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

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 20:28, 22 April 2009
BrockEA (Talk | contribs)

← Previous diff
Revision as of 20:29, 22 April 2009
Lalva (Talk | contribs)
(Brock, I don't)
Next diff →
Line 61: Line 61:
Michael}} Michael}}
 +
 +{{ForumReplyPost|UserID=Lalva|Date=22 April 2009|Text=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.}}

Revision as of 20:29, 22 April 2009

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.