Can you deduct business travel when it’s combined with a vacation?

At this time of year, a summer vacation is on many people’s minds. If you travel for business, combining a business trip with a vacation to offset some of the cost with a tax deduction can sound appealing. But tread carefully, or you might not be eligible for the deduction you’re expecting.

General rules

Business travel expenses are potentially deductible if the travel is within the United States and the expenses are “ordinary and necessary” and directly related to the business. (Foreign travel expenses may also be deductible, but stricter rules apply than are discussed here.)

Currently, business owners and the self-employed are potentially eligible to deduct business travel expenses. Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, employees can no longer deduct such expenses. The potential deductions discussed below assume that you’re a business owner or self-employed.

Business vs. pleasure

Transportation costs to and from the location of your business activity may be 100% deductible if the primary reason for the trip is business rather than pleasure. But if vacation is the primary reason for your travel, generally none of those costs are deductible.

The number of days spent on business vs. pleasure is the key factor in determining whether the primary reason for domestic travel is business:

• Your travel days count as business days, as do weekends and holidays — if they fall between days devoted to business and it would be impractical to return home.

• Standby days (days when your physical presence is required) also count as business days, even if you aren’t called upon to work those days.

• Any other day principally devoted to business activities during normal business hours also counts as a business day.

You should be able to claim business was the primary reason for a domestic trip if business days exceed personal days.

Deductible expenses

What transportation costs can you deduct? Travel to and from your departure airport, airfare, baggage fees, tips, cabs, etc. Costs for rail travel or driving your personal car are also eligible.

Once at the destination, your out-of-pocket expenses for business days are fully deductible. Examples of these expenses include lodging, meals (subject to the 50% disallowance rule), seminar and convention fees, and cab fare. Expenses for personal days aren’t deductible.

Keep in mind that only expenses for yourself are deductible. You can’t deduct expenses for family members traveling with you — unless they’re employees of your business and traveling for a bona fide business purpose.

Substantiation is critical

Be sure to accumulate proof of the business nature of your trip and keep it with your tax records. For example, if your trip is made to attend client meetings, log everything on your daily planner and copy the pages for your tax file. If you attend a convention or seminar, keep the program and take notes to show you attended the sessions. You also must properly substantiate all of the expenses you’re deducting.

Additional rules and limits apply to the travel expense deduction. Please contact us if you have questions.

© 2018

The new tax law will change divorce tactics

When couples divorce, financial negotiations often involve alimony. The tax rules regarding alimony were dramatically changed by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017, but existing agreements have been grandfathered. In addition, the old rules remain in effect for divorce and separation agreements executed during 2018. Next year, the rules will change, and the roles will be reversed.

Under divorce or separation agreements executed in 2018, and for many years in the past, alimony payments have been tax deductible. Moreover, these deductions reduce adjusted gross income, so they may have benefits elsewhere on a tax return. While the spouse or former spouse paying the alimony gets a tax deduction, the recipient reports alimony as taxable income.

Shifting into reverse

Beginning with agreements executed in 2019, there will be no tax deduction for alimony. As an offset, alimony recipients won’t include the payments in income.

Example 1: Joe and Kim Alexander get divorced in 2018. Joe expects to be in a 35% tax bracket in the future, whereas Kim anticipates being in a 22% bracket. Suppose that the proposed agreement has Joe paying $3,500 a month ($42,000 a year) in alimony.

Joe will save $14,700 in tax (35% times $42,000), but Kim will owe $9,240 (22% times $42,000). Net, the couple will save over $5,000 per year in taxes. This type of calculation will affect the negotiations, as it has in the past. Assuming the relevant rules are followed, it may make sense to tip the agreement toward Joe paying alimony to Kim, perhaps in return for other considerations.

Example 2: Assume that the Alexanders’ neighbors, Len and Marie Baker, have identical finances. They divorce in 2019. If Len pays $42,000 a year in alimony, he will get no deduction and won’t get the $14,700 in annual tax savings that Joe did in example 1. Marie, on the other hand, will pocket $42,000, tax-free, without the $9,240 tax bill faced by Kim in example 1.
    
Moving things along

Just as people shouldn’t “let the tax tail wag the investment dog,” so taxes shouldn’t dominate divorce or separation proceedings. However, it’s also true that taxes shouldn’t be ignored. If you are in such a situation, our office can help explain to both parties the possible savings available from executing an agreement during 2018, rather than in a future year.

The new rules will be in effect beginning in 2019. With no alimony deduction and a tax exemption for alimony income, it may be desirable to consider after-tax, rather than pre-tax, income when making decisions. Speaking very generally, there may be less cash for the couple to use after-tax.

Keep in mind that, as of 2019, not all states will have alimony tax laws that conform to the new federal rule. Your state may still offer tax deductions for alimony payments and impose income tax on alimony received. That’s all the more reason to look at after-tax results when calculating a divorce or separation agreement.

Getting personal

The impact of the new TCJA on spousal negotiations may go beyond the taxation of alimony. Among other provisions to consider, the TCJA abolishes personal exemptions. As a tradeoff, the standard deduction was almost doubled (see CPA Client Bulletin, April 2018). 

In some past instances, divorcing spouses would agree that the high bracket party would claim the children’s personal exemptions, which effectively were tax deductions, in return for some other consideration. Now those exemptions don’t exist, so they shouldn’t be part of divorce negotiations. If you previously entered into an agreement that included the treatment of children’s personal exemptions, you may want to consult with counsel to see about possible revisions.

Trusted advice

Defining alimony

Payments to a spouse or former spouse must meet several requirements to be treated as alimony for tax purposes. The following are some key tests:

• The payments are made under a divorce or separation agreement.

• There is no liability to continue the payments after the recipient’s death.

• The payments aren’t treated as child support or a property settlement.

• The payments are made in cash (including checks or money orders).

TCJA changes to employee benefits tax breaks: 4 negatives and a positive

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) includes many changes that affect tax breaks for employee benefits. Among the changes are four negatives and one positive that will impact not only employees but also the businesses providing the benefits.

4 breaks curtailed

Beginning with the 2018 tax year, the TCJA reduces or eliminates tax breaks in the following areas:

1. Transportation benefits. The TCJA eliminates business deductions for the cost of providing qualified employee transportation fringe benefits, such as parking allowances, mass transit passes and van pooling. (These benefits are still tax-free to recipient employees.) It also disallows business deductions for the cost of providing commuting transportation to an employee (such as hiring a car service), unless the transportation is necessary for the employee’s safety. And it suspends through 2025 the tax-free benefit of up to $20 a month for bicycle commuting.

2. On-premises meals. The TCJA reduces to 50% a business’s deduction for providing certain meals to employees on the business premises, such as when employees work late or if served in a company cafeteria. (The deduction is scheduled for elimination in 2025.) For employees, the value of these benefits continues to be tax-free.

3. Moving expense reimbursements. The TCJA suspends through 2025 the exclusion from employees’ taxable income of a business’s reimbursements of employees’ qualified moving expenses. However, businesses generally will still be able to deduct such reimbursements.

4. Achievement awards. The TCJA eliminates the business tax deduction and corresponding employee tax exclusion for employee achievement awards that are provided in the form of cash, gift coupons or certificates, vacations, meals, lodging, tickets to sporting or theater events, securities and “other similar items.” However, the tax breaks are still available for gift certificates that allow the recipient to select tangible property from a limited range of items preselected by the employer. The deduction/exclusion limits remain at up to $400 of the value of achievement awards for length of service or safety and $1,600 for awards under a written nondiscriminatory achievement plan.

1 new break

For 2018 and 2019, the TCJA creates a tax credit for wages paid to qualifying employees on family and medical leave. To qualify, a business must offer at least two weeks of annual paid family and medical leave, as described by the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), to qualified employees. The paid leave must provide at least 50% of the employee’s wages. Leave required by state or local law or that was already part of the business’s employee benefits program generally doesn’t qualify.

The credit equals a minimum of 12.5% of the amount of wages paid during a leave period. The credit is increased gradually for payments above 50% of wages paid and tops out at 25%. No double-dipping: Employers can’t also deduct wages claimed for the credit.

More rules, limits and changes

Keep in mind that additional rules and limits apply to these breaks, and that the TCJA makes additional changes affecting employee benefits. Contact us for more details.

© 2018

Home Equity Hassle

A key component of the TCJA is the expansion of the standard deduction. The numbers for 2018 are $24,000 (married couples filing jointly), $18,000 (heads of household), and $12,000 (all others). These amounts are almost double the respective standard deductions in 2017. However, personal exemptions were eliminated.

As a give-and-take, the new tax law trims some itemized deductions. Taxpayers can either itemize or use the standard deduction, so some shift to the standard deduction is likely.

Down with debt deductions

Among the trimmed itemized deductions are those for mortgage interest. The new law caps deductions to interest on $750,000 worth of debt used to buy, build, or substantially improve a main or second home. For loans incurred before December 15, 2017, the old rules remain in place, so interest on up to $1 million of such debt is still deductible.

These rule changes affect only newer home loans in the $750,000–$1 million range. Of broader impact, interest on home equity loans or lines of credit are no longer deductible (unless the proceeds of these loans are used to purchase or improve the home that secures the loan). Previously, interest on home equity debt up to $100,000 generally could be deducted. (All of these home loan interest tax changes are scheduled to end after 2025, reverting to 2017 law.)

Therefore, home equity debt now looks like many other types of loans: the interest is nondeductible. Should you keep the one you have? That depends on your situation. If you wish to reduce your debt load, paying down home equity debt has become more attractive. Prepaying a nondeductible loan at, say, 5% is the equivalent of earning 5% on your money, after tax, with no market risk.

Another option is to update your existing home debt. A so-called cash out refinance might provide you with spending money, although the full interest deduction may not be available. Our office can help you crunch the numbers to see if the expense involved would make it worthwhile, and how it will impact the after-tax cost of residence related debt.

Yet another alternative is to use a personal loan to pay off the home equity debt. An unsecured personal loan might be preferable to a loan or line of credit that places your home at risk.

Are State and Local Taxes Reasons for Relocation?

As many people are all too aware, some states and localities impose higher income and property taxes than others. Residents of high tax areas may have taken some solace by itemizing deductions on their tax returns and reducing federal income tax obligations by deducting the taxes paid.     

Example: Jennifer Knight deducted $25,000 worth of state income tax and local property tax on her 2017 tax return. Assuming Jennifer was in a 25% tax bracket, she reduced her net outlay for those taxes with $6,250 in tax savings (her 25% tax rate times the $25,000 tax deductions).     In this scenario, Jennifer’s actual tax cost was $18,750, not $25,000, because she cut her federal tax bill by $6,250.

New rules

Under the TCJA, there is still an itemized deduction for taxes paid, but it is now capped at $10,000 a year, starting in 2018. Some people refer to this as the SALT deduction for state and local taxes. It mainly covers property and income taxes, although taxpayers can choose to include sales tax instead of income tax towards the $10,000 cap. (The $10,000 limit is the same for single filers and couples filing jointly, so there is a true “marriage penalty” here.)     

As might be expected, taxpayers and politicians in high tax states and localities have loudly protested the cutback in the deduction for taxes paid. Is this the final straw? The added burden that will drive people to move to areas where income and property tax (and perhaps estate tax) are less of a burden?     

Relocation may make sense, but such a decision should be made with care. Calculate how much extra you’ll be paying in tax now, considering the loss of the taxes paid deduction and all the other features of the TCJA. Don’t forget to include the alternative minimum tax (AMT), which still impacts many individuals. People who owe the AMT get no tax benefit from deducting state or local taxes. Our office can help with this computation.     

Then, find out how much you’d owe after a move to a different area. Include income taxes and, assuming you’ll be a homeowner, likely property tax. Find out if sales tax will be meaningful in the new area. Determine the state’s estate tax exemption and estate tax rates, if you expect to leave assets to loved ones.     

Typically, you’ll discover that relocating is a puzzle with many different parts of varying sizes. Effectively paying more in state and local tax under the TCJA may be a key piece of that puzzle, but it’s just one thing to consider before calling the movers.

Regard Roth Conversions Carefully

The article “Rethinking retirement contributions” explains why the new TCJA devalues putting money into traditional tax-deferred plans and favors Roth versions. Does the same reasoning apply to conversions from Roth to traditional accounts? From a tax viewpoint, the answer may be yes, but other factors indicate you should be cautious about such moves.

Example 1: Fred and Glenda Polk would have had $220,000 in taxable income in 2017 without contributing to their employers’ traditional 401(k) plans. However, they contributed a total of $40,000 to the plan, bringing their income down to $180,000. The couple was in the 28% bracket last year, so the income deferral saved a total of $11,200 in tax: 28% times $40,000.

Assume they kept their $11,200 of tax savings in the bank. If their employers have a 401(k) plan that offers designated Roth accounts, they could convert the $40,000 they contributed in 2017 to the Roth side if the plans allow such moves. Alternatively, depending on the plan terms and the Polks’ circumstances, they might be able to rollover the $40,000 to a Roth IRA. Yet another possibility, the Polks might leave the $40,000 in their 401(k)s but convert $40,000 of pretax money in their traditional IRAs to Roth IRAs.

With any of these strategies, the couple would generate a $9,600 tax bill (24% of $40,000) on the Roth conversion, because their joint income falls into the 24% tax bracket in 2018, in this example. The Polks could pay that $9,600 from their $11,200 of tax savings in 2017 and wind up ahead by $1,600.

Therefore, people who move into a lower tax bracket this year might be able to come out ahead with Roth conversions of income that had been deferred at a higher tax rate. Going forward, the money transferred to the Roth side may generate tax free rather than taxable distributions.

One-way street

Nevertheless, there are reasons to be cautious about Roth conversions now. For instance, U.S. stocks are trading at lofty levels. Roth conversions could be highly taxed at today’s equity values.

Example 2: Heidi Morris has $300,000 in her traditional IRA, all of which is pre-tax. Investing heavily in stocks, Heidi has seen her contributions grow sharply over the years. With an estimated $100,000 in taxable income this year, Heidi calculates she can convert $50,000 of her traditional IRA to a Roth IRA in 2018 and still remain in the 24% tax bracket.

However, stocks could fall heavily, as they have in previous bear markets. The $50,000 that Heidi moves to a Roth IRA could drop to $40,000, $30,000, or even $25,000. Heidi would not want to owe tax on a $50,000 Roth conversion if she holds only $25,000 worth of assets in the account.

Under previous law, Heidi had a hedge against such pullbacks, at least for Roth IRA conversions. These conversions could be recharacterized (reversed) to her traditional IRA, in part or in full, until October 15 of the following calendar year. In our example, Heidi could have recharacterized after a market setback, avoided a tax bill, and subsequently re-converted at the lower value. (Timing restrictions applied.)

Such tactics are no longer possible because the TCJA has abolished recharacterizations of Roth IRA conversions. (Conversions to employer-sponsored Roth accounts could never be recharacterized.) Now moving pre-tax money to the Roth side is permanent, so the resulting tax bill is locked in.

In the new environment, it may make sense to take it slowly on Roth conversions in 2018. If stocks rise, boosting the value of your traditional retirement accounts that hold equities, you won’t be sorry about the increase in your net worth; you can convert late in the year at today’s lower tax rate. On the other hand, if periodic corrections occur, they could be an opportunity for executing a Roth conversion at a lower value and a lower tax cost.

Rethinking Retirement Contributions

The TCJA generally lowered federal income tax rates, with some exceptions. Among the ways in which lower rates impact tax planning, they make unmatched contributions to traditional employer retirement plans less attractive.

Example 1: Chet Taylor has around $100,000 in taxable income a year. Chet contributed $12,000 to his company’s traditional 401(k) in 2017, reducing his taxable income. He was in the 28% tax bracket last year, so his federal tax savings were $3,360 (28% of $12,000). An identical contribution this year will save Chet only $2,880, because the same income would put him in a lower 24% bracket. Not everyone will be in this situation.

Example 2: Denise Sawyer has around $200,000 taxable income a year. Denise contributed $12,000 to her company’s traditional 401(k) in 2017, reducing her taxable income. She was in the 33% tax bracket last year, so her federal tax savings were $3,960 (33% of $12,000). An identical contribution this year will save her $4,200 because the same income would put her in a higher 35% bracket.

Planning pointers

Considering the changes in tax rates, participants in employer sponsored retirement plans should review their contribution plans. If your company offers a match, be sure to contribute at least enough to get the full amount. Otherwise, you’re giving up a portion of your compensation package.

Beyond that level, decide whether you wish to make unmatched tax-deferred contributions to your traditional 401(k) or similar plans. The value here is tax deferral and the ability to compound potential investment earnings without paying current income tax. Deferring tax at, say, 12%, 22%, or 24% in 2018 will be less desirable than similar deferrals were last year, when tax rates were 15%, 25%, or 28%.

On the Roth Side

If you decide to cut back on tax-deferred salary contributions, spending the increased current income won’t help you plan for your future retirement. Other savings tactics may be appealing.

For instance, your employer might offer a designated Roth account in its 401(k) plan. These accounts offer no upfront tax benefit because they’re funded with after-tax dollars. The advantage is all withdrawals, including distributions of investment income, will avoid income tax after age 59½, if you have had the Roth account for at least five years. (Other conditions can also qualify distributions from a Roth account for full tax avoidance.)

Generally, the lower your current tax bracket and the higher your expected tax bracket in retirement, the more attractive Roth contributions can be.

Example 3: Ed Roberts, age 30, expects his taxable income (after deductions) to be around $50,000 this year, putting him in the 22% tax bracket. Ed hopes to have a successful career, so he might face a higher tax rate on distributions in the future. Therefore, Ed contributes $6,000 ($500 a month) to his company’s traditional 401(k) to get some current tax relief, and $6,000 to the Roth 401(k) for tax free distributions after age 59½.

Some advisers suggest going into retirement with funds in a regular taxable account, funds in a tax-deferred traditional retirement account, and funds in a potentially tax-free Roth account. Then, you may have considerable flexibility in choosing tax-efficient ways to draw down retirement cash flow.

Other Options

What if Ed’s employer’s 401(k) plan does not offer designated Roth accounts? A possible solution for Ed would be to contribute to a Roth IRA instead. In 2018, he can contribute up to $5,500 ($6,500 for those 50 and older). Roth IRAs also offer completely tax-free distributions after five years and age 59½.

Example 4: Assume that Ed’s employer will match up to $4,500 of his 401(k) this year and that Ed plans to save $12,000 for his retirement. Ed could contribute $5,500 to a Roth IRA and $6,500 to his traditional 401(k).

With higher incomes ($120,000 or more of modified adjusted gross income for single filers in 2018, $189,000 for couples filing jointly), Roth IRA contributions are limited or prohibited. People facing this barrier may able to fund a nondeductible traditional IRA, up to $5,500 or $6,500 this year, then convert those dollars to a Roth IRA with little or no tax at this year’s tax rates. (IRA contributions for 2017, with slightly different income limits, are possible until April 17, 2018.)

Ultimately, the choice between traditional and Roth retirement accounts will largely depend on expectations of future tax rates. Deferring tax in a traditional plan this year and saving 24% in tax may not turn out to be a good deal if future withdrawals are taxed at 28%, 30%, or 35%. The fact that the TCJA rates are among the Act’s provisions that are due to sunset in 2026, reverting to 2017 rates, may tilt the scales a bit towards the Roth side, where distributions eventually may escape tax altogether.

Trusted Advice

Retirement rules

• Participants in 401(k) and similar employer sponsored retirement plans can contribute up to $18,500 this year, or $24,500 if they’ve reached age 50.

• If your company’s 401(k) plan offers a designated Roth account, contributions to the plan can be divided in any manner you choose between a pre-tax account and a designated Roth account, but the total can’t exceed the $18,500 or $24,500 ceilings.

• Any employer match usually goes into the traditional 401(k), even if the contribution is to the Roth version, so income tax on the matching money is deferred.

Two Five-Year Tests for Roth IRAs

The pros and cons of Roth IRAs, which were introduced 20 years ago, are well understood. All money flowing into Roth IRAs is after-tax, so there is no upfront tax benefit.

As a tradeoff, all qualified Roth IRA distributions can be tax-free, including the parts of the distributions that are payouts of investment earnings.

To be a qualified distribution, the distribution must meet two basic requirements. First, the distribution must be made on or after the date the account owner reaches age 59½, be made because the account owner is disabled, be made to a beneficiary or to the account owner’s estate after his or her death, or be used to buy or rebuild a first home.

Second, the distribution must be made after the five-year period beginning with the first tax year for which a contribution was made to a Roth IRA set up for the owner’s benefit.

Note that the calculation of a Roth IRA’s five-year period is very generous. It always begins on January 1 of the calendar year.

Example 1: Heidi Walker, age 58, opens her first Roth IRA and makes a contribution to it on March 29, 2018. Heidi designates this as a contribution for 2017, which can be made until April 17, 2018.

Under the five-year rule, Heidi’s five-year period starts on January 1, 2017. As of January 1, 2022, Heidi’s Roth IRA distributions are tax-free, qualified distributions because they will have been made after she turned 59½ and after the five-year period has ended. The five-year period is determined based on the first contribution to the Roth IRA; the starting date of the five-year period is not reset for the subsequent contributions.

Note that if Heidi opens her first Roth IRA late in 2018, even in December, the first contribution will be a 2018 Roth IRA contribution and Heidi will reach the five-year mark on January 1, 2023.

Conversion factors

Other than making regular contributions, Roth IRAs may be funded by converting a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA and paying tax on any pre-tax dollars moved to the Roth side. For such conversions, a separate five-year rule applies. There generally is a five-year waiting period before a Roth IRA owner who is under age 59½ can withdraw the dollars contributed to the Roth IRA in the conversion that were includible in income in the conversion, without owing a 10% early withdrawal penalty.

Similar to the five-year rule for qualified distributions, the five-year period for conversions begins on the first day of the year of the conversion. However, unlike the five-year rule for qualified distributions, the five-year rule for conversions applies separately to each Roth IRA conversion.

Example 2: In 2018, Jim Bradley, age 41, leaves his job and rolls $60,000 from his 401(k) account to a traditional IRA, maintaining the tax deferral. If Jim decides to withdraw $20,000 next year, at age 42, he would owe income tax on that $20,000 plus a 10% ($2,000) penalty for an early withdrawal.

Instead, in 2019, Jim converts $20,000 from his traditional IRA to a Roth IRA and includes the entire amount converted in income. However, if Jim withdraws that $20,000 in 2019, he also will owe the 10% penalty because he does not meet the five-year rule for conversions; the rationale is that the IRS doesn’t want people to avoid the early withdrawal penalty on traditional IRA distributions by making a Roth conversion.

The good news is that, in this example, Jim will have started the five-year clock with his 2019 Roth IRA conversion. Therefore, he can avoid the 10% early withdrawal penalty on the conversion contribution after January 1, 2024, even though he will only be age 47 then. Jim will owe income tax on any withdrawn earnings, though, until he reaches age 59½ or he meets one of the other qualified distribution criteria.

Note that various exceptions may allow Jim to avoid the 10% penalty before the end of the five-year period. Altogether, the taxation of any Roth IRA distributions made before five years have passed and before age 59½ can be complex. If you have a Roth IRA, our office can explain the likely tax consequences of any distribution you are considering. Generally, it is better to wait until the age 59½ and five-year tests are passed before making Roth IRA withdrawals, to avoid taxes.

Trusted Advice

Roth IRA Distributions

• Roth IRA distributions after age 59½ (and five years after you set up and make a contribution to your first Roth IRA) qualify for complete tax-free treatment.

• Distributions that do not qualify for this tax-free treatment may be subject to income tax, a 10% early withdrawal penalty, or both.

• Ordering rules apply to non-qualified distributions.

• First come regular contributions, rollover contributions from other Roth IRAs, and rollover contributions from a designated Roth account.

• Next come conversion contributions, on a first-in, first-out basis. The taxable portion comes before the nontaxable portion.

• Earnings on contributions are the last dollars to come out.