Author: Jesse Mackey

The saying goes that “the best way to gain money is to avoid losing it.” It is also said that “nothing is certain in life except death and taxes.” If there is truth to either of the above kernels of wisdom, a logical conclusion is that the most assured way to avoid losing money is to minimize, defer, and eliminate taxation to the greatest extent possible. This article begins a 3-part article series that will briefly outline some of the most common and effective means of limiting the over-taxation of the individual investor’s portfolio. The techniques described here will be most beneficially applied if diligently overseen and executed through a competent financial planner and portfolio manager.

Tax Deduction and Deferral – The IRS allows for tax deductions of contributions made to certain types of accounts in the year in which they are made. Most of these accounts are commonly known as “Qualified” plans or assets. Some examples are the 401(k), Traditional IRA, Defined Benefit Pension Plan, SEP IRA, etc. Non-qualified deferred annuities may also be used for the purposes of tax deferral (though not necessarily for tax deductions). Once money is invested under the provisions of one of these plans, the growth in value of the assets over time is free from taxation until the time at which it is distributed from the plan (which is typically not allowed until age 59 ½ without a 10% federal tax penalty). The money may be invested in virtually any series of marketable securities that the investor wishes, as long as it is contained within the plan wrapper (although this may be subject to any limitations imposed by a plan provider). This results in more money working for the investor over a longer time period than would be possible in a currently taxable account, ultimately resulting in a greater future income or lump sum to be received.  This most basic technique of investment planning is usually appropriate only for assets that are earmarked for use in retirement.

Tax Elimination – Within the tax code, there are limited instances in which investors may choose to pay their taxes now, and never pay taxes on the same set of assets again. Two of the most widely used accounts of this type are the Roth IRA and the 529 College Savings Plan. Although the contributions that one may make to these accounts may be limited by the income level of the investor and the amount that may be invested each year, if the assets are earmarked for specific purposes (Retirement for a Roth IRA and qualified educational expenses for the 529 Plan), the assets will grow tax free and may be withdrawn tax free at the permitted time. This technique is especially useful for investors that are currently in a lower tax bracket than they expect to be at the time of withdrawal of the assets. A similar methodology may be utilized when accumulating assets through the cash value of a dividend paying life insurance policy, such as Whole Life. While not considered an “investment” from a regulatory standpoint, a portion of premiums contributed to a whole life insurance policy can produce dividends* over time and will grow on a tax deferred basis. The policy owner may take “policy loans”** from the cash value to be used for any purpose, and the loans will remain tax free provided that the policy remains in-force. However, if the policy lapses or is discontinued, the portion of cash value attributed to gains becomes taxable as ordinary income.

To be continued tomorrow…

*Dividends are not guaranteed, any may be declared annually by a company’s Board of Directors.

**Policy benefits are reduced by a loan, loan interest and/or withdrawals. Dividends, if any, are affected by policy loans and loan interest.

Jesse Mackey is a partner and Investment Officer of 4Thought Financial Group Inc. 4Thought was created with the base vision of advancing individual freedoms and the human quality of life through economic means. This vision is pursued by applying the firm’s four specialties – Economic Theory and Research; Multi-Contingency Investment Management; Financial Planning for Business Owners and Individuals; and Support for Partner Firms and Advisors.

Contact:

Jesse Mackey

4Thought Financial Group Inc.

www.4TFG.com

jmackey@4TFG.com

Why is this Topic Important to Wealth Managers? This blogticle reviews the general requirements for the deductibility of donations for federal income tax purposes. Our goal is to provide information for wealth mangers to stay current on relevant topics including charitable contributions.

The Internal Revenue Code allows for deductions for federal income tax purposes of contributions or gifts made to or for the use of an organization that qualifies as a federally tax-exempt organization. [1]

For a charitable contribution to be deductible, the charity must receive some benefit from the donated property; [2] and  the donor cannot expect to receive some economic benefit (aside from the tax deduction) from the charity in return for the donation. [3]

However, a charitable deduction is not allowed for any contribution of a check, cash, or other monetary gift unless the donor retains a bank record or a written communication from the charity showing the name of the charity and the date and the amount of the contribution. [4]

Charitable contributions of $250 or more (whether in cash or property) generally must be substantiated by a contemporaneous written acknowledgment of the contribution supplied by the charitable organization. [5]

For contributions of property other than money, the taxpayer is generally required to maintain a receipt from the donee organization showing the name of the donee, the date and location of the contribution, and a description of the property. The value need not be stated on the receipt. [6]

A deduction for a contribution of property with a claimed value exceeding $500 will generally be denied to any individual, partnership, or corporation that fails to satisfy the property description and appraisal requirements. [7]

However, there are two exceptions to the general rule. Under the first exception, the appraisal requirements, for property valued at more than $5,000 and at more than $500,000, do not apply to readily valued property, such as cash and publicly traded securities. Under the second exception, the general rule does not apply if it is shown that the failure to meet the requirements is due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect. [8]

As a general matter, in order for contributions to be deductible, the organization must qualify at the time of the contribution. Thus, it is the responsibility of an organization receiving contributions to ensure that its character, purposes, activities, and method of operation satisfy the qualification requirements under the Code in order for grantors and contributors to have the assurance that their contributions at the time made are deductible.

Generally, Publication 78 lists organizations that have received a ruling or determination letter from the IRS stating that contributions by grantors or contributors to the listed organization (or to the listed central (or parent) organization and those local (or subordinate) units covered by the group exemption letter) are deductible as provided in § 170.

Moreover the law has been interpreted so that grantors and contributors may generally rely on an organization’s ruling that the organization is described until the IRS publishes notice of a change of status (for example, in the Internal Revenue Bulletin or Publication 78), unless the grantor or contributor was responsible for, or aware of, the act or failure to act that results in the organization’s loss of public charity status. [9]

Tomorrow’s blogticle will discuss insurance topics related to estate and gift tax planning.

We invite your opinions and comments by posting them below, or by calling the Panel of Experts.

---

[1] See IRC Sec. 170.

[2] See Winthrop v. Meisels, 180 F.Supp. 29 (DC NY 1959), aff’d 281 F.2d 694 (2d Cir. 1960).

[3] See Stubbs v. U.S., 70-2 USTC ¶9468 (9th Cir.), cert. den. 400 U.S. 1009 (1971).

[4] IRC Sec. 170(f)(17), as added by PPA 2006.

[5] IRC Sec. 170(f)(8)(A).

[6] Treas. Reg. §1.170A-13(b)(1).

[7] IRC Sec. 170(f)(11)(A)(i).

[8] IRC Sec. 170(f)(11)(A)(ii).

[9] See generally Temporary Regulations §§ 1.170A-9T(f)(5)(ii) and 1.509(a)-3T(e)(2), 73 Fed. Reg. 52,528 (Sept. 9, 2008).

Your clients look to you for competent advice in planning their charitable giving; now imagine the horror of hearing that the gift you so carefully planned can’t be deducted due to a simple paperwork mistake. Although the IRS sometimes forgives innocent mistakes, others are unforgiveable, as illustrated in recent IRS email advice.

The IRS took a hard line with the taxpayer, who made what would otherwise qualify as a tax deductible charitable gift. The problem was that the taxpayer “failed to obtain a contemporaneous written acknowledgment” from the charitable organization. In its advice the IRS said it will deny the taxpayer’s charitable deduction even if the taxpayer takes remedial measures and the charity amends its Form 990 (Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax) to acknowledge the donation and include the information required by the Code.

Read this complete analysis of the impact at AdvisorFX (sign up for a free trial subscription with full access to all of the planning libraries and client presentations if you are not already a subscriber).

For previous coverage of charitable deductions in Advisor’s Journal, see Qualified Charitable Distributions from an IRA (CC 11-03) & IRS Takes Qualified IRA Charitable Distributions off the Table for 2010 (CC 11-15).

For in-depth analysis of the charitable deduction under Section 170, see Advisor’s Main Library: B6—The Income Tax Charitable Deduction—I.R.C. §170.

Why is this Topic Important to Wealth Managers? This blogticle is part of our casual Friday series. It presents wealth managers with information on the start-up expense deduction as well as general information on tax law.

Here at Advanced Markets FYI, we’ve been working in tax law as applied to wealth management for a number of years, and must say it is rare to see mistakes by the Department of the Treasury. In fact, the general practice of a tax lawyer is to read a particular Code Section and corresponding Treasury Regulations multiple times until it finally makes sense. There are however, some instances where no matter how many times you read a Code Section and/or Treasury Regulation something does not add up.

At this point you have a few options. First, maybe you re-read it because chances are the Department of the Treasury and IRS did not made a mistake. As a general matter, it is unusual to find authoritative text that contains an error. So maybe by this point you’ve now corrected your misunderstanding with another proper reading taken with the underlying premise that the Treasury does usually not foul up. If you are still not sure that what you’re reading makes sense, it may be helpful to find more information about the subject. For example finding articles, journals or papers written on the subject will generally add clarity to a particular issue. However, the specific facts and circumstances upon which you are trying to apply the Code or Regulations are commonly unique. Furthermore, not every tax subject or Code Section is written about extensively elsewhere.

Now assuming you’ve spent significant time and diligence reading the primary source and looking for secondary sources to gain a better understanding, it’s then time to break out the big guns. The way we see it is, you have two options at this point. You can find a tax expert to examine the subject in detail with your particular question in mind. It is usually helpful to ask questions and work your way through a problem with another expert who sees the world slightly different than yourself (slightly is used as a relative term in this context). However, if you still don’t have the answer you’re looking for, you can always Blog about it!

Thus, we believe we have come across an error in the Code and Regulations (frankly we think they should give an award when this happens, but we attribute non-recognition to lack of funding anyway). We therefore put it up to you to prove us wrong…

The Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 Section 2031 amends Section 195 Subsection b of Title 26 of the United States Code. The amendment to the Code allows for a $10,000 deduction for start-up expenses with a reduction in the deduction for expenses over $60,000 after Dec. 31, 2009.[1]

Further, the IRS website states (although not authoritative):

Sect. 2031: Increase in amount allowed as deduction for start-up expenditures in 2010

For taxpayers starting an active trade or business, the new law increases the amount the taxpayer is allowed to elect as a deduction for start-up expenditures under section 195(b) for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2009. Section 2031 allows up to $10,000 as a deduction for start-up expenditures, but requires a dollar-for-dollar reduction of the $10,000 deduction if startup expenditures exceed $60,000. [2]

However, the Regulations nevertheless say something else… They appear to have not been amended along with the Code Section; thus the deduction allowed under the Treasury Regulations is only $5,000 (as was the limit before enactment of Section 2031 of the Small Business Jobs Act). Take a look for yourself. What is really interesting (at least to some tax professionals) is that Treasury Regulation Section 1.195 has been reversed and in its place one may be directed to Section 1.195-T or Temporary. Since the Temporary Regulation Section expires during 2011, perhaps it was not amended on purpose? All the same, the guidance is not in accordance with the Code. However, it is not likely that any court would determine the mismatch of information as anything other than an administrative oversight and most courts would likely follow the amended Code section’s limits as passed by Congress.

Next week’s blogticles will present new wealth management ideas for the Second Quarter 2011.

We invite your questions and comments by posting them below, or by calling the Panel of Experts.

---

[1] See The Small Business Jobs Act of 2010. PL 111–240, Sept. 27, 2010. Section 2031(a); 26 U.S.C. 195(b).

[2] See Internal Revenue Service. “Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 Tax Provisions”. http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=230307,00.html. Page Last Reviewed or Updated: February 16, 2011. Last Accessed 3/22/2011.

A recent IRS Revenue Ruling provides an important reminder for us of the rules for deducting interest that’s paid or accrued on a business life insurance policy loans. Knowing how and when policy loan interest is properly deductible can mean the difference between closing the sale in the first instance and an IRS audit down line if these rules are ignored.

In general, interest paid on a life insurance policy loan is not deductible for income tax purposes; but there are some exceptions for life insurance purchased for business purposes. The deductibility of policy loan interest has been eroded significantly over the past 20 years, so details are critical when selling or transacting on a policy that’s issued to a business.  Read this complete analysis of the impact at AdvisorFX (sign up for a free trial subscription with full access to all of the planning libraries and client presentations if you are not already a subscriber).

For previous Advisor’s Journal coverage of the exception to the pro rata limitation on interest deduction, see Obama Budget Would Undercut Utility of Life Insurance in Small Business Planning (CC-11-41).

For in-depth analysis of corporate-owned life insurance, see Advisor’s Main Library: D—Deductibility Of Business Insurance Premiums, E—Premiums As Taxable Income To The Insured & F—Taxability Of Corporate Owned Life Insurance Proceeds At Death.

Why is this Topic Important to Wealth Managers? This topic presents discussion on the individual and nonbusiness deductions offered under the Internal Revenue Code.  Since April 15^th is fast approaching, it is important to review common tax positions with regards to client planning. 

In addition this blogticle presents a excerpted preview of new, updated material from Advanced Markets which will be available soon (see www.advisorfx.com).   Over the coming 9 months, the entire AUS service is being revised and will be rolling out monthly.  The updating will include many new areas and a sharper focus with practical explanations and client presentation aides for current areas.  We look forward to helping you secure your next sale.  

An expense of an individual may be business, nonbusiness, or personal, depending upon which of the individual’s spheres of activity gave rise to the expense.  This Blogticle discusses personal and nonbusiness expenses generally. 

Personal Expenses

Personal expenses are all expenses incurred by an individual that are not business or nonbusiness expenses. These would include, for example, food and clothing for the individual and his family, repairs on the family home, and premiums paid on the individual’s personal life insurance. Generally, no deduction is permitted for personal expenses. [1] By specific statutory provision, however, deductions are allowed for some personal expenses, such as certain personal taxes, a limited amount of charitable contributions, medical expenses, certain interest on a principal residence, and alimony.

Most deductible personal expenses are “itemized deductions” and thus may be taken only if the taxpayer chooses to itemize his deductions instead of claiming the standard deduction.

Nonbusiness Expenses

A nonbusiness expense is generally an investment expense incurred in connection with the production of income, other than a trade, business or profession. Expenses of this type would include, for example, fees for tax or investment advice, and the cost of a safe deposit box used to store taxable securities. The deduction of nonbusiness expenses is governed by Code section 212. Specifically, Section 212 allows a deduction for expenses incurred in connection with: (1) the production or collection of income; (2) the management, conservation, or maintenance of property held for production of income; or (3) the determination, collection or refund of any tax.

The deductibility of nonbusiness expenses may be limited or deferred if they arise in connection with a “passive activity” or are interest expenses. Very generally, a “passive activity” is any activity which involves the conduct of a trade or business in which the taxpayer does not “materially participate.” [2] A passive activity also includes any rental activity, without regard to whether the taxpayer materially participates in the activity. Special rules apply to rental real estate activities. Aggregate losses from “passive activities” may generally be deducted in a year only to the extent they do not exceed aggregate income from passive activities in that year; credits from passive activities may be taken only against tax liability allocated to passive activities. Disallowed losses and credits may be carried over to offset passive income in later years. [3]

Once other limitations have been applied to the deductibility of nonbusiness expenses (e.g., the passive loss rule), they are generally deductible only to the extent that the aggregate of these and other “miscellaneous itemized deductions” exceeds 2% of adjusted gross income. “Miscellaneous itemized deductions” are deductions from adjusted gross income other than deductions for (1) interest, (2) taxes, (3) non-business casualty losses and gambling losses, (4) charitable contributions (including charitable remainder interests), (5) medical and dental expenses, (6) impairment-related work expenses for handicapped employees, (7) estate taxes on income in respect of a decedent, (8) certain short sale expenses, (9) certain adjustments under the Code’s claim of right provisions, (10) unrecovered investment in an annuity contract, (11) amortizable bond premium, and (12) certain expenses of cooperative housing corporations. [4]

A nonbusiness expense must also be “ordinary and necessary” to be deductible. [5] It must, therefore, be reasonable in amount and must bear a reasonable and proximate relation to (a) the production or collection of taxable income, or (b) the management, conservation, or maintenance of property held for the production of income. [6]

Tomorrow’s blogticle will discuss important planning aspects of 2011. 

We invite your opinions and comments by posting them below, or by calling the Panel of Experts 

---

 

[1] IRC Sec. 262(a).

[2] IRC Sec. 469(c).

[3] IRC Sec. 469(b). 

[4] IRC Sec. 67(b).

[5] IRC Sec. 212.

[6] Treasury Reg. §1.212-1(d).

Why is this Topic Important to Wealth Managers? Discusses particulars of Section 419 plans.  Presents a situation where deduction may be limited due to non-current liabilities.

Company is an accrual basis fiscal year taxpayer.  Company pays severance benefits in its discretion on an ad hoc basis, and vacation benefits pursuant to its established policy.

Historically, Company has paid both severance and vacation pay from its general assets.  Due to a decline in the Market over the past few years, Company has paid significant severance and expects to continue to pay additional severance over the next few years.  Effective Jan 1, 2009 Company established Trust to pay this anticipated severance and vacation pay.  Trust intends to submit an application for recognition of exempt status in 2010.  On 1/1/2009 Company contributed over $1,000,000 to the Trust and deducted that amount on its tax return for 2009.  Company indicates that beginning in 2010, Company will make payments for vacation and severance and will seek reimbursement from the Trust.

Company computed the amount deducted based on the limitation set forth in the Code.

Company has not provided any information documenting any severance claims incurred in 2009 that it expects to pay in 2010.  Company indicates that because the Trust was established “to pay severance that they anticipate they will have to pay over the next few years …”, and because the amount deducted is within the limit set forth in the Code that the deduction is proper.

Assuming the addition to the reserve is within the limit for severance benefits as a “safe harbor”, Company is not required to have actuarial certification of the amount.  This amount does not provide an alternative for determining the account limit, but rather the 75% limit is an upper limit on the amount that an employer may treat as an addition to a reserve for severance pay benefits without actuarial certification.

Thus, to deduct the amount contributed under section 419 in 2009, Company must demonstrate that the amount contributed and deducted in 2009 for severance benefits is not greater than the sum of qualified direct costs plus permitted additions to the qualified asset account, minus after-tax income of the fund.  Accordingly, the amounts either had to be used for benefits paid in 2009 (qualified direct costs), or be within the general limit for severance pay benefits of an amount reasonably and actuarially necessary to pay the claims incurred but unpaid as of the end of 2009.

Whether an amount is reasonably and actuarially necessary to pay the claims incurred but unpaid as of the end of 2009 is a determination that should be made based upon the particular facts and circumstances.

Among factors to take into consideration is whether there is an established obligation to make severance payments for a fixed amount of time, or whether continuation of any severance payments is in the Company’s discretion.  In this example, Company “pays severance benefits in its discretion and on an ad hoc basis”.

Accordingly, Company’s employees do not have an automatic right to severance benefits if they are terminated.  To establish that the severance benefits were “incurred” by the end of 2009, at minimum, Company would need to demonstrate that as of the end of 2009, some of its employees had been terminated, and also demonstrate that it reasonably expected to pay severance benefits to those employees beyond 2009.  In any event, the amount of the deduction in 2009 should not exceed amounts paid in severance benefits in 2009 plus the amount that Company can demonstrate it reasonably expected, as of the end of 2009, to pay beyond 2009 in severance benefits for those terminated employees.

This “reserve for incurred but unpaid claims” as of the end of 2009 would not take into account benefits expected to be paid to employees who as of the end of 2009 were still employed by Company.  The reserve should not take into account any benefits for employees that were expected to be severed in 2010 and beyond, because any severance claims for such employees were not “incurred” by the end of 2009.

Lastly, the reserve must be intended to pay severance benefits, and use for vacation or other benefits particularly within a short period of time, would tend to negate Company’s demonstration of intent, which is generally a consideration with regards to formation of a trust.

Next week’s blogticles will discuss important planning consideration for wealth managers.

We invite your opinions and comments by posting them below, or by calling the Panel of Experts

A recent Tax Court case demonstrates the severe tax consequences for an employee when a welfare-benefit plan ceases to qualify under section 419A of the Tax Code.  Section 419A governs “qualified asset accounts,” which are employer provided welfare-benefits plans that set aside funds for (1) disability benefits, (2) medical benefits, (3) severance benefits, or (4) life insurance benefits. In general, contributions by an employer to a welfare-benefit plan are tax deductible by the employer if they are ordinary and necessary business expenses. In the case, part of the funds contributed to the plan were used to buy life insurance coverage for the principal and other employees, with the rest of the funds constituting excess contributions. 

Read this complete analysis of the impact at AdvisorFX (sign up for a free trial subscription with full access to all of the planning libraries and client presentations if you are not already a subscriber).

The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (Tax Relief Act) extended the income tax deduction for state and local sales taxes through December 31, 2011.  The deduction expired on January 1, 2009, but Congress amended the provision retroactively, which will allow taxpayers to take the deduction on their 2010 taxes.  The deduction, which has been slated to expire a number of times, has been revived by Congress repeatedly since it was introduced but has not yet been made a permanent part of the Code.   Read this complete analysis of the impact at AdvisorFX (sign up for a free trial subscription with full access to all of the planning libraries and client presentations if you are not already a subscriber).

For previous coverage of the Tax Relief Act of 2010 in Advisor’s Journal, see Obama Tax Compromise Provides 100 Percent Bonus Depreciation of Business Assets Through 2011 (CC 11-01), Obama’s Social Security Tax Holiday: Penny Wise and Pound Foolish? (CC 10-119), Does the New Estate Tax Make the Bypass Trust Obsolete? (CC-10-122), & 2010 Estates: To Elect or Not to Elect (CC 10-124).

For in-depth analysis of income tax deductions, see Advisor’s Main Library: B4—Business Income and Deductions.

We invite your questions and comments by posting them or by calling the Panel of Experts.

Why is this Topic Important to Wealth Managers? Discusses Internal Revenue Code Section 179 in relation to the Obama Tax Cuts.  Presents analysis of a common transaction used by small business when acquiring capital assets.

Last month we discussed Section 179 in conjunction with year-end tax planning.   As a general matter of review, businesses may take “annual deductions for depreciation and amortization to the extent they represent a reasonable allowance for the exhaustion, wear and tear of property used in a trade or business or held for the production of income.” [1] This concept is based on the matching of the actual use of the property as a deductible expense.

However, earlier this year, Congress enacted the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, [2] which included several changes in areas concerning the tax law, in part regarding Section 179. [3]

Specifically, the Small Business Jobs Act, “increased the maximum amount deductible under [Internal Revenue Code] Section 179 which allows, under certain situations, for the expense of generally depreciable assets.” [4]

Therefore, subject to certain limitations, a taxpayer that invests in certain qualifying property may elect under section 179 to deduct (or “expense”) the cost of qualifying property, rather than to recover such costs through annual depreciation deductions occurring over the useful life of the asset.

As was discussed in an earlier blogticle, for taxable years beginning in 2010 and 2011, the maximum amount that a taxpayer may expense is $500,000 of the cost of qualifying property placed in service for the taxable year.  The $500,000 amount is reduced (but not below zero) by the amount by which the cost of qualifying property placed in service during the taxable year exceeds $2,000,000. [5]

Section 402 of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, And Job Creation Act of 2010 [6], amended certain deductible amounts with regards to section 179 that become effective beginning in 2012.

The new law states that, for taxable years beginning in 2012, the maximum amount a taxpayer may expense, under Section 179, is $125,000 of the cost of qualifying property placed in service for the taxable year. The $125,000 amount is reduced (but not below zero) by the amount by which the cost of qualifying property placed in service during the taxable year exceeds $500,000.

Furthermore, the new law states that, for taxable years beginning in 2013, and thereafter, the maximum amount a taxpayer may expense under Section 179 is $25,000 of the cost of qualifying property placed in service for the taxable year.  The $25,000 amount is reduced (but not below zero) by the amount by which the cost of qualifying property placed in service during the taxable year exceeds $200,000.

Tomorrow’s blog will continue to discuss pertinent provisions of the new Tax Cuts.

We invite your questions and comments by posting them below, or by calling the Panel of Experts.

---

[1] AdvisorFX.  Business Income and Deductions (AUS Main Section 19, B4). http://www.advisorfx.com/articles/f19_1_8_3260.aspx?action=13.  Citing, 26 C.F.R. §1.167(a)-1, 26 U.S.C. §§167, 168, 169, 179 and related regulations.

[2] H.R. 5297.  http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h5297enr.txt.pdf.  Last Accessed 11/8/2010.

[3] H.R. 5297. Section 2021.

[4] Business West. Year-end Tax Planning.  http://businesswest.com/2010/11/year-end-tax-planning. 09 November 2010.   Last Accessed 11/8/2010; 113 Journal of Taxation 195.

[5] 26 U.S.C. § 179 (b)(1)(B).

[6] HR. 4853.