Certified Tax Coach™ (CTC) versus Certified Public Accounting (CPA)
Proactive tax planning is NOT tax preparation or accounting!
A tax preparer or accountant is someone who prepares taxes by plugging numbers into the proper blanks after the fact – simply recording history. It doesn’t matter how good your current accountant is with a stack of receipts on April 15. If you haven’t done proactive tax planning right, as in BEFORE December 31, it is most likely too late.
A proactive tax planner or Certified Tax Coach™ is someone who meets with you in advance to develop a strategy to reduce or eliminate unnecessary taxes. Someone that gives you more than just a history lesson, i.e. “you should have done this differently”. He takes a holistic view of your tax situation and asks lots of questions. He makes sure
you are taking advantage of all the legitimate deductions, credits, and strategies the tax code offers.
A tax preparer or Certified Public Accountant is someone whose service model is based upon after-the-fact preparation or accounting assistance. Too often, that means outdated information, nasty surprises on April 15, and no feeling of control.
A proactive tax planner or Certified Tax Coach™ is someone who gives valuable ongoing coaching and proactive solutions. He allows you to have and enjoy the total confidence of knowing you pay the least amount of tax possible so that the money stays with you and helps achieve your dreams.
A tax preparer or CPA usually offers the same old solutions, year after year. That means paying too much tax!
A proactive tax planner or Certified Tax Coach™ gives you customized strategies. You profit from personalized solutions for your situation that reduce your tax.
A tax preparer or Certified Public Accountant offers an important but often incomplete annual compliance service designed to fit most of the circumstances of the masses.
A proactive tax planner or Certified Tax Coach™ gives you flexible planning, researched and supported by the internal revenue code and upheld by the tax courts. You enjoy complete certainty that you’re making the right decisions for your business.
A tax preparer or CPA offers you a “see you next year” service, with limited contacts except at tax time. With additional fees for every phone call or email answered.
A Certified Tax Coach™ offers you ongoing support. That means year-round contact, support, direction, and accountability as part of the proactive tax plan engagement.
A tax preparer or Certified Public Accountant charges you fees based upon how much time is spent regardless of the outcome of the return.
A proactive tax planner and Certified Tax Coach™ is compensated based upon the value received of the services rendered. If they don’t save you money, they don’t expect to get paid. That’s called ROI, return on investment.
Proactive Tax Planning
Much of the difference between success and failure comes down to being proactive versus reactive. Whether you are doing proactive financial planning, proactive tax planning or proactive vacation planning, all require planning in advance to be successful. Can you imagine deciding today where you wanted to go on vacation and just heading out and hoping there was a good hotel, or stuff to do, or things to see? The same reason you plan in advance for a vacation is the same reason you need a proactive tax plan.
Merriam-Webster.com defines PROACTIVE
1. [1pro-] : relating to, caused by, or being interference between previous learning and the recall or performance of later learning <proactive inhibition of memory>
2. [2pro- + reactive] : acting in anticipation of future problems, needs, or changes
Synonyms: farseeing, farsighted, forehanded, foreseeing, forethoughtful, forward, forward-looking, prescient, foresighted, provident, visionary
Antonyms: half-baked, half-cocked, imprudent, myopic, shortsighted
Related Words: careful, cautious, heedful, discerning, insightful, perceptive, percipient, prudent, sagacious, sage, sapient, wise
Near Antonyms: careless, heedless, foolhardy
Proactive tax planning means that we carefully scour your circumstances to find every possible legal deduction. We give you a plan, designed specifically for you, full of court-tested, IRS-approved and prudent strategies for minimizing your taxes. Your personalized proactive tax plan is the key to beating the IRS – legally! A wise man digs his well before he is thirsty!! We don’t just mention an idea you might explore, we give you the tax courts’ opinion of that idea, and then help you implement it.
A CPA (Certified Public Accountant) is not a proactive tax planner unless he/she is also a Certified Tax Coach. The “A” stands for “accountant”, because accountants are skilled at recording what has already happened, in other words, they are financial historians. The skill set required to be a proactive tax planner is completely different. This is why I became a Certified Tax Coach and partnered with a CPA, Larry Patterson and formed the firm Patterson & Pollock, LLC. This teaming gives you the opportunity to have the proactive tax planning done and the accounting techniques needed to implement the planning available in the most efficient system possible. Give us a call!
Dallas Tax Coach – The Unconventional, Procrastinators Guide to Reducing Taxes & Fees
The Unconventional, Procrastinators Guide to Reducing Taxes & Fees
It goes without saying (but I’m going to say it anyways) tax planning is proactive, not reactive so it needs to be done well in advance. But, we are a country of procrastinators (see the current political budget debate as exhibit A), so I will address a few concepts and “tricks” that may be able to help you out in the last few days and minutes of the 2011 tax season.
1. File an extension. (It’s Free!)
If you aren’t sure send a check to the IRS for a guesstimated amount and get your act together. This way you don’t have to pay the penalties (unless your guesstimate is way off) and you can take your time to work with someone that can help you get the most from the tax code.
2. Plan on paying the penalty.
I think it is elementary school that makes us afraid of penalties, but in most cases the cost of the penalty is less than a loan from the bank, so count the actual cost and don’t be afraid of the word “penalty”. This leads back to rule number one.
3. Pay more, get more.
In case you aren’t paying attention, our tax code is complex, so pay a pro! A CPA may or may not be a pro, they are accountants (the A in CPA) You need someone that knows how to reduce taxes not just “account” or “tax prepare”. It amazes me that people will look for CHEAP, on something that can have such a big impact on their bottom line. Follow the advice of Lucy to Charlie Brown, “Don’t be a Block head.”
4. IRA’s
No list would be complete without the mention of the boring, but effective IRA. Depending on your age and whether you have a plan through work will depend on the effectiveness of this strategy, but don’t over look it, it could knock several thousand of your tab to your, not so favorite, uncle.
5. To ROTH or not to ROTH
OK, this is actually a proactive AND reactive strategy. If in the past you couldn’t contribute, due to a high income, but last year was a bad year consider shifting assets to a ROTH, it is kinda like making lemonade from lemons, therefore a reactive strategy. A proactive strategy is consider consistently contributing to a ROTH (if you can) or doing a ROTH conversion. Conversions were big news last year, because of an anomaly in the tax code, wealthy people could take advantage of a ROTH for the first time, but if your income has dropped, you have retired or you are below the income threshold it might be worth taking a look at this option.
6. Write off “normal” expenses.
Some expenses you have to pay anyway, like interest on a mortgage, so if you can write them off too, it is a bonus, here is a very short list of a litany of things you might be able to deduct, health insurance, health expenses, financial management fees, home office (not the red flag it once was), mileage, vacations (tricky, but legal), long term care insurance premiums, college, non-cash donations, and the list can go on.
7. Avoid don’t Evade
Avoidance is using the tax code as it is written, Evasion is making up stuff or doing something the code isn’t clear about. The actor Wesley Snipes is in jail for this mistake.
8. Plan now for next year!
Since it is on your mind, map a strategy for next year. You’ll save far more money in the long run, you will be less stressed and you won’t need to read an article like this one at the last minute!
If you are asking what makes these suggestions unconventional, youwill note not a single number was mentioned, I’ll leave the details to a bean counter, because what truly matters are the concepts.
—John Pollock
Click here to watch the video The Unconventional, Procrastinators Guide To Reducing Taxes & Fees
Certified Tax Coach – Being Hurt By Charity
If you liked the above video you may also be interested in:
Click here to watch Involuntary Philanthropy
Click here to watch How Much Is Too Much – You
Click here to watch How Much Is Enough – Them
Click here to watch 1.2 Million Tax Deferred
Certified Tax Coach – Dominique Molina
I have recently become a Certified Tax Coach, here is one of the best with some great ideas on paying less taxes.
Dallas Tax Planner – Tax Tsunami
As a Tax Planner in the Dallas Metroplex I am keeping a close eye on the tax situation, here is an excellent article, don’t for get that I have already posted good articles and tax and financial calculators, HERE. – John Pollock
Family Tax Returns in Doubt As Expiration Approaches for Bush and Obama Tax Cuts: Three Likely Policy Scenarios
by Mark Robyn
Fiscal Fact No. 251
The fight is heating up in Washington over how to handle the approaching expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts. A great deal continues to be said both in support of and in opposition to various features of the Bush-era tax policies. Some of this information is accurate and helpful, but much of it is buried deep in political rhetoric, obscuring the facts and making an often perplexing topic even more difficult to grasp.
Here we clarify the impact for taxpayers by calculating the tax bills of several hypothetical families in 2011 under the three likeliest policy scenarios.
• Full Expiration: the Bush tax cuts fully expire at the end of 2010, as scheduled in current law. This is the ‘default’ policy if Congress takes no action on the Bush-era tax cuts. It is essentially the law that prevailed before President Bush was elected.
• Republican Plan: permanent extension of all of the Bush tax cuts, as proposed by many Congressional Republicans
• Democratic Plan: extension of the Bush tax cuts for taxpayers making under $200,000 (single) or $250,000 (married), and expiration of the Bush tax cuts for those over the stated thresholds, as proposed by Congressional Democrats.
The specific set of proposals laid out in the Obama Administration’s 2011 budget appears to be effectively dead as both parties in Congress have laid out their own set of tax policy priorities.
What the Different Proposals Mean
The Bush-era personal income tax cuts that expire at the end of 2010 include reductions for low-income, middle-income and high-income earners. Some provisions helped just low-income people, some helped low- and middle-income, some middle- and high-income, and some just high-income people. Proceeding roughly up the income spectrum, then, they:
• made more married taxpayers eligible for the earned income tax credit (EITC);
• created the 10-percent income tax bracket;
• raised the standard deduction for couples to double the single amount;
• increased the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000 per child and made it refundable;
• raised the ceiling of the 15-percent bracket to double what it is for singles;
• lowered the 28-percent rate to 25 percent;
• lowered the 31-percent rate to 28 percent;
• lowered the 36-percent rate to 33 percent;
• lowered the 39.6-percent rate to 35 percent; and
• reduced and finally repealed the phase-out of itemized deductions and personal exemptions for high income earners.
Congressional Democrats have proposed extending or making permanent most of the Bush-era tax cuts, that is, all those for families making less than $250,000 ($200,000 for a single filer). For all provisions that reduce tax liability on income above those thresholds, they propose expiration or an alternative tax hike. They have also proposed keeping some, but not all, of President Obama’s tax policies that were enacted as part of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009. Specifically, they propose to:
• keep the lower AGI threshold for the refundable portion of the child tax credit (this provision expanded eligibility for the refundable child tax credit);
• keep the expanded eligibility limits for married taxpayers claiming the EITC;
• allow the increased EITC for taxpayers with 3 or more children to expire as scheduled;
• allow the making-work-pay tax credit to expire as scheduled; and
• allow the American Opportunity credit (for college education expenses) to expire as scheduled. Taxpayers would still be able to claim the Hope credit, the Lifetime Learning credit, or the tuition and fees deduction if they have qualifying higher education expenses.
On two other key provisions, President Obama’s budget proposal differs from the Congressional Democrats’ proposal. In one case the congressional plan raises more tax revenue, and in the other the President’s budget would raise more revenue.
President Obama’s budget would have allowed the lower Bush-era 33-percent tax rate to revert to 36 percent, but only for taxpayers making over $200,000 (single) or $250,000 (married); on taxable income below those thresholds that is currently taxed at 33 percent, the 28-percent rate would apply. The Democratic plan is similar, but instead of allowing the tax rate on some income to fall from 33 percent to 28 percent, it creates an additional tax bracket at the rate of 33 percent so that no taxable income is taxed at a lower rate than it is currently. This would raise slightly more revenue than the President’s proposal.
President Obama proposed to limit the benefit that high-income taxpayers could receive from their itemized deductions to the benefit received in the 28-percent tax bracket. The Democratic proposal does not include this provision which would have slightly increased revenue.
For more details on specific tax policies, including tax brackets and other thresholds, see our table Outline of Major Tax Law Provisions in 2011 under Multiple Scenarios.
Here we are highlighting the more ‘automatic’ tax provisions built into the tax code that depend only on income and family structure. Some more narrowly applicable tax credits and deductions that a taxpayer might qualify for, such as education tax credits, are excluded from these calculations. Unless otherwise noted, all income is assumed to be in the form of wages. A negative tax liability represents a tax refund, that is, a check from the federal government to the taxpayer. An AMT patch is assumed for all policy scenarios, and the tax increases enacted as part of health insurance reform do not apply to 2011, so they are excluded here.
Finally, all of the tax parameters (brackets, exemptions, etc.) have been projected using the latest inflation data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. For more information see Tax Foundation Fiscal Fact, No. 245.
For other Tax Foundation material on tax cut expiration, see:
• The MyTaxBurden.org calculator that allows users to calculate how their own 2011 tax bills would vary depending upon what policies end up being enacted;
• A detailed table showing how various policy scenarios would affect tax parameters like the standard deduction, child tax credit, tax brackets, exemption levels, etc.; and
• A Frequently Asked Questions page that answers many of the important questions relating to the expiring tax cuts.
| Table 1
Summary of Taxes Owed (+ or -) on Typical Tax Returns 2011 |
|||
| Full Expiration | Republican Plan | Democratic Plan | |
| Single Parent, One child, $25,000 | -$901 | -$1,856 | -$1,856 |
| Married couple, three children, $45,000 | $1,028 | -$1,510 | -$1,713 |
| Married couple, two children, $50,000 | $2,833 | $690 | $690 |
| Married couple, two children, $85,000 | $7,235 | $5,385 | $5,385 |
| Single, no children, $60,000 | $8,255 | $7,500 | $7,500 |
| Single, no children, $150,000 w/ investment income | $28,340 | $25,071 | $25,071 |
| Married couple, two children, $150,000 w/ investment income | $21,602 | $17,800 | $17,800 |
| Married couple, two children, $300,000 | $76,616 | $64,971 | $68,392 |
| Married couple, no children, $420,000 w/ investment income | $106,815 | $95,554 | $98,591 |
| Married couple, no children, $1,000,000 w/ investment income | $293,106 | $231,900 | $260,871 |
| Retired couple, $60,000 w/ investment income | $3,444 | $768 | $768 |
| Table 2
Summary of Effective Tax Rates (Taxes as a Percentage of Income) Paid on Typical Tax Returns 2011 |
|||
| Full Expiration | Republican Plan | Democratic Plan | |
| Single Parent, One child, $25,000 | -3.6% | -7.4% | -7.4% |
| Married couple, three children, $45,000 | 2.3% | -3.4% | -3.8% |
| Married couple, two children, $50,000 | 5.7% | 1.4% | 1.4% |
| Married couple, two children, $85,000 | 8.5% | 6.3% | 6.3% |
| Single, no children, $60,000 | 13.8% | 12.5% | 12.5% |
| Single, no children, $150,000 w/ investment income | 18.9% | 16.7% | 16.7% |
| Married couple, two children, $150,000 w/ investment income | 14.4% | 11.9% | 11.9% |
| Married couple, two children, $300,000 | 25.5% | 21.7% | 22.8% |
| Married couple, no children, $420,000 w/ investment income | 25.4% | 22.8% | 23.5% |
| Married couple, no children, $1,000,000 w/ investment income | 29.3% | 23.2% | 26.1% |
| Retired couple, $60,000 w/ investment income | 5.7% | 1.3% | 1.3% |
| Table 3
Typical Tax Return: Single Parent, Low Income 2011 |
||||||
| Filing Status | = | Head of Household | ||||
| Children | = | 1 | ||||
| Income | = | $25,000 | ||||
| Full Expiration |
Republican Plan |
Democratic Plan |
||||
| Standard deduction | - | $8,500 | $8,500 | $8,500 | ||
| Personal exemptions | - | $7,400 | $7,400 | $7,400 | ||
| Taxable income | = | $9,100 | $9,100 | $9,100 | ||
| Tax on taxable income | $1,365 | $910 | $910 | |||
| Child credit (non-refundable portion) | - | $500 | $910 | $910 | ||
| Earned income tax credit | - | $1,766 | $1,766 | $1,766 | ||
| Additional child tax credit | - | $0 | $90 | $90 | ||
| Tax liability | = | -$901 | -$1,856 | -$1,856 | ||
| Table 4
Typical Tax Return: Family of 5, Two Earners, Low Income 2011 |
||||||
| Filing Status | = | Joint | ||||
| Children | = | 3 | ||||
| Income | = | $45,000 | ||||
| Full Expiration |
Republican Plan |
Democratic Plan |
||||
| Standard deduction | - | $9,650 | $11,600 | $11,600 | ||
| Personal exemptions | - | $18,500 | $18,500 | $18,500 | ||
| Taxable income | = | $16,850 | $14,900 | $14,900 | ||
| Tax on taxable income | = | $2,528 | $1,490 | $1,490 | ||
| Child credit (non-refundable portion) | - | $1,500 | $1,490 | $1,490 | ||
| Earned income tax credit | - | $0 | $0 | $203 | ||
| Additional child tax credit | - | $0 | $1,510 | $1,510 | ||
| Tax liability | = | $1,028 | -$1,510 | -$1,713 | ||
| Table 5
Typical Tax Return: Family of 4, One Earner, Low-Middle Income 2011 |
|||||||
| Filing Status | = | Joint | |||||
| Children | = | 2 | |||||
| Income | = | $50,000 | |||||
| Full Expiration |
Republican Plan |
Democratic Plan |
|||||
| Standard deduction | - | $9,650 | $11,600 | $11,600 | |||
| Personal exemptions | - | $14,800 | $14,800 | $14,800 | |||
| Taxable income | = | $25,550 | $23,600 | $23,600 | |||
| Tax on taxable income | $3,833 | $2,690 | $2,690 | ||||
| Child credit (non-refundable portion) | - | $1,000 | $2,000 | $2,000 | |||
| EITC | - | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||
| Additional child tax credit | - | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||
| Tax liability | = | $2,833 | $690 | $690 | |||
| Table 6
Typical Tax Return: Family of 4, Two Earners, Middle Income 2011 |
|||||||
| Filing Status | = | Joint | |||||
| Children | = | 2 | |||||
| Income | = | $85,000 | |||||
| Full Expiration |
Republican Plan |
Democratic Plan |
|||||
| Itemized deductions (a) | - | $15,300 | $15,300 | $15,300 | |||
| Personal exemptions | - | $14,800 | $14,800 | $14,800 | |||
| Taxable income | = | $54,900 | $54,900 | $54,900 | |||
| Tax on taxable income | $8,235 | $7,385 | $7,385 | ||||
| Child credit (non-refundable portion) | - | $1,000 | $2,000 | $2,000 | |||
| Earned income tax credit | - | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||
| Additional child tax credit | - | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||
| Tax liability | = | $7,235 | $5,385 | $5,385 | |||
| Table 7
Typical Tax Return: Single Individual, Above-Average Income 2011 |
||||||
| Filing Status | = | Single | ||||
| Children | = | 0 | ||||
| Income | = | $60,000 | ||||
| Full Expiration |
Republican Plan |
Democratic Plan |
||||
| Itemized deductions (a) | - | $10,800 | $10,800 | $10,800 | ||
| Personal exemptions | - | $3,700 | $3,700 | $3,700 | ||
| Taxable income | = | $45,500 | $45,500 | $45,500 | ||
| Tax on taxable income | $8,255 | $7,500 | $7,500 | |||
| Tax liability | = | $8,255 | $7,500 | $7,500 | ||
| Table 8
Typical Tax Return: Single Individual, High Income 2011 |
||||||
| Filing Status | = | Single | ||||
| Children | = | 0 | ||||
| Income | = | $150,000 ($135,000 in wages, $15,000 in long-term capital gains) | ||||
| Full Expiration | Republican Plan | Democratic Plan | ||||
| Itemized deductions (a) | - | $27,000 | $27,000 | $27,000 | ||
| Personal exemptions | - | $3,700 | $3,700 | $3,700 | ||
| Taxable income | = | $119,300 | $119,300 | $119,300 | ||
| Tax on taxable income | $28,340 | $25,071 | $25,071 | |||
| Tax liability | = | $28,340 | $25,071 | $25,071 | ||
| Table 9
Typical Tax Return: Family of 4, Two Earners, Upper-Middle Income 2011 |
||||||
| Filing Status | = | Joint | ||||
| Children | = | 2 | ||||
| Income | = | $150,000 ($135,000 in wages, $15,000 in long-term capital gains) | ||||
| Full Expiration | Republican Plan | Democratic Plan | ||||
| Itemized deductions (a) | - | $27,000 | $27,000 | $27,000 | ||
| Personal exemptions | - | $14,800 | $14,800 | $14,800 | ||
| Taxable income | = | $108,200 | $108,200 | $108,200 | ||
| Tax on taxable income | $21,602 | $17,800 | $17,800 | |||
| Alternative minimum tax | + | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||
| Child credit (non-refundable portion) | - | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||
| Tax liability | = | $21,602 | $17,800 | $17,800 | ||
| Table 10
Typical Tax Return: Family of Four, High Income 2011 |
||||||
| Filing Status | = | Joint | ||||
| Children | = | 2 | ||||
| Income | = | $300,000 (Itemized deductions: $20,000 in mortgage interest) | ||||
| Full Expiration | Republican Plan | Democratic Plan | ||||
| Itemized deductions (a) | - | $16,087 | $20,000 | $18,625 | ||
| Personal exemptions (b) | - | $9,176 | $14,800 | $9,176 | ||
| Taxable income | = | $274,738 | $265,200 | $272,200 | ||
| Tax on taxable income | $76,616 | $64,971 | $68,392 | |||
| Alternative minimum tax | + | $0 | $0 | $0 | ||
| Tax liability | = | $76,616 | $64,971 | $68,392 | ||
| Table 11
Typical Tax Return: Married Couple, Two Earners, High Income 2011 |
||||||
| Filing Status | = | Joint | ||||
| Children | = | 0 | ||||
| Income | = | $420,000 ($400,000 in wages, $20,000 in long-term capital gains; Itemized deductions: $20,000 state and local taxes, $20,000 mortgage interest, $20,000 charitable contributions) | ||||
| Full Expiration | Republican Plan | Democratic Plan | ||||
| Itemized deductions (a) | - | $52,487 | $60,000 | 55,025 | ||
| Personal exemptions (b) | - | $0 | $7,400 | $0 | ||
| Taxable income | = | $367,514 | $352,600 | 364,976 | ||
| Tax on taxable income | $106,815 | $90,213 | 98,591 | |||
| Alternative minimum tax | + | $0 | $5,342 | $0 | ||
| Tax liability | = | $106,815 | $95,554 | $98,591 | ||
| Table 12
Typical Tax Return: Married Couple, Two Earners, Very High Income 2011 |
||||||
| Filing Status | = | Joint | ||||
| Children | = | 0 | ||||
| Income | = | $1,000,000 ($700,000 in wages, $200,000 in long-term capital gains, $100,000 in qualified dividends; Itemized deductions: $75,000 state and local income taxes, $20,000 mortgage interest) | ||||
| Full Expiration | Republican Plan | Democratic Plan | ||||
| Itemized deductions (a) | - | $70,087 | $95,000 | $72,625 | ||
| Personal exemptions (b) | - | $0 | $7,400 | $0 | ||
| Taxable income | = | $929,914 | $897,600 | $927,376 | ||
| Tax on taxable income | $293,106 | $224,032 | $260,871 | |||
| Alternative minimum tax | + | $0 | $7,869 | $0 | ||
| Tax liability | = | $293,106 | $231,900 | $260,871 | ||
| Table 13
Typical Tax Return: Retired Couple With Retirement Income, Wages, and Investment Income 2011 |
||||||
| Filing Status | = | Joint | ||||
| Children | = | 0 | ||||
| Income | = | $60,000 ($10,000 in wages, $5,000 in long-term capital gains, $10,000 in qualified dividends, $25,000 in Social Security benefits, $10,000 in 401(k) distributions) | ||||
| Full Expiration | Republican Plan | Democratic Plan | ||||
| Standard deduction (c) | - | $11,950 | $13,900 | $13,900 | ||
| Personal exemptions | - | $7,400 | $7,400 | $7,400 | ||
| Taxable income | = | $24,625 | $22,675 | $22,675 | ||
| Tax on taxable income | $3,444 | $768 | $768 | |||
| Tax liability | = | $3,444 | $768 | $768 | ||
Notes
(a) Unless otherwise noted, the taxpayer is assumed to take the standard deduction until his income increases to the point where 18 percent of his income exceeds the standard deduction. Above that threshold, all taxpayers are assumed to be itemizers. Itemized deductions are split evenly between the deduction for state and local taxes paid and the mortgage interest deduction. The phase-out of itemized deductions for high-income filers, the so-called Pease provision, is in full effect under the Full Expiration scenario and under the Democratic proposal, although the Democratic proposal increases the income thresholds where Pease begins to take effect from $169,550 (single and married) to $203,300 (single)/$254,150 (MFJ). As part of the 2001/2003 tax cuts, President Bush ultimately eliminated the Pease provision for 2010, allowing high-income taxpayers to deduct the full value of their itemized deductions. The Republican proposal would continue to allow all taxpayers to deduct the full value of their itemized deductions. The amounts listed for itemized deductions represent itemized deductions after any applicable limitation under Pease.
(b) The personal exemption phase-out (PEP) for high-income filers is in full effect under the Full Expiration scenario and under the Democratic proposal, although the Democratic proposal changes the income thresholds where the personal exemptions begin to phase out from $169,550 (single)/$254,350 (MFJ) to $203,300 (single)/$254,150 (MFJ). President Bush temporarily eliminated the PEP provision, allowing high-income taxpayers to deduct the full value of their personal exemptions. The Republican proposal would continue to allow all taxpayers to deduct the full value of their personal exemptions.
(c) Includes additional standard deduction for taxpayers over age 65.
Tax Planning – Beer and Taxes
Dallas Financial Advisor, Plano Financial Advisor, Allen Financial Advisor
I have seen this circulated in various forms, I like it so I thought I would share it with you.–John Pollock
Tax Planning – Beer & Taxes
Below is a well circulated story (not sure of the writer) that clearly explains how tax cuts work.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers, he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20?. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. What happens to the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share”? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount (using percentages) and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six paying customers was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
‘I only got a dollar out of the $20,’declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man,’ but he got $10!’
‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!’
; ‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’
‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important.
They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible
Small Business Tax Planning
| Small Business tax planning
The following comes from an excellent site I frequent www.ncpa.org ——————————————————————————- According to the latest ADP jobs survey for June, the private sector’s contribution to the job market is smaller than expected. (See the WSJ article, “Private Sector Adds Few Jobs,”) Yep, looking at the bare-bones private sector, minus Census jobs (which do quite well of padding the employment numbers), the results are somewhat troubling. Large and medium-sized businesses have added jobs, but small businesses with fewer than 50 workers have cut jobs. What’s going on? While I don’t have a direct psychic link to the small business community, I suspect they are pondering their future and it looks a bit frightening. One of the largest issues is most likely the new health care plan and the perverse incentives it creates in hiring. (See “Obama’s Tax on Job Creation.”) Perhaps businesses are getting a head start on preparing to avoid the health care mandate and maximize the tax credit they receive for providing health insurance. But it does not bode well for job growth. Another issue may be the new taxes imposed on the wealthy and small businesses. (See “New Taxes on the Wealthy are Bad News for Everyone.”) The new 3.8 percent Medicare tax on unearned income and the proposed increase in the two top marginal income tax rates will undoubtedly hurt the self-employed as their effective tax rates could potentially double. Meanwhile, as Congress fiddles (tax breaks on capital gains for small business or not, increased funding for SBA loans or not, financial reform? maybe…nobody knows yet), already-decided policies, such as the Credit Card Act (which could raise the cost of credit for our entrepreneurs), are manifesting themselves in the form of reluctance from small businesses. And who can blame them? For all the talk of small business being the “engine” of job growth, there is not much fuel to keep that engine running. ——————————————————————– As a small business owner, I can comment on what I am doing and I am being far more cautious than I have been in the past and I have scaled back a lot of things that I used to do without a second thought. I’m passionately optimistic for the long term health of this country, in the short term, I am more tentative. — John Pollock |

