IRS Tax Update: Filing Deadlines Extended to February 15, 2023 for Hurricane Ian Victims
Oct 04, 2022
On September 29th, the IRS announced Hurricane Ian victims in the state of Florida will now have until February 15th, 2023, to file various federal returns.
The tax relief measure applies to businesses and individuals operating and residing in areas designated to receive disaster relief from FEMA. Those eligible must also have had a filing deadline of September 23rd, 2022, or later. In other words, any business or individual in the state of Florida that filed to extend their 2021 federal tax returns out to October 17th, 2022, will now have until February 15th, 2023, to file any returns or taxes.
For businesses, the extension relief will also apply to quarterly payroll and excise tax returns normally due on October 31, 2022, and January 31, 2023. For individuals, the tax relief applies to any quarterly estimated income tax payments due on January 17, 2023. Additionally, penalties on payroll and excise tax deposits due on or after September 23, 2022, and before October 10, 2022, will be abated as long as the deposits are made by October 10, 2022.
The IRS will automatically apply this relief measure to taxpayers with a record of address in the disaster area, meaning there is no need to contact the agency directly. However, if an affected taxpayer receives a late filing or payment notice (that had an original or extended filing, payment, or deposit due date falling within the postponement period,) the taxpayer should call the number listed on the notice as soon as possible to abate the penalty.
For more information on the tax relief measure or to see if you qualify, contact your trusted team of tax professionals at William Vaughan Company as we continue to monitor IRS updates and the situation in Florida.
Connect with us.
Categories: Other Resources, Tax Compliance, Tax Planning
Bonus Depreciation Phase-Out
May 24, 2022
Properly qualifying assets for bonus depreciation can have a significant impact on a business’s bottom line. If an asset qualifies as long-term business property under tax rules, bonus depreciation may allow a business owner to deduct the entire cost of that asset in the year of acquisition.
This will be the last year for 100% bonus depreciation as enacted by Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). Starting in 2023, bonus depreciation is scheduled to drop to 80% and will continue to drop by 20% each year thereafter until finally there will be no bonus depreciation starting in 2027.
Prior to the enacting of bonus depreciation, the premier tool for businesses to expense asset purchases was Section 179. Section 179 is still scheduled to be fully available and the current amount of Section 179 deduction allowed is $1,080,000 and the phase-out of the deduction starts once you place eligible assets into service of $2,700,000 and no Section 179 deduction is allowed after $3,780,000 of assets placed in service for that year. Unlike bonus depreciation, Section 179 deductions are only allowed to the extent of taxable income.
Although tax incentives like Section 179 and bonus depreciation can be beneficial, these provisions should only be used in situations that make long-term financial sense for your operation. It is important to always consider your tax circumstances and cash-flow requirements when using these tools. Connect with your William Vaughan Company advisor with additional questions.
Connect With Us.
wvco.com
Categories: Tax Compliance, Tax Planning
Ohio’s Municipal Withholding Dilemma – Take 3
Dec 30, 2021
Hybrid work arrangements significantly impact municipal income tax withholding requirements and raise other municipal tax issues.
With the start of the new year just around the corner, the “pre-pandemic” law for Ohio municipal income tax withholding will soon return.
Applicable to periods beginning on or after 1/1/2022, if an employee works a hybrid schedule by spending some days working at home and other days working at the office, employers will once again be required to withhold municipal tax based on where the employee’s work is actually performed. For many employers, this may trigger withholding for employees’ home municipalities that the employer may never have been required to do before. Additionally troubling is the requirement for businesses to allocate such wages, and potentially apportion some gross receipts (sales) as well, to these home municipalities for purposes of the net profits (income) tax, subjecting the company to income tax reporting in each of their employees’ home municipalities.
As we recommended in our July blog, to ease the complexities of tracking actual work locations for Ohio municipal withholding requirements in 2022, employers could consider having employees sign formalized, hybrid work agreements. Such agreements provide consistency, structure, and ease of record keeping. In exchange for permitting hybrid work schedules, employers might consider requiring employees to report true-up differences between actual and forecasted work on their personal municipal income tax returns and to provide proof of payment (in case the employer is audited). Noting that the hybrid work agreement will be helpful but cannot cover all municipal activity, employers could also aim to develop ways within their internal system to most easily track multi-location work performed by employees throughout the year. Employers could consider contacting municipalities to gain pre-approval of estimated or hybrid withholding approaches or enter into withholding agreement(s) with the municipalities. Consultation with legal counsel related to any employment arrangements should also be considered due to the complexity of labor laws.
If we can assist you regarding your specific facts and circumstances and in making decisions about municipal income tax compliance or if you have any questions, please contact your William Vaughan Company advisor.
Categories: Tax Compliance
The Affordable Care Act Survives Yet Another Supreme Court Challenge
Jun 22, 2021
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled once again on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) rejecting arguments that the ACA was unconstitutional under Congress’ taxing power. Last year, the Supreme Court heard testimony in California v. Texas which focused on whether the ACA’s individual mandate to maintain health insurance was beyond Congress’s powers given that it no longer raises tax revenues and, if so, whether other parts of the law would need to be struck down along with the mandate. This case marked the third time the court had heard a significant challenge to the law.
Justice Stephen Breyer delivered the 7-2 opinion which stated the individuals that brought the lawsuit challenging the ACA’s individual mandate did not have the standing to challenge the law: “ we conclude the plaintiffs in this suit failed to show a concrete, particularized injury fairly traceable to the defendants’ conduct in enforcing the specific statutory provision they attack as unconstitutional,” wrote Breyer.
What does this mean?
The Supreme Court upheld the ACA, including its many tax provisions.
Protective claims
If you filed a protective claim in hopes the Supreme Court would rule the ACA, and its many tax provisions, retroactively unconstitutional, these protective claims are no longer valid. Protective claims are filed to preserve the taxpayer’s right to claim a refund when that right is contingent on future events and may not be determinable until after the statute of limitations expires.
If you have questions regarding your individual circumstance, please contact your William Vaughan Company representative or call our office at the number below.
Connect With Us.
wvco.com | 419.891.1040
Categories: Tax Compliance
Ohio’s Municipal Payroll Withholding Dilemma
Mar 29, 2021
The concept of remote working was quickly embraced last year as we witnessed states all across the nation implement lockdown orders as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Even here in Ohio, Governor DeWine instituted stay-at-home orders resulting in thousands of Ohio workers clocking in their 40-hour workweek from their home office. What was thought to be a several-month solution has now turned into over a year or more of remote working. The end result – a municipal income tax withholding dispute between the state, cities, and taxpayers.
Why the dispute?
During the government-imposed lockdown, Ohio lawmakers adopted a temporary law change allowing employers to keep withholding to the office location until 30 days after the Governor’s State of Emergency order ended. This was intended to relieve the burden on the employer of tracking withholdings for their employees throughout various cities and villages from which they were working remotely. Now, over a year later, some Ohio cities are interpreting the temporary law to mean municipalities can permanently retain those withholding dollars from workers who neither live nor work in their city.
What does this mean?
Several Ohio taxpayers have brought this debate to Ohio courts to determine the constitutionality of the temporary COVID-19 municipal income tax law. The court case was filed in July 2020 and is still in its early stages. (The Buckeye Institute v. City of Columbus Auditor, 20 CV 004301, Franklin County Common Pleas Court)
What should I do?
If you are an Ohio taxpayer who worked some or all of 2020 remotely, you should connect with your accounting advisor to determine if you should be filing City Non-resident Refund Claims (NRR). NRRs have always been available for individuals who have tax withheld by their employer for days they do not work in the city. Please note, if you are able to receive a refund of the tax withheld for your workplace city/village, you will likely owe that tax, or some portion of it to your residence community if that community has a tax.
Categories: COVID-19, Tax Compliance