the three types of contracts until final inspection (by a contracting officer of the government) and approval of the completed contracts. In other words, it was the taxpayer’s position that the right to income did not accrue until payment was made by the government. The IRS examining agent argued that the taxpayer’s method of accounting misapplied the rules under Section 451. The IRS National Office analyzed when “all events” fixing the right to income occurred and when the amount of the income was determinable with reasonable accuracy. As to the event fixing the liability, the IRS stated the general rule for accrual which is that a service provider’s right to income is fixed upon the earlier of: (1) the date payment is made; (2) the date the required performance occurs (i.e., the amount is earned); or (3) the date the payment is due. While the taxpayer took the position that the right to income accrued when the amount was paid by the government, the TAM points out that it is possible for income to accrue earlier if it is due or at which it is earned earlier. After analyzing the terms of the government contracts and considering FAR, the IRS National Office concluded that for the taxpayer’s severable contracts, the amount allocable to each severable portion of a contract is fixed no later than when performance of the severable portion is complete. For the taxpayer’s contracts that were not severable, amounts under the contracts are fixed no later than when due. The IRS National Office pointed out that, under the facts, the taxpayer’s fixed-price contracts contained milestones that had to be accepted by the government prior to billing. Accordingly, the amounts relating to those milestones were not fixed until acceptance by the government. The IRS National Office also pointed out that, with respect to other non-severable contracts, the taxpayer had a right to bill on a monthly basis as work progressed under the contracts. Accordingly, income on those contracts accrued as the right to bill occurred. The taxpayer also tried to argue that the amounts of income related to unbilled receivables were not determinable until payment was made because amounts due under certain types of contracts could be renegotiated. The IRS National Office rejected the taxpayer’s argument noting that the standard is merely that the amount be determinable with “reasonable accuracy.”
IRS issues generic legal advice on Section 199 allocation of deferred
compensation The prior-period compensation expenses addressed in the memorandum are generally described as deferred compensation expenses, or compensation expenses that are deductible by a taxpayer in a current year that relate to services or labor performed for the taxpayer in a prior taxable year or years. The memorandum does not address any other type of deduction or deferred compensation expense that is included in cost of goods sold under Section 263A. Unless a taxpayer qualifies and elects to use one of the two simplified methods available to small taxpayers for allocating and apportioning deductions between domestic production gross receipts (DPGR) and non-DPGR, then Treas. Reg. Secs. 1.199-4(c) and (d) require taxpayers to use allocation methods described in Section 861. Under Section 861, a deduction is allocated to a class of gross income and then, if necessary, apportioned between the statutory and residual groupings of gross income within that class. A deduction is considered to be related to a class of gross income if it is incurred as a result of, or incident to, an activity or in connection with property from which such class of gross income is derived. The allocation and apportionment must be made in a manner that reflects the factual relationship between the deduction and the statutory grouping of gross income. Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.861-8T provides some examples of various bases and factors that may be used by the taxpayer provided the basis or factor chosen reasonably reflects the factual relationship between the deduction and income. These include, but are not limited to, a comparison of: (1) units sold; (2) amount of gross sales or receipts; (3) cost of goods sold; (4) profit contribution; (5) expenses incurred, assets used, salaries paid, space utilized, time spent related to the activities; and (6) amounts of gross income. There are several examples provided in the memorandum that illustrate the application of Section 861 and the determination of a factual relationship between the prior period compensation deductions and gross income. The memorandum concludes that by following the guidelines in Section 861 for allocating and apportioning deductions, some currently deductible expenses that relate to a prior period (even if that prior period predates the effective date of Section 199) may properly be allocated and apportioned to gross income attributable to DPGR in a taxable year in which the taxpayer generates DPGR.
Tax Court holds that income accrues on delivery of property despite
deferred payments The taxpayer contracted in 2002 (“02 contracts”) with existing customers to build barges for which part of the purchase price would be paid upon delivery of the barge with the remaining portion of the price deferred until 18 months after the delivery date. It is important to note that both of the customers described in this case had purchased barges in previous years under different contracts with the taxpayer (“01 contracts”). In 2002, after receiving barges purchased under the 02 contracts, two of the customers began having problems with barges purchased under the 01 contracts. The taxpayer disputed the claims and the customers threatened to withhold future deferred payments on the barges (payable in 2003 and 2004). On its 2002 tax return, the taxpayer reported only the income that was received at the time of barge delivery and did not include the payments that were deferred under the contract. The IRS argued and the Tax Court agreed, pointing to Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.446-1(c)(1)(ii)(A), that for an accrual basis taxpayer, the income was properly includible in income when all events have occurred that fixed the right to receive the income and the amount was determinable with reasonable accuracy. The delivery of each of the barges unconditionally fixed the taxpayer’s right to receive the full contract price under the 02 contract. The taxpayer agreed with this argument and indeed included the deferred income from the 01 contract in the year that barges were delivered. The dispute arises out of the claim against the deferred payments from the 02 contract. The taxpayer contended that they were not required to include the deferred payments on the 02 contract due to the customers’ claim of rights to offset these payments with damages allegedly arising under the 01 contract. They relied on several cases that the Tax Court distinguished from the instant case because those cases involved situations in which obligors disputed the fact or amount of their liability with respect to the item accrued. In contrast, the customers in this case did not dispute the fact or amount of the obligation under the 02 contract. Therefore, it was properly accruable in the year that the barges were delivered as that is when all events had occurred. The offset claims of the unsatisfied customers relating to the 01 contract affected only the timing of the taxpayer’s receipt of income under the 02 contract and not its right to receive the income. As a secondary argument, the taxpayer asserted that it should be allowed a deduction under Section 461(f) for the amount that its customers withheld related to the 01 contract. Section 461(f) provides a deduction for contested liabilities if the following four criteria are met: (1) the taxpayer contests an asserted liability; (2) the taxpayer transfers money or other property to provide for the satisfaction of the asserted liability; (3) the contest with respect to the asserted liability exists after the time of transfer; and (4) but for the fact that the asserted liability is contested, a deduction would be allowed for the taxable year of the transfer. The Tax Court and the IRS disagreed with the taxpayer, stating that the withholdings of payments due on the 02 contract did not constitute a transfer of money or other property by the taxpayer in satisfaction of the liability. However, the court stated that even if they agreed that the withholdings did constitute a transfer of money or other property, these transfers did not occur until 2003 and 2004. Therefore the taxpayer was not allowed a deduction under Section 461(f) in the 2002 tax year.
Under the new guidance, the CEO of any company that has received or does receive financial assistance from the government must certify that the company has strictly complied with all executive compensation restrictions. In addition, institutions that receive “exceptional assistance” through an institution-specific negotiated agreement must now comply with more stringent executive compensation rules, including:
Treasury also said in the release that it intends to issue proposed guidance on
executive compensation requirements that would apply to companies participating
in future generally available capital access programs similar to the Capital
Purchase Program (CPP). The interim final rules require the CEO to certify annually within 135 days after the financial institution’s fiscal year end that the institution and its compensation committee have complied with the executive compensation standards. In addition, within 120 days of receiving financial assistance from Treasury, the CEO is required to certify that the compensation committee and the senior risk officers of the institution have reviewed senior executives’ incentive compensation arrangements to ensure these arrangements do not encourage senior executives to take unnecessary and excessive risks. The CEO must provide these certifications to the TARP Chief Compliance Officer and keep records to document that these certifications have been completed.
DOL issues final rule on investment advice exemption for 401(k)s and
IRAs
Section 305(a) generally provides that a shareholder of a corporation does not
have income for a distribution by the corporation of its stock if the
distribution is made with respect to the corporation’s stock. Pursuant to
Section 305(a), such a distribution of stock would generally not be a
distribution under Section 301. Section 305(b) provides the following exceptions
to Section 305(a): Distributions in lieu of money; Disproportionate distributions; Distributions of common and preferred stock; Distributions of preferred stock; and Distributions of convertible preferred stock. With respect to distributions in lieu of money, Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.305-2(a) provides that a distribution of stock is treated as a distribution under Section 301 if a shareholder has the right to elect whether a distribution is made in: (i) money or property, or (ii) stock of the distributing corporation or rights to acquire such stock. Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.305-1(b)(2) also provides that a corporation that regularly distributes earnings and profits, such as a RIC, may treat the amount of the stock distributed to shareholders as the equivalent amount of the money if shareholders may elect to receive money or stock for the equivalent value.
Newly released Rev. Proc. 2009-15 provides guidance for RICs to treat a
distribution of stock as a Section 301 distribution. Under the revenue
procedure, a RIC may treat a distribution of its own stock as a Section 301
distribution if: Such distribution is made by the RIC to its shareholders with respect to its
stock; Stock of the RIC is publicly traded on an established U.S. securities
exchange; Such distribution is declared with respect to a taxable year ending on or
before Dec. 31, 2009; Pursuant to such declaration each shareholder may elect, subject to a
limitation on the amount of money to be distributed in the aggregate to all
shareholders (the “cash limitation”), to receive its entire entitlement in
either: (i) money or (ii) stock of the distributing RIC in the equivalent value; The cash limitation of such declared distribution is not less than 10
percent; If shareholders elect to receive money in excess of the amount of money to be
distributed, each shareholder electing to receive money will receive a pro rata
amount of money but will not receive less than 10 percent of money; The calculation of the number of shares to be received by any shareholder
will be determined based upon a formula utilizing market prices to equate the
value of the number of shares to be received with the amount of money that could
be received; and Any shareholder participating in a dividend reinvestment plan applies the
plan only to the extent that the shareholder would have received the
distribution in money. Rev. Proc. 2009-15 amplifies and supersedes Rev. Proc. 2008-68, which initially provided the same treatment solely to real estate investment trusts (REITs). Rev. Proc. 2009-15 applies to both RICs and REITs.
Eighth Circuit holds that Section 162(k) applies to distribution from
ESOP The corporation in the case (“GMI”) was owned by three Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) through a single trust (the “Trust”). Upon an employee’s termination, the terminated employee could elect to receive the value of his or her ESOP account balance in either GMI stock or cash. Upon a terminated employee electing to receive cash, GMI distributed cash to the Trust in redemption of stock owned by the Trust (the “Redemption Distribution”), and the Trust distributed such cash to the terminated employee (the “Cash Distribution”).
Pursuant to Section 404(k)(1), a C corporation may deduct an “applicable
dividend” paid in cash with respect to its stock that is owned by an ESOP. An
applicable dividend is provided for under Section 404(k)(2) as any dividend that
is in accordance with plan provisions and: paid in cash to participants in the plan or their beneficiaries; paid to the plan and distributed in cash to participants in the plan or their
beneficiaries not later than 90 days after the close of the plan year in which
paid; at the election of such participants or their beneficiaries: (i) payable in
cash as provided above or (ii) paid to the plan and reinvested in qualifying
employer securities; or used to make payments on a loan that the proceeds of which were used by the
ESOP (or Trust) to acquire employer securities (as defined in Section
404(k)(6)(A)) with respect to which the dividend is paid. Section 162(k)(1) provides that a corporation may not deduct any amount paid or incurred in connection with the reacquisition of its stock. The court held in General Mills that GMI could not deduct the cash distribution pursuant to Section 404(k)(2)(ii) because the cash distribution was in connection with GMI’s reacquisition of its own stock. The court reasoned that both the redemption distribution and the cash distribution needed to occur for the deduction pursuant to Section 404(k)(2)(i); therefore, the deduction was disallowed because it was in connection with GMI’s reacquisition of stock from the Trust.
IRS
issues guidance on election for AMT and research credits in lieu of bonus
depreciation The Housing and Economic Recovery Tax Act added Section 168(k)(4) to the Code, which allows corporate taxpayers make this election. Electing taxpayers must use the straight line method. The amount of the refundable credit is limited to the lesser of: 1) 20 percent of the benefit of using bonus depreciation on property placed in service between April 1, 2008, and Dec. 31, 2008; 2) six percent of unexpired and unused minimum tax and research credits attributable to taxable years beginning before 2006; or 3) $30 million. Rev. Proc. 2009-16 sets forth procedures for making the election. Generally, a corporation with a calendar year, or a January, February or March fiscal year, will make the election as follows:
Different rules are provided for corporations with other fiscal years and may vary depending upon whether the return for the corporation’s first taxable year ending after March 31, 2008, has been filed. Rev. Proc 2009-16 should be consulted in those cases. An automatic six-month extension to make the election is from the original due date of the return for the taxpayer’s first taxable year ending after March 31, 2008, is provided. Rev. Proc. 2009-16 also sets out rules for allocating the effects of the election between members of a controlled group. Generally, allocation agreements will be accepted. An allocation agreement may be necessary to maximize the benefit of the election. In addition to setting forth filing procedures, Rev. Proc. 2009-16 also sets forth the IRS position on several areas of uncertainty in the application of Section 168(k)(4):
Section 2031 provides that the value of a decedent’s gross estate includes the fair market value (FMV) of all property owned by the decedent’s estate. Reg. Sec. 20.2031-1(b) provides that FMV is the price at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell and both having reasonable knowledge of the relevant facts (the “willing-buyer/willing-seller test”). The courts have determined that the willing buyer and the willing seller are a hypothetical buyer and seller; thus, FMV is not determined by the subjective intent of the actual buyer and seller. The regulations under Section 2031 provide many rules as to how various types of assets should be valued for estate tax purposes. Reg. Sec. 20.2031-3 contains rules as to the value of an interest in a business that is not actively traded. Not surprisingly, it reiterates the willing-buyer/willing-seller test. The valuation of closely held entities for gift and estate tax purposes has been a hotly contested issue, especially with the proliferation of family limited partnerships and limited liability companies that do not carry on an active trade or business. To say the least, court cases reveal that the valuation of closely held entities is not an exact science. The uncertainty as to value is largely a part of discounts that are applied in valuing closely held interests, such as discounts for lack of marketability, lack of control and built-in gains taxes. The consequences to a decedent’s estate can be significant (in the form of interest and penalties) if assets of the estate are not properly valued. In many instances, the courts insert their own opinion on FMV, siding with neither the taxpayer’s nor the IRS’s valuations and often taking a “split-the-baby” approach. However, at a recent lecture at the Heckerling Institute on Estate Planning, Judge David Laro of the Tax Court (noting the uncertainty the past approach causes for parties) stated that the Tax Court is no longer taking such an approach and only inserting its opinion where it believes the valuations of both the taxpayer and the IRS are based on erroneous assumptions. In Litchfield, the Tax Court reflected this new approach in valuing the interests of the two family owned corporations that were part of the decedent’s estate. The decedent owned a 43.1 percent interest in one corporation (“C1”) that owned two types of assets: farmland and associated equipment and marketable securities. The decedent owned a 22.96 percent interest in a second corporation (“C2”) that owned marketable securities. The appraisers for the decedent’s estate and the IRS both used the net asset value method to value C1 and C2. This method relies on the net value of a company’s assets to determine FMV. The contention between the decedent’s estate and the IRS is reflected in the following chart along with the resolution by the Tax Court:
After review of the appraisals, the Tax Court agreed generally with the appraisal rendered by the decedent’s estate’s expert. The noted difference is the lack of marketability discount (which Judge Laro commented at Heckerling is where the Tax Court most often departs from appraisals submitted by the parties). The court departed from the appraisal because it noted that for C1, the appraiser used outdated data to determine the discount and for C2, the appraiser applied a 21.4 percent discount for the transfer of an interest in C2 by gift approximately a year earlier and the appraisal failed to support why it should be higher a year later. Overall, this was a taxpayer victory and again highlights the need for an independent appraisal from a competent appraiser. Note further that a combined lack of control and lack of marketability discount of 31.9 percent was allowed for C2, which only held investment assets.
Sixth Circuit weighs in on the valuation of lottery payments for estate tax
In Negron v. United States (Docket No. 07-4460), the Sixth Circuit agreed with
the Fifth Circuit (and disagreed with the Ninth and the Second Circuits) that
the method prescribed under Section 7520 and its tables is the proper method for
valuing lottery payments for estate tax purposes. In general, courts have ruled that in valuing an annuity for estate tax purposes, the method and the tables under Section 7520 must be used unless it is shown that the valuation is so unrealistic and unreasonable that either some modification in the prescribed method should be made or complete departure from the method should be taken, and a more reasonable and realistic means of determining value is available. The Sixth Circuit, agreeing with the Fifth Circuit, ruled that the non-marketability of annuities is an underlying assumption of the Section 7520 tables. The court noted that the property at issue is a legally enforceable right to receive annual payments that cannot be assigned to a third party. Therefore, it ruled that a marketability factor is not necessary to determine the value of a guaranteed income stream and the Section 7529 tables properly value the present value of the annuity streams for estate tax purposes. Thus, the decedents’ estates were liable for the addition of tax. It is a tough pill to swallow when the Code values an asset higher than the proceeds that the asset yielded upon a “sale” that took place relatively close to the date of the decedents’ respective deaths. In such a case, the election to value the assets on the alternate valuation date under Section 2032 may be of some benefit. Note, however, in this instance the alternate valuation date probably would not have yielded a different result as the settlement of the annuity for a lump sum probably would not have been considered a “sale” for purposes of Section 2032.
IRS addresses gift tax consequences of second transfer to a QPRT A QPRT is an estate tax freeze technique similar to a grantor retained annuity trust (GRAT) in which a senior family member transfers assets to a trust retaining an income interest in the trust for a term and transferring the remainder interest to junior family members. Unlike a GRAT, the QPRT is designed specifically to hold a personal residence, and the income interest in a QPRT is not in the form of an annuity interest but in the form of a right to occupy the personal residence for a specified term. The senior family member pays gift tax to the extent of the value of the remainder interest. Upon the expiration of the income interest, the trust’s assets pass free and clear to the junior family members. QPRTs are authorized specifically under Reg. Sec. 25.2702-5. If structured properly, a QPRT allows the income interest to be valued in determining the value of the remainder interest that is subject to gift tax. If a personal residence trust is not structured properly as a QPRT, the transfer of the residence to the trust will be subject to Section 2702; thus, the entire value of the residence will be subject to gift tax. A QPRT accomplishes its estate planning goal only if the senior family member survives the term of the income interest. If he or she does not survive, the QPRT will be includable in the estate of the senior family member under Section 2036. If the senior family member survives the term, he or she must either move out of the residence upon expiration of the term or pay the fair rental value of the property in order to remain in the residence. If he or she does not leave the residence or pay fair value rent, the residence will be includable in the senior family member’s estate and the estate planning goal of the QPRT will have been defeated. But what if either of these two options is not viable; is there possibly a third option? The new PLR provides a third possible option. In the letter ruling, the senior family member outlived the initial term of the QPRT. After the expiration of the term, the senior family member (who was both grantor and trustee of the QPRT) and the junior family members executed an amendment to the QPRT that provided that upon the expiration of the income interest and upon direction by a majority of the current remainder beneficiaries, the trustee may liquidate the QPRT or provide a gift of the term interest in any real property of the QPRT that will be occupied by the term interest holder as their principal residence. The gift goes to anyone the majority of the current remainder beneficiaries so choose. The junior family members then created an irrevocable trust to which they transferred their interest in the residence and transferred to the senior family member a term interest to occupy the residence. The letter ruling requested a ruling that Section 2702 did not apply to the transfer. With little analysis, the IRS ruled that Section 2702 would not apply to the transfer of the residence to the irrevocable trust if the trust’s governing instrument met the requirements of a QPRT as set forth in Reg. Sec. 25.2702-5. The creation of a second trust with the transfer of a term interest to the senior family member alleviates the need of the senior family member to vacate the residence or pay fair value rent for the duration of the second term. Although not addressed in the letter ruling (because such a ruling was not requested), the transfer of an income interest by the junior family members to the senior family member will have gift tax consequences to the junior family members to the extent of the value of the term interest given to the senior family member.
In the proposed transaction, the Taxpayers proposed to contribute all of their equity interests in domestic corporations to a foreign partnership in a transaction intended to qualify under Section 721. One of the domestic corporations (“Domestic Corporation A”) to be transferred by the Taxpayers owned a percentage of a U.S. limited partnership, and the U.S. limited partnership owned certain U.S. real property interests within the meaning of Section 897(c)(1) (“USRPIs”). Each of the Taxpayers represented that, for the purposes of Section 897(g), the interests in the foreign partnership that the Taxpayers would receive in exchange for the interests in certain domestic corporations would be, immediately after the Section 721 contribution, a USRPI to the extent attributable to the USRPIs of the foreign partnership. Each of the Taxpayers represented that, for the purposes of Section 704(c), the foreign partnership would adopt the remedial allocation method under Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.704-3(d). Each of the Taxpayers also represented that if the foreign partnership were incorporated, it would not be an investment company within the meaning of Section 351(e) and Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.351-(c)(1)(ii). Shortly after the transfer to the foreign partnership, the U.S. limited partnership plans on disposing of its assets, including certain USRPIs, in a fully taxable transaction under Section 1001. The U.S. limited partnership then would use the proceeds of the sale to settle any outstanding liabilities and distribute its remaining assets to its partners, including Domestic Corporation A, in complete liquidation. Domestic Corporation A would then use the proceeds received in the liquidation to settle any outstanding liabilities and distribute its remaining assets to its shareholders, which would include the foreign partnership, in a complete liquidation pursuant to Section 331. In addition to the representations made above, the IRS required that the Taxpayers comply with the filing requirements of Temp. Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.897-5T(d)(1)(iii). Accordingly, the IRS ruled that the Taxpayers’ transfer to the foreign partnership in exchange for partnership interests would constitute a non-recognition exchange pursuant to Sections 721 and 897(e) and Temp. Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.897-6T(a)(1). Furthermore, the IRS ruled that any gain a foreign partnership realizes in connection with the liquidation of Domestic Corporation A would not be gain realized in connection with the disposition of a USRPI under Section 897 provided that Domestic Corporation A satisfies the exclusion described in Section 897(c)(1)(B).
Withholding elevated to Tier I issue
New York Advisory Opinion clarifies protection for owners of pass-through
entities
Michigan amends business tax and decouples from bonus depreciation
Delaware Supreme Court upholds wholesaler gross receipts tax on Delaware
retailer sales
House and Senate to begin negotiating final stimulus bill The House and Senate versions are similar, but several significant differences will have to be ironed out. The Senate passed several key tax amendments, including provisions that would patch the AMT, create a homebuyer credit of up to $15,000 for purchases of a principal residence in 2009, and allow a deduction for sales tax and loan interest on new cars purchased in 2009. Both bills include temporary tax credits for individuals, a five-year net operating loss carryback period, extension of bonus depreciation to 2009, enhancements to existing energy tax incentives and loosened tax-exempt bond rules. Grant Thornton's National Tax Office has prepared the following summaries of the legislation:
Back to contents
This document was written to support the promotion or marketing of professional
services by Grant Thornton LLP, and is not written tax advice directed at the
particular facts and circumstances of any person. Persons interested in the
subject matter of this promotion or marketing document are encouraged to contact
Grant Thornton LLP to discuss the potential application of the subject matter
herein to their particular facts and circumstances or seek advice from an
independent tax advisor. Nothing herein shall be construed as imposing a
limitation on any person from disclosing the tax treatment or tax structure of
any matter addressed herein. To the extent this document may be considered to
contain written tax advice, in accordance with applicable professional
regulations, please understand that, unless expressly stated otherwise, any
written advice contained in, forwarded with, or attached to this document is not
intended or written by Grant Thornton LLP to be used, and cannot be used, by any
person for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed under the
Internal Revenue Code.
Subscribe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
