News + Updates | Archives: 2013

Review of IRS’s treatment of conservative groups intensifies; Agency under 30-day top-down review

The IRS’s improper handling of applications for tax-exempt status from conservative groups has led to the removal of top officials, the appointment of a new Acting Commissioner, a 30-day top-down review of the agency’s operations, Congressional hearings, and a criminal investigation. The outcome of all these activities may reshape how the IRS operates and how it interacts with taxpayers. In coming weeks and months, more details are expected to be uncovered about how the IRS treated conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, who knew of a problem, and what can be done to prevent any reoccurrence in the future.

Applications for tax-exemption

In 2012, a House Committee asked the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) to investigate reports of the IRS improperly handling applications for tax-exempt status from conservative groups. TIGTA launched a lengthy investigation that included interviewing IRS employees in Cincinnati, who process applications for tax-exempt status. On May 10, a few days before TIGTA was scheduled to release its findings, an IRS official apologized for the agency’s inappropriate treatment of applications for tax-exemption from conservative groups.

TIGTA confirmed what the IRS official had said. TIGTA found that the IRS personnel in Cincinnati had used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions. These included names such as Tea Party, Patriots and 9/12.

TIGTA further discovered that the IRS had sent requests for unnecessary information to these organizations. According to TIGTA, examples of this unnecessary information included the names of past and future donors, listings of all issues important to the organization and what the organization’s positions were regarding the issues, and whether officers or directors have run for public office or would be running for public office in the future. TIGTA told Congress that all of the IRS’s actions were inappropriate because they went beyond what was authorized by federal law and regulations. The IRS’s inappropriate criteria may have led to inconsistent treatment of organizations applying for tax-exempt status, TIGTA concluded.

New leader, 30-day review

On May 15, President Obama announced that the Acting Commissioner of the IRS had resigned at his request. President Obama appointed Daniel Werfel, a career government employee, as the new Acting Commissioner.  “The American people deserve to have the utmost confidence and trust in their government as we work to get to the bottom of what happened in the IRS,” the President said.

Werfel has been ordered by the White House to undertake a 30-day review of the agency’s operations, processes and practices. Werfel is to report his findings and recommendations for improvements to President Obama before the end of June. Since Werfel’s appointment, the head of the IRS Tax-Exempt Division has retired and the official who oversaw the Cincinnati office was placed on administrative leave, after reportedly being asked to resign by Werfel. White House officials have indicated that more personnel changes may take place after the results of the 30-day review are announced.

Congressional investigations

Three Congressional Committees – the Senate Finance Committee, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee – held hearings in May. The former Commissioner of the IRS, Douglas Shulman, and the ex-Acting Commissioner, Steven Miller, both told lawmakers that they were dismayed at TIGTA’s report. “As a general principle, as the IRS commissioner, I didn’t touch individual cases and I certainly didn’t touch cases that involved political activity.” Shulman said. Shulman added that he was “saddened” that these activities occurred on his watch.  Miller acknowledged that the IRS had acted improperly but denied any partisan motivation for the conduct of employees.

For many lawmakers, the key question is whether IRS officials mislead them in previous hearings. “We are concerned about the extent to which senior officials became aware of these practices, when they found out, and what they did or did not do to put a stop to them. And, perhaps most important, we want to know why the IRS purposefully misled Congress when they led us to believe that no groups were being targeted,” Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said.

More Congressional hearings are scheduled. “We need to understand how and why this targeting occurred,” Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus, D-Montana, said. “We need to know who was involved and who was responsible, and we need to install new safeguards to ensure this targeting never happens again.”

Criminal investigation

The U.S. Department of Justice has opened a criminal investigation into the IRS’s scrutiny of applications from conservative groups.  “The FBI is coordinating with the Justice Department to see if any laws were broken in connection with those matters related to the IRS,” Attorney General Eric Holder said on May 14. Holder has not said when the results of the investigation will be released.

IRS steps up guidance under Health Care Law as 2014 mandates loom

The government continues to push out guidance under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Several major provisions of the law take effect January 1, 2014, including the employer mandate, the individual mandate, the premium assistance tax credit, and the operation of health insurance exchanges. The three agencies responsible for administering PPACA – the IRS, the Department of Labor (DOL), and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) – are under pressure to provide needed guidance, and they are responding with regulations, notices, and frequently asked questions.

The health law provisions interact. Individuals are supposed to carry health insurance or pay a tax. Employers are supposed to offer coverage or pay a tax. The exchanges will provide information about the availability of different health care plans and will certify individuals eligible for the premium assistance tax credit. Individuals who cannot obtain affordable coverage may purchase insurance through an exchange and may be entitled to a premium assistance tax credit.


The DOL, in a technical release, provided temporary guidance to employers about their obligation to notify their employees of the availability of health insurance through an exchange and of the potential to qualify for the premium assistance tax credit if they purchase insurance through an exchange. Exchanges will begin operating January 1, 2014 and will provide open enrollment for their coverage beginning October 1, 2013. DOL provided model notices for employers to send out beginning October 1, 2013. Notices must be issued to all employees, whether or not the employer offers insurance and whether or not the employee enrolls in the employer’s insurance.

Employer mandate

As part of the regulatory process, the IRS recently held a hearing on proposed regulations regarding the employer mandate, which imposes a penalty on employers who fail to provide adequate health insurance coverage in certain circumstances. The employer mandate takes effect January 1, 2014. Twenty different groups testified on relevant issues, including: the definition of a large employer subject to the penalty, the definition of a full-time employee who must be offered coverage, and the determination whether the coverage is affordable.

Minimum value

The IRS issued proposed regulations to clarify the minimum value requirement for employer-provided health insurance. The regulations provide additional guidance on how to determine whether an individual is eligible for the premium assistance tax credit. Taxpayers will not be eligible for the credit if they are eligible for other “minimum essential (health insurance) coverage” (MEC). MEC includes employer-sponsored coverage that is affordable and that provides minimum value. Employer coverage fails to provide minimum value if the employer pays less than 60 percent of the cost of plan benefits. Taxpayers may rely on the proposed regulations for years ending before January 1, 2015.

Medical loss ratio (MLR)

The IRS issued proposed regulations on MLRs. Insurance companies must provide premium rebates to their customers if they fail to spend at least 80 percent (85 percent for large companies) of their premiums directly on health care, as opposed to executive salaries and other expenses. The provision took effect in 2012; and the first round of MLR rebates was distributed in 2012. The IRS issued several notices to implement the program; the proposed regulation would apply to tax years beginning after December 31, 2013.

Annual limits on benefits

PPACA generally prohibits group health plans and health insurance issuers that offer group or individual health insurance from imposing annual or lifetime limits on the value of essential health benefits. Although some limits are allowed for plan years beginning before January 1, 2014, HHS regulations provide that HHS may waive the limits if they would cause a significant decrease in benefits or significant increase in premiums. IRS, DOL, and HHS issued frequently asked questions (FAQs) to clarify that plan or issuer receiving a waiver may not extend the waiver to a different plan or policy year.

Summary of benefits and coverage

PPACA generally requires insurers, employers and other health care plan providers to give a Summary of Benefits and Coverage (SBC) to participants and other affected individuals. In recent FAQs, the three government agencies advised that an updated SBC template and a sample SBC are available on the DOL’s website. These documents can be used for coverage beginning in 2014. The agencies also extended certain enforcement relief. The agencies issued final regulations in 2012, and indicated that providers can continue to use coverage examples in current guidance, without adding new examples to their SBC.

Employer reporting

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) issued a recent report on some of the new information reporting requirements that PPACA has imposed on employers. For example, health insurance providers must report information for each individual who receives coverage. Large employers must report details about the coverage offered to employees and their dependents, including the premiums and the employer’s share of costs. Employers must also report the cost of coverage to employees on their Forms W-2. The IRS will use these reports to administer PPACA’s requirements.

PPACA is a complicated law. Many of its most important provisions take effect in 2014. The IRS and other responsible federal agencies continue to issue guidance and to take comments on the administration of the law.

If you have any questions about PPACA and what strategies you or your business might adopt, please contact our office.

IRS introduces simplified method for claiming home office deduction

The IRS has announced a new optional safe harbor method, effective for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, for individuals to determine the amount of their deductible home office expenses (IR-2013-5, Rev. Proc. 2013-13). Being hailed by many as a long-overdue simplification option, taxpayers may now elect to determine their home office deduction by simply multiplying a prescribed rate by the square footage of the portion of the taxpayer’s residence used for business purposes.

The IRS cites that over three million taxpayers in recent tax years have claimed deductions for business use of a home, which normally requires the taxpayer to fill out the 43-line Form 8829. Under the new procedure, a significantly simplified form is used. The new method is expected to reduce paperwork and recordkeeping for small businesses by an estimated 1.6 million hours annually, according to the IRS. The new optional deduction is limited to $1,500 per year, based on $5 per square foot for up to 300 square feet.

The simplified method is not effective for 2012 tax year returns being filed during the current 2013 filing season, but it will become effective for 2013 tax year returns filed in 2014. Taxpayers may want to investigate now whether they could benefit from the election for the 2013 tax year. Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller advised upon announcement of the safe harbor that “The IRS … encourages people to look at this option as they consider tax planning in 2013.”  A final decision on the election need not be made until 2014, when 2013 returns are filed.

Basic home office deduction rule

Under Code 280A, which governs the home office deduction rules on the simplified method election, a taxpayer may deduct expenses that are allocable to a portion of the dwelling unit that is exclusively used on a regular basis. This generally means usage as:

  • The taxpayer’s principal place of business for any trade or business
  • A place to meet with the taxpayer’s patients, clients, or customers in the normal course of the taxpayer’s trade or business, or
  • In the case of a separate structure that is not attached to the dwelling unit, in connection with the taxpayer’s trade or business.

The new simplified method does not remove the requirement to keep records that prove exclusive use, on a regular basis, for one of the three designated uses listed above. It does help, however, in other ways.

Simplified safe harbor

Using the new simplified safe harbor method, a taxpayer determines the amount of deductible expenses for qualified business use of the home for the tax year by multiplying the allowable square footage by the prescribed rate. The allowable square footage is the portion of a home used in a qualified business use of the home, but not to exceed 300 square feet. The prescribed rate is $5.00 per square foot.

Taxpayers who itemize their returns and use the safe harbor method may also deduct, to the extent allowed by the Tax Code and regs, any expense related to the home that is deductible without regard to whether there is a qualified business use of the home for that tax year, the IRS explained. As a result, they will be able to claim allowable mortgage interest, real estate taxes, and casualty losses on the home as itemized deductions on Schedule A of Form 1040. These deductions do not need to be allocated between personal and business use, as is required under the regular method.


Taxpayers using the safe harbor cannot deduct any depreciation for the portion of the home that is used in a qualified business use of the home for that tax year. For many taxpayers, depreciation is the largest component of the home office deduction under the regular method that must be sacrificed if the new safe harbor method is used.  Depending upon the value of your home and the space devoted to an office at home, using the regular method may prove to be the far better choice than electing the simplified method.


Taxpayers may elect from tax year to tax year whether to use the safe harbor method or actual expense method. Once made, an election for the tax year is irrevocable.  The IRS has provided rules for calculating the depreciation deduction if a taxpayer uses the safe harbor for one year and actual expenses for a subsequent year. The deduction of expenses that are not related to the home, such as wages and supplies, is unaffected and those deductions are still available to those using the new method.


The IRS set various limits on the safe harbor, including:

  • Taxpayers with more than one qualified business use of the same home for a tax year and who elect the safe harbor must use the safe harbor for each qualified business use of the home.
  • Taxpayers with qualified business uses of more than one home for a tax year may use the safe harbor for only one home for that tax year.
  • A taxpayer who has a qualified business use of a home and a rental use of the same home cannot use the safe harbor for the rental use.

If you are currently claiming a home office deduction, or if you have considered taking the deduction in the past but were discouraged by all of the paperwork and calculations required, you should consider whether the new, simplified safe harbor method is right for you. Please feel free to contact this office for further details.

If and only to the extent that this publication contains contributions from tax professionals who are subject to the rules of professional conduct set forth in Circular 230, as promulgated by the United States Department of the Treasury, the publisher, on behalf of those contributors, hereby states that any U.S. federal tax advice that is contained in such contributions was not intended or written to be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer by the Internal Revenue Service, and it cannot be used by any taxpayer for such purpose.

New IRS guidance on health care employer mandate looks to 2014 start date

Under the new health care law, starting in 2014, “large” employers with more than 50 full-time employees will be subject to stiff monetary penalties if they do not provide affordable and minimum essential health coverage. With less than eleven months before this “play or pay” provision is fully effective, the IRS continues to release critical details on what constitutes an “applicable large employer,” “full-time employee,” “affordable coverage,” and “minimum health coverage.”  Most recently, the IRS issued proposed reliance regulations that provide employers with the most comprehensive explanation of their obligations and options to date.


Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) the federal government has made it possible for certain workers who do not otherwise have access to affordable health insurance coverage to obtain a tax credit that would help them pay the costs of their health care premiums. This credit applies to low-income workers whether employed by a small, mid-size or large employer or self-employed.  Under Code Sec. 4980H as added by the PPACA, however, an “applicable large employer” is subject to a shared responsibility payment (an assessable payment) after December 31, 2013 if any of its full-time employees are certified to receive an applicable premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction and either:

  • The employer does not offer to its full-time employees and their dependents the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage under an eligible employer-sponsored plan (Code Sec. 4980H(a)); or
  • The employer offers its full-time employees and their dependents the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage under an eligible employer-sponsored plan that with respect to a full-time employee who has been certified for the advance payment of an applicable premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction either is unaffordable relative to an employee’s household income or does not provide minimum value (Code Sec. 4980H(b)).

The Code Sec. 4980H(b) penalty applies to coverage that is “unaffordable,” meaning that the coverage costs more than 9.5 percent of the employee’s household income. Since employers may not be able to determine household income, the proposed regs provide three affordability safe harbors: the Form W-2 safe harbor (based on employee wages); the rate of pay safe harbor (based on hourly or monthly pay rates); and the federal poverty line safe harbor, the IRS explained.

The employer cannot be liable under both Code Secs. 4980H(a) and 4980H(b). Furthermore, the penalty cannot exceed the payment amount that would have been imposed under Code Sec. 4980H(a) if the employee had failed to offer coverage to its full-time employees.

Proposed reliance regs

The proposed reliance regs further clarify what employees are considered “full-time employees” for the purpose of the statute. This distinction is important because the number of full-time employees determines who is an applicable large employer, subject to the affordable coverage requirements and, potentially, the per-employee shared responsibility payment. The proposed reliance regs provide additional guidance on who is a full-time employee, and covers gray areas such as the treatment of seasonal employees.

Other guidance under the regs covers whether employers who have only become applicable large employers in the current year are exempt from the shared responsibility payment. (Generally, they are not.) The proposed reliance regulations also provide certain relief to employers who inadvertently miss some employees.

Finally, the proposed reliance regs provide several transition rules. A major rule allows employers with plans on a fiscal year to wait to apply the standards until the first day of the first plan year that begins in 2014. Another rule exempts employers from penalties in 2014 if they must add dependent coverage to their health plans. Other transition rules apply to health plans offered through cafeteria plans and multiemployer plans. In addition, there are many notification responsibilities that will be placed upon the shoulders of all employers regarding access by their employees to health insurance.

If you have questions about the health care requirements for employers, the shared responsibility payment under Code Sec. 4980H, or anything related to the tax provisions of the new health care law, please contact our offices.

If and only to the extent that this publication contains contributions from tax professionals who are subject to the rules of professional conduct set forth in Circular 230, as promulgated by the United States Department of the Treasury, the publisher, on behalf of those contributors, hereby states that any U.S. federal tax advice that is contained in such contributions was not intended or written to be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer by the Internal Revenue Service, and it cannot be used by any taxpayer for such purpose.

ATRA Delays Start to 2013 Filing Season

As the 2013 filing season gets underway, some taxpayers may experience delays in filing returns and others need to revisit their returns because of the passage of the American Taxpayer Relief Act (ATRA) on January 1, 2013.  Late tax legislation always complicates tax planning and filing and 2013 is no exception.  ATRA extended many popular tax incentives for individuals and businesses retroactively to January 1, 2012.  This means that qualified taxpayers may claim them on their 2012 returns filed in 2013.  ATRA also made many changes that take effect in 2013, which will require careful planning as this year unfolds.

Delayed start to filing season

The most immediate effect of ATRA is a delayed start to the 2013 filing season.  Shortly after passage of ATRA, the IRS announced that the 2013 filing season would begin on January 30, 2013.  That reflected a delay of eight days from the previously anticipated start date of January 22, 2013.  The IRS explained that it needed time to program its processing systems for ATRA.  As of January 30, the IRS was able to accept returns affected by the AMT patch as well as three very popular “tax extenders:” the state and local sales tax deduction, higher education tuition deduction and teachers’ classroom expense deduction.

However, some taxpayers will experience a further delay.  A number of tax forms affected by late legislation require more extensive programming and testing of IRS systems. The IRS reported that it aims to begin accepting returns including these forms between late February and into March.  The IRS predicted that a specific date will be announced in the near future. Among the forms that require more extensive programming changes are some commonly used forms, most notably Form 4562 (Depreciation and Amortization). Other forms affected by the delay include Form 5695 (Residential Energy Credits) and Form 3800 (General Business Credit).

The IRS also announced special relief for farmers and fishermen who are affected by the delay.  Normally, farmers and fishermen who choose not to make quarterly estimated tax payments are not subject to a penalty if they file their returns and pay the full amount of tax due by March 1. Under the guidance to be issued, farmers or fishermen who miss the March 1 deadline will not be subject to the penalty if they file and pay by April 15, 2013.

Retroactive and prospective extensions

For individuals, some of the most popular incentives are the three mentioned above (the state and local sales tax deduction, the higher education tuition deduction and the teachers’ classroom expense deduction).  Other incentives that were retroactively extended to January 1, 2012 by ATRA, and therefore are available for 2012 returns filed in 2013, include special rules treating mortgage insurance premiums as deductible interest that is qualified residence interest, and special rules for contributions of capital gains real property for conservation purposes.

Another valuable incentive extended by ATRA is a tax break for energy efficient improvements.  ATRA extended retroactively to January 1, 2012 and through 2013 the Code Sec. 25C energy credit. Energy efficiency improvements include adding insulation, energy-efficient exterior windows and doors and certain roofs. The credit has a lifetime limit; qualifying improvements must be placed into service to the taxpayer’s principal residence before January 1, 2014, and there are other restrictions.

ATRA also provided transition relief for individuals wishing to make tax-free transfers of IRA funds to charitable organizations.  For tax year 2012 only, IRA owners could choose to report qualified charitable distributions made in January 2013 as if they occurred in 2012. Additionally, IRA owners who received IRA distributions during December 2012 could contribute, in cash, part or all of the amounts distributed to eligible charities during January 2013 and have them count as 2012 qualified charitable distributions.

For businesses, ATRA extended many temporary incentives.  Among the most commonly claimed are enhanced small business expensing, bonus depreciation, and the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC).  Under ATRA, the Code Sec. 179 small business expensing dollar limit for tax years 2012 and 2013 is $500,000 with a $2 million investment limit (both amounts indexed for inflation).  Bonus depreciation is available at 50 percent through 2013 and the WOTC is also available through 2013.  Many other business-related incentives that had expired at the end of 2011 are available for 2012 and 2013.

Another extended incentive is transit benefits parity. Qualified transportation fringe benefits include transit passes, van pooling, and qualified parking. The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010 provided for parity for the exclusion limitation on transit passes, van pool benefits and qualified parking through 2011. ATRA extended transit benefits parity retroactively to January 1, 2012 and through 2013. In Rev. Proc. 2013-15, the IRS reported that the inflation-adjusted maximum monthly excludable amount for 2013 is $245 for transit passes and van pool benefits and also $245 for qualified parking. The IRS has issued administrative relief for employers that provided transit benefits in 2012 at their pre-ATRA rates.

Changes for 2013 and beyond

ATRA’s most far-reaching changes – allowing the Bush-era tax rates to expire after 2012 for individuals with incomes over $400,000 and families with incomes over $450,000 along with increased capital gains and dividend taxes for higher income taxpayers – will be reflected on 2013 returns filed in 2014.  Other important provisions, such as the revived limitation on itemized deductions and the personal exemption phaseout, also will kick-in in 2013 and be reflected on 2013 returns filed in 2014.  Also taking effect in 2013 are an Additional Medicare Tax and a Net Investment Income surtax.  All these changes should be taken into account in planning your 2013 tax strategy.

Please contact our office for more information about the affect of ATRA on the 2013 filing season and tax planning for future years.

If and only to the extent that this publication contains contributions from tax professionals who are subject to the rules of professional conduct set forth in Circular 230, as promulgated by the United States Department of the Treasury, the publisher, on behalf of those contributors, hereby states that any U.S. federal tax advice that is contained in such contributions was not intended or written to be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer by the Internal Revenue Service, and it cannot be used by any taxpayer for such purpose.

IRS helps clarify new Surtax

The IRS has issued proposed reliance regulations on the 3.8 percent surtax on net investment income (NII), enacted in the 2010 Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act. The regulations are proposed to be effective January 1, 2014. However, since the tax applies beginning January 1, 2013, the IRS stated that taxpayers may rely on the proposed regulations for 2013. The IRS expects to issue final regulations sometime later this year.

The surtax applies to individuals, estates, and trusts. The surtax applies if the taxpayer has NII and his or her “modified” adjusted gross income exceeds certain statutory thresholds: $250,000 for married taxpayers and surviving spouses; $125,000 for married filing separately; and $200,000 for individuals and other taxpayers. The tax is broad and can raise tax bills by hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars.

Complex provisions

The regulations are extensive and complex. They address a number of issues that were not answered in the statute, such as the interaction of Code Sec. 1411 (the surtax provisions) and Code Sec. 469 (passive activity loss rules). Significant areas addressed in the proposed regulations include:

  • Identification of those individuals subject to the surtax,
  • Surtax’s application to estates and trusts,
  • Definition of NII,
  • Disposition of interests in partnerships and S corporations,
  • Allocable deductions from NII,
  • Treatment of qualified plan distributions, and
  • Treatment of earnings by controlled foreign corporations and passive foreign investment companies.

Some issues, however, are not yet addressed, such as the application of the Code Sec. 469 material participation rules to trusts and estates. Further guidance from the IRS is expected.

Borrowed definitions and principles

Net investment income that is subject to the new 3.8 percent tax generally includes interest and dividend income as well as capital gains from investments.  But Code Sec. 1411 doesn’t stop there, seeking to tax “passive activities” and contrasting those activities with a “trade or business” in often complex ways.

Because Code Sec. 1411 does not define many important terms, the regulations use definitions from several other Tax Code provisions. For example, the definition of a trade or business is determined under Code Sec. 162, regarding trade or business expenses. This definition is essential to Code Sec. 1411, since the application of each of the three categories of net investment income depends on determining whether the income is from a trade or business. The regulations also borrow the definition of a disposition, which applies to category (iii) income, from other provisions, such as Code Section 731 (partnership distributions) and Code Sec. 1001 (dispositions of property).

New elections available

The regulations provide certain elections that may be beneficial to many taxpayers. Taxpayers that engage in multiple activities under Code Sec. are allowed to make another election to regroup their activities. Taxpayers married to a nonresident alien can elect to treat their spouse as a U.S. resident, which allow more income to escape the 3.8 percent surtax.

Net investment income generally includes interest and dividend income as well as capital gains from investments. To prevent avoidance of the tax, the regulations include substitute payments of interest and dividends in the definition. The IRS also warned in the preamble to the proposed regulations that it will scrutinize activities designed to circumvent the surtax and will challenge questionable transactions using applicable statutes and judicial doctrines. The IRS further warned that taxpayers should figure their exposure to the 3.8 percent tax quickly since liability for this additional tax must be included in quarterly estimated tax computations and payments starting with first quarter 2013.

Please feel free to contact this office for a personalized review of how the 3.8 percent tax may impact you, and what compliance and planning steps should be considered as a consequence.

If and only to the extent that this publication contains contributions from tax professionals who are subject to the rules of professional conduct set forth in Circular 230, as promulgated by the United States Department of the Treasury, the publisher, on behalf of those contributors, hereby states that any U.S. federal tax advice that is contained in such contributions was not intended or written to be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer by the Internal Revenue Service, and it cannot be used by any taxpayer for such purpose.