Here in Oregon, when revenues exceed those budget for the two year budget, there is a refundable state tax credit. This isn't taxable on the federal return, but it invariably affects some folks' SALT deduction. And of course I have to have the "focus on the donut, not the hole" discussion.
That being said, a credit is different than a rebate. But it does seem to fit the "general welfare exclusion" definition. I would rather that my client get the exclusion and have to later pay the small amount of tax than have to amend to get the pittance. However it's going to be a discussion and a decision the client is involved in.
This reminds me of the discussion for 1099-Misc vs 1099-G for the amounts paid, such as to cover utility costs. This is the Fed link for that source of funds:
G = issued by governmental entity (paid out for governmental purposes and no services provided).
@pamdory In Oregon, doesn't it depend on amount of tax actually paid, and not on AGI? Or can someone with zero tax liability receive it, while someone who paid $100,000 may not be eligible? That's how it works in California. And I think part of IRS's problem is that they look at a dozen states with various credits, rebates and relief programs, and throw up their hands in confusion. Or maybe, just throw up.
Thank you everyone for your valuable opinions, understanding and respectful discussions regarding my question/comments on the 'Middle Class Tax Refund' from CA State 1099 MISC.
Hope you all will have fun this tax season.
@BobKamman Correct, the Oregon Surplus Credit, aka the Kicker, is based on tax paid. So on the 2021 tax return we picked up 2020 tax before most credits and multiplied it by 17.341% to determine the Kicker. Which isn't necessarily a fair method given it doesn't factor in the two year budget period in which the surplus was created. For instance, I just did a 2022 return for someone who sold a couple of rentals who will pay about $33k in state tax for the year that the credit will be calculated. If they had been sold in 2021 and he had a zero tax in 2022, he wouldn't get a Kicker credit.
The name, Middle Class Tax Refund, mucks up the the works since the MCTR eligibility doesn't have a tax liability requirement. I'm sure some folks who received the MCTR didn't have a tax liability in 2020, so not really a refund. So it wouldn't make sense to give it the state tax refund treatment.
It seems more like the EITC without a requirement for earned income. Meaning it shouldn't be taxed.
If the funding came from disaster funds CA just had laying around, that would seem to exclude it from federal taxability. But I'm sure we would have heard that by now from CA.
I agree that IRS is looking at it and thinking "What the heck are we supposed to do with this one??" And hopefully will go with the general welfare exclusion.
@pamdory The "R" in MCTR stands for Relief, not Refund, although part of AB 192 creates the "Better for Families Tax Refund." Some people are referring to it as the "Gas Tax Refund," because gasoline prices were nearing their peak when it was enacted. Refunds of state sales and excise taxes are generally not taxable, especially in a state where many taxpayers hit the $10K SALT limit.
The law itself provides,
Thanks @BobKamman for the link. I got the name FTB website info page https://www.ftb.ca.gov/about-ftb/newsroom/middle-class-tax-refund/index.html
Interesting they also refer to the EIC as "earned income refund" rather than credit.
David Fogel did some excellent research on MCTR, and whether it qualifies for the general welfare exclusion. See his article on his web page https://fogelcpa.com/tax-articles
Thank you, Jerry, for your valuable infor. and the website which clearly states that the MCTR is NOT taxable.
For those who demand our authority to say the MCTR is not taxable must read the article from ftb you sited in your post.
Thank you for your expertise.
Here is my post, from a week ago, with the link to Dave's article - which represents his extremely well thought out & documented 'opinion'
Dave Fogel is one of THE smartest tax preparers around, and know CA inside/out:
His article gives a lot of substantiation to exclude the MCTR from taxable income for Federal purposes.
YMMV & consider disclosures.
FTB seems to say the R stands for refund. https://www.ftb.ca.gov/about-ftb/newsroom/middle-class-tax-refund/index.html Have not seen anywhere where the R stands for relief. Though the law itself, does say it is not a refund.
IF I had a return ready to file, with this issue, I would discuss the pro's & con's with my client & likely advise to exclude the 'refund' and disclose the 'why' on the tax return. It'll be cheaper to pay any IRS penalties & interest than my fee to amend a return for a 'max' of $ 1050.00 in underreported income.
I strongly value David Fogel's opinion (he's been a mentor to me in the past) and his research is well-documented.
The tax on $ 1050 (since it's likely the folks receiving the max are NOT in the highest Federal Tax bracket) is immaterial.
However, at this stage there is NO official IRS position on this - and to say "it's not taxable" is not a statement of fact. And to say "well, the software is excluding it so it must be OK" is just wrong from a professional tax preparer standpoint.
I generally don't rely on clients to tell me to do something wrong. If everyone else is jumping off a bridge, would your mother give you permission to do it also? $1,050 can make a $225 difference in EIC, even if the income tax bracket is only 10%. And what if the taxpayer moved to New York after filing a 2020 California return? Nothing prevented them from getting their payment, right? Only one state has said it is not taxable.
The hypocrisy is stifling, with the general attitude being "add it to income if there's a 1099, don't ask don't tell if it's less than $600."
And then there's the experience we had with IRS a couple years ago, where they said the $150K limit for unemployment exclusion included the unemployment amount, until they said it didn't.
This isn't an issue requiring disclosure on Form 8275. If someone insists on adding the MCTR, regardless of amount, to every return they file, then that's their decision. If they only add it to returns where they are afraid of being caught, that's not professional. But I'll worry about my clients, others can worry about their own.
deleted...
and out.
@BobKamman I didn't get that take from @abctax55's post. He's shared a well reasoned opinion from David Fogel, which in the absence of IRS guidance, is a reasonable basis for taking a position. This doesn't seem to be a priority for IRS, but filing returns is a priority for California preparers and taxpayers.
I also agree with discussing with the client the fact that we don't have IRS guidance at this time but this is the interpretation that we believe is going to apply, however there is a risk that IRS will go in a different direction. That's not getting permission to do something wrong, it's informing the client so they can make a decision to wait or go forward knowing there is a risk this interpretation might not be the one IRS chooses. Both of us are signing the return, both should be informed.
I've found the regular posters on this forum to be professionals who's opinions I respect, even when I don't agree with a particular point. I appreciate the community here and respect all of you who take the time to share experience, knowledge and opinions. Sometimes we're put in these positions and I'm glad to have a place to come and discuss issues in a respectful way with other informed professionals.
@pamdory I'm not disagreeing with Fogel's analysis, all I posted earlier was a comment on his language skills. I could say something about people who write "who's" when they mean "whose," but I won't. I said it was unprofessional for preparers in general, not one preparer in particular, to report MCTR when it's high enough for a 1099 to be issued, but not when it's less than $600. Is that something you condone?
@BobKamman No, I don't condone omitting income items just because they fall beneath the threshold for 1099 reporting. But in this case we don't know if the MCTR IS an income item. So that leaves everyone to choose the path they feel is correct for their practice.
CA has probably taken the prudent path in issuing the 1099s in the absence of guidance. That doesn't mean they are correct. Generally when a client receives a 1099 in error, rather than trying to get the issuer to amend it, we will enter it on the return along with an offsetting entry explaining the error. In the case of the MCTR, if you're taking the position that it qualifies for the general welfare exclusion, I would treat all of them in the same manner, regardless of amount, mostly as a CYA. However, I can see how some preparers may take the position that the MCTR is not taxable to the fed, the 1099 reporting is wrong and in that case don't report it on the return unless you have to deal with a 1099.
In my previous reply I was replying more to your assertion that discussing it with the client was something other than informing them so they can decide if they want to take a more conservative approach or opt to wait for guidance. I don't think we've got too many folks on here who let their clients tell them to do the wrong thing. I'm sure many of us have told a few of our clients what they could do though.
Lighting a candle.
Not cursing the darkness.
https://procedurallytaxing.com/an-open-letter-to-the-last-irs-commissioner/
Maybe this letter will help, too.
Last week, The [Sacramento] Bee reached out several times to the IRS for information, with no response. After sending a follow-up to an IRS representative Thursday, The Bee received the following message: “We are looking into this and hope to have something for you in the next few business days,” Robyn Walker, IRS media relations, wrote in an email reply. “We will reach out when we do.”
Read more at: https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article272043567.html#storylink=cpy
Thanks for sharing this update Bob.
@BobKamman Nice candle.
I saw Chuck on Tax Analysts Taxing Issues yesterday. He looked sunburned. He is very proud of the IRS employees and that he got forms and instructions into Spanish. (He said the same things the last time I heard him speak a few months ago). Other than that he seemed clueless.
One more approach. What is constructive receipt. I my case the ever wonder Franchise Tax Board hand off my $$$ to Money Network on 10/26/2022. Money network managed to not send out my debit card to me until early 2023. There may have been some mystical, magical way for me to know the secret phone number and set of codes to contact them, but it was not published until people began to have problems with the card (Best one - I put the card in the ATM and it ATE IT. It never came out. Call Money Network and they need the card number to do anything....)
I enter the MCTR as income with a second entry - MCTR not received until 2023 and a negative. Now I have a whole year for IRS to make up it's mind.
Agree that Lacerte should update so that this shows on a statement, if the IRS decides that it is not taxable income.
IRS just announced in IR-2023-23 that the MCTR is not federally taxable:
"The IRS has determined that in the interest of sound tax administration and other factors, taxpayers in many states will not need to report these payments on their 2022 tax returns.
During a review, the IRS determined it will not challenge the taxability of payments related to general welfare and disaster relief. This means that people in the following states do not need to report these state payments on their 2022 tax return: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. Alaska is in this group as well, but please see below for more nuanced information."
I read the IR-2023-23 issue and it appears, from reading through the enitre notice that California's MCTR is considered a General Welfare payment (there is a link to a chart of General Welfare payments by state). So now I wonder, since a 1099-MISC was sent to everyone getting a relief amount above $600, that it needs to be reported and then adjusted out of income via the Schedule 1, or just not report the amount as income at all.
I think I will report the amount that is reported on the 1099-Misc on Schedule 1 line 8z and subtract as an adjustment on Schedule 1 line 24z so that my clients don't get a notice for not reporting the amount that is reported on the 1099-Misc. This is a recommendation from Tom Gorczynski.
I'm surprised about Maine, since those payments were x% of last year's Maine income tax.
In typical IRS fashion, they released this on a Friday night after normal business hours. This does not surprise me.
@sjrcpa The link says everyone got $850 in Maine.
@BobKamman I was misinformed. 😥
Your clients will not get a notice if the 1099 amount is not shown on the return. They are more likely to get a notice if an unexplained adjustment is shown on Schedule 1. A little knowledge about the CP2000 program can go a long way. Notices are not sent without operator review. The matching program will show an IRS employee the source and amount of any discrepancy. Even an IRS employee can identify that a 1099-MISC from Franchise Tax Board is "one of those," and move on to the next case.
I noticed that in this decision from the IRS it sounds like California taxpayers who received their Middle Class Tax Refund in 2023 (because FTB issued them late) will need to include this in their Federal taxable income. I have a few clients so far that fall into the group of late payments. I'm trying to be proactive in alerting those clients that they will need to remember to include the MCTR payment next year in their tax documents. Does anyone read that situation differently?
The IRS doesn't get into the nitty-gritty of MCTR payments not issued until early 2023, but those are not going to be treated any differently from those that were received in 2022.
I have had no issue subtracting the MCTR on Lacerte as an adjustment on Schedule 1.
You're right - Lacerte is now generating a Schedule 1 even if there's no net income. Whew!
Yes, in on one line (page 1), then out on another line (page 2) of Schedule 1. And Lacerte's been doing this for over a week.
As long as that "out" isn't entered as a minus - as has been pointed out on this forum & others where it's been asked/answered.
How much extra can we charge for that unnecessary form? And at 12.3% bracket, does FTB get back all the money they spent on that unnecessary postage?
Actually, both "in" and "out" on line 8z now shows up as a statement (and Schedule 1 is still included).
Now why couldn't Lacerte tell us that they were doing this?
You have clicked a link to a site outside of the Intuit Accountants Community. By clicking "Continue", you will leave the community and be taken to that site instead.