Blog

New Tax Deadlines for the 2016 Filing Season

01/12/16 4:54 pm | Comments (0) | Posted By:

With the year coming to an end, it is important to start getting your books in order to have them ready to close, and get a head start on filing your tax return. It is important to know that for the upcoming year, many due dates have changed for 2016 returns, and will be changed going forward.

Here are a few of those dates that have changed for the upcoming filing season. Additional guidance can be found on the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) website:

• Partnerships with a calendar year end will have a new due date of March 15th, and the extension date remains as September 15th. Fiscal year partnership returns are due on the 15th day of the 3rd month after year end, and a six month extension is allowed from that date.

• Trusts and Estates Form 1041 will have the same filing date of April 15th, but the new extension date is now September 30th.

• Exempt organizations will have the same filing date of May 15th, but with a single automatic 6-month extension of November 15th.

• FinCEN Report 114 will have a new due date of April 15th, with a new extension date of October 15th.

• Information returns including W-2 and most 1099 MISC forms will be due to the IRS/SSA on January 31st. This is the same date that they are due to the taxpayer. All other 1099 forms are due February 28th or March 31st if filed electronically.

• C Corporations have different rules for the upcoming years depending on when the year end is:

C Corporations with a calendar year end will have a new due date of April 15th with an extension date of September 15th.

C Corporations with a fiscal year end return other than December 31st and June 30th will be due on the 15th of the 4th month after the year end with an extension on the 15th of the 10th month after year end.

C Corporations with a June 30th fiscal year end will have a due date of September 15th with a new extension due date of April 15th.

It is important to be aware of these new filing dates since this will effect many entity returns in the upcoming filing season.

 

 

 

 

 

 

What Can a Reno CPA Do For You or Your Business?

07/11/16 11:33 am | Comments (0) | Posted By:

Reno, Nevada CPAs in the office of Barnard Vogler & Co. can assist individuals in many ways. We offer the traditional CPA services of 1040 preparation and tax planning. More specifically, our Reno CPAs have tax experience with California residency issues, cancellation of debts of recourse and nonrecourse, Chapter 11 bankruptcy tax matters and various trusts issues beyond just the preparation of the tax return.

Our CPAs in Reno, Nevada are also versed in a wide array of business matters. Some areas of expertise are the customary services that Certified Public Accountants typically provide such as financial statement preparations, compilations, reviews and audits. Additionally, we have assisted businesses with a congressional tax audit returning to the taxpayer a multimillion dollar tax refund, entity selections to provide the most beneficial business types, or controller/CFO services of remote bookkeeping, budget assistance and development of accounting policies and procedures. At our downtown Reno, Nevada location CPAs have also helped unravel and report on multimillion dollar frauds, been Chapter 7 bankruptcy examiners, and performed business valuation and expert witness testimony.

Give our office a call if you need a Reno CPA for yourself or your business.

 

Bonus Pay Limitation

27/10/16 2:01 pm | Comments (0) | Posted By:

Modern day business is built on constant competition and an ever changing landscape, where CEO’s must take risks to survive. Risk-taking is something that happens in everyday business and those that have good results from the risks are given bonuses. What if the CEO received a bonus from good results in the current year and then 3 years down the road that risk had then flipped and the company tanks? Should the CEO be liable?

Well, according to a recent Wall Street Journal article, that very thing is being proposed on Large Firm Wall Street Bankers. The thought is that their bonuses be deferred over four years and any actions that hurt the firms or a financial statement restatement would have a “claw back” affect over a period of seven years. The CEO’s would have to pay back a portion of their bonuses. There is already a form of “claw back” that is in place, but it is less stringent and only goes back about three years. Regulators are presuming that issues arising from the CEO’s decisions usually take more than three years to show up; thus the reason why they are proposing pushing the time limit to seven years. The purpose of the proposition is to combat and prevent another recession by holding CEO’s more accountable.

The issue that has been raised is if this passes, would the CEO’s adjust their pay structure? Would they opt for more stock and salary instead of bonus structure?

 

 

A Non-Partisan Comparison of Presidential Candidate Tax Plans

29/09/16 10:56 am | Comments (0) | Posted By:

Just over a month away is the election for the 45th President of the United States. No matter which side of the aisle you find yourself on, there is no doubt that each candidate has proposed some substantial tax legislation changes. Here is a comparison of the candidates tax plans:

Hillary Clinton’s Plan:  

• “Fair Share Surcharge” – A proposed 4% increase to the top tax rate of 39.6% for individuals making over $5,000,000 per year. All other tax rates for individuals would remain constant.

• Closing loopholes – Strengthening the Buffet Rule and broadening the base of income subject to the rule, closing Bermuda reinsurance loophole and the “Romney Loophole”, and closing the “step up in basis” loophole.

• Closing the “Carried Interest” Loophole – Loophole which allows hedge fund managers to avoid ordinary income tax rates for earnings.

• Restore Estate Tax to 2009 Parameters($3,500,000 Estate exemption, 45% tax rate) with rates increasing to as much as 65% on estates over 1 billion.

• Ensure millionaires pay a minimum tax rate of 30%.

• Impose a “risk fee” on the largest financial institutions.

• Corporate tax rate will remain at 35%.

 

Donald Trump’s Plan:

• Reduce tax rates for individuals from 12% for Married Filing Jointly (MFJ) filers under $75,000, to a maximum of 33% for MFJ filers over $225,000. Single filers would be half of these numbers.

• Retain current capital gains rates(max of 20%).

• Repeal net investment income tax of 3.8%.

• Increase standard deduction to $30,000 for MFJ, and get rid of personal exemptions.

• Cap itemized deductions at $200,000.

• Repeal Estate Tax unless capital gain assets valued over $10,000,000 were held until death, disallow private established charity donations.

• Above-the-line deduction for childcare for children under 13, capped by states per child. Not available to MFJ taxpayers over $500,000.

• Spending rebates for childcare expense to certain low-income taxpayers through the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).

• Cut corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%, and provide 1 time repatriation of offshore funds for a 10% tax rate.

 

Each tax plan is diametrically opposed from the other, but both will change the tax planning efforts that accountants will need to have to properly advise clients in the coming years. To view the tax plans in full detail, click on each candidates name to connect to their websites.

 

 

The “Final-Offer” Arbitration Challenge

19/09/16 11:06 am | Comments (0) | Posted By:

The Harvard Business Review recently published an article outlining an interesting strategy which should make negotiations more civil, speedy and fair.

The authors have proposed an approach they call the “final-offer arbitration challenge” for reaching fair agreements efficiently.

It works like this. If the other side’s position is unreasonable, one’s initial reaction is often to be just as unreasonable, believing that the issue will be resolved somewhere in the middle, and thus be reasonable. This may ultimately be the result but often only after investing a lot of time and money to get there. It stands to reason that if the parties come to a negotiation with realistic starting positions, the negotiations that follow should be relatively civil, speedy and fair.

But how can a negotiator who wants to be fair at the outset be sure that his or her counterpart will do the same? This is where the “final-offer arbitration challenge” can help to reach fair agreements efficiently. It works like this: To encourage reasonableness, one side should make their offer demonstrably fair from the outset. Then, if the other side is unreasonable, they should be challenged to take the offers to an arbitrator who must not compromise, but must choose one or the other offer. This approach should result in offers that are more aligned from the beginning. Thus it is to everyone’s benefit if the parties come to the negotiations with reasonable offers in hand.

This is not unlike the way thoughtful parents have resolved disputes between two siblings. Have one cut the last piece of cake in half, and have the other choose first.

 

Page 3 of 4112345102030...Last »