PROPOSED IRS REGULATIONS WOULD DENY FULL FEDERAL INCOME TAX DEDUCTION FOR STATE TAX CREDIT DONATIONS
This is an outgrowth of the uproar over the limit placed on the deductibility of state and local taxes by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. I wrote about it here and here.
As a result of the limit on deductibility of state and local taxes, some states adopted changes to their tax codes to treat state and local tax payments as charitable contributions, in order to preserve the deductibility of those payments on taxpayers’ federal income tax returns.
The IRS has now responded by proposing regulations that will limit or disallow entirely deductions for payments for which the taxpayer receives a state or local tax credit.
The IRS news release is here.
Of course, this change isn’t going to affect just the deductibility of stat and local tax payments. It’s also going to affect state tax credit donations to actual charities. In other words, it will mean that my tax credit donation to the food bank won’t be a deductible donation on my federal tax return anymore.
Thanks a lot, high tax states (they’re the ones who were so insistent on preserving federal deductibility for the high taxes their residents pay).
One of the most commonly used vehicles for non-testamentary estate planning (that’s a term I just made up) is the revocable (“living”) trust. Non-testamentary estate planning refers to any estate planning method that doesn’t rely on a will. Perhaps a better term (one that I didn’t make up) is non-probate estate planning. That includes any method of transferring assets owned by a deceased individual outside of an estate administration (that’s what’s commonly referred to as “probate”).
The revocable trust is widely used as a vehicle for non-probate estate planning, but it doesn’t actually allow you to avoid probate unless it’s “funded.” What is “funding” a trust? And what are some other ways to leave things to people without using a will, or in other words, what are some other methods of non-testamentary estate planning? Find out by reading my Estate Planning Law Report for August, 2018, now available for your enjoyment, and hopefully edification, in the publications section of deconcinimcdonald.com. It’s also linked on the home page.
If you are interested in how businesses work, then you should be interested in how corporations work (no, that's not redundant).
On the subject of how corporations work, I have read several articles about Senator Warren’s proposed Accountable Capitalism Act. I think the best commentary I have read is the series by Professor Bainbridge, in which he explains several measures by which this proposed legislation would (1) radically change, and (2) profoundly harm, large American corporations. Highly recommended.
Q (by some Congresscritters, apparently): “Can fake news be regulated?”
A (me): No. Next question?
A superficial treatment is better than none at all, but an article I read on Fox Business really didn’t tell me much of any substance, even though it was loaded with quotes from authoritative-sounding lawyers.
Oh, the subject was valuation discounts for family limited partnership interests. Apparently, the IRS has proposed new regulations that would narrow the circumstances in which the IRS will allow those discounts to be applied.
Those valuation discounts are, as the Fox Business article indicates, a method to reduce the value of, and hence the estate tax on the transfer of, family limited partnership interests when an owner dies. It’s not a new idea.
If you’re not a baseball fan, then skip this. If you are a baseball fan, read the blog post at this link and realize that the day is coming when the rules of baseball will be just as contrived as the rules for every other sport. A team gets to have a runner on second base to start an inning, just because the game is in extra innings? Why not just have a shootout if the game is tied at the end of regulation play, like in soccer?
My Dad used to say that the rules of football have gotten to the point that you have to be a Philadelphia lawyer to be a football referee. That's what I'm talking about.
All you have to do is read this blog to know that under the First Amendment, the government cannot prohibit the exhibition of Nazi symbols. It’s really pretty simple, and well settled law. So it’s inexplicable to me why a New York TV station would think that they have to go to “experts” to say that someone flying a Nazi flag “is protected because the flag is on private property.” Maybe it’s not that inexplicable, however, in light of the fact that, according to the same item, “More than 400 people have signed a petition asking town officials to do something about the Nazi flag.” What do they think the town officials can do about it? Order the person displaying it to take it down because it’s offensive? Tell that to Supreme Court, who just last year said that the government couldn’t prevent The Slants from trademarking their name, even though many people find the name offensive.
RANDOM THOUGHTS ON THE SUGGESTION BY THE MAYOR OF LANCASTER THAT HIS TOWN PROHIBIT EMPLOYERS FROM REQUIRING MALE EMPLOYEES TO WEAR TIES
Mind your own business.
Don’t you have anything better to do?
I doubt there are many businesses in Lancaster that require male employees to wear ties.
I’m probably playing into this mayor’s hands with this post, because he's getting attention.
He managed to get the Los Angeles Times to not only publish a story about this lame idea, but even publish his photo with it.
He’s not just a lawyer, he’s “well-known litigator.”
The contents of this blog, this web site, and any writings by me that are linked here, are all my personal commentary. None of it is intended to be legal advice for your situation.