Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004
Our
firm is not engaged by this text in the rendering of legal, tax, accounting, or
similar professional services. While
the legal, tax, and accounting issues discussed in this material have been
reviewed with sources believed to be reliable, concepts discussed can be
affected by changes in the law or in the interpretation of such laws since this
text was printed. For that reason,
the accuracy and completeness of this information and the opinions based thereon
cannot be guaranteed. Before taking
any action, all references and citations should be checked and updated
accordingly.
The new law extends several previously-enacted tax cuts that were scheduled to be eliminated or reduced in 2005. Hence, these provisions will prevent many individuals from incurring increased tax liability in 2005 and perhaps in subsequent years as well.
Tax cut legislation in 2001 created a new 10% income tax bracket below the 15% bracket, which previously had been the lowest tax bracket. In 2004, the amounts taxed at the 10% rate are (because of inflation adjustments)—
· $7,150 for single filers,
· $10,200 for heads of household, and
· $14,300 for joint filers and surviving spouses.
These amounts were scheduled to drop to $6,000, $10,000, and $12,000, respectively, in 2005 and to stay at those levels until 2008. The result would have been higher taxes because more income would have been taxed at the next higher rate of 15%. The new law prevents this result by retaining the 2003 and 2004 levels, with inflation adjustments, through 2010.
Previous legislation provided temporary marriage penalty relief for joint filers by increasing both the standard deduction and the amount of income taxed at the 15% rate to twice the comparable amounts for single taxpayers. Thus, in 2004, the standard deduction for joint filers and surviving spouses is $9,700 (versus $4,850 for single filers) and the amount taxed at 15% is $43,800 (versus $21,900 for single filers).
These differentials were scheduled to drop in 2005 and not return to the 200% level until either 2008 (15% bracket) or 2009 (standard deduction). Under the new law, the differentials will remain at 200% through 2010.
The child tax credit for 2004 is $1,000 per qualifying child. The credit was scheduled to decrease to $700 in 2005 and gradually increase to $1,000 again in 2010. The new law retains the $1,000 amount through 2010.
Note that the new law does not change the rule that the maximum credit amount is phased out for taxpayers with income exceeding certain levels. For example, in 2004, the phase-out range for joint filers begins at $110,000 of “modified adjusted gross income” (gross income plus certain nontaxable income).
The new law does, however, accelerate a scheduled increase in the refundable amount of the child tax credit. Also, nontaxable combat pay is treated as earned income for purposes of calculating the refundable amount.
Thus, in 2004, the refundable amount will be 15% (versus 10%) of earned income—including nontaxable combat pay—in excess of $10,750. The 15% rate will continue through 2010 and the $10,750 amount will be indexed for inflation.
Previous legislation permitted teachers and other “eligible educators” in grades kindergarten through 12 to take an “above-the-line” deduction in 2002 and 2003 of up to $250 for certain unreimbursed classroom expenses. The new law extends this provision through 2005, effective retroactively to the beginning of 2004.
Therefore, teachers, instructors, counselors, principals, or aides in a school for at least 900 hours during a school year may deduct up to $250 of eligible out-of-pocket expenses in 2004 and 2005 without having to itemize and without being subject to the limitation on “miscellaneous itemized deductions.” Eligible expenses include books, certain supplies, computer equipment (including related software and services), other equipment, and supplementary materials that the taxpayer uses in the classroom.
Qualified Electric Vehicles and Clean-Fuel Vehicle
Property
Previous legislation provided temporary tax incentives for “qualified electric vehicles” and “clean-fuel vehicle property” placed in service before 2007. A credit of up to $4,000 was available for qualified electric vehicles purchased before 2004. A deduction of $2,000 ($5,000 or $50,000 for certain trucks and vans) was available for “qualified clean-fuel vehicle property” purchased before 2004. These maximums were scheduled to drop by 25% in 2004, 50% in 2005, and 75% in 2006.
The new law repeals the scheduled reductions for 2004 and 2005. Thus, the full credit or deduction will be available in those years.
The new law did not change the 75% reduction scheduled for 2006, or the termination of these special incentives thereafter.
Uniform Definition of Child
The new law seeks to simplify the tax code by applying a uniform definition of “child” for purposes of the dependency exemption, the child credit, the earned income credit, the dependent care credit, and head-of-household filing status. These provisions will not generally apply until after tax year 2004, and therefore will not affect individual returns to be filed next April.
In most cases, the new rules will produce the same or greater tax benefits than the pre-2005 rules. But this will not necessarily be the result in every case. Therefore, taxpayers need to consider the potential impact of the new rules and to plan accordingly.
A taxpayer’s “child” under the new rules is a natural or adopted child, a stepchild, or an “eligible foster child.” The latter term means an individual placed with the taxpayer by an authorized placement agency or an appropriate court order. A child is considered “adopted” when lawfully placed with the taxpayer for legal adoption by the taxpayer.
The key definitions under the new rules are “qualifying child” and “qualifying relative.” An individual who fits either of these definitions is considered a “dependent” of the taxpayer. Note, however, that these terms are somewhat misleading, because, just as under the pre-2005 rules, certain individuals can qualify as dependents of a taxpayer even though they are neither children nor relatives of the taxpayer.
The most notable superficial difference from current law is that the “qualifying child” standard does not include either the “support test” or the “gross income test,” although it does bar a dependency exemption for any individual who is self-supporting.
These tests are replaced by a residency requirement, under which the individual being claimed as a dependent must have had the same “principal place of abode” as the taxpayer for more than one-half of the relevant taxable year. Note, however, that the new law retains the special rule under current law that, in certain cases in which the parents are divorced or separated, in effect permits the custodial parent to release the claim to the exemption in favor of the noncustodial parent.
The new law provides “tie breaker” rules for any taxable year in which an individual could be a qualifying child with respect to two or more taxpayers and those taxpayers each claim benefits based on the individual’s status as a qualifying child. For example, an individual who lived with his father and grandmother in the same residence could be a qualifying child with respect to each. Or, an individual who lived with her two aunts in the same residence could be a qualifying child with respect to each.
Under the tie breaker rules, a parent is preferred over other claimants. As between parents, preference is given to the parent with whom the child resided for the longest period of time during the year. If the child resided with each parent for an equal period of time, the parent with the higher adjusted gross income gets the exemption. If none of the claimants is a parent, the taxpayer with the highest adjusted gross income is entitled to the exemption.
If an individual is not a “qualifying child” with respect to the taxpayer (or any other taxpayer), the dependency exemption may be based on the individual’s status as a “qualifying relative.” In general, the new law incorporates the present-law dependency exemption rules for this purpose.
Thus,
as under current law, the individual’s relationship to the taxpayer can be
quite broad, including parents and stepparents, aunts and uncles, nieces and
nephews, and certain in-laws, among others. More importantly, the present-law
gross income and support tests continue to apply, including the special rules
concerning multiple support agreements, income of handicapped dependents, and
support of students.
Dependent
Care Credit
Although the new law generally retains the current law rules for determining the dependent care credit, e.g., a child generally must be under age 13 in order to be a “qualifying individual,” the new law:
·
eliminates the requirement that a taxpayer provide more than
one-half of the cost of maintaining a household in order to claim the credit;
and
The new law generally retains the current law rules for determining the child credit. Thus, for example, the child tax credit is available only if the child is under age 17 (whether or not disabled). However, the new law eliminates the requirement that foster children and certain other children be cared for “as the taxpayer’s own” children.
The new law generally retains the current law rules for purposes of determining the earned income credit.
Thus,
for example, a child may be a qualifying child for purposes of the earned income
credit even if the child is self-supporting or the taxpayer cannot claim the
child as a dependent because of the special rule permitting the noncustodial
parent to claim the exemption. Also, the new law retains the
requirement that the taxpayer’s principal place of abode must be the
However, the new law eliminates the requirement that foster children and certain other children be cared for “as the taxpayer’s own” children.
Summary provided by Tax Management Inc.