Less Rich. Less Famous. Less Tax

Last week, we brought you a story from those party animals at the IRS Statistics of Income Division about an annual report on the 400 highest incomes in America. It turns out they're a very successful bunch — for 2009, they earned an average of $202.4 million and paid an average of $40.9 million in tax. This week, we're going to talk about a different group of taxpayers. Less rich, less famous, but maybe more successful in their own way.
Back in 1969, Treasury Secretary Joseph Barr was shocked to discover that 155 Americans had earned over $200,000 that year, yet paid nothing in tax. Zip. Zilch. Nada. ($200,000 isn't bad money now — back then, it had about the same buying power as $1.2 million today.) Washington huffed and puffed, then passed the "Alternative Minimum Tax," or AMT. In 1970, the new tax surprised 18,464 unhappy taxpayers. No one could have foreseen it growing into a complete "parallel" tax system, a many-headed Hydra that millions every year.

Fast-forward to today. With the AMT firmly in place, the IRS has just released a 61-page report revealing that in 2009, 20,752 taxpayers earned over $200,000 and paid — you guessed it — zero tax. (Aren't you glad you've got us to go through those 61-page IRS reports?) That's one out of every 189 Americans earning above that amount. And the number of nontaxable high-income returns is growing fast — five years earlier, there were just 2,833 tax-free winners.

How do they do it? The IRS identified "four categories that most frequently had the largest effect in reducing taxes":

1. Tax-exempt interest: Municipal bond interest income is exempt from federal and most state income taxes (although income from "private activity" bonds is subject to AMT). If you're paying significant tax on interest income, we can help you decide if municipal bonds can help cut your tax.
   
2. Medical and dental expenses: These are deductible to the extent they top 7.5% of your adjusted gross income (going up to 10% next year, unless the Supreme Court strikes down that part of the Affordable Care Act). Medical deductions include far more than just the obvious doctors, dentists, and prescriptions. If you suffer from arthritis, for example, you might write off the cost of a swimming pool your doctor prescribes to relieve your symptoms.
3. Charitable contributions: Charitable gifts let you do well for yourself while you do well for others. They're deductible up to 50% of your adjusted gross income. We can help you make the most of your gifts, especially noncash contributions and appreciated property.
4. Partnership and S corporation net losses: "Pass-through" entities let you report business losses on your personal return. We can help you decide if these are right for your business.

There you have it. Four ways to turn $200,000 into zero tax — and 20,752 stories to help inspire you. We're pleased that you take time to read these weekly emails. But it's not enough just to give you the news. Our real job is to help you put it to use to pay less tax yourself. And don't forget, we're here for your family, friends, and colleagues too!

Tax Returns of the Rich and Famous

America's first billionaire, John D. Rockefeller, once said that "if your only goal is to become rich, you'll never achieve it." But some of us still manage to achieve it, and the rest of us want to know how. Since 1992, the IRS Statistics of Income Division has issued an annual report examining The 400 Individual Tax Returns Reporting the Largest Adjusted Gross Incomes. I know what you're thinking — the IRS "Statistics of Income" division is where fun goes to die. But read on — there's some pretty interesting stuff buried in this year's 13-page report.

• What does it take to join the club? Well, for 2009, you had to report $77.4 million in adjusted gross income. Now, that may sound like a lot. But it's actually down from $109.7 million in 2008, and down even further from the $138.8 record high in 2007. Of course, $77.4 million just gets you in. The 400 earners averaged$202.4 million. (If that sounds like a lot, it's actually down from a staggering high of $334.8 million in 2007.)
• How do the top 400 make their money? Probably not how you imagine. Just 8.6% of it came from salaries and wages. 6.6% came from taxable interest; 13.0% came from taxable dividends; and 19.9% came from partnerships and S corporations. Once again, capital gains made up the biggest share of the top 400's income. For 2009, it was 45.8%, or $92.6 million each. In fact, the top 400 individuals reported 16% of the entire country's capital gains! However, that amount was significantly down from 2008, when the top 400 averaged $153.7 million in gains. Clearly, the 2008 economy and stock market crash took a toll on the super-rich as well as the rest of us.
• What do they actually pay? 2009's top 400 averaged $170.3 million in taxable income and paid $40.9 million in tax. That makes their average tax rate 19.9% — upfrom the 18.1% they paid in 2008. Why the higher rate? Remember, most of their income consists of capital gains, taxed at a maximum of 15%. When the percentage of their income consisting of capital gains goes down, their average rate goes up.

On average, the top 400 are a generous group. 387 of them reported charitable contributions, with the average deduction weighing in at $16.4 million. The top 400 as a whole claimed 4.0% of the nation's total charitable deductions, down from 5.2% in 2008. (You've got to wonder what goes wrong in 13 people's lives that let them earn tens or hundreds of millions of dollars without deducting a dime for charitable gifts. Maybe they just want to "give" more to Uncle Sam!)

3,869 taxpayers have appeared in the top 400 list since the IRS started tracking them in 1992. But just 27% have appeared more than once. And only 2% have appeared 10 or more times. It's worth noting that some of today's highest-profile earners fall short of this group. Billionaire Warren Buffett, who inspired the "Buffett Rule" that would tax million-dollar incomes at a minimum 30%, reported earning "just" $62.9 million in 2011. He probably won't make the cutoff. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney reported earning $20.7 million in 2010 and $20.9 million in 2011. As rich as that sounds, he's nowhere near the top 400.

We realize you may find these numbers comical. Who makes $200 million in a single year? But someday when your business catches fire and lands you in the top 400, you'll get pretty heated at the thought of paying $40 million in tax. That's when you'll be glad we gave you a proactive plan for paying less tax. Don't forget us when you make the big time!

A Big Ouch

The English novelist and playwright Henry Fielding once wrote that "a rich man without charity is a rogue; and perhaps it would be no difficult matter to prove that he is also a fool." But sometimes you can be rich, charitable, and foolish, all at the same time. And that can make for some really expensive mistakes.
Joseph Mohamed is a California real estate broker and appraiser who's made a fortune buying, selling, and developing real estate. In 1998, he and his wife Shirley set up a charitable remainder trust for the benefit of the Shriners Hospitals for Children, the Sacramento Food Bank & Family Services, and the Pacific Legal Foundation. Then, in 2003 and 2004, he donated six California properties to the trust: four adjacent street corners in Rio Linda, a 40-acre subdivided parcel south of Sacramento, and a shopping center in Elk Grove.

Mohamed prepared his own taxes for those two years — definitely not standard operating procedure for someone in his shoes. When it came time to fill out Form 8283, "Noncash Charitable Contributions", he skipped the instructions because "it seemed so clear that he didn't think he needed to." The form said the description of the donated property could be "completed by the taxpayer and/or appraiser." And Mohamed was an appraiser, right? Of course he knew what his own properties were worth. How hard could it really be? He attached statements to his returns explaining how he valued the two biggest parcels. Then he deducted $18.5 million for the gift, satisfied that he had done all he needed to substantiate his writeoff.

It turns out, though, that the IRS wants a teensy bit more than just your say-so before handing out eighteen million in benefits. In fact, they have some pretty specific rules for deducting any gift of property worth more than $5,000. You need a "qualified" appraisal, made no sooner than 60 days before the gift and no later than the due date of the return reporting the gift itself. It has to be signed by a certified appraiser — not the donor or the taxpayer claiming the deduction. And the appraisal has to include specific information about the property itself, your basis in the property, and how you acquired it in the first place.

The IRS started auditing Mohamed's 2003 return in April, 2005. You can probably imagine how charitably inclined they were toward his self-appraisal. So Mohamed went out and got independent appraisals showing the properties were worth over $20 million — two million more than he deducted. And the trust actually sold the 40 acres south of Sacramento for $23 million. You would think that would be enough. But you would be wrong. The IRS held firm, and the case wound up in Tax Court.
Last month, the Court issued their 26-page opinion in Mohamed v. Commissioner. They ruled that none of Mohamed's appraisals were "qualified" under Section 1.170A-13(c)(3)(i) and shot down his entire deduction. The Court confessed that "We recognize that this result is harsh — complete denial of charitable deductions to a couple that did not overvalue, and may well have undervalued, their contributions — all reported on forms that even to the Court’s eyes seemed likely to mislead someone who didn’t read the instructions." But, the Court continued, "the problems of misvalued property are so great that Congress was quite specific about what the charitably inclined have to do to defend their deductions, and we cannot in a single sympathetic case undermine those rules."
So, ouch. Big, big ouch. (Insert expletive here.) Eighteen million bucks worth of deductions, lost because someone didn't dot the i's and cross the t's. Six million in actual tax savings, down the proverbial drain. We realize it sounds self-serving to tell you to come to us before you make a big financial move. But Joseph Mohamed's case emphasizes how important this really is. You may not have millions riding on doing it right. But are you really willing to risk tax benefits you truly deserve by doing it yourself?

Something to Scream About

It's one of the most recognizeable images in all of art. It's Norwegian artist Edvard Munch's iconic vision The Scream: an agonized figure —little more than a garbed skull and hands — set against a background of blood-colored sky. And last month, it sold for a record-setting price. But could it have been inspired, at least in part, by his tax return?

Munch grew up in Oslo, son of a dour priest. At 16, he enrolled in college to become an engineer. He did well, but he quickly dropped out, disappointing his father, to study painting, which he saw as an attempt "to explain life and its meaning" to himself. At 18, he enrolled at the Royal School of Art and Design of Christiana, where he began painting portraits. His personal style addressed psychological themes and incorporated elements of naturalism, impressionism, and symbolism. He wound up studying in Paris and exhibiting in Berlin before painting the first of four versions of The Scream in 1893.

In 1908, Munch suffered a brief breakdown, followed by a recovery. That recovery brightened Munch's art as well as his life, as his later work becoming more colorful and less pessimistic. He finally gained the public approval he had sought for so long; he was made a Knight of the Royal Order of St. Olav; and he hosted his first American exhibit. Munch spent the last years of his life painting quietly and alone on a farm just outside Oslo. Today, he appears on Norway's 1,000 kroner note, set against a background inspired by his work.

We remember Munch now for his art, not his life. But that life included some frustrating run-ins with the tax man. Apparently, Munch wasn't any happier keeping timely and accurate records than the rest of us. Here's part of a letter that his biographer, Sue Prideaux, quotes him as writing, in her book Edvard Munch: Behind the Scream:

"This tax problem has made a bookkeeper of me too. I’m really not supposed to paint, I guess. Instead, I’m supposed to sit here and scribble figures in a book. If the figures don’t balance I’ll be put in prison. I don’t care about money. All I want to do with the limited time I have left is to use it to paint a few pictures in peace and quiet. By now, I’ve learned a good deal about painting and ought to be able to contribute my best. The country might benefit from giving me time to paint. But does anyone care?"

Even without that tortured face in The Scream, most of us can still probably relate to his frustration!
Last month, Sotheby's auction house in New York sold a pastel-on-board version of The Scream that Munch painted in 1895 for $119.9 million — a new record for art sold at auction. The seller was Norwegian billionaire Petter Olsen; the buyer remains unknown. If the seller had been American, there could have been quite a tax to pay. "Capital gains" from the sale of appreciated property held more than 12 months are ordinarily capped at 15%. (Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has proposed eliminating tax on capital gains for taxpayers earning under $200,000; while President Obama has proposed raising them to 20% for taxpayers earning over $250,000.) But paintings like The Scream are classed as "collectibles" and subject to a top tax of 28%. (You would be disappointed if we didn't say that's enough to make a collector scream!)
Are you holding precious artwork or antiques that are just taking up space in your house? Call us before you call the auctioneer. We'll make sure you keep as much of your record-setting price as possible. And remember, we're here for your family, friends, and colleagues, too!