Speaker 1: It's night Side with Dan Ray. I'm delay Boston News Radio.
Speaker 2: All right, our number two coming up with Mark Misslbeck.
Speaker 2: Mark Missilbeck a CPA of more than a few years.
Speaker 2: He has been also more than a few years the
Speaker 2: unofficial night Side Tax CPA. Mark works with a big
Speaker 2: firm called Cherry Beckard Advisory LLC eight hundred South Street
Speaker 2: in Waltham. And Mark, I know you do this off
Speaker 2: the top of your head, and it amazes me that
Speaker 2: no matter what someone asks you, you were able to
Speaker 2: give them an answer. I mean, I I never practiced
Speaker 2: tax law. I've done tax returns for people, never at
Speaker 2: the level of complexity that you deal with. It has
Speaker 2: to be, you know, a real struggle to keep up
Speaker 2: with Congress. I mean the two thousand and seventeen Tax Act.
Speaker 2: One of the things that bothered me about that. And
Speaker 2: I'll just get a little political for a moment. I
Speaker 2: don't expect you to chime in here is that in
Speaker 2: many states like Massachusetts and New York and California, Maryland
Speaker 2: that are New Jersey, Connecticut, that are Democratic controlled states,
Speaker 2: there's pretty high real estate taxes and high income tax,
Speaker 2: income state taxes, and the so called salt limitations of
Speaker 2: ten thousand dollars on the taxes was the device that
Speaker 2: the Trump administration very effectively used because in a lot
Speaker 2: of the red states, they're not dealing with real estate
Speaker 2: taxes like we deal here in Massachusetts or state income taxes.
Speaker 3: It was pretty pretty clever.
Speaker 2: Of what happened in twenties seven a team. But I
Speaker 2: believe that there is some talk in Congress now to
Speaker 2: remove that cap, or at least increase that cap so
Speaker 2: that not this year, but beginning next year, if they
Speaker 2: do pass a new tax act, that people in Massachusetts
Speaker 2: who pay significantly more real estate taxes, more state income taxes,
Speaker 2: and in other states like you know, Maryland, New York,
Speaker 2: New Jersey, California, will get a little bit of relief.
Speaker 2: Do you see what I see that there was a
Speaker 2: little bit of politics in the twenty seventeen Tax Reform Act.
Speaker 4: Possibly, but I think it's more noise than reality. What
Speaker 4: do you think the tax top tax rate is? And
Speaker 4: what do you think the savings is from deducting those taxes?
Speaker 3: It depends upon how much real estate taxes should pay.
Speaker 4: If you're someone you know, I mean, what what percentages
Speaker 4: the savings?
Speaker 2: Thirty seven percent. In other words, if you used to
Speaker 2: pay For example, I live in Newton, and you can
Speaker 2: pay forty fifty thousand dollars easily on real estate taxes.
Speaker 4: Yeah, but Dan, Dan, In a lot of instances, the
Speaker 4: savings is only nine percent.
Speaker 2: Why would it be nine percent because there's.
Speaker 4: A little hidden agenda called the Alternative minimum Tax or
Speaker 4: AMT AMT.
Speaker 3: Yep, that's that's a good point.
Speaker 4: What you deduct on regular tax in your regular taxes
Speaker 4: at thirty seven percent for taxes, those taxes are not
Speaker 4: deductible for AMT, and the tax rate under AMT is
Speaker 4: twenty eight percent. So if you have a higher tax
Speaker 4: under AMT, you pay the AMT in it to bring
Speaker 4: your regular tax up to the AMT. So if you
Speaker 4: save at thirty seven but you pay back at twenty eight,
Speaker 4: the net savings may only be nineteen percent. Well it
Speaker 4: may sound better than it is as a deduction.
Speaker 2: Oh, absolutely, because and of course the AFT is another
Speaker 2: device that the government uses to go after. You know,
Speaker 2: we're always told it's the rich people that don't pay taxes,
Speaker 2: but you know, people pay a lot of taxes.
Speaker 4: Do you know what the origin of the AMT was?
Speaker 3: No, the political origin.
Speaker 4: No, the sound and thunder in nineteen sixty nine of
Speaker 4: a congressional hearing where it was brought out that eleven
Speaker 4: millionaires paid no tax whatsoever, brought in the then alternative
Speaker 4: minimum tax, and in nineteen eighty six it was transmogrified
Speaker 4: with the writing over of all the tax law in
Speaker 4: that broad based change to our modern AMT.
Speaker 2: Right was that was the Rostenkowski was the chairman of
Speaker 2: in the Ways and Means Committee.
Speaker 4: And got a deal with the with the Reagan administration.
Speaker 2: Yes, he did kind of deal with the Reagan administration
Speaker 2: and some of the problems there where there were people
Speaker 2: that were had invested in legitimate, legitimate real estate investments
Speaker 2: and a lot of the deductions and credits which have
Speaker 2: been promised to people from making legitimate investments.
Speaker 4: In really but highly leveraged in some really really aggressive.
Speaker 2: Well there was something outright fraud. But because there there
Speaker 2: was there was fraud there.
Speaker 4: Dan proud or not, I went. I went through the
Speaker 4: middle with those packed shelters and the ratio was four
Speaker 4: times the deductions of what you invested. The dirty little
Speaker 4: secret was at the time getting five or six percent
Speaker 4: immuni bonds if you had the discipline to put the
Speaker 4: tax savings from that leverage deduction aside and invest that
Speaker 4: with that five or six percent rate to build up
Speaker 4: the money to repay the taxes when you got out
Speaker 4: of the darn things. You had to be into them
Speaker 4: for twenty five years to break even.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: But my recollection, and again you probably because if you
Speaker 2: were practicing tax law you have a better recollection, is that.
Speaker 2: For example, specifically on historic preservation properties, which were absolutely
Speaker 2: legitimate deductions, those deductions and credits were dramatically reduced after
Speaker 2: people invested in those and relied upon the tax code
Speaker 2: as it existed in nineteen eighty three or nineteen eighty four,
Speaker 2: and the ground rules then got changed retroactively. And I
Speaker 2: think that was an abomination, and I think a lot
Speaker 2: of people came to that conclusion ultimately as well. The
Speaker 2: other there were other items which were actually fraudulent, I mean,
Speaker 2: and there should have been people and probably were some
Speaker 2: that went to jail, But on legitimate historic preservation properties,
Speaker 2: I think those are very legitimate investments that people made.
Speaker 4: They got their credits, they if they didn't use them
Speaker 4: in the years they got into them, and they slopped
Speaker 4: over into the post eighty six Tax Act changes he
Speaker 4: asked they could be limited and have taken a while
Speaker 4: to get. They were pushed off and deferred, but still
Speaker 4: ultimately available either on realization of income of the same
Speaker 4: sort of category or on the disposition of the project
Speaker 4: that generated the income or law the credits and losses.
Speaker 2: And again I remember that very well, and I think
Speaker 2: I think the Reagan administration actually came to regret the
Speaker 2: eighty six Tax Act. And of course Ruskin Ruskyinkowski, im
Speaker 2: if I'm not mistaken, was eventually indicted. He was the
Speaker 2: Chairman of Ways and Means at that time. If you
Speaker 2: recall the guy, so the guy that was writing tax
Speaker 2: code in America as the chairman of the Housewives and
Speaker 2: Meets Committee ended himself ended up himself being indicted.
Speaker 4: If you I think we're going a little far afield
Speaker 4: from our listeners at this point.
Speaker 2: No, no, I understand that that's fine, that's fair enough.
Speaker 2: But I do want to keep up. Let's get back
Speaker 2: to phone calls. I'm going to go to Jay and share,
Speaker 2: and Jay, I appreciate you. You're hanging in here with us.
Speaker 5: Go right ahead, Jay, Yeah, Hi, thanks for taking account.
Speaker 2: So I'm sorry about that that little side side uh
Speaker 2: side step go right ahead, you're.
Speaker 5: With thank you. So my question is I'm thinking of
Speaker 5: buying an innocent property in New Hampshire. And my question was,
Speaker 5: it's a brand new property coming up. So if I'm
Speaker 5: like to buy that, I know that is a depreciation
Speaker 5: that I can account for or doing the taxes for
Speaker 5: this year. But if I'm furnishing and you know, completely
Speaker 5: furnishing the unit and all that, but what other expenses
Speaker 5: can I include? Are there any allowances for those expenses?
Speaker 4: Dam I'm going to ask you to summarize because a
Speaker 4: lot of that didn't come through clearly.
Speaker 2: Okay, this gentleman is buying a investment property in New Hampshire.
Speaker 2: Is this an investment property that you'll be renting out?
Speaker 2: This is not going to be the second time that
Speaker 2: you're going to rent out, okay. And I think your
Speaker 2: question was, in addition to the property, which you could
Speaker 2: depreciate over time, you wanted to know if you were
Speaker 2: to refurnish the property. I assume this might be a
Speaker 2: new property that you're purchasing, are you able to also
Speaker 2: to depreciate the furniture as well as the purchase price
Speaker 2: of the property.
Speaker 4: Yes, the furniture would be a seven year write off.
Speaker 4: There are mandatory tables the IRS has issued and as
Speaker 4: long as you don't backload your purchases where forty percent
Speaker 4: of what you put in service falls into the last
Speaker 4: quarter of the ye, those tables are good for the
Speaker 4: entire year. For whatever you put in service, a certain
Speaker 4: percentage would be deductible in the year placed in service,
Speaker 4: and then the percentages go out for the following years.
Speaker 4: On the building itself. If it's sufficiently large purchase, you
Speaker 4: might consider what is known as a cost segregation study,
Speaker 4: where an engineering firm would evaluate not only the building
Speaker 4: but the components to the building, and certain components would
Speaker 4: be classified not as the building but as personal property
Speaker 4: appurtenances that would have a shorter life. For example, your
Speaker 4: furniture is seven years. If the building is residential, you
Speaker 4: would have to write it off over twenty seven and
Speaker 4: a half years. If it's commercial that is more than
Speaker 4: twenty percent rented to commercial operations out of the total
Speaker 4: square footage. It's not twenty seven and a half years,
Speaker 4: thirty nine years as a write off, okay, so moving
Speaker 4: it down. And one thing other that some people ignore
Speaker 4: land is land and is always there at the end
Speaker 4: of the day. You have to carve out of your
Speaker 4: purchase price the portion of the price that is attributable
Speaker 4: to the land that compell or high water at the
Speaker 4: end of the day is still there, So no depreciation
Speaker 4: on that.
Speaker 5: Okay, okay, thank you. And one other questions if I
Speaker 5: may ask, great, Yeah, so in terms of tactics for
Speaker 5: last year, you know, are you still taking you know,
Speaker 5: new new folks. If I wanted to get my taxes
Speaker 5: done now, I've been doing it all these years, but
Speaker 5: I thought maybe it's time I get some professional advice
Speaker 5: and help. So just checking, right, are you still able
Speaker 5: to take people to file tax returns?
Speaker 4: We're not taking on clients at your level, I don't believe.
Speaker 4: I don't think it would be cost effective, but you
Speaker 4: certainly should be able to find someone who will work
Speaker 4: on your taxes. It may be, however, in searching for
Speaker 4: someone at this point in time, that they would have
Speaker 4: to put you on extension and do your taxes after
Speaker 4: April fifteenth. Yeah, they they might feel more obligated to
Speaker 4: the people who've been with them for a while.
Speaker 2: The other thing, Jay, is that the extension pretty much
Speaker 2: is granted, but you do have to, as Mark has
Speaker 2: emphasized every time we talk about extensions, you have to
Speaker 2: basically pay.
Speaker 4: Yeah, you make your best effort to figure out what
Speaker 4: it is you expect to owe and whatever you haven't
Speaker 4: already paid, and you need to send in with the extension.
Speaker 5: Yep.
Speaker 2: And the other thing to consider, Jay, is that it's
Speaker 2: always nice to have a tax prepared that is close
Speaker 2: to home. Uh So, if you know Mark's Marx company,
Speaker 2: which you certainly can call if you want, There's not
Speaker 2: nothing would prevent you from calling Cherry Burkert Advisory in Waltham.
Speaker 2: It's always helpful if you can find someone closer to
Speaker 2: home so that you're you know, it's a little bit
Speaker 2: more convenient in terms of running back and forth.
Speaker 3: So that would be my advisory on that as well.
Speaker 5: Okay, okay, thank you, thank you so much.
Speaker 3: Jay, very welcome, thanks for calling Nightside. We'll take a
Speaker 3: very quick break.
Speaker 2: I guess Mark Misselbeck he is our he's providing tax
Speaker 2: advice for Nightside listeners. I am indebted to him greatly,
Speaker 2: and if you want to, we will continue till eleven
Speaker 2: o'clock and if you if you have a question, just dial.
Speaker 2: I have one line at six one seven two five
Speaker 2: thirty and one at six one seven nine three one
Speaker 2: ten thirty. This is a free tax advice that is
Speaker 2: worth much more than what you don't pay for it.
Speaker 2: Normally they say free advice is what's worth what you
Speaker 2: pay for it. Well, this is free tax advice that
Speaker 2: actually is worth a lot to you and to other.
Speaker 3: Listeners as well.
Speaker 2: And I appreciate Mark taking his time twice a year
Speaker 2: as he does for Nightside. Back on Nightside with more
Speaker 2: calls and questions for Mark Missilebeck right after this.
Speaker 1: Now back to Dan Ray live from the Window World
Speaker 1: Nightside Studios on WBZ News Radio.
Speaker 3: Back to the phones we go.
Speaker 2: Let's go to Gene Gene, welcome you and next on Nightside.
Speaker 2: Your question uh for for my guest CPA Mark Missilebeck.
Speaker 3: He awaits your question.
Speaker 6: Yes, Hi, Hi Jan, thank you very much. Hi Mak
Speaker 6: So here's my question. Okay, my horrible lutgage company that
Speaker 6: really has is just incredibly lacking. They they had this
Speaker 6: is this is a minor thing, but I need to
Speaker 6: find out what to do with it. They you know,
Speaker 6: took too much escrow and now they sent me ten
Speaker 6: ninety nine for twenty two dollars of interest, so A
Speaker 6: tenety nine a m C. So we took the Schedule
Speaker 6: B form to put that extra interest on. And yeah,
Speaker 6: I couldn't find anywhere else that it goes, Am I
Speaker 6: right on that that I should put it on the
Speaker 6: Schedule B.
Speaker 4: Yes, they they earned twenty two dollars for holding your
Speaker 4: money to be able to pay insurance and taxes, and
Speaker 4: they put it into that fund for future use in
Speaker 4: paying insurance and taxes. And if you reach a point
Speaker 4: where your equity in the house at fair value versus
Speaker 4: the mortgage out stand rises to fifty percent or more,
Speaker 4: you may be able to ask them to discontinue the
Speaker 4: escrow element and let you pay your insurance and taxes
Speaker 4: on your own because you have such a great amount
Speaker 4: of equity into the property.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I like to get rid of them really quick.
Speaker 6: The horrible and they really have messed me up a lot,
Speaker 6: the horrible. I don't know how they keep license, to
Speaker 6: be honest, but there is no consumer protection around anymore.
Speaker 4: You should talk to a credit assistance agency and potentially
Speaker 4: look at a refi into a different mortgage.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I know, thank you, Gene.
Speaker 3: How much equity. Do you have in your property A lot?
Speaker 4: A lot.
Speaker 3: I don't want you to.
Speaker 4: You check with one of your local credit unions. They
Speaker 4: usually have a fairly good rate, particular if you're a patron.
Speaker 4: Positive very much.
Speaker 6: I appreciate it. I do wish we had more consumer
Speaker 6: protection out there. That there's really not too many places
Speaker 6: to call for help anymore. So I did put that
Speaker 6: money in here on this on this Schedule B. I
Speaker 6: do not have capital gains and all that, so I
Speaker 6: know I could skip some of that portion of that form,
Speaker 6: but on I also added it onto line thirty.
Speaker 4: Six at it goes from the Schedule B onto another
Speaker 4: line on the face of the return. The one thing
Speaker 4: you want to do on Schedule B. However, there are
Speaker 4: a couple of questions about foreign bank accounts and trusts.
Speaker 4: Ye don't have them. You do want to? You do
Speaker 4: want to? You do want to put an answer in there.
Speaker 6: Of no, okay, thank you. I just wanted to make
Speaker 6: sure I'm kind of doing this right, and I did
Speaker 6: put it online thirty six of the Schedule B.
Speaker 4: Also, yeah, I don't have the forms in front of me,
Speaker 4: and I can't tell you the specific lines, but you
Speaker 4: you do enter the item in there, you total it
Speaker 4: on the bottom. It's on one half of the form.
Speaker 4: You take a total for that half of the form,
Speaker 4: and then you bring it over on to the front
Speaker 4: of the return. The page one of the page one.
Speaker 6: Of the I edited, Yeah, I edited in there along
Speaker 6: with my regular interest. I added the twenty two dollars
Speaker 6: in there.
Speaker 4: All the all of the different interests items should be
Speaker 4: on the schedule.
Speaker 6: B though yes, yes it is, but in the Massachusetts
Speaker 6: form they have Massachusetts bank interest.
Speaker 4: And so yeah, well, the new for this year, they
Speaker 4: don't give you the hundred or two hundred dollars exclusion
Speaker 4: any longer. That was revealed last year. I noticed one
Speaker 4: different The one difference is the one difference is mass
Speaker 4: bank interest will not be capable of being offset if
Speaker 4: you have capital losses. Non mass bank interest and dividends.
Speaker 4: If you have capital losses, can apply against those, but
Speaker 4: not against the mass bank interest. That's the one difference
Speaker 4: that remains in having mass bank interest.
Speaker 6: Okay, thank you very much. I appreciate you, Jeane.
Speaker 3: Best of luck.
Speaker 5: You're gonna be okay.
Speaker 3: Don't worry. They're not gonna off you for twenty two bucks.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Thank you very much.
Speaker 4: I know, thanks very much.
Speaker 2: There are a lot of honest people out there, and
Speaker 2: Gene is someone who's very honest. She's being so careful
Speaker 2: and so diligent and and my hat's off to folks
Speaker 2: like that. We will take a quick break Mark Misselbeck.
Speaker 2: We've still got calls here, so we're going.
Speaker 3: To keep rolling. Six one.
Speaker 2: The only line that is open right now, folks, is
Speaker 2: the six one, seven nine. You get in there now,
Speaker 2: we'll be able to get to you. But if you wait,
Speaker 2: we will be running out of time because Mark will
Speaker 2: not be here, uh any longer than this hour. So
Speaker 2: if you have a question, now is the time to
Speaker 2: dial six one seven, And the number to dial is
Speaker 2: six one seven, nine, three one, ten thirty. The other line,
Speaker 2: they're all filled up. We're coming back on night Side.
Speaker 1: It's night Side with Boston's News Radio.
Speaker 2: We are talking with Mark Misselbeck, CPA and taking your
Speaker 2: questions on taxes. Let's go next to Anna from Marlborough, Massachusetts. Anna,
Speaker 2: welcome you next time night Side with Mark, Misslbeck. What's
Speaker 2: your question for Mark? Go right ahead. Anna.
Speaker 7: Hello, So I feel a little embarrassed because I feel
Speaker 7: like I should know a little more about taxes at
Speaker 7: this point.
Speaker 8: But oh, well, you know something.
Speaker 2: The only I learned a long time ago, Anna, The
Speaker 2: only dumb question is the question that you're too afraid
Speaker 2: to ask. There are really no questions.
Speaker 8: If you don't here, I am take it.
Speaker 3: That's okay, You're gonna get fine, Go right ahead.
Speaker 7: Okay. So, my long term partner and I have two
Speaker 7: young children, and we own a home together. I'm a nurse,
Speaker 7: but I'm currently working part time as I work through
Speaker 7: a master's program. My partner is a full time engineer,
Speaker 7: and so I am wondering who should claim the children,
Speaker 7: who should claim the house? And would marriage significantly alter
Speaker 7: our tax situation?
Speaker 3: Those are great questions.
Speaker 4: Go ahead, Mark, great, great and complex. Yes, if you
Speaker 4: had the children together. If you've had the children together,
Speaker 4: it becomes a question of who has supplied the greater
Speaker 4: portion of the support, essentially the family first question, who
Speaker 4: owns the house? One of you alone or both of.
Speaker 7: You together, both of us together?
Speaker 9: All right.
Speaker 4: The obligation then is for each of you to underwrite
Speaker 4: half of the cost of the house, So it should
Speaker 4: be half each of the taxes, the insurance, and so forth.
Speaker 4: If there's a mortgage, you each get half of the interest,
Speaker 4: you each get half of the taxes, and if you
Speaker 4: have enough, you itemized deductions. The threshold for itemization on
Speaker 4: a single return is less than on a joint return.
Speaker 4: The only way to work it out is to test
Speaker 4: what would happen if you were filing married, But the
Speaker 4: person supplying the part of the support for the children
Speaker 4: should be the one who claims the children. It sounds
Speaker 4: as though the engineer who brings some of the larger
Speaker 4: paycheck would be the greater tax savings vehicle of claiming
Speaker 4: the children, and legitimately may do so if their wage
Speaker 4: base is that much more than yours in contributing to
Speaker 4: the support of the entire family.
Speaker 7: M yep, Okay, But that that does sound right, at
Speaker 7: least for the time being. Yep.
Speaker 4: On the facts before me. That's that's the best answer
Speaker 4: I can give it the moment.
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 7: And in marriage, how does marriage significant? Would marriage significantly
Speaker 7: alter that? You may have answered that I'm.
Speaker 4: The tax brackets. The tax brackets are wider before they
Speaker 4: hit the next level, But then you have the combined income.
Speaker 4: But if yours is significantly less than the other partner
Speaker 4: in the group, it may be that the combined tax
Speaker 4: rate is less than the separate tax rates as singles.
Speaker 7: Okay, I understand, I get that.
Speaker 4: The itemized that the itemized deductions that neither you get.
Speaker 4: There may be better off under the joint rules than
Speaker 4: under the single rules. As I say, you have to
Speaker 4: synthesize what hypothetical marital filing would look like, and you
Speaker 4: have to, in fact be married by the end of
Speaker 4: the year to file as married filing joint unless you're
Speaker 4: in a state where common law marriages recognized, and you
Speaker 4: can make the case that you have the indices or
Speaker 4: indisia of a common law marriage.
Speaker 7: Is that Massachusetts? Do they recognize common law marriage?
Speaker 4: That's a coalegal question, out of tax question, so I
Speaker 4: can't answer it.
Speaker 2: Okay, and neither I'm not going to give any legal advice.
Speaker 2: I'll try to google it for you. At some point,
Speaker 2: things do change. And how long have you and your
Speaker 2: partner been together? You have two children? How old are
Speaker 2: the children?
Speaker 7: Our children are three and almost one. We've been together
Speaker 7: for about nine years.
Speaker 2: Okay, Well, you may be at least thinking about getting married.
Speaker 7: I assume this, Oh we are, Yeah, No, it's honestly,
Speaker 7: at this point, and it's like kind of a strategic
Speaker 7: type of thing, you know, like when's the right time
Speaker 7: to do it. And so that's why I was really
Speaker 7: wondering if it would impact our taxes. I know that
Speaker 7: it would impact my ability to get to the loan.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it typically does impact your taxes. It may be
Speaker 4: more favorable in your case than in other cases. If
Speaker 4: both of you were earning the same amount of money
Speaker 4: or in the higher earning capacity. It might be adverse
Speaker 4: to get married in terms of immediate income taxes, but
Speaker 4: in terms of estate taxes, it would be more beneficial
Speaker 4: in a marital unit than in an unrelated cohabitation, which
Speaker 4: is essentially what you have now. Yeah, there is unlimited
Speaker 4: gifting and unlimited bequests of property between spouses, but there
Speaker 4: is a cap on transfers between unrelated parties, and if
Speaker 4: you're not married, you're deemed unrelated for these purposes.
Speaker 7: Oh my gosh, I didn't I didn't know they're the
Speaker 7: cap on transfers.
Speaker 4: Each person may give any other person of their choice
Speaker 4: eighteen thousand dollars a year. If the aggregate of what
Speaker 4: is given to another party exceeds eighteen thousand dollars, it
Speaker 4: eats into the lifetime giving that may be done currently
Speaker 4: about thirteen fourteen million dollars, but if the changes that
Speaker 4: were in effect effectuated with the twenty seventeen taxak collapse
Speaker 4: at the end of the year, that will go down
Speaker 4: to about five million. It may not currently be a problem,
Speaker 4: but as you age and your property appreciates and you
Speaker 4: accumulate more assets, it may become a problem.
Speaker 2: Okay, also may be a good problem to have your
Speaker 2: if your assets have accumulated that amount.
Speaker 3: I have an answer for you.
Speaker 2: On common law marriage, Massachusetts does not recognize the creation
Speaker 2: of common law mans marriages within the state. However, it
Speaker 2: does recognize common law marriages that were legally established in
Speaker 2: other states. This means if a couple you and your partner.
Speaker 2: This means that if a couple was considered common law
Speaker 2: married in another state, they will have the same rights
Speaker 2: in Massachusetts as any other married couple. Which leads to
Speaker 2: the question, during your nine years together, have you ever
Speaker 2: lived in any other state?
Speaker 5: We haven't.
Speaker 7: Now, Mas Jesus has been at.
Speaker 2: Massachusetts, which you think of as being a very progressive
Speaker 2: state on this issue, is not progressive because one it
Speaker 2: will impact tax revenue and two, it would probably offend
Speaker 2: the dominant religion in Massachusetts, Roman Catholicism, which does encourage
Speaker 2: people to get married. So you have a legal analysis
Speaker 2: and also be tax analysis.
Speaker 3: Two for one night, you have a special.
Speaker 7: Okay, perfect, Thank you so much. That was really helpful.
Speaker 2: You sound like a great person. And I'm sure you
Speaker 2: guys are in a good relationship.
Speaker 3: And it won't Yeah, it'd be too bad.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean you can, you know, do it, get it,
Speaker 2: get it over with. And I thank you.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you've been with them long enough. It's probably gonna work.
Speaker 9: You know.
Speaker 10: I think you're right.
Speaker 7: I think we've been through the tough times. Let me
Speaker 7: tell you so with the children, So I think you're okay,
Speaker 7: you got.
Speaker 3: That for sure. Thanks Anne, appreciate you going.
Speaker 8: Thank you, thanks for listening.
Speaker 3: Tonight's good night. Uh. It's it's amazing the the.
Speaker 2: The breath of questions that people have and get a
Speaker 2: little bit of a little a little bit of research
Speaker 2: even quickly you find out something. So Mark, we're going
Speaker 2: to continue, We're going to take a quick break. I
Speaker 2: don't want to short change the next caller.
Speaker 5: Dave.
Speaker 2: We'll join us next. He's our next caller, and we
Speaker 2: got open lines after that, folks, So if you if
Speaker 2: you'd like to join us. If not, we're going to
Speaker 2: let Mark go a little early after the after the
Speaker 2: break six one seven, two five four, ten thirty, we
Speaker 2: have lines there, and we have one line at six
Speaker 2: one seven nine three one ten thirty back with Mark Misselbeck,
Speaker 2: who is a CPA UH and has done this stuff
Speaker 2: for a long time and has been very successful at it,
Speaker 2: and he also.
Speaker 3: Is very good on radio.
Speaker 2: He explains complex issues very clearly and cleanly, which is
Speaker 2: what I appreciate, and I learn a lot every night
Speaker 2: when I sit here listening to him, and I hope
Speaker 2: if you have any question you can join us. We're
Speaker 2: coming right back on night Side.
Speaker 1: Now back to Dan Way live from the Window World
Speaker 1: night Sight Studios on WBZ News Radio.
Speaker 2: Mark, I won't be able to let you go early.
Speaker 2: We have four callers awaiting us here, so let's get
Speaker 2: right to it. All of a sudden. People love to
Speaker 2: get their questions in at the last minute. Let me
Speaker 2: go first to Dave.
Speaker 3: Dave.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure where you're from, but you're on line five.
Speaker 9: Go right ahead, Dave, Hey, Dan, who are you?
Speaker 2: I'm doing just great you'rere with Mark Misselback and we
Speaker 2: have three callers behind you.
Speaker 9: So okay, I'll get right to your question. This is question.
Speaker 3: Okay, what where's Dave? Dave? Dave? We just lost year.
Speaker 3: There were about fifteen seconds. Where are you from?
Speaker 11: Walfare, Mass? I had the gas station of brighton our
Speaker 11: Chester Hill lab. I serviced your cob many years.
Speaker 3: Okay, okay, now I know who you are. Go right ahead,
Speaker 3: you got mars.
Speaker 9: I go ahead, right right.
Speaker 11: I just wanted to say hi to you, Dan. I'll
Speaker 11: make it quick. I'm still going strong. I'm maybe two
Speaker 11: years old now. I listened to your show every now
Speaker 11: and then when I can, when I'm out on the road.
Speaker 11: But it's good to hear your voice, sir.
Speaker 2: Right back at you, Dave. Thank you for calling in
Speaker 2: and for your service. And uh believe me, you can
Speaker 2: get this new vice at home. It's called a radio.
Speaker 2: I have one in several rooms. You not only can
Speaker 2: listen in the car, but you could listen on your
Speaker 2: cell phone on the the iHeart app love, love to
Speaker 2: have you more often, David.
Speaker 11: You do all the time when I can. And I've
Speaker 11: been married almost sixty years. God blood again, keep up
Speaker 11: more too.
Speaker 3: Your wife's saint Dave. You know that. Okay, you only
Speaker 3: get it, only getting thanks d.
Speaker 9: Wife in the worlds for everything. You take care of it.
Speaker 3: Good night, Okay, let's keep rolling. He gonna go to Nope,
Speaker 3: there was no question there for you, Mark, Sorry, but
Speaker 3: John has a question.
Speaker 2: John is in debt him? Hey, John walking on with
Speaker 2: Mark Misselbeck right ahead.
Speaker 9: Oh, thank you. I'm not sure this is a tax
Speaker 9: question or a financial plenty question of two years ago
Speaker 9: my mother went in the nursing home. We had to
Speaker 9: take all the aspects out of Berne put in my
Speaker 9: father's name, so we have some stars. My father passed
Speaker 9: away and he had some stars, like three years ago,
Speaker 9: and something else in my family was supposed to take
Speaker 9: of all the stock work, but that my mother passed
Speaker 9: away last year, and we still have a stock in
Speaker 9: my father's name, even though I've already done his last
Speaker 9: tax return two or three years ago. My question is
Speaker 9: I assume we should expect a ten ninety nine for
Speaker 9: is a stock dividends? Is that correct?
Speaker 4: Somebody going to get a ten ninety nine for any
Speaker 4: dividends paid on that stock, and you may have to
Speaker 4: reopen your father's estate to probate that stock asset and
Speaker 4: get it out. You're going to have to talk to
Speaker 4: a state attorney about what has to be done to
Speaker 4: clear the ownership registration on that stock.
Speaker 9: Okay, So I'm sure the ten ninety nine will still
Speaker 9: come in his name because we just had a dividend
Speaker 9: in his name. So, as you said, pottating a state attorney.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so may have mark. What about an amended return here?
Speaker 2: If there was some income. I forget how many years
Speaker 2: everybody was still alive, but if the dad was alive
Speaker 2: and there was income that wasn't reported in prior years,
Speaker 2: that maybe an amended return as well.
Speaker 4: I assume, Well, who and who was supposed to inherit
Speaker 4: the stock from your dad? Was it your mom?
Speaker 9: I think it was originally supposed to go to my mother,
Speaker 9: but through the estate plan because she was incapacitated. She
Speaker 9: had dementia. She was in a nursing for like five
Speaker 9: six years before she passed away, so she was a
Speaker 9: capacitated at the time I did his last return for
Speaker 9: the year twenty twenty two, she did not have enough income,
Speaker 9: but her the tax planer we had, they retired the dolphins.
Speaker 9: They said because she'd have enough income, she wouldn't need
Speaker 9: a tax return. But again, at that time attack the
Speaker 9: stock was in my father's name still, so she wouldn't
Speaker 9: have gotten a ten ninety nine. He was getting the
Speaker 9: ten eighty nine. So the DAN said, maybe.
Speaker 4: How much of a dividend are we talking about?
Speaker 9: Uh, that's not much at all. It's probably like twenty
Speaker 9: seven dollars a quarter.
Speaker 4: Fifty four, one hundred and eight dollars, which is just
Speaker 4: over the complex trust exemption of one hundred dollars. Complex trust,
Speaker 4: the trustee has the discretion to distribute income or accumulate it.
Speaker 4: If is a simple trust that would mandate that the
Speaker 4: income be distributed, it would have a three hundred dollars exemption,
Speaker 4: would not or a tax. But whoever, the person who
Speaker 4: was supposed to get the income from the trust is
Speaker 4: would have to report the dividend. Okay, then it should
Speaker 4: have gone your mother's return. And if she didn't have
Speaker 4: enough income, including that one hundred and eight dollars to
Speaker 4: have to file a return, you may be able to
Speaker 4: argue that there was no return due from anybody.
Speaker 9: Okay. That makes sense, Okay, And then we have to
Speaker 9: figure out how to distribute it.
Speaker 4: Because to go, and that's where you still wind up
Speaker 4: back in the lap of the state attorney.
Speaker 9: Yeah, right, for the actual how much is that?
Speaker 3: How much is the stock worth today?
Speaker 9: Maybe it's somewhere between eight and ten thousand.
Speaker 2: You would take enough money enough to do it and
Speaker 2: and that should be a fairly simple process so that
Speaker 2: the estate attorney won't eat it all up. Okay, so
Speaker 2: good luck for that, right, Thank you, Thanks John, Talk
Speaker 2: to you soon. Let's keep rolling here. We're going to
Speaker 2: get two in going to go to Sean in Hull
Speaker 2: and we got room for Dan and Halifax. Sean, if
Speaker 2: you could be quick for me, I know Dan in
Speaker 2: Halifax ahead, Sean, Yeah, I'll be real quick.
Speaker 10: My father passed last year and he set up a
Speaker 10: trust for my one sister, and I'm the executor of
Speaker 10: the state. So when I filed taxes, you know, and
Speaker 10: I haven't no member of the trust. Would I file
Speaker 10: that tax return in Massachusetts. The trust was established in Pennsylvania.
Speaker 4: But did your father die as a resident of mass.
Speaker 10: No, he died a resident of Pennsylvania.
Speaker 4: Then you would have a Pennsylvania.
Speaker 10: Filing, So I would file that in Pennsylvania.
Speaker 8: I would do that.
Speaker 4: Further question is, are you're the executive of the estate.
Speaker 4: Are you the trustee of the trust?
Speaker 8: Yes?
Speaker 4: I am okay? And is the trust includable in your
Speaker 4: father's estate or was it structured to be outside of
Speaker 4: his estate.
Speaker 10: Within his estate.
Speaker 4: If it's in his estate, the assets would be stepped
Speaker 4: up in his date of death. If the total assets
Speaker 4: he owned federally are under thirteen point nine million dollars
Speaker 4: as I recall for twenty twenty four, then he has
Speaker 4: no federal tax. I can't speak to what may be
Speaker 4: an estate tax obligation for Pennsylvania. You'd have to check
Speaker 4: with someone more knowledgeable or are locally knowledgeable of Pennsylvania
Speaker 4: requirements as to whether or not there were be a
Speaker 4: Pennsylvania state tax filing. Then you have a trust return
Speaker 4: for the income coming into the trust. And now it
Speaker 4: depends upon the terms of the trust that the trust
Speaker 4: directs you to pay out all income to the income
Speaker 4: beneficiary at least annually or quarterly. Then all the income
Speaker 4: would pass out to your sister. If it gives you
Speaker 4: discretion and you choose not to pay out all the income,
Speaker 4: the trust would be obligated to pay tax on the
Speaker 4: income that it is holding on to and the rates
Speaker 4: on the Trust peak out at thirty seven percent at
Speaker 4: fourteen dollars of income, So frequently is better taxwise. A
Speaker 4: lesser tax results for distributions paid out to individuals who
Speaker 4: have a much wider tax bracket before they get to
Speaker 4: thirty seven percent than in the trust, where the tax
Speaker 4: hits the thirty hits the thirty seven percent level and
Speaker 4: a much smaller amount of income.
Speaker 3: Did your dad have a lawyer?
Speaker 10: Like everything is complicated?
Speaker 2: Yees, Sean, Did your dad have a lawyer in Pennsylvania?
Speaker 9: Yes, you did.
Speaker 2: That's who you got to start with. Okay, okay, right,
Speaker 2: thanks Seank. You you're welcome. Okay, we're gonna get Dan
Speaker 2: and Halifax and Dan, we're gonna get you under the
Speaker 2: wire real quickly.
Speaker 3: You got about a minute. Go right ahead. You're on
Speaker 3: with Mark Misselbeck.
Speaker 8: Okay, I'll make it quick. I just have a question.
Speaker 8: So I started a new job a few years ago
Speaker 8: and I filled out when I filled out the new
Speaker 8: W four, it was the new one and I checked off.
Speaker 8: You know, spouse is working. We've been married for almost
Speaker 8: ten years. She's still filing, She's still being taxed single.
Speaker 8: She has not updated it even after we got married.
Speaker 8: And so my question is is there a significant change
Speaker 8: in terms of tax and filing if she were to
Speaker 8: update her W four to be taxed as married, or
Speaker 8: is it more advantageous to leave her alone, you know,
Speaker 8: being being taxed, We've being taxed single, we married, we
Speaker 8: file married jointly. But in terms of her h paid
Speaker 8: payroll deductions, is there any advantage to moving her over
Speaker 8: to being taxed married, you know, with spouse working.
Speaker 4: I go back to an old adage of advice, an
Speaker 4: old sorrow advice I was given. You'll never be wrong,
Speaker 4: you never suit. If you say it depends in taxes,
Speaker 4: it depends do you owe money with your tax filing
Speaker 4: on the withholdings that are being done or are you
Speaker 4: at break even or in refund status when you file
Speaker 4: your taxes with these withholdings. Well, if she changes from
Speaker 4: single to married but both working, the likelihood is they
Speaker 4: will increase the tax withholding. Single she has a higher
Speaker 4: tax withholding, but when both work on a married it
Speaker 4: tends to increase the withholdings. You may probably come closer
Speaker 4: to your regular your overall tax liability. If she changes
Speaker 4: the married but says that both of you are working, gentlemen.
Speaker 2: I hate to do this. Okay, we're gonna leave that
Speaker 2: question hanging. We're perilously close to eleven o'clock. Dan, Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 2: I wish thank you much.
Speaker 3: Mark.
Speaker 2: I gotta let you, let you thank you. Dan appreciate it. Mark,
Speaker 2: thank you, thank you, Thank you for thorough answers. Best
Speaker 2: of luck for the balance of the tax season. If
Speaker 2: people do want to get in touch with you, you know,
Speaker 2: and they feel they'd like to and his Cherry Burkert
Speaker 2: Advisory c In Becker excuse me Advisory LLC on South
Speaker 2: Street in Waltham seven eight one four five three eighty
Speaker 2: seven hundred, Mark, I will talk to you next week
Speaker 2: to say thank you, but on behalf of everyone, thank
Speaker 2: you so much for your time tonight, two hours.
Speaker 4: You're more than welcome.
Speaker 3: Forever.
Speaker 4: Thanks good night everybody.
Speaker 3: And I cannot say good night.
Speaker 2: I have to tell you here comes to eleven o'clock
Speaker 2: News and be back right after the eleven with the
Speaker 2: twentieth hour of the week.