As tax-filing season heats up, the
Minnesota Society of Certified Public Accountants recently surveyed CPA members
in public accounting on the most outrageous tax deductions clients tried to
take on their tax returns.
Deductions for business expenses
are some of the biggest prizes and booby traps of doing your tax return. The list
shows that, more often than not, taxpayers just don’t know which deductions are
allowed.
Among the strangest recent
deductions, and unacceptable (at least in the eyes of tax authorities):
Puttin’ on the Ritz: We all like to
look nice, especially for business purposes. But you’re expected to arrive to
work fully clothed; looking nice is a strictly a bonus with no place on your
tax return.
Piano man: A humanities professor
thought he could deduct a piano. Sour note, unless the professor provided
lessons as part of a small business.
Giving until it hurts:
Unfortunately for one filer, gambling losses didn’t qualify as a charitable
donation to casinos or the Minnesota State Lottery.
Foot powder: Fighting smelly feet
at the office can be a kindness to your co-workers. As far as the taxman goes,
the benefit stops there.
Hull of a bad idea: One taxpayer
wanted to depreciate the cost of a large boat because it was used
“occasionally” for client entertainment.
Thrill seeking: Amusement parks
don’t qualify for a day-care deduction.
Here, kitty: Even if your
cats keep mice out of the barn you use to make a living, in general, pet expenses
aren’t deductible.
To have and withhold: One taxpayer
tried to deduct part of his wedding costs because more than half the guests
were business contacts.
Forever young: Botox, tanning,
nails and the like do not qualify as acceptable deductions.
Getting there: You can get mileage
reimbursement either through your work (if offered) or the government for
mileage incurred while on the clock and for business purposes, but driving to
and from work is not going to stick.
By using this site you agree to our network wide Privacy Policy.
Manning & Napier adviser services executive suggests the
regulatory environment confronting retirement plan advisers and their clients is
about as complex as it’s ever been.
Not since the run up to passage of the Pension Protection
Act (PPA) or, thinking further back, the creation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) have retirement plan advisers faced so much regulatory
disruption.
The coming year promises to bring fundamental fiduciary reform, for starters, observes Shelby
George, senior vice president for adviser services at Manning & Napier. Add
to this the federal government’s stated interest in creating more state-based retirement plans for the private
sector and various other reforms coming down the pike, such as the Securities and
Exchange Commission’s (SEC) liquidity and money market fund reforms and key Affordable Care Act (ACA)
deadlines—think Cadillac Tax—and it can make a benefit plan adviser’s head
spin.
“Being an ERISA plan fiduciary is not easy and it is only
going to become more challenging,” George told PLANADVISER while discussing the
firm’s newest research paper, “Understanding how today’s challenging regulatory
landscape impacts your practice and clients.” She predicts more advisers will
be lumped into the fiduciary relationship in 2016 and beyond, suggesting the
Department of Labor (DOL), through its updated fiduciary rule, “will extend the
fiduciary standard embedded in ERISA to advisers who handle any kind of
retirement account, including individual retirement accounts (IRAs).”
Noting that the fiduciary rule language has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget and is “finally
about to arrive,” George predicts the best-interest contract exemption and
other key aspects of the proposed rule language will be maintained in any final
rule. Advisers and providers will complain when the rule language finally emerges,
she adds, “but they will very quickly have to get to work assessing the new
layer of administration they’ll have to build out to meet all the new
requirements.”
The final aspects of the fiduciary standard will be shrouded
in some mystery until the final rule language actually emerges from OMB, George
explains, but she still predicts pretty confidently that the biggest impact is
going to be on the IRA market and rollover accounts. Unless major changes are made to the rule language, advisers selling in these areas will have to start papering best-interest contract exemptions left and right.
NEXT: Regulation is just
one challenge
Beyond the difficult regulatory picture that is testing
advisers, George says the interest rate environment and related fixed-income
investing outlook is another challenge.
“Over the past 30 years, interest rates have declined very slowly
and steadily,” she explains. “Today, the interest rate outlook is challenging. The Federal Reserve is trying to raise rates while yields are still at very low absolute levels, and therefore rates have more room to
go up than down. However, an increasingly interconnected world means events
from around the globe can influence U.S. growth and ultimately the direction of
interest rate movements.”
Investors of all types—including their advisers—have generally
grown unfamiliar with how interest rate movements affect traditionally “safe”
bond investments, George warns. “Related, using a bond index fund to gain exposure to
the broad fixed income market has become a common investor strategy and has
been considered a safe strategy,” she says. Today that
picture is falling apart.
“The key point to realize in a fluctuating interest rate
environment is that bond portfolios tied to a benchmark may not deliver the
best the market has to offer,” George explains. “Typically, a benchmark’s
composition is market-capitalization weighted according to the total value of
debt outstanding in the market; it’s not based on the fundamental
characteristics of each bond.”
George predicts even savvy investors may need assistance
from their advisers in understanding how a portfolio can be expected to perform
in different environments. “Fiduciaries responsible for retirement plan assets
need to understand how interest rate movements may affect plan participants who
are nearing retirement and are more exposed to this traditionally ‘safe’ asset
class,” she adds.
All in all, George says that “bond market volatility has
become a heightened source of risk for those investors nearing the date that
they will need to start living off their savings.” This results from the higher
allocation to fixed income near retirement, which may mean being more heavily
exposed to the most overvalued sectors of the bond market, like U.S. Treasuries, at the same time that stability of retirement balances becomes most important
to meet ongoing living expenses.
“The answer is not to simply own more stocks when nearing
retirement, since volatility is inevitable in the stock market,” she concludes.
“Active, flexible management of fixed income portfolios with the ability to
adjust maturities and sector exposures to avoid taking risk, unless
well-compensated for those risks in the form of more attractive yields, is most
important for investors right now.”