An Interesting Rewrite for the Vanity Tax H.R. 3590 Looks As if Congress Found a Vanity Product with Enough Sin to Justify a Tax
By Stacie Clifford Kitts, CPA
It is all over the news; the Dems have enough votes to push the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on ward. But what has been eliminated from the latest version of the bill has me wondering – was it – our stimulating online debate that finally killed the dreaded 5% booby tax (i.e. the cosmetic surgery tax). Hmmmm …okay so it was most likely the influential lobbying by the American Health Association who strongly opposed the tax that murdered it.
But you know what; I’m all a-glow just the same. Congress – it appears – has responded to my points from a previous post where I chastise our lawmakers for attempting to tax the sinless personal choice of cosmetic enhancements.
I can’t say that I am totally opposed to taxing
behavior. That is, I agree with sin taxes. Taxes on cigarettes and alcohol for
instance do provide a certain amount of good since these products have been
shown to cause harm to the public welfare. Likewise, the cost of treating people
who have made themselves sick by indulging in unhealthy activities or behaviors
must be considered – I get that – and if a tax on so called unhealthy products
helps to relieve the public burden, then so be it.But is cosmetic surgery really
sinful? Personally, I fail to see how it is. Maybe our lawmakers can explain to
me how slimmer hips, larger breasts, or plumper lips harms the public welfare or
places a financial burden on the government.But what is even more perplexing is
just how or why cosmetic surgery won the tax lottery. I fear that this type of
legislation opens the door for a whole litany of WTF taxes. I mean why not tack
on an additional tax for hair coloring, nail salons, or makeup. These are also
vanity products. Frankly where does it stop?I am all for affordable health care,
balancing the budget, and reducing debt. But come on lawmakers, I find it hard
to believe that you can’t do better.
In response to my argument, it would appear that our lawmakers did find a vanity procedure that fits the sin criteria. The new vanity target – tanning salons. Here is a portion of the amended law:
SEC. 10907. EXCISE TAX ON INDOOR TANNING SERVICES IN LIEU OF ELECTIVE COSMETIC MEDICAL PROCEDURES.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The provisions of, and amendments made by, section 9017 of this Act are hereby deemed null, void, and of no effect.(b) EXCISE TAX ON INDOOR TANNING SERVICES.—
Subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following new chapter:CHAPTER 49—COSMETIC SERVICES
Sec. 5000B. Imposition of tax on indoor tanning services.
SEC. 5000B. IMPOSITION OF TAX ON INDOOR TANNING SERVICES.(a) IN GENERAL.—There is hereby imposed on any indoor tanning service a tax equal to 10 percent of the amount paid for such service (determined without regard to this section), whether paid by insurance or otherwise.
But what is even more telling is this tid bit found over at Kay Bell’s blog Don’t Mess with Taxes
“Congressional bean counters had estimated the Bo-Tax would bring in $5.8
billion over the next decade. The Tan Tax, which would go into effect next July,
is projected to produce $2.7 billion over 10 years.But that loss of revenue is OK, because the new tax addresses health
concerns.Or as one anonymous aide put it, the tanning tax was added out of
“concern that use of these tanning beds creates a health problem with respect to cancer.”
Well, I guess I got what I wanted, a tax that benefits the public welfare and relieves the public burden by taxing those people who intentionally expose themselves to cancer causing tanning beds.
Geez, I sure do hope that smog doesn’t cause cancer otherwise our lawmakers might tack on an excise smog tax for my sinful choice to live in California and breathe in the foul air.
Is Your Employer Provided Auto Creating a Tax Problem for You?
By Stacie Clifford Kitts, CPA
Do you have an employer provided automobile? If so, here are some things to know.
The law provides that the personal use of an employer-provided automobile represents additional compensation to an employee. This compensation is also known as a taxable fringe benefit.
Many employees are surprised to learn that when you use a business vehicle to commute to and from work or for any other personal use, you are generating additional taxable income that will be included on your W2.
No, sorry you did not get an unexpected raise. This portion of our tax code is just another example of how nothing in life is free. Not even an innocent trip to the park, or maybe that parent teacher conference – at least not if you got there in the company car.
Anyway, since this additional income along with the appropriate payroll taxes is determined annually by your employer, it is important that you carefully document your business versus personal use of the vehicle. After all, there is no need to pay more tax than is necessary. At a minimum, you should maintain a daily log that shows the miles you have driven, the business purpose for your trip, and where you were going.
You may also want to discuss the need for additional income tax withholding with your CPA or qualified tax preparer to make sure there are no tax surprises during tax filing time.
Now, the calculation of the income element for your visit to that parent teacher conference or other personal trips can be based on a couple of methods. Your employer may choose any one of the following to calculate your taxable personal use:
Cents-Per-Mile Rule
Your employer will multiply the total miles you used the vehicle for personal use by the standard mileage rate.
In order to use this method certain requirements must be met. You can check out the details of this method in Publication 15-B Employer’s Tax Guide to Fringe Benefits.
Lease Value Rule
If your employer uses this method, your employer will determine the percentage of personal use by dividing the total miles driven by the amount of personal miles driven. The resulting personal use percentage will then be multiplied by the vehicles “lease value.” The IRS provides the Annual Lease Value table that will be used in this calculation. Additional calculation information can be found at Publication 15-B.
Commuting Rule
If your employer provides a vehicle for the purposes of commuting such as a commuter vanpool, the taxable benefit is calculated by “multiplying each one-way commute by $1.50.”
One final note for S corporation shareholders who receive a W2 and who have a company vehicle, if at any time during the year you owned more than 2% of the outstanding stock of your S-Corp you are treated like a partner and not an employee in regards to the application of these rules. Check with your CPA or tax preparer for more information.
