Featured Article

Each year, Rounsfull & Associates, Ltd. holds its Annual Referral Contest. The client who refers the most new clients to our firm, for preparation of their individual tax returns, wins a $500 gift certificate to the store of their choice.
This year's winner, Todd Kopke, from Advanced Fence & Gate, chose a Visa gift certificate.
Todd is getting married this month and plans to put the money towards his wedding.
Our next Annual Referral Contest is already underway. Any new client referred between May 1, 2010 to April 30, 2011 will automatically make you elgible to participate in this year's contest |
|
It's been almost two months since our last e-newsletter - been a very busy summer so far (and hopefully there's still many weeks of good weather to come). Tomorrow we head down to Memphis with the kids (if they're 25 and 22 are they still "kids"?) for a visit to Graceland, a "rock-and-roll" show, some poker at the Tunica casinos, and various other Memphis attractions. I hope you're all enjoying your summer as well.
Two themes to this newsletter - tax changes and financial planning. First, I've provided an article from Nick Murray, financial consultant, whose writings I find not only educational and entertaining, but his outlook on the future and managing financial matters is a nice counterpoint to everything we hear and read in the media today. I believe this article is an excellent starting point to planning for retirement. I highly recommend it.
As you probably are aware, I am a registered representative of 1st Global - a broker/dealer that works exclusively with CPA's. What this means is that I am in a unique position to provide assistance and guidance on managing your financial affairs, and your retirement planning. I am trained to prepare comprehensive financial plans to guide your financial decisions, prepare/purchase/manage investments to implement these financial plans, and offer a variety of other services and investments to complement these plans.
If you are interested in learning more about the assistance I can provide, and how it's different from the financial guidance you may be presently receiving, give me a call, or send me an email. I'll forward an introduction kit to you, and we can meet to see if, or how, I can help.
Secondly - tax issues - we're facing the largest tax increase in history at the end of this year. The 2001 and 2003 tax reductions are being eliminated unless Congress enacts some tax legislation to either reinstate the existing law, or make new provisions. I've provided you with a general overview in the article Tax Hikes in 2011, as well as some quotes from "high-ranking" officials on these matters. I've also included an article on the George Steinbrenner estate which highlights the existing estate tax issues.
If you're interested in seeing the impact the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax law provisions will have on your income taxes for 2011, I suggest you go to www.mytaxburden.org. The tax calculator provided there will perform an analysis of your tax burden under a variety of tax law scenarios.
As always, please contact us if you have any questions about these issues, or any concerns you have about taxes or finances.
Bob Rounsfull
|
|
|
How Do You Feel About Money?
In 1980, a first-class postage stamp cost fifteen cents. This year, it costs forty-four cents, and the Post Office is asking for permission to raise it to forty-six cents next year.
Thirty years may seem like a long time-and it is. But it's just about the average joint life expectancy of today's average retiring couple: a 62-year-old man and woman who don't smoke. (Those two nice people were born in 1948, but we'll get to that in a minute.) In plain English, that means that one of those two people will need to be drawing an income from her investments thirty years from now...after thirty years of living the reality that every year, just about everything you need to buy will cost more.
Another look at our two imaginary stamps will tell you what the problem is. It's that, although erosion of purchasing power may be both slow and mild over any year, or even any few years, over decades its compound effects may be very significant. That's why your financial advisor may be telling you that the central problem in modern retirement income planning is the creation of an income that rises through the years at something like the rate your cost of living is rising, so that increased living costs may be largely offset, over time, by rising income.
This is a very important point-indeed, there are those of us who think it's the one critical question-but it begs a couple of more important questions. Namely: what do you think money is, and how do you feel about money?
These may appear to be two ways of asking the same question, but they're not. How we define money and how we feel about it are two different issues. But they do have one very important thing in common, and that's that for most of us, the answers are unconscious. They were laid down so long ago, and it's been so long since we re-examined them, that they form the basis for our essential money attitudes. But what if, through no fault of our own, those old answers have become wrong, or were never right in the first place?
Let's start with our definition of money. For most of us, our money is the number of units of the currency we own. Our idea of money, therefore, is that it is fixed and unchanging. A dollar is a dollar is a dollar. Many or most people are quite capable of maintaining this attitude, without a flicker of anxiety, even as they look at the two stamps.
But if you drag your definition of money out into the light, while looking intently at the two stamps, you may suddenly not be so sure. Indeed, you may say, "A dollar is a dollar is a dollar until a year from now, at which point (historically) it's down to about 97 cents. And the next year it's down to about 94 cents. And so on..."
Once you have this epiphany, you are a pickle, and you can never go back to being a cucumber again. Because what you have intuitively stumbled upon is the realization that, in the long run, "money" is better defined in terms of purchasing power rather than in terms of how many units of the currency you have. In other words, "money" turns out, over time, to be not a number of green pieces of paper, but what they will buy...or not buy.
Where, then, did we get the idea that money and currency were interchangeable concepts? For that answer, return with me now to those thrilling days of yesteryear: 1948, the year our now-retiring baby boom couple was born. And ask yourself: to whom were they born?
The answer is that they were in all probability the first or second children of a young couple, still just starting out in life after he returned from the war, who were born between, let's say, 1920 and 1925. And what do we know about those young people? We know that, being between the ages of about five and ten, they were terribly and painfully aware as the Depression enveloped them and their families. It hung on all through their adolescence, and didn't really loosen its grip until war came.
These were people who knew the value of a dollar. (Indeed, between 1930 and 1932, the value of a dollar would actually rise, in the only three consecutive years of deflation in the twentieth century.) When, in time, their children came along, they were taught the lessons of the Depression: you don't borrow, you don't buy stocks, and above all you keep your money "safe" in guaranteed places like FDIC-insured savings accounts, because-just as it did last time-the Depression could come back without warning.
That is, today's retiring couple was acculturated, from earliest life, to two ideas: (1) a dollar is a dollar is a dollar: money as currency, fixed, immutable and of constant value; and (b) fear-nay, stark, nameless terror-where money was concerned.
Those answers, like all our essentially unconscious fundamental ideas received in childhood, may still be there. If they are, and we leave them unexamined, modern retirement may turn into a world of hurt.
That's because, given the definition of money as currency and the terrible fear of loss of principal as we grow older, we will instinctively tie up most or all of our retirement capital in the "safest," most credibly guaranteed fixed-income investments. We will make sure, in 2010, that we will always have enough income to buy a forty-four cent postage stamp-and everything else we need to buy, at 2010 prices.
Then, next year, if the Post Office has its way, stamps will cost forty-six cents. And we may very well find that the prices of most everything we need to buy will have gone up as well. Then, in 2012, this will most likely happen again. And then again. And so on, as we try to cope with rising living costs on a fixed income.
Trying to fight off thirty years of rising living costs with an essentially fixed income isn't rational. Indeed, that's the whole point of this little essay. Given the earliest acculturation of today's retiring baby boomers-equating money with currency, and seeking to protect not our purchasing power but the number of currency units we have (and the essentially fixed income therefrom)-we may set ourselves on a financial downward spiral. And that downward spiral may go on not for years but for decades.
Had our parents not lived through (and indeed been formed by) that most searing episode of deflation, and if they'd had even an inkling that we might need retirement income for anything like three decades, they surely would have advised us differently. But they couldn't, because they didn't. That's why it's critically important that today's retiring boomers revisit these two issues.
That's what your financial advisor is there for: not to guess which way the market will zig or zag next, but to empathetically (and even therapeutically, if you will) help you reframe these two critically important questions: how are you defining money, and how do you feel about it?
© 2010 Nick Murray. All rights reserved. Reprinted by permission.
|
In just six months, the largest tax hikes in the history of America will take effect. They will hit families and small businesses in three waves beginning January 1, 2011. We've provided below a summary of what's coming. Washington is currently discussing changes and revisions to these tax hikes, and we'll keep you informed as progress is made. But for now, here is the tax law as it presently exists.
First Wave:
Expiration of 2001 and 2003 Tax Relief
In 2001 and 2003, the Congress enacted several tax cuts for investors, small business owners, and families. These will all expire on January 1, 2011:
Personal income tax rates will rise. The top income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6 percent (this is also the rate at which two-thirds of small business profits are taxed). The lowest rate will rise from 10 to 15 percent. All the rates in between will also rise. Itemized deductions and personal exemptions will again phase out, which has the same mathematical effect as higher marginal tax rates. The full list of marginal rate hikes is below: - The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15%
- The 25% bracket rises to 28%
- The 28% bracket rises to 31%
- The 33% bracket rises to 36%
- The 35% bracket rises to 39.6% Taxes on marriage and family will be increased. The "marriage penalty" (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of income. The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child. The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for married couples relative to the single level. The dependent care and adoption tax credits will be cut.
This year, there is no death tax. For those dying on or after January 1, 2011, there is a 55 percent top death tax rate on estates over $1 million. A person leaving behind two homes and a retirement account could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones.
Higher tax rates on savers and investors will also come into effect. The capital gains tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 20 percent in 2011. The dividends tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 39.6 percent in 2011. These rates will rise another 3.8 percent in 2013. Second Wave: Healthcare Act
There are over twenty new or higher taxes in the new health care bill. Several will first go into effect on January 1, 2011. They include: The "Medicine Cabinet Tax," Thanks to the new bill, Americans will no longer be able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin).
Flexible Spending Account Cap: This provision of the health care bill imposes a cap on flexible spending accounts (FSAs) of $2500 (Currently, there is no federal government limit.) There is one group of FSA owners who this bill will seriously affect, parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can not be used to pay for this type of special needs education.
The HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike. This provision of the health care bill increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.
Third Wave:
The Alternative Minimum Tax and Employer Tax Hikes
When Americans prepare to file their tax returns in January of 2011, they'll be in for a nasty surprise-the AMT won't be held harmless, and many tax relief provisions will have expired. The major items include: The AMT will affect over 28 million families, up from 4 million last year. According to the Tax Policy Center, Congress' failure to index the AMT will lead to an explosion of AMT taxpaying families-rising from 4 million last year to 28.5 million. These families will have to calculate their tax burdens twice, and pay taxes at the higher level. The AMT was created in 1969.
Small business expensing will be slashed and 50% expensing will disappear. Small businesses can normally expense (rather than slowly-deduct, or "depreciate") equipment purchases up to $250,000. This will be cut all the way down to $25,000. Larger businesses can expense half of their purchases of equipment. In January of 2011, all of it will have to be "depreciated." Taxes will be raised on all types of businesses. There are literally scores of tax hikes on business that will take place. The biggest is the loss of the "research and experimentation tax credit," but there are many, many others. Combining high marginal tax rates with the loss of this tax relief will cost jobs.
Tax Benefits for Education and Teaching Reduced.
The deduction for tuition and fees will not be available. Tax credits for education will be limited.
Teachers will no longer be able to deduct classroom expenses. Coverdell Education Savings Accounts will be cut. Employer-provided educational assistance is curtailed. The student loan interest deduction will be disallowed for hundreds of thousands of families.
Charitable Contributions from IRAs no longer allowed. Under current law, a retired person with an IRA can contribute up to $100,000 per year directly to a charity from their IRA. This contribution also counts toward an annual "required minimum distribution." This ability will no longer be available.
If you have any questions or concerns about these tax provisions, or how you will be affected by them, please contact us.
|
|
Uncertainty about future tax rates persists
Geithner comments on extension of current tax law
Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, in an interview on ABC's "This Week" on July 25, said he does not expect Congress will pass a temporary extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts as a possible alternative to a permanent measure. "I don't believe it should and I don't believe it will," Geithner said.
However, proponents of a full extension contend it is necessary to bolster the U.S. economy and create jobs. The argument was recently echoed by U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donahoe when he called for a short-term extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cut laws.
By Paula Cruickshank, CCH News Staff
White House Stresses High-Earner Tax Cuts Are Unaffordable and Should Lapse, (Jul. 28, 2010)
The White House has begun building its case that extending any tax cuts, other than those for the middle class, is unaffordable and will do nothing to stimulate a sputtering economy or control the federal deficit. Extending all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts "simply can't be afforded" in the current fiscal situation, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said on July 27. The administration is "not in favor of extending the high-earner Bush tax cuts" and believes they should lapse, Gibbs said at a press briefing.
Gibbs argued that middle-class tax cuts, as opposed to high-earner tax breaks, would provide the economic stimulus needed in a sputtering economy. "If you were to ask any economist what the economic impact of those high-earner tax cuts are versus, for instance, the president's concept of Make Work Pay, which is, for 95 percent of working families, a tax cut, the stimulative effects are quite different," Gibbs said. President Obama has repeatedly stated he will not go back on his campaign promise to preserve middle-class tax cuts and that extending them is essential for those earning below $250,000 a year in order to help them make ends meet.
Meanwhile, Gibbs pointed to proposals by the president's 18-member National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform that are due in December, noting that they are "part of the solution for the deficit." However, Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, co-chairmen of the bipartisan panel, recently acknowledged there is little chance that they will be able to garner 14 of the 18 votes necessary to approve a final report.
Gibbs said the outcome of extending all of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire on December 31, 2010, will not hinge on whether the bipartisan commission can reach agreement on ways to slash the federal deficit. "Regardless of the fiscal commission and its existence or not, and regardless of the ability with which its 18 votes can be structured to pass a recommendation, this is something that is going to have to be dealt with," he told reporters.
By Paula Cruickshank, CCH News Staff
Steinbrenner heirs could save millions from one-year gap in estate tax
By Peter Whoriskey
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
George Steinbrenner never had to synchronize his bat with a major league fastball, but in death, his timing was impeccable.
By dying this year, the New York Yankees' billionaire owner found the sweet spot in the U.S. tax code, exiting this earthly world during a year in which a congressional stalemate has allowed the estate tax to lapse, potentially saving his heirs hundreds of millions of dollars.
Had he died last year and tried to pass his fortune on to his children or grandchildren, they would have faced a 45 percent tax. Had he lived until next year, the rate would have been 55 percent. But Steinbrenner's death this year, like that of three other known billionaires who have died in 2010, gives his heirs a break.
Forbes estimated Steinbrenner's personal wealth last year at $1.15 billion.
The year-long hiatus of the estate tax, which normally falls on the very rich, could cost the U.S. Treasury an estimated $14.8 billion in 2010.
"In the midst of this terrible recession, the idea of giving billionaires a massive tax break is obscene," Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.) said Tuesday. "Already we have four billionaire families who are not paying taxes -- Steinbrenner's being the last one. Many billions are being lost. We have to address that reality right now."
The absence of the federal estate tax stems from the Bush tax cuts of 2001. The Senate Finance Committee has been wrangling over how to reinstate it. Three senators -- Sanders, Tom Harkin(D-Iowa) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) -- proposed a measure last month that would put in place an escalating tax on estates valued at more than $3.5 million, rising to 55 percent, with an extra 10 percent levied on the estates of billionaires.
Opponents say the estate tax is unfair because it taxes income twice, once when it is earned and again when it is transferred to heirs.
Until the issue is settled, the temporary absence of the tax is complicating the financial plans of billionaires and their families and leaving open the macabre possibility that heirs will hope their benefactor will die this year rather than next.
"Because of Mr. Steinbrenner's public name and stature, his death may draw the attention of Congress -- they simply have to decide what do," said Henry Christensen, a partner in McDermott Will & Emery who is president of the International Academy of Trust and Estate Counsel.
Christensen noted that Steinbrenner likely would have planned to reduce exposure to the estate tax by establishing trusts and family vehicles to essentially bequeath his fortune early. Moreover, the amounts passed on to his wife or to charity on his death would be exempt from the tax.
But had there been an estate tax in place, the amount of his estate subject to the tax could have been "substantial," he said. |
|
|
|
|