by Tiffany Evans | Accounting News, Audit and Accounting, Business Consulting, Financial Statement Reporting, IRS, News, QuickBooks, Resources, Retail & Distribution, Tax Consulting, Tax Planning, Tax Planning - Individual, Tax Preparation - Individual
The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has issued for public comment a proposed Accounting Standards Update (ASU) that is intended to improve the presentation of reclassifications out of accumulated other comprehensive income. The proposed amendments balance the benefits to users of financial statements without imposing significant additional costs to preparers, according to FASB’s In Focus documents. The proposed update would apply to all public and private organizations that issue financial statements in conformity with US GAAP and that report other comprehensive income.
The ASU Comprehensive Income (Topic 220), Presentation of Items Reclassified Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income, would require a tabular disclosure of the effect of items reclassified, which presents, in one place, information about the amounts reclassified and a road map to related financial disclosures. This information is currently presented throughout the financial statements under US GAAP.
Other comprehensive income includes gains and losses that are initially excluded from net income for an accounting period. Those gains and losses are later reclassified out of accumulated other comprehensive income into net income.
Some items of other comprehensive income that are reclassified after a reporting period, and which FASB uses in its presentation examples, include cash flow hedges, unrealized gains and losses on available-for-sale securities, and foreign currency translation adjustments. US GAAP disclosure requirements already require this information to be disclosed, the Exposure Draft (ED) of the amendments states.
The ED provides examples of tabular formats and addresses the needs of life insurers. It also refers to US GAAP requirements for defined benefit pension costs.
“Stakeholders raised concerns that certain requirements about the reclassification of items out of accumulated other comprehensive income would be costly for preparers and add unnecessary complexity to financial statements,” said FASB Chairman Leslie F. Seidman. “Based on this new feedback, the Board is proposing a revised approach that will present information about other comprehensive information in a useful way that is more cost-effective.”
No decision has been made regarding an effective date. Stakeholders are asked to provide their written comments on the proposed ASU by October 15, 2012.
Full article: http://www.accountingweb.com/article/fasb-proposes-changes-presentation-reclassified-income/219733
by Daniel Kittell | Accounting News, Bookkeeping, Business Consulting, CPA, News, Tax Consulting, Tax Planning - Individual
The true cost of public employee pensions will become clearer under changes approved June 25 by the accounting standards-setter for state and local governments ? the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB).
The GASB has approved two new standards that mark a major departure in the way pension costs are accounted for and described in financial statements today.
The major difference is that liabilities will be reported on the balance sheet for the first time. The net pension liability is the difference between the total pension liability (the present value of projected benefit payments to employees based on their past service) and the assets (mostly investments reported at fair value) set aside to pay current employees, retirees, and beneficiaries. Currently, governments must only report as a liability the difference between the contributions they are required to make to a pension plan in a given year versus what is actually funded.
Many states and municipal governments have not fully funded their pensions. In fact, the gap between the promises states have made for public employees’ retirement benefits and the money they have set aside to pay these bills was at least $1.38 trillion in fiscal year 2010, according to the Pew Center on the States.
Some observers believe the changes will help users of financial statements more clearly see the consequences of future proposed benefit increases.
Note Disclosures and Supplementary Information
Governments must also “comprehensively and comparably” measure the annual costs of pension benefits under the new standards.
The new statements are:
Statement No. 67, Financial Reporting for Pension Plans, which changes the existing guidance for the financial reports of most pension plans. The standard is effective for periods beginning after June 15, 2013.
Statement No. 68, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions, establishes new financial reporting requirements for most governments that provide their employees with pension benefits. Provisions are effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2014.
Early implementation is encouraged for both statements.
The American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) came out in favor of the new rules. AICPA President and CEO Barry C. Melancon said in a statement, “The new GASB standards will benefit users of these financial statements as well as taxpayers, since state and local governments for the first time will have to report unfunded pension liabilities on their balance sheets providing a clearer view of pension obligations.”
Statements 67 and 68 can be downloaded from the GASB website early August. Bound copies of the statements and a plain-language description of the new requirements also will be available.
Full Article: http://www.accountingweb.com/article/new-accounting-standards-pension-costs/219421
by Jean Miller | Accounting News, Audit and Accounting, Bookkeeping, Business Consulting, Financial Statement Reporting, IRS, News, Tax Consulting, Tax Planning
In a recent decision that considers the authority of the IRS to issue retroactive regulations, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Home Concrete that the IRS may not apply an extended six-year limitations period in certain tax shelter cases. The extended limitation period applies under IRC 6501(e) when a taxpayer “omits from gross income an amount properly includible” in excess of 25 percent of gross income. The court’s decision in Home Concrete has reversed cases where the government won in lower courts.
In 2009, the IRS issued temporary and final regulations that reinterpreted the established precedent for IRC 6501(e), Colony Inc. v. Commissioner, where the court had ruled on the language of the Code. The IRS regulation claimed that an overstatement of basis in property was an “omission” of gross income under the statute. The regulation would apply to any taxpayer whose statute of limitations remained open at the time the regulation was issued. The IRS then used this regulation as the basis for challenges to certain taxpayers. The Supreme Court rejected the 2009 IRS interpretation and reaffirmed its ruling in Colony.
In a recent exchange with AccountingWEB, Todd Welty, a partner in the Tax Litigation practice of SNR Denton in Dallas, reviewed the facts of United States v. Home Concrete and discussed its significance for the IRS and accountants. In 2007 through 2009, Welty, along with Senior Managing Associate Laura Gavioli, achieved rare taxpayer victories under the IRS’s six-year statute of limitations, including Grapevine Imports, Ltd. v. United States and MITA Partners v. Commissioner. These cases – like Home Concrete – test the boundaries of an agency’s authority to issue retroactive regulations, and the consequences have broad-reaching effects beyond tax law.
Q: What were the facts of the Home Concrete case? What was the government’s argument? What did the court conclude?
A: These cases began because the government alleged that the taxpayers had engaged in Son of Boss transactions, which the IRS has characterized as abusive tax shelters. Most taxpayers at issue disputed this characterization. Despite the IRS’s claim that failing to audit these taxpayers would result in massive losses of government revenue, the IRS had failed to open examinations against these taxpayers within the normal three-year window for examination and assessment under IRC 6501. According to a Treasury Inspector General report, the IRS “deliberately delayed” examining these taxpayers and allowed the three-year statutes to lapse, citing a need for further issue development.
The IRS instead sought to rely on a statutory exception under IRC 6501(e), which gives the IRS six years to pursue taxpayers who “omit” items of income exceeding 25 percent of the amount shown on the return. According to the IRS, since the taxpayers substantially underreported their taxable income due to the alleged Son of Boss transactions, the taxpayers met the statutory test, and the IRS argued it was entitled to three additional years to audit them.
Q: What was the problem with this view?
A: The IRS’s position was in direct conflict with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the predecessor statute to IRC 6501(e) in Colony Inc. v. Commissioner, 357 U.S. 28 (1958). In that case, the Supreme Court had examined the exact same language relied on by the IRS and reviewed the legislative history of the statute. The court concluded that the statute was designed to give the IRS additional time to examine returns not just because the amount at issue was large. Rather, the statute gave the IRS this additional time only when the taxpayers’ reporting left the IRS at a “special disadvantage” in detecting errors. Thus, the focus was not on the size of the amount at issue, but on what the IRS could have known or should have known from looking at the return.
Consequently, the Supreme Court in the Colony case held that the term “omits” in the statute should have its plain meaning, that is, to “leave out” entirely. Since the taxpayer in the Colony case had adequately disclosed the disputed transaction and his tax position – even though that position disagreed with the IRS’s view – the IRS had no recourse in the extended statute of limitations. At the end of Colony, the court noted that the predecessor statute had been recently replaced with the current IRC 6501(e) and that the court’s result was “in harmony” with the current statute.
The present taxpayers further argued that Colony was directly on point because, like the taxpayer in Colony, all of the present taxpayers were alleged to have underreported their income due to an overstatement of their basis in property. In Colony, the property was a series of residential lots. In the present cases, the property usually was a short position in Treasury notes. Many of the taxpayers’ disclosures on their returns met or exceeded the disclosures that the taxpayer had made in Colony.
In 2009, after the IRS had lost numerous high-profile cases on this issue, the IRS issued temporary and final regulations that purported to reinterpret IRC 6501(e) in a manner that directly conflicted with the central holding of Colony. The regulations explicitly held that an overstatement of basis in property was an “omission” of gross income under the statute. This regulation purported to apply to any taxpayer whose statute of limitations remained open at the time the regulation was issued. In other words, the regulation was intended to apply to any pending cases that had not become final following an appeal, even if the IRS had already litigated and lost these cases. Essentially, the regulation was meant to undo unfavorable judicial decisions that the IRS had received.
The Supreme Court decision in Home Concrete soundly refused to deviate from Colony. The regulation at issue was an act of overreaching on the government’s part. In particular, the majority noted that it would be difficult to distinguish between the predecessor statute and IRC 6501(e) because they use identical language, the term “omits.” Further, because the court in Colony found the language of IRC 6501(e) to be “unambiguous” on this issue, the court held that the IRS had no discretion to issue a regulation that contradicted a prior controlling interpretation from the court.
Q: On May 1, CCH published a list of cases: Supreme Court Docket: Cert Granted and Cases Remanded Due to Home Concrete. Does this mean that the cases are no longer before the court?
A: This means that the cases are no longer before the court and that the IRS has effectively lost all of the cases. The Supreme Court has reversed any cases where the government won in lower courts and has sent instructions to the lower courts to enter judgment for the taxpayers.
Q: How should accountants use this case in their practice?
A: This case has several important consequences for accountants. First, it is an important reminder that when the IRS intends to rely on an exception to the statute of limitations to audit your client beyond the normal three-year window, the IRS must have a sound argument for relying on that exception and must be able to back that up with solid proof. Accountants should seriously scrutinize any late-received audit notices and carefully consider whether to advise their clients to consent to extending any statutes of limitations in this situation.
Further, this case will have implications for the proper deference to give any Treasury Regulation or other administrative regulation. Under the court’s decision last year in Mayo Foundation v. United States, 562 U.S. (2011), Treasury Regulations are generally entitled to heightened deference. However, Home Concrete shows that not all regulations are created equal and not all are infallible. A regulation issued much later than its originating statute (here, more than fifty years later) may be subject to greater scrutiny. Also, a regulation motivated by an improper purpose (here, interfering with unfavorable judicial decisions) may also be subject to challenge.
Full Article: http://www.accountingweb.com/topic/tax/irs-cannot-extend-three-year-limitation-due-overstatement-basis
by Tiffany Evans | Accounting News, Bookkeeping, Business Consulting, IRS, News, QuickBooks, Resources, Tax, Tax Planning, Tax Planning - Individual, Technology
In an effort to jump-start the US economy and create more jobs, both the House and Senate passed the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act, and President Obama signed the act into law April 8, 2012. With bipartisan support, the bill is designed to make it easier for small businesses, start-ups, and entrepreneurs to raise capital by decreasing government oversight and federal regulations.
Now the intrigue begins. Many questions arise from this new legislation. What kind of impact will the JOBS Act have on small businesses, start-ups, and the economy in general? Will the JOBS Act open the door for new IPOs? Or will it provide more incentive for companies to stay private? What impact will the JOBS Act have on investors who rely on full disclosure when reviewing the filings of IPOs?
These open-ended questions have answers that vary depending on who you are asking – the opponents or proponents. Those in favor of the JOBS Act see it as an opportunity for growth; while those against it worry that loosened regulations may lead to investor fraud and abuse. Whether for or against the legislation, the JOBS Act will:
Create emerging growth companies. One provision of the JOBS Act essentially creates a new category of public companies. Businesses that have under $1 billion in annual revenue during its most recent fiscal year would qualify “emerging growth companies” (EGCs) and would not be required to comply with certain Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) reporting regulations for up to five years; less than five years if the company reaches $1 billion in gross revenue, $700 million in public float, or issues more than $1 billion in non-convertible debt in the previous three years. Companies that complete or have completed an IPO after December 8, 2011, will be eligible to qualify as an EGC. Through this legislation, EGCs would be exempt for their first five years on the public market from the compliance burdens of Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Section 404(b), such as requiring an auditor’s attestation report on internal controls over financial reporting. The JOBS Act will also allow pre-IPO EGCs to confidentially submit a draft registration statement for SEC review. Other reporting requirements will be “phased in” over the initial five-year period. These relaxed regulations will allow smaller companies to go public sooner.
Allow equity-based “crowdfunding.” New businesses will be able to raise up to $1 million in equity capital from unaccredited investors. This provision facilitates the utilization of online trading portals, a mechanism used to solicit a large number of smaller investors. The Senate version of the JOBS Act created a number of restrictions aimed at protecting investors. Among those restrictions are limiting individual investments to (1) the greater of $2,000 or 5 percent of the investor’s annual income or net worth if either annual income or net worth is less than $100,000; and (2) 10 percent of the investor’s annual income or net worth, not to exceed $100,000, if annual income or net worth is greater than $100,000 and also requiring registration by intermediary platforms and issuers with the SEC. Federal law would preempt state regulations, meaning that issuers could raise funds from across the United States. The SEC will have 180 days after the bill’s enactment to publish rules for crowdfunding.
Remove prohibitions on general solicitation of Regulation D offerings. The JOBS Act allows for advertising of Regulation D 506 offerings, as long as advertisements are focused on accredited investors. Affluent individuals who provide capital for a business start-up, also known as “angels,” should especially note the McHenry Amendment, which clarifies that angel and incubator platforms that do not charge a fee connected to the purchase or sale of securities would be exempt from broker-dealer registration. This exemption from registration will be helpful for Internet platforms, such as AngelList or Gust and venture forums aimed at accredited investors, and also for some angel groups.
Increase the threshold for Regulation A “mini-public offerings.” Regulation A currently allows companies to go public and be exempted from SEC registration for offerings up to $5 million. The JOBS Act will increase the offering threshold for this little-used exemption to $50 million, perhaps making it a more useful option for angel-backed companies.
Raise the cap on private shareholders from 500 to 2,000. Many private companies are forced by regulations to file as a public company once they exceed 500 shareholders and $10 million in assets. The bill will increase the shareholder limit to 2,000 accredited investors or 500 unaccredited investors. The increased limit will give some flexibility to companies like Facebook in deciding whether to stay private or go public, and it could also benefit secondary market platforms that can offer a more robust market for the shares of private companies.
From the above analysis of the bill, it is clear how the JOBS Act will help small businesses, start-ups and entrepreneurs raise capital, but the question that remains is how will the bill create jobs? Here are a couple of thoughts: (1) the $1 billion ceiling on regulation will spur job growth since it will provide an incentive for companies to go public instead of selling, and (2) the cost savings for new IPOs will allow them to spend more money on growing their businesses and hiring personnel instead of regulatory compliance.
Despite the apparent benefits of the bill, the legislation still has its detractors. Critics fear that the JOBS Act will lead to massive fraud due to a lack of regulation and oversight. Investors will not see the “full picture” when making their investments. For example, the online coupon company, Groupon (that who went public in 2011 and had over $1 billion in revenue at the time), was faced with major SEC scrutiny over its accounting methods during its IPO. The company suffered a significant market capitalization reduction when going public due to reported questionable accounting methods and the loss of investor confidence. Had the JOBS Act been in effect prior to its IPO, Groupon could have gone public before it reached the $1 billion mark and not dealt with the intense scrutiny that resulted in its reduction in market capitalization. Conversely, the investing public would not have been aware of the apparent “red flags” had the reporting regulations been relaxed.
To address these concerns, the Senate attached an amendment to the bill, requiring the business to warn investors that there are risks when it comes to investments. The amended bill requires that a business “takes reasonable measures to reduce the risk of fraud with respect to such transactions” and gives the investor its company address and website, which must be kept up-to-date. The JOBs Act also requires the SEC to implement various actions on a tight time line from as little as 90 days after enactment of certain aspects of the law, while up to 270 days for other portions.
The President and Congress are hoping the JOBS Act will generate as much economic growth as it did bipartisan support. It originally passed the House by a vote of 390 to 23, and then passed the Senate 73 to 26. However, only time will tell.
Full Article: http://www.accountingweb.com/topic/accounting-auditing/jobs-act-economic-solution-or-investor-nightmare
by Stephen Reed | Accounting News, CPA, IRS, Tax, Tax Planning, Tax Planning - Individual, Uncategorized
Most businesses these days are looking to cut spending. Accounting firms are in a unique position to not only help their small business clients trim the fat and manage their money, but to do the same for themselves.
Before any company can delve into strategic ways to save money, it must first set aside time to devote to money management. Even if a company is small, this step is crucial to a company’s success – no other advice is more important.
“You have to be focused enough to dedicate the necessary time weekly, if not more frequently,” said Robin Bell, CPA, member in Brown Smith Wallace (BSM) Tax Services group. “Bill frequently, collect often, and stay on top of billing and receivables. Pay attention to it.”
Set up a budget, then each month, compare the actual to the budget to see where improvements need to be made, suggests Patricia Schreiber, a New Orleans-based CPA.
And if you don’t have the time, delegate.
Look at what you need to have versus what you want to have when determining cash outflow, whether for your clients or your own firm. Once you have what you need, don’t pay more for it than is necessary to effectively operate your business.
“Segregation of duties: Learn it love it. Otherwise, stuff walks out the door,” says Chris Spivey, who has worked as a consultant to the accounting profession for several years.
If you’re an entrepreneur with tons of action items on your plate and collections isn’t your competency, refer it to someone else.
Bell’s longtime retail clients, who are used to bulk-buying seasonal products, have recently experienced difficulties managing their cash flow. Instead of stocking up on the “hot trends” for the season, Bell teaches its retail clients not to purchase more than they need. That way, they don’t have spend money to house products in a warehouse. However, when retail companies do this, they also must pay attention to what their customers might need in the near future. This ensures the retailers’ customers won’t have to wait too long if a product is out of stock.
According to Bell, some retail companies survey their clients to gauge what they’ll want to buy, or they beef up their marketing campaigns. This could put them at an advantage because most companies tend to trim their advertising and marketing dollars when times are tough. It’s not a matter of spending more, it’s just reallocating dollars to draw in more prospects, she said.
Do You Really Need That?
Look at what you need to have versus what you want to have when determining cash outflow, whether for your clients or your own firm, Bell said.
For example, look at telephone costs. If you’ve been using the same telephone provider for years, you might not think about changing vendors. But what about calling your provider to talk about your plan and whether it still makes sense given your current needs. You could also contact other providers to see what they offer.
Ask, “Do I have what I need, and am I paying for what I need versus paying more than what I need to operate my business,” Bell says.
Other potential areas to trim include:
Employee benefits. Can you save money without raising premiums if you have a group of employees who are healthy? “Especially in really small companies, it’s very easy to assess your pool and ask, ‘If I raise my deductible, how much can I save on my premium?’,” Bell said.
Mileage reimbursement. Encourage employees to travel less by visiting several clients on the same day who are based in the same area. Ask employees if they really need to fly nonstop or if they can fly on off hours or off days, Bell added.
While discussing money management is clearly a way to help your clients better manage their money, if they don’t ask you about it, how can you broach the subject?
BSW took a proactive approach by offering its clients a “health checkup,” which included a five-page questionnaire that asked some thought-provoking questions. It also provided BSW financial data that allowed the firm to see client trends and to learn what keeps business owners up at night, Bell said.
“Most clients were interested in seeing what we can do for them,” she said.
Clients want the help, so why not broach the subject?
Full Article: http://www.accountingweb.com/topic/accounting-auditing/money-management-possible-even-todays-economy
