Deductions Missing From Your 2018 Federal Tax Return
In his Tax Tips column, Sidney Kess explains that as a result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, many write-offs are now missing from 2018 returns, and he offers a roundup of the deductions that have been deleted - some temporarily and some permanently.
April 27, 2018 at 02:45 PM
6 minute read
Most individuals have recently completed their income tax returns for 2017. Now is the time to focus attention on 2018 and beyond. As you do so, you'll find that as a result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, many write-offs that have long been available to individuals are now missing from 2018 returns. The changes in deduction rules may influence income tax withholding and estimated tax payments for 2018 and beyond. Here is a roundup of deductions that have been deleted, some temporarily (from 2018 through 2025) and some permanently.
|Personal and Dependency Exemptions
In 2017, you were able to deduct $4,050 for yourself and each dependent. For example, a married couple with two dependent children could subtract $16,200 ($4,050 x 4) in arriving at taxable income.
In 2018 through 2025, you cannot deduct personal and dependency exemptions. However, the concept of a dependent remains important for other tax purposes, such as the earned income credit and the newly-expanded child tax credit.
|Moving Expenses
Until now, if you relocated for a job or a business opportunity (self-employment) and met certain tests, you could deduct the cost of moving your household as an adjustment to gross income (no itemizing required). If you were reimbursed for your moving costs by your employer, the reimbursement was a tax-free fringe benefit.
Starting in 2018, you can no longer deduct the costs to move your household. What's more, if an employer reimburses you for moving expenses, this is now a taxable fringe benefit (through 2025). The only exception is for a member of the Armed Forces on active duty moving pursuant to a military order and incident to a permanent change of station.
|Home Mortgage Interest
Until now you could deduct interest on up to $1 million of acquisition indebtedness (a loan to buy, build, or substantially improve a principal residence or second home where the debt was secured by the mortgage). And you could deduct up to $500,000 in home equity debt, regardless of how you used the proceeds. These limits were halved for married persons filing separately.
Starting in 2018, the dollar limit on acquisition debt drops to $750,000 ($375,000 for a married person filing separately) for debt incurred after Dec. 15, 2017.
Also starting in 2018, interest on a home equity loan generally is not deductible. This is so regardless of when the loan was taken out. The IRS has made it clear (IR-2018-32, 2/21/18) that if you use the proceeds as acquisition indebtedness, the interest is deductible (subject to the overall dollar limit on qualified residence loan balances). For example, if you take out a home equity loan secured by your residence to add a room, the interest remains deductible. This is so regardless of the label on the loan (home equity loan, home equity line of credit or HELOC, or second mortgage). But if the proceeds are used to pay off credit card debt, take a vacation, or pay for a child's education or wedding, the interest is not deductible.
|State and Local Taxes
In 2017, if you itemized deductions you could write off all of your property taxes as well as all of your state and local income or sales taxes. In 2018 through 2025, there is a $10,000 cap on the deduction for all state and local taxes ($5,000 for married persons filing separately).
Some states, including New York, are trying to create work-arounds to enable its residents to continue reducing their federal taxes by their state and local tax payments. Some of these arrangements include treating tax payments as charitable contributions, reducing state income tax in favor of a payroll tax, and created an unincorporated business tax (as is currently in place in New York City) in lieu of state income tax. Whether any of these options will be adopted, and whether they will pass IRS muster, remain to be seen.
|Casualty and Theft Losses
Until now, if you experienced a casualty or theft loss that wasn't fully covered by insurance or other reimbursement, you could deduct the loss (after a $100 reduction) in excess of 10 percent of adjusted gross income as an itemized deduction. So if your house was robbed of valuables that were not fully insured, you could take a write off if you met the AGI threshold. If the casualty resulted from a federally-declared disaster, you could opt to deduct the loss on your return for the previous year.
Starting in 2018, there's no deduction allowed for any casualty or theft loss, regardless of amount. This change should make individuals re-examine their insurance policies and make changes accordingly. However, a casualty in a federally-declared disaster area remains deductible. The rule permitting it to be claimed on a prior-year return still stands.
|Miscellaneous Itemized Deductions
Until now, if you incurred business expenses not reimbursed by an employer through an accountable plan, they were deductible to the extent miscellaneous itemized deductions exceeded 2 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). The same is true for investment-related expenses, tax preparation and representation costs, and certain other miscellaneous expenses.
For 2018 through 2025, the deduction for miscellaneous itemized deduction subject to the 2 percent-of-AGI floor has been suspended. The following are examples of what can no longer be deducted:
• Driving a personal vehicle on company business
• Union dues and work clothes
• Tax return preparation fees
• Expenses to produce investment income
|Conclusion
Changes in the tax rules for 2018 require you to re-think traditional tax strategies. For example, because of some changes to itemized deductions and a substantial increase in the standard deduction, it may pay to bunch charitable contributions in one year and itemize but take the standard deduction in the following year. It may also require employers to re-think their compensation arrangements if they want to help employees cover business expenses on a tax-advantaged basis. And you shouldn't ignore the positive changes that can help to reduce your taxes, including lower tax rates, a higher standard deduction, and elimination of the phase-out of itemized deductions for high-income taxpayers. Tax advisors will find this year to be a very busy time!
Sidney Kess, CPA-attorney, is of counsel at Kostelanetz & Fink and senior consultant to Citrin Cooperman & Company.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThe Unraveling of Sean Combs: How Legislation from the #MeToo Movement Brought Diddy Down
When It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
8 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250