|
Report
From Counsel - Fall
2006 ISSUE:
DEDUCTING
THE BUSINESS USE OF YOUR HOME
THE
DANGERS OF EMPLOYEE INTERNET USE
INADEQUATE
NOTICE OF TAX SALE
NONOWNER
CAN BE LIABLE UNDER FHA
QUALIFIED
PERSONAL RESIDENCE TRUST . .
.
FINANCIAL
PLANNING FOR A DISASTER
STEER
CLEAR OF BIG RIGS
- Summer
2006 issue: Should
you incoporate your business?/ Sports injuries; Valuation discounts
for estate and gift taxes; The hazards of resume screening; AEDS
help treat heart attacks; Eminent domain update; Smoke alarms:
inexpensive guardian angels.
- Spring
2006 issue:
Where to sue? Websites can affect jurisdiction; Property transfers
and medicaid eligibility; ADA protects employees with cancer;
Social Security number verification for employers; AEDS help
treat heart attaks; New 401(K) investment option; Landlord/tenant.
- Winter
2005/2006 issue: An Introduction to College
Savings Plans; Golf Balls can be Trespassers; FLSA Overtime
Update; "Pop-Ups" Annoy But Don't Infringe; Junk
Fax Protection Act; Contractor Shielded from Liability; Do
You Have Residences in More than
One State?
- Fall,
2005 issue: Careful!
New Rule Affects the Disposal of Credit Information;
Gifting as an Estate Planning Tool; Safeguards for
Electronic Banking; Retirement Guide for Small Businesses;
Protect Your Home with Title Insurance; Taster's Choice
Model Wins Big
- Summer,
2005 Issue: Business
Start-Up: Should You Be a Franchise Player?; Veterans' Benefits
Improve Act; Environmental Law Update; New Tax Deposit
Rules for Small Businesses; Family Limited Partnerships Draw
Irs Scrutiny
- Spring,
2005 issue and archives:
Real Estate Roundup; Pregnancy
Discrimination at Work; Minimize Your Risk of Identity
Theft; More Businesses
Eligible for C-EZ; Business Liable for Not Investigating Credit
Complaint; FDIC Insurance for Revocable Trusts
- Wills & Trusts
Seminars
- Legal
News
|
DEDUCTING
THE BUSINESS USE OF YOUR HOME
The federal
income tax deduction for the business use of a home has a good dollars-and-cents
upside
for those who qualify. Some detailed questions have to be answered correctly
to get to that point, however. Not surprisingly, the IRS publication on the subject
makes use of a complex flowchart filled with "yes or no" questions
to guide taxpayers to a determination of eligibility for the deduction.
Qualifying
for the Deduction
To pass the threshold for use of the home business deduction, a taxpayer must
satisfy the following two basic sets of requirements. The first set concerns
the nature of the business activities, while the second set relates more to
the place itself.
First, the
use of the business part of the home must be exclusive (with
exceptions to be discussed below), regular, and for the business.
Second, the business part of the home must be one of the following:
the principal place of business--the place where the taxpayer
meets or deals with patients, clients, or customers in the normal
course of business--or a separate, detached structure used for
business.
The exclusive
use factor means that the area is used only for business, not
for a mixture of business and personal uses. However, the exclusive
use requirement need not be met when a part of the home is used
for storage of inventory or product samples, or for a day-care
facility. When the IRS says that the use of the home must be
for a trade or business, it does not mean any activity that makes
money for the taxpayer. If you use a computer in your den for
day-trading of stocks or online gambling, do not count on taking
the deduction. As for what constitutes a "regular" use
for business, that essentially means business conducted on a
continuing basis, not occasionally. Even if a taxpayer has a
place in the home used exclusively for business, the deduction
is not available if the business activity is only sporadic.
As for the
requirements relating to the place itself, the area in the home
used for business is a "principal place of business" if
it is used exclusively and regularly for the administrative or
management activities of the business, and there is no other
fixed location where substantial activities of that kind are
carried out. If some business is transacted at more than one
location, determining whether the home location is the principal
place of business requires consideration of the relative importance
of the activities at each location. If that does not provide
an answer, the time spent at each site should be considered.
Remember that the deduction is available if either the home is
the place for meeting with patients, clients, or customers, or
a separate structure on the premises is dedicated for business.
If the taxpayer
is an employee using part of a home for business, the deduction
is available if all of the requirements described above are met,
plus two additional tests. The business use must be for the convenience
of the employer (not just appropriate or helpful), and the employee
may not rent all or part of the home to the employer while using
the rented portion to perform services as an employee.
What
Is Deductible?
Deductible expenses for a business use of the home include items such as the
business portion of real estate taxes, deductible mortgage interest, rent,
casualty losses, utilities, insurance, depreciation, painting, and repairs.
This is not likely to be an all-or-nothing proposition, though. Generally,
an expense is fully deductible if it is direct, that is, incurred only for
the business part of the home. An indirect expense, incurred for running the
home as a whole, is deductible based on the percentage of the home used for
business. Any reasonable method for determining that percentage is acceptable,
such as dividing the square feet used for business by the total square feet,
or dividing the number of rooms devoted to business by the total number of
rooms. If an expense is unrelated to the business part of the home, it is not
deductible at all.
If the taxpayer's
gross income from the business use of the home is lower than
the total business expenses, the deduction for certain expenses
will be limited. But those expenses that cannot be deducted because
of such a limitation can be carried forward for the next year's
home business expenses.
Top
of page
|
THE
DANGERS OF EMPLOYEE INTERNET USE
By
some accounts, a large majority of employees access the Internet
on company computers for personal reasons while at work. The
obvious adverse effects of
this on productivity are only the tip of the iceberg with regard to the potential
headaches that such activities can cause for employers. Personal Internet activity
by employees can pose security risks to the company's computer network itself,
such as by exposing a network to a computer virus.
Less immediate
but just as serious is the threat of legal liability of the employer
to injured third parties. Some scenarios are not difficult to
imagine. An employee uses his computer as a tool for sexually
harassing fellow workers by visiting pornographic websites. Or,
an employee embroiled in a bitter domestic dispute uses his office
computer to communicate threats to his spouse, and the employer
fails to take action.
In a recent
case, one such nightmare scenario was all too real for an employer
that had to defend itself against the alleged victims of an employee
who used a workplace computer for conduct that was criminal,
not just indicative of poor judgment. This case may be the first
reported decision on the matter of an employer's liability to
a third party for having failed to take action to stop an employee
from using a company computer in a manner that harmed the third
party. It most certainly will not be the last such case.
The case involved
an employee who used his company's computer at work to visit
pornographic sites, including some relating to child pornography.
Over a period of time, a supervisor and some coemployees became
aware of this activity and complained to management. Eventually,
the offending employee was confronted and was told to stop such
use of the computer, but, a few months later, he was again discovered
to have accessed pornographic sites.
Eventually,
the employee was arrested on child pornography charges, including
allegations that he had transmitted nude pictures of his 10-year-old
stepdaughter over his office computer to a child pornography
site. The employee's wife, who divorced him, sued the employer
for failing to investigate and for failing to report the employee's
viewing of child pornography. The case was settled, but not until
a precedent was set when the lawsuit survived attempts to have
it dismissed before trial.
There are limits
to what companies can or should do to prevent improper use of
company computers, but it is only prudent to take at least some
basic measures. It makes sense to have a written e-mail and Internet
use policy that clearly informs employees of what, perhaps, they
should already know--that the employer has and reserves the right
to monitor employees' use of the company's computers and to discipline
violators. In addition, there needs to be even-handed enforcement
of the policy. Even the best written policy will do little to
convince a jury, if it comes to that, that a company has done
all it reasonably could have done, if the evidence is that the
policy was toothless or rarely enforced.
|
|
|
INADEQUATE
NOTICE OF TAX SALE
Gary bought a house that he and his wife lived in for 26 years. When the couple
separated, Gary moved out, but he continued to pay the mortgage for another
four years until it was paid off in full. The loan was gone, but not the property
taxes--they went unpaid when the mortgage company that had previously been
paying them was out of the picture.
The state attempted
to notify Gary of the delinquency and of his right to redeem
the property. It mailed a certified letter to him at the address
of the subject property. Since nobody was home to sign for the
letter, it was returned to the state marked "unclaimed." Two
years later, and only weeks before the property was sold to pay
the taxes, the state published a newspaper notice of public sale
of the property. A buyer came forward, and the state sent Gary
another certified letter stating that his house would be sold
if the taxes were not paid. It, too, was returned unclaimed to
the state. Only when the new owner served a notice on Gary's
daughter at the house did Gary finally learn about the tax sale,
but it was after the fact.
Gary sued the
state, arguing that the state had sold his property for taxes
without first affording him procedural due process, and the United
States Supreme Court agreed with him. The Court did not lay down
an ironclad rule on what procedures are to be followed in all
cases. It did say that, upon the return of a notice as undeliverable,
the government must take additional, reasonable steps to attempt
to provide notice before it takes the drastic step of extinguishing
someone's interest in his or her property.
While the extent
of what is required will vary with the particular circumstances,
the Court's comments indicate that it hardly expects the government
to put a detective on the case of a "missing" property
owner. Open-ended requirements, such as searching a telephone
book or other government records, are not required of the government.
But it is not too much to ask the government to do, in the Court's
words, "a bit more." There were some follow-up options
that the state should have explored and used. They include such
simple measures as sending a notice by regular mail, for which
no signature is required, posting the notice on the front door,
or addressing the otherwise undeliverable mail to "occupant." Presumably,
even a nonowner occupant would alert the owner of such a notice.
The Court drew
an analogy to a state official handing notices meant for delinquent
taxpayers to a mail carrier, then watching as they were accidentally
dropped down a storm drain. One would expect new notices to be
prepared and sent again. Just as it would be unreasonable for
the official under those circumstances simply to shrug his shoulders
and say "I tried," the state in Gary's case owed him
more than inaction when the notices meant for him were returned "unclaimed."
|
|
|
NONOWNER
CAN BE LIABLE UNDER FHA
Among the kinds of conduct prohibited by the federal Fair Housing Act is the
making of any statement with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that
indicates a preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, religion,
sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. The most common violators
of this law are the actual owners of dwellings or individuals acting as agents
for owners. A federal appellate court, however, reinstated a lawsuit brought
by the United States against an individual who had spoken neither as an owner
nor as an agent for an owner.
The defendant
worked as a housing information vendor, compiling information
from classifieds and providing assistance to prospective tenants
looking for rooms to rent. In the episode that got the attention
of the authorities, a deaf man used a relay services operator
to call the defendant for assistance. The defendant flatly told
the caller that he did not provide assistance to disabled people.
When the caller persisted, the defendant responded with profanity
and hung up. Similar inquiries from "testers" were
met with essentially the same response. In fact, the jury heard "a
virtual tsunami of evidence" that the defendant routinely
treated disabled people differently from those not disabled,
often using profanity to underscore the point.
The court rejected
the reasoning that applying the prohibition on discriminatory
statements only to owners or their agents would be in keeping
with the purposes of the statute. On the contrary, the statute
was meant to protect against the "psychic injury" done
by discriminatory statements made in connection with the broader
housing market, not just statements that directly affect a housing
transaction. The limitation argued for by the defendant is not
in the statute itself, which broadly refers to "any" discriminatory
statement.
As for a First
Amendment argument put forward by the defendant, it may be available
for some forms of speech, such as a private individual's vocal
opposition to having children living on his block. The defendant's
speech, however, was commercial in nature, giving it less protection
from government regulation.
Top
of page |
QUALIFIED
PERSONAL RESIDENCE TRUST
Federal estate
tax law provides a method by which families can reduce the tax
consequences of transferring the family home to the younger generation.
The device for accomplishing this is called a qualified personal
residence trust (QPRT).
An individual
may create a QPRT by transferring his or her residence to a trust
(usually for the benefit of family members), while retaining
for a particular period of time the right to live in the residence
for free. The tax laws treat the transaction as a gift of the
remainder interest in the trust, rather than as an outright gift
of the residence itself. There is a tax on that gift, but there
is no later tax on the value of the whole residence at the time
of the grantor's death, as there otherwise could be but for the
use of the QPRT. As a rule, the more that a home can be expected
to appreciate over the term of a trust, the more beneficial is
the use of a QPRT.
A QPRT results
in tax savings only if the grantor outlives the period of the
retained interest. Even if the grantor does not survive the period
established for the trust, the worst that could happen is that
the full value of the residence would be taxed. The result is
the same as if there had been no QPRT in the first place.
The QPRT has
two generally recognized drawbacks. While the grantor, usually
a father or mother of a family, can continue to occupy the residence
after the period of retained interest has run, he or she must
pay rent to avoid inclusion of the residence in his or her estate.
Some individuals may not like the prospect of being their children's
rent-paying tenants. Second, the QPRT does not provide a "step-up" in
the cost basis of the residence as there normally would be if
a residence is inherited. If a QPRT is used, the gain on the
sale of the residence is measured against the price that the
grantor paid for the property originally, rather than against
the value of the residence at the time of the grantor's death.
The result could be higher income tax liability when the residence
is sold.
As with most
estate planning issues, the advice and guidance of a qualified
professional is recommended before establishing a QPRT.
Top
of page
|
FINANCIAL
PLANNING FOR A DISASTER
When
a natural or man-made disaster strikes, be it a hurricane affecting
an entire region or a gas leak affecting one house, it is only
natural and appropriate to think first of the very basics of
life: safety, shelter, food, and water. But it also makes sense,
in the quiet of normal daily living, to make plans for money
matters in the immediate aftermath of a disaster. As the saying
goes, the best time to fix a leaky roof is on a sunny day. If
you have only minutes to leave your home, advance planning for
keeping your head above water financially can pay big dividends.
Here
are a few pointers:
*
Keep the following items in a place that is easily available
to you in an emergency, but not so apparent as to invite theft:
forms of identification, such as driver's licenses, insurance
cards, Social Security cards, passports, and birth certificates;
enough checks and deposit slips to last a month, or at least
a checking account number; ATM cards, debit cards, and credit
cards; telephone numbers and account numbers for providers of
financial services; the key to your safe-deposit box; and some
cash.
*
Make copies of your most important documents, ideally on disks,
and keep the copies well outside of your home area.
*
Use a safe-deposit box for items that you are not likely to need
in a hurry, such as birth certificates and originals of contracts.
Other items can go in a sturdy safe at home.
*
In the same waterproof, portable "evacuation bag" in
which you can keep medications, first-aid kits, flashlights,
and so forth, keep some of the up-to-date financial papers mentioned
above. But secure it well, lest you inadvertently provide a treasure
trove of your financial information to a thief.
*
Choose automated services over dependency on writing and mailing
checks and trips to your bank. You can weather a storm financially
more easily with direct deposit, automatic bill payments, and
Internet banking services.
|
STEER
CLEAR OF BIG RIGS
With more and more tractor-trailer trucks on the
roadways, it is prudent to be extra cautious when you encounter
a big rig.
Remember that
a large truck has a large blind spot. If you are driving in the
truck's blind spot, the truck driver cannot see you. Either stay
behind the truck or else pass it quickly.
Do not follow
a big rig too closely. Large trucks block your view of hazards
further down the highway, and a tired trucker might not brake
soon enough to give you the warning you need to avoid a collision.
If in doubt,
give the truck a wide berth. A car almost always loses in a collision
with a large truck. The best way to avoid such accidents is to
avoid the trucks.
|
Actual resolution of legal issues depends upon many factors, including
variations of facts and state laws. This web publication in not intended
to provide legal advice for specific subjects, but rather to provide
insight into legal developments and issues that we feel could be useful
to our clients and friends.
Do you have a question for the Lawyer? Use this contact form
at: http://www.hoyweb.com/dh/contact.asp
or
if you live in the Chicagoland area call Mr. Hoy for a consultation
at 1-708-386-8030.
Top
of page |
© 1998
- 2006 HoyWeb.Com All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction
prohibited
by law.
updated
Aug 1, 2006
|