Discussion:Best way to maximize deductions

From TaxAlmanac, A Free Online Resource for Tax Professionals
Note: You are using this website at your own risk, subject to our Disclaimer and Website Use and Contribution Terms.

From TaxAlmanac

Jump to: navigation, search

Discussion Forum Index --> Basic Tax Questions --> Best way to maximize deductions
Discussion Forum Index --> Tax Questions --> Best way to maximize deductions

Anchorman (talk|edits) said:

21 April 2009
Have a client who does internet marketing consulting, structured as SMLLC, who will hit 1 million in sales in 2009. Actively looking for new tax deductions. Already has SEP plan and takes self employed health insurance deductions. One new strategy we've discussed is have the business purchase an in-town loft this year and use it as an office. (Current office is in her home). Business can then deduct interest, depreciation, condo fees, utilities, etc. Wouldn't this be better than having her buy loft as a second home, own it in personal name, charging rent to the business, and then having to claim it as rental income? Recommendations or thoughts, anyone? Any potential land mines I should be careful not to overlook? Thanks much.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

21 April 2009
Can't do the self-rental thingie unless one entity is a Corp or S corp.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

21 April 2009
have you run the numbers to determine that a SEP is better than a Solo 401(k)?

Anchorman (talk|edits) said:

21 April 2009
What's the difference in terms of maximum contributions? Or... better question... is there somewhere I can go online to research the answer to that query?

Anchorman (talk|edits) said:

21 April 2009
Since there will be a very large amount of family money coming to her eventually (and she's only in her mid 30s now anyway) the motivation to dump a lot more into retirement accounts is pretty low. But worthy of further research nevertheless. Thanks.

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

April 21, 2009
Well, a SEP allows her 20% of net. A solo 401k allows her 20% PLUS the 16k prox 401k deferral.

How about inc'ing the biz, reducing her SE income to the reasonable salary level, and then buying the loft for office use, personally, taking rent out of the corp, etc. Then, her solo 401k number just went to 25% of salary plus the deferral amount.

Anchorman (talk|edits) said:

21 April 2009
Think I found the answer re SEP vs Solo 401k, per the Kiplinger website for those who are interested.... Contributions to a SEP are limited to 20% of your business income (which is business income minus half of your self-employment tax), up to a maximum of $45,000. With a solo 401(k), on the other hand, you can contribute up to $15,500 plus 20% of your business income (defined the same way as above), with a maximum contribution of $45,000 in 2007. You can make an extra $5,000 catch-up contribution if you're 50 or older.

These are based on 2007 numbers, so they may have changed a bit. But the bottom line, as I read it, is there's no real benefit to one over the other in my client's case. On the other hand, if the self employment earnings were small and provided a secondary income, then the Solo 401K would be more attractive because you'd be able to contribute a lot more to it (because the first $15,500 contributed would not be limited to 20% of income).

Anchorman (talk|edits) said:

21 April 2009
Thanks JR. She really did get wacked with self employment tax this year. But wouldn't the rent be taxable income to her vs. buying the loft in the business name?

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

April 21, 2009
Nothing changes on the income tax side. Only the SE side since you're controlling that via the salary, and the rent is one more component of money coming out of the corp free of payroll taxes.

Harry Boscoe (talk|edits) said:

21 April 2009
I don't think the rent would be "coming out of the corp free of payroll taxes". The SMLLC is a disregarded entity - not a corporation - and I would think the rent would be *disregarded* also. The IRS has a position about paying rent from one pocket to the other...

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

21 April 2009
Read JR's earlier comment, Harry....he talks about incorporating her into an S and then paying rent from the S Corp for the business asset.

I think the most important thing here is deciding whether 'one swallow makes a summer' in that once the loft is purchased, will business prospects continue as now. And don't use the argument that the real estate can be sold if business falls. Have a photographer client who bought a loft in a similar situation 6-7 years ago and now is moving into it to cut his living costs since his residence will be easier to sell in a buyer's market.

Anchorman (talk|edits) said:

22 April 2009
D&T,

Thanks for the thought--it's an important point to consider. In this particular case, the business is about 10 years old and continues to grow despite economic times, unlike some photographers I have as clients (one now deliver pizza at night to generate extra income, given the downturn in advertising and marketing revenues for him, even though his photography business is also about 10 years old). Appreciate everyone's input--exactly what I was hoping for.

IRS4LIFE (talk|edits) said:

22 April 2009
I would focus more on boosting sales than throwing money away for a fractional benefit.

Anchorman (talk|edits) said:

22 April 2009
Did I just hear a distinct THUD?

Brock And Associates (talk|edits) said:

22 April 2009
I was just getting ready to say.....why even TRY to throw a dollar away on unnecessary expenses when only their tax rate in return is coming back? This is akin to someone with the cash saying they don't want to pay off their home because the 'need' the tax deduction! :D


Of course, given his sales are 1 Million plus, he/she will fall in to the new administration's 125% tax bracket in future years so there would be potential for a 25% savings. That'd be if the new administration didn't begin phase out of all business deductions once a company hits $17,500 of gross income! BWA-HA-HA that should start a fight there! :D


Michael

Brock And Associates (talk|edits) said:

22 April 2009
p.s. regarding the S corporation formation....


Just note that while not a bad idea, the owner better make very good and sure he/she comes up with a reasonable salary that the IRS will buy. Even during the Bush administration, S corporation reclassifications were taking up a lot of the IRS's time. I would imagine that the tax everything that moves perspective of the obama administration and the feeling that only 'rich' people use S corporations to avoid SECA taxes, that will increase.


I would think--no verification of this--that transitioning a successful business from a SMLLC to S Corporation would just scream AUDIT ME! RECLASSIFY ME! CASTRATE ME! :D I would also think that a business owner with a history of being taxed on a very large income is going to have a tough time satisfying the IRS that $50,000 or even $100,000 or even $250,000 is a reasonable income. Remember reasonable in this case is the IRS's reasonable not ours.


Be careful of this option and be sure it is bulletproof.


Michael

Lalva (talk|edits) said:

22 April 2009
Brock,

I don't see anything wrong with incorporating. I think I would go for it (if I hit the $1 million mark). I am very cautious, and I don't see a big red flag here.

Blrgcpa (talk|edits) said:

22 April 2009
Why not rent office space instead of purchasing it? The rent is deductible.

Try that first to see if it works out for the client before purchasing real estate.

Brock And Associates (talk|edits) said:

22 April 2009
Lalva,


No, I wasn't saying incorporating was wrong...just that it would raise eyebrows in the IRS. Maybe an audit and maybe not.


Let's say this million dollar man/woman flows through $750,000 in net income from schedule C for a couple of years and pays SECA on that amount. Then, let's say that same taxpayer suddenly incorporates as an S Corporation and flows through the same $750,000 but only pays SECA on $500,000 of the $750,000 because he/she pays themself a $250,000 salary. While there is nothing technically wrong with that, the IRS may raise an eyebrow and take a look.


I read an article pre-election that the IRS was devoting a significant percentage of its workforce to challenge S Corporations salary allocations. Why? Because dollar for dollar, this happens to be one of the more abused tax shelters and a great place to raise tax revenue, interest, and penalties. Just like the police that hide in bushes who are only concerned with safety, the IRS is only concerned with compliance--not the tax revenue resulting from it! You have plumbers who would otherwise make $75,000 as an employee paying himself $20,000 and taking the rest as a distribution. I would imagine that post-election, with the war on the 'rich', audits and reclassification will only get worse.


I see a lot of software consultants who are doing well using S Corporations and they usually win. That's because there are any number of a thousand places where an owner can show what they would make in salary based on the going rate. Other professions are not so easy to peg and as always the IRS has the last word unless the taxpayer has the funds and energy to take it to tax court.


Michael

Lalva (talk|edits) said:

22 April 2009
Yes, Brock, your reasoning is very logical. But there are a lot of people that don't incorporate because of the cost and the complexity, and they start as an LLC just because it's cheaper and easier to maintain. When the company starts making money they explore other options. Incorporating makes a lot of sense for liability reasons, and to raise capital, among others.

Brock And Associates (talk|edits) said:

22 April 2009
Agreed and all valid points.


Michael

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

22 April 2009
The FICA savings in Michael's example are almost finite: 2.9% of 250K or $7,250 [actually it is slightly less since the 750K profit is multiplied first by .9235 but you get the idea. Reductions to the savings come from Franchise taxes, depending on the state, unemployment taxes which are usually very small, possible workmen's comp insurance [mandatory for all in my state but not in others], ongoing accounting fees to do four returns and not two. It might seem doubtful that these costs could wipe out the FICA saving, but depending on the state, franchise tax might do that. Examine an S Corp in PA with five years of book income averaging 250K a year and you will find a hefty franchise tax, but of course, that tax is a corporate deduction whereas SECA is only 50% deductible and then not as a business expense.

Lots to chew on here.

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

22 April 2009
I am fascinated by this "internet marketing". I don't know exactly what it is, but I know it must be huge. I can count on one hand how many times I've clicked on some suggested "site", "deal" or whatever.

Nor do I often fall prey to much of the palaver that the search engines serve up now.

But, it obviously pays.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

22 April 2009
Maybe he represents Spamford Wallace's sister?

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

22 April 2009
there is also a modicum of liability limitation via the corporate route, but since we are (mostly) not attorneys, some may think it improper to mention, lest we be charged with practicing law without a license.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

22 April 2009
which I don't do any more


(nor any less)

Brock And Associates (talk|edits) said:

23 April 2009
Death and taxes, you will especially like this one.


When I first started I found a self-employed plumber that was just about this smart <->. He worked for a plumbing company but wanted to start an S corp plumbing business of his own. Being hungry and this my first nibble, I learned everything I could in anticipation of that meeting. Drove over on a SUNDAY no less to meet him and the wife.


The wife was a shrill, no better word for it. Not nice. Not happy that husband had brought someone in to talk. Just not happy.


I learned more about their situation....he wanted to create an S corp for a part-time after hours business he started for supplemental income. The anticipated yearly REVENUE was $5,000 or so. After expenses, maybe $2K. I almost laughed until I realized they were not kidding. I went over the problems (no FICA savings because it would ALL be considered salary), additional costs to incorporate, increased IRS filings, corporate meeting, additional returns, etc. You could see the light go on in the dude's head but the wife just seemed to get madder. Finally the guy almost ended up yelling at the wife that this was going to cost them a fortune! :D


I just told them all the reasons and I told the guy "good luck" as I glanced at the wife, smiled and was off.


What a complete doofus. I bet that if he incorporated, he spent every bit of his net income in S corp costs.


Michael

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

23 April 2009
Good story, Michael! I'm surprised your man didn't propose 'leasing a car in the company name so he could write it all off' or other of those 'strategies.'

By the way, that Franchise tax 'trap' can infect MMLLCs in Pennsylvania too unless profits are drained by guaranteed salaries. And then there can be local taxes that suddenly take savings into deficits.

To join in on this discussion, you must first log in.