Income Tax News

LANSING — All Michigan retirement income would be taxed in the same way private pensions were taxed prior to 2012, under a plan proposed Wednesday by Michigan Democrats.

The plan also appears designed to avoid what was an expected 0.2 percentage point cut in the state’s 4.25% income tax rate, by diverting about $800 million in 2022 revenue from the state’s general fund to issue $180 rebate checks to Michigan tax filers.

Michigan Republicans were quick to attack the plan, on that basis.

“The people of Michigan should see through Gov. Whitmer’s attempt to offer them a temporary bribe to cover up a disastrous tax hike,” said state Rep. Andrew Beeler, R-Port Huron.

Whitmer continued to insist it is too early to say whether the expected income tax rollback would have taken effect, since the state’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report will not be published until March, and said the pension plan would restore tax exemptions to seniors who had the “rug pulled out from under them” by former Gov. Rick Snyder and legislative Republicans in 2012.

The pension tax changes would kick in more quickly for some retirees than for others, under a report adopted by a joint House and Senate conference committee on House Bill 4001, in a 4-2 party-line vote.

When Snyder changed the way pensions were taxed, he exempted Michiganders on private pensions who were born before 1946. For the 2022 tax year, those retirees were able to deduct up to $56,961 of private retirement income if filing alone, and up to $113,922 of retirement income, if filing jointly with a spouse. Those deduction caps are increased yearly to keep pace with inflation.

Under the new Democratic plan, all retirees would be treated the same way as those private pensioners who Snyder exempted from his plan, once the new proposed law is fully phased in.

Public pensioners, who were not subject to any state income tax prior to the 2012 changes, would have their pensions taxed in the same way as private pensions are, but with the phased-in higher deduction amounts. The exception would be Social Security income, which would remain tax-free.

More:Whitmer presents $79B state budget for 2024, resulting from record surplus

More:Whitmer’s budget to propose slashing sales tax for buyers of electric vehicles

The changes to pension taxes would apply to income from both pensions and 401(k) plans and are expected to reduce Michigan general fund revenues by $58 million this year, with that amount increasing to $515 million by 2026.

Under the plan:

• Taxpayers born before 1946 would continue to have their pensions taxed the same way they are now;
• For the 2023 tax year, Michiganders born after 1945 and before 1959 would be able to deduct retirement income up to 25% of the maximum deduction the retirees exempted by Snyder are able to take;
• For the 2024 tax year, Michiganders born after 1945 and before 1963 would be able to deduct retirement income up to 50% of the maximum deduction the Snyder-exempted retirees enjoyed;
• For the 2025 tax year, Michiganders born after 1945 and before 1967 would be able to deduct retirement income up to 75% of that maximum deduction; and
• For the 2026 tax year, all Michiganders would be able to claim that maximum deduction for retirement and pension income.

The legislation contains one other special provision.

Those collecting retirement income as public police officers and firefighters, county corrections officers, and state police troopers and sergeants, would be able to take the maximum deduction beginning in the 2023 tax year.

As for the $180 tax rebate checks, the bill retroactively diverts $800 million in general fund revenue from the 2022 fiscal year to the Michigan Taxpayer Rebate Fund, which would then be the source of the money for the checks, provided the bill takes effect before April 18 of this year. Under the proposal, a couple who files jointly only gets one $180 check. The bill also clarifies that should that couple opt to file separately, each would receive only a $90 check.

A 2015 law provided for a rollback of Michigan’s income tax rate for the 2023 tax year, should general fund revenues exceed a certain cap. The House Fiscal Agency calculated in March that revenues were likely to exceed that cap by about $700 million, resulting in a reduction in the income tax rate from 4.25% to 4.05%. Under the bill, those revenues would never actually reach the general fund, so the income tax rollback would not be triggered.

Getting immediate effect for the legislation in the Senate would require a handful of Republican votes.

And starting in 2023, should corporate income tax revenue exceed $1.2 billion, the first $50 million of excess would be deposited in the Michigan Housing and Community Development Fund, the next $50 million would be deposited in the Revitalization and Placemaking Fund, and up to $500 million of any remaining excess funds would be deposited in the SOAR (Strategic Outreach and Attraction Reserve) Fund, used to lure new industry.

That distribution of excess corporate income tax funds would continue through the 2025 fiscal year, after which only the first $50 million in excess revenue would be deposited in the Michigan Housing and Community Development Fund, with the rest remaining in the general fund.

As previously reported, the bill also increases the state Earned Income Tax Credit to 30% of the federal credit, up from 6%, beginning in the 2023 tax year.

The House was expected to vote on the measure Wednesday, but didn’t. The House could take it up Thursday, followed by the Senate.

Contact Paul Egan: 517-372-8660 or pegan@freepress.com. Follow him on Twitter @paulegan4.

Originally Appeared Here

Comment on this story

Comment

House Republicans are demanding that President Biden agree to policy concessions in exchange for their support in raising the nation’s $31.4 trillion borrowing limit. But it is not clear — even to leading GOP officials — what they’re asking Biden to do.

As Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) evades questions about his demands on the debt ceiling, which must be lifted to avoid an economically catastrophic government default, dozens of House Republicans and other conservatives have put forward their own ideas for what McCarthy should bring to the negotiating table.

The White House says it won’t negotiate over whether to lift the debt ceiling. But Biden did meet with McCarthy on Wednesday to talk about the borrowing cap. Eventually, some combination of these proposals will probably form the basis of what the GOP asks of the administration, either as part of debt limit negotiations or in separate talks over the federal budget.

The debt ceiling is a legal limit on how much the country can borrow, and it’s been raised or suspended routinely in the past, including three times when Donald Trump was president. The debt accumulated over the years is now near the current $31.4 trillion limit, and as a share of the nation’s economy, it’s rapidly approaching the record set after World War II.

Republican lawmakers say they want to rein in borrowing in exchange for voting to raise the cap. However, at least one of their ideas — rescinding newly approved funding for the Internal Revenue Service — is likely to reduce tax collections and therefore increase borrowing, according to nonpartisan estimates. Other proposals would force major cuts to programs that millions of Americans depend on, which could create political vulnerabilities for the GOP nationally.

Yet McCarthy may have trouble placating the House conservatives who nearly derailed his bid for the speaker’s gavel unless he embraces drastic measures — complicating GOP lawmakers’ attempts to figure out just what they’ll demand of Biden.

“They’re in the middle of a conversation that is very healthy — lots of members have lots of ideas, and they’re in the process of sorting through them now,” said Newt Gingrich, who served as the Republican speaker of the House under the Clinton administration and is an outside adviser to McCarthy. “They are trying to find serious, real changes that move the pattern of the debt by significantly reducing wasteful government spending, put it together in a form the country understands, and then offer a package that has so many good ideas the president can’t reject all of them.”

Democrats, however, see in the GOP’s ideas an opportunity to emphasize the different visions between the parties over federal spending. White House aides argue that making policy concessions in exchange for raising the debt limit would reward Republicans for holding the U.S. economy hostage. Biden has also pushed McCarthy to release his own budget, believing all the options the GOP has discussed would hurt them politically.

“House Republicans are making their priorities very clear: They are going to raise taxes on hard-working Americans, hamstring the IRS’s ability to crack down on wealthy tax cheats, and do everything they can to hurt families and the economy by slashing spending on education, transportation, housing, health care and other critical federal investments,” said Lindsay Owens, executive director of the Groundwork Collaborative, a left-leaning group.

To get scoops, sharp political analysis and accountability journalism in your inbox each morning, sign up for The Early 202.

Here are seven of the emerging GOP ideas on what to demand in the debt limit fight, as well as why critics think they each have enormous downsides.

Big cuts to agency spending

Return to menu

The most likely GOP demand is sweeping cuts to the part of the federal budget known as “discretionary” spending, which excludes programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and Social Security. This type of spending — which includes funding for the Defense Department and other federal agencies — jumped from close to $1.1 trillion a year to $1.6 trillion a year between 2017 and 2023, as Congress went on spending sprees during the Trump administration and the first two years of the Biden administration, said Brian Riedl, a conservative policy analyst at the Manhattan Institute, a right-leaning think tank. That number does not adjust for substantial increases in inflation.

Republicans have looked at cutting this type of spending — which amounts to roughly 30 percent of the entire federal budget — to the levels spent in the 2022 fiscal year. That may not sound dramatic, but it could mean slashing funds for most domestic programs by as much as 20 percent because Republicans don’t want to make any cuts to the military or veterans’ benefits, according to Donald Schneider, who served as a top aide to House Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee and is now deputy head of U.S. policy at Piper Sandler, an investment bank. That would reduce overall domestic spending by about $130 billion next year. Some Republicans are proposing rolling spending back to FY 2019, before the pandemic, which would mean a $195 billion cut if defense spending stays the same, Schneider said.

A recent paper by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think tank, found that despite the increases funding for these domestic programs is below 2010 levels when adjusting for inflation and population growth, excluding veterans benefits.

House approves $1.7 trillion omnibus bill amid GOP objections, sending it to Biden

These cuts would hit politically popular programs such as spending on energy assistance for low-income Americans; K-12 education; Pell Grants for college students; the National Institutes of Health; NASA; and others. There are other, potentially less dramatic options, such as freezing future increases in non-Pentagon spending or just cutting spending by less, Riedl said. Another idea being batted around is to demand $3 of spending cuts for every $1 increase in the debt ceiling, although that still leaves the all-important question of what to cut.

“There’s plenty of room for savings from caps, and even if you approved no savings, it would still create a constraint on the appropriations process so they could not keep growing much faster than inflation,” said Marc Goldwein, senior vice president at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which advocates for lower debt. “There’s plenty you can do there that would be quite meaningful from a fiscal perspective.”

Cutting discretionary spending might provoke less outrage than cutting Social Security and Medicare, but these cuts could still prove difficult for Republicans to push — and for Democrats to accept — so soon after the GOP signed off on major spending increases under the Trump administration. “It’s not realistic,” Schneider said.

Still, many observers believe spending cuts or freezes will be a major focus in negotiations — in part because other options may be even less politically palatable.

Changes to Social Security and Medicare

Return to menu

After his meeting with Biden on Wednesday, McCarthy stressed that cuts to Social Security and Medicare are off the table as lawmakers try to craft a deal. Former president Donald Trump has also told the GOP to not push Social Security and Medicare cuts. But many Republicans have raised proposals and ideas that could change these programs in dramatic ways, if not now, then in the future.

House GOP eyes Social Security, Medicare amid spending battle

GOP lawmakers say the two entitlements pose serious challenges to the country’s fiscal health. Social Security is expected to become insolvent by 2033, while Medicare’s key hospital trust fund could face its own fiscal crunch in 2026. Both will continue paying benefits, albeit perhaps at sharply reduced rates, if federal estimates are correct.

Earlier this year, Republicans raised the potential they could seek cuts in “mandatory spending,” which could include Social Security and Medicare, as part of their commitment to produce a budget that’s balanced in 10 years. Initially, some key lawmakers — including those in the Republican Study Committee, the largest bloc of GOP members in the House — pointed to past proposals that would have raised the federal retirement age for younger Americans. Last year, the Republican Study Committee also recommended raising the eligibility age for Medicare to 67 and changing the way benefits are calculated.

In recent days, though, Republicans have largely distanced themselves from these ideas — with many instead raising the possibility of a commission that would study Social Security and Medicare and report back possible changes. One bill, called the Trust Act, would pave the way for entitlement-related legislation to come to the floor more easily. Some Republicans have also pushed reductions in Medicare reimbursements for providers, such as formulas for paying hospitals, that would leave seniors’ benefits unchanged.

Return to menu

One of the most popular ideas among Republicans for negotiating over the debt limit would, according to nonpartisan experts, actually push the federal government further into debt.

Few ideas have as firmly united the GOP in opposition as Biden’s $80 billion funding increase for the Internal Revenue Service, approved last year as part of Democrats’ broader Inflation Reduction Act. Senior House Republicans have as recently as this week discussed demanding a reversal of the IRS funding increase as part of debt limit talks, according to two people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) also told The Washington Post that he regards undoing the IRS funding as a top priority in debt limit discussions. “I want to get rid of the new IRS agents,” Scott said.

House GOP votes to slash IRS funding, targeting pursuit of tax cheats

“This should be at the very top of the list of demands,” said Steve Moore, a former economic adviser to Trump who is in touch with top GOP congressional leaders. “There are many Republicans who have made this a top priority.”

Democrats call this idea a giveaway to tax cheats. Former IRS commissioner Charles Rossotti and current Treasury official Natasha Sarin previously estimated the IRS could raise $1.4 trillion in additional tax revenue with more funding, and Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen has promised the new funding will not be used to increase audit rates for anyone earning under $400,000 per year.

The White House is almost certain to reject all GOP proposals to repeal IRS funding and has already ridiculed these requests. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has also estimated that a House-passed GOP bill to rescind $70 billion in IRS funding would force the government to borrow more than $100 billion.

Return to menu

At the height of the pandemic, Congress approved more than $5 trillion in emergency aid to help workers, families and businesses facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Nearly every major spending package was bipartisan in nature, except the final measure, the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, which GOP lawmakers opposed in 2021 — and long have blasted as wasteful.

Federal watchdogs ask Congress for long-delayed help to fight covid fraud

Some party leaders have explored in recent days whether it’s possible to claw back or rescind some of that aid to help pay down the country’s debt. The issue arose during a congressional hearing Wednesday focused on finding waste, fraud and abuse in federal pandemic funds: Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) at one point inquired what might happen to money that Congress set aside for schools — yet remains unspent — now that Biden is preparing to end the national covid emergency.

In terms of savings, though, the impact could be relatively small: Gene Dodaro, the nation’s comptroller general, said earlier in the hearing that only about $157 billion in total federal pandemic aid remained unspent and unobligated as of November. That’s about 0.5 percent of the $31 trillion national debt.

Return to menu

Republicans have also begun discussing some debt limit demands that have little — if anything — to do with federal spending or taxes.

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Tex.), a conservative who played a pivotal role negotiating the deal that elected McCarthy speaker, said on Fox News in late January that he will use the debt limit standoff to push his controversial border security plan. Roy’s legislation would give the Department of Homeland Security the authority to block border crossings for all immigrants, including those seeking asylum.

GOP leaders have also discussed the possibility of tightening asylum laws, or pushing for additional funding to complete the border wall between the U.S. and Mexico, said the two people familiar with internal discussions. An increase in border wall funding may be more feasible than Roy’s bill, which is a nonstarter with Democrats and has even been criticized by some Republicans. “Allow anti-immigrant legislation on the House floor and I am a NO on the debt ceiling,” Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Tex.) tweeted.

“I hear it pretty regularly as a fallback idea if there’s no budget cuts — this is part of the idea to ‘expand the deal’ to other options,” one of the people with knowledge of internal discussions said. “It’s this and cutting IRS funding.”

New work requirements for federal programs

Return to menu

Some congressional Republicans are discussing whether to use the debt limit to impose new work requirements on beneficiaries of federal programs.

Conservative advisers who recall the GOP’s 1996 budget deal with the Clinton administration — which placed dramatic new work requirements on federal welfare — are pushing Republicans to make a similar push this year.

Gingrich, the former House speaker, said polling supports additional work requirements on “able-bodied” Americans, and that he had pitched the idea to current House Republican leaders. “In my conversations with Republican leadership in both houses, but especially the House, I keep telling them: A key reform is to restore and expand work requirements,” said Larry Kudlow, who served as Trump’s top economic adviser and is now a Fox News host. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) is also now trying to persuade his colleagues to demand new work requirements in the debt limit fight, according to Semafor.

Still, even some conservative analysts are skeptical, in part because work requirements already exist for welfare, food stamps and, in many states, Medicaid, the health insurance program for the poor. “There aren’t that many places to go with work requirements that we have not gone already,” said Riedl, the Manhattan Institute analyst.

Return to menu

Some congressional Republicans have argued that the threat posed by the debt limit has been badly overstated. They believe that even if Congress does not increase the government’s borrowing limit, the Treasury Department can still make critical payments — such as to U.S. bondholders, Social Security and Medicare recipients and the Defense Department — by redirecting incoming tax revenue. (Government revenue covers roughly 75 percent of total federal spending.) That, they say, would force Democrats to accept large spending cuts by reducing the Biden administration’s leverage.

At least one House Republican even appeared to say he would not raise the debt limit under any condition.

“We cannot raise the debt ceiling. Democrats have carelessly spent our taxpayer money and devalued our currency,” Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) tweeted. “They’ve made their bed, so they must lie in it.”

We cannot raise the debt ceiling.

Democrats have carelessly spent our taxpayer money and devalued our currency.

They’ve made their bed, so they must lie in it.

— Rep Andy Biggs (@RepAndyBiggsAZ) January 17, 2023

McCarthy and most Republicans have rejected these ideas, saying the party believes in the need to raise the debt limit. But McCarthy also agreed to a deal with Roy to put forward a debt “prioritization plan” that would specify what payments Treasury should make in the unprecedented event that the government cannot meet all its obligations. Treasury officials have said such a plan is not technically feasible, and any such effort would likely still drive up the costs of U.S. borrowing by throwing the trustworthiness of federal credit into doubt.

House Republicans prepare emergency plan for breaching debt limit

The ideas, however, were backed by Republican Study Committee Chair Kevin Hern (R-Okla.), who wrote in a memo earlier this week that the GOP should bring to negotiations a demand to “codify procedures to ensure the federal government honors critical obligations, such as federal debt payments, national security and veterans, Social Security, and Medicare.”

The document left unclear how such a plan would ensure operations for thousands of other federal government functions.

Tony Romm contributed to this report.

Originally Appeared Here

AUSTIN, Texas, Jan. 30, 2023 /PRNewswire/ — Digital Realty (NYSE: DLR), a leading global provider of cloud- and carrier-neutral data center, colocation and interconnection solutions, announced today the tax treatment of its 2022 dividends for common stock and preferred stock.  The information below has been prepared using the best available information to date.  Digital Realty’s federal income tax return for the year ended December 31, 2022 has not yet been filed.  Please note that federal tax laws affect taxpayers differently, and we cannot advise you on how distributions should be reported on your federal income tax return.  Please also note that state and local taxation of REIT distributions vary and may not be the same as the federal rules.  Shareholders are urged to consult with their tax advisors as to their specific tax treatment of Digital Realty’s dividends. 

Digital Realty Trust, Inc. Common Stock Dividends 
CUSIP # 253868103 
Ticker Symbol: DLR

Digital Realty’s 2022 taxable dividend of $4.497873 per share includes a portion (72%) of one quarterly distribution declared in 2021 and paid in January 2022 and three quarterly distributions declared and paid in 2022.  Digital Realty’s 2022 taxable dividend will be reported on Form 1099-DIV as follows:  $2.638084 per share (59%) as ordinary income, $0.747632 per share (16%) as capital gain distribution and $1.112157 per share (25%) as nondividend distribution.

The following table contains this information on a quarterly basis: 

Record Dates	Payment Dates (1)	Cash Distribution ($ per share) (1)	Taxable Dividend ($ per share) (1)	Box 1a Ordinary Dividend ($ per share)	Box 1b Qualified Dividend ($ per share)	Box 2a  Long-Term Capital Gain  ($ per share)	Box 2b Un- Recaptured Section 1250 Gain  ($ per share)	Box 2f Section 897 Capital Gain ($ per share) (2)	Box 3 Nondividend Distribution  ($ per share)	Box 5 Section 199A Dividend ($ per share) (3)	Section 1061 One-Year Capital Gain ($ per share) (4)	Section 1061 Three-Year Capital Gain ($ per share) (4)
12/15/2021	01/14/2022	$1.160000	$0.837873	$0.491428	$0.015398	$0.139271	$0.016395	$0.101620	$0.207174	$0.476030	$0.000218	$0.000218
03/15/2022	03/31/2022	$1.220000	$1.220000	$0.715552	$0.022420	$0.202787	$0.023872	$0.147965	$0.301661	$0.693132	$0.000318	$0.000318
06/15/2022	06/30/2022	$1.220000	$1.220000	$0.715552	$0.022420	$0.202787	$0.023872	$0.147965	$0.301661	$0.693132	$0.000318	$0.000318
09/15/2022	09/30/2022	$1.220000	$1.220000	$0.715552	$0.022420	$0.202787	$0.023872	$0.147965	$0.301661	$0.693132	$0.000318	$0.000318
		$4.820000	$4.497873	$2.638084	$0.082658	$0.747632	$0.088011	$0.545515	$1.112157	$2.555426	$0.001172	$0.001172

(1)	Please note that of the $1.16 quarterly distribution paid in January 2022, $0.322127 was included in the 2021 taxable dividend and $0.837873 will be considered as 2022 reportable dividend for federal income tax purposes.  The $1.22 quarterly cash distribution declared in the fourth quarter of 2022 and paid in January 2023 will be treated as a 2023 distribution for federal income tax purposes and will not be included on the 2022 Form 1099-DIV and will be reported on your 2023 Form 1099-DIV.
(2)	Represents Section 897 gain attributable to disposition of U.S. real property interests included in Box 2a Long-Term Capital Gain. Section 897 is applicable to nonresident alien individuals and foreign corporations.
(3)	Beginning in 2018, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 added Section 199A to allow for a new tax deduction based on certain qualified business income.  Section 199A provides eligible individual taxpayers a deduction of up to 20% of their qualified real estate investment trust dividends (Box 5 of the Form 1099-DIV).
(4)	For purposes of Section 1061 of the Internal Revenue Code, Digital Realty is disclosing two additional capital gain categories.  Section 1061 is generally applicable to direct and indirect holders of “applicable partnership interests.”  Please consult your tax advisor with respect to the two additional categories disclosed herein.

Series J Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock Dividends 
CUSIP # 253868855 
Ticker Symbol: DLRPRJ

The 2022 taxable dividend for Digital Realty Trust, Inc.’s Series J Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock is $1.312500 per share.  For tax reporting purposes, $1.022676 per share (78%) will be reported on Form 1099-DIV as ordinary income and $0.289824 per share (22%) as capital gain distribution. 

The following table contains this information on a quarterly basis:  

Record Dates	Payment Dates	Cash Distribution ($ per share)	Taxable Dividend ($ per share)	Box 1a Ordinary Dividend ($ per share)	Box 1b Qualified Dividend ($ per share)	Box 2a  Long-Term Capital Gain  ($ per share)	Box 2b Unrecaptured Section 1250 Gain  ($ per share)	Box 2f Section 897 Capital Gain ($ per share)	Box 5 Section 199A Dividend ($ per share)	Section 1061 One-Year Amounts Disclosure ($ per share)	Section 1061 Three-Year Amounts Disclosure  ($ per share)
03/15/2022	03/31/2022	$0.328125	$0.328125	$0.255669	$0.008011	$0.072456	$0.008529	$0.052868	$0.247658	$0.000114	$0.000114
06/15/2022	06/30/2022	$0.328125	$0.328125	$0.255669	$0.008011	$0.072456	$0.008529	$0.052868	$0.247658	$0.000114	$0.000114
09/15/2022	09/30/2022	$0.328125	$0.328125	$0.255669	$0.008011	$0.072456	$0.008529	$0.052868	$0.247658	$0.000114	$0.000114
12/15/2022	12/30/2022	$0.328125	$0.328125	$0.255669	$0.008011	$0.072456	$0.008529	$0.052868	$0.247658	$0.000114	$0.000114
		$1.312500	$1.312500	$1.022676	$0.032044	$0.289824	$0.034116	$0.211472	$0.990632	$0.000456	$0.000456

Series K Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock Dividends 
CUSIP # 253868830 
Ticker Symbol: DLRPRK

The 2022 taxable dividend for Digital Realty Trust, Inc.’s Series K Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock is $1.462500 per share.  For tax reporting purposes, $1.139552 per share (78%) will be reported on Form 1099-DIV as ordinary income and $0.322948 per share (22%) as capital gain distribution. 

The following table contains this information on a quarterly basis:  

Record Dates	Payment Dates	Cash Distribution ($ per share)	Taxable Dividend ($ per share)	Box 1a Ordinary Dividend ($ per share)	Box 1b Qualified Dividend ($ per share)	Box 2a  Long-Term Capital Gain  ($ per share)	Box 2b Unrecaptured Section 1250 Gain  ($ per share)	Box 2f Section 897 Capital Gain ($ per share)	Box 5 Section 199A Dividend ($ per share)	Section 1061 One-Year Amounts Disclosure  ($ per share)	Section 1061 Three-Year Amounts Disclosure ($ per share)
03/15/2022	03/31/2022	$0.365625	$0.365625	$0.284888	$0.008926	$0.080737	$0.009504	$0.058911	$0.275962	$0.000127	$0.000127
06/15/2022	06/30/2022	$0.365625	$0.365625	$0.284888	$0.008926	$0.080737	$0.009504	$0.058911	$0.275962	$0.000127	$0.000127
09/15/2022	09/30/2022	$0.365625	$0.365625	$0.284888	$0.008926	$0.080737	$0.009504	$0.058911	$0.275962	$0.000127	$0.000127
12/15/2022	12/30/2022	$0.365625	$0.365625	$0.284888	$0.008926	$0.080737	$0.009504	$0.058911	$0.275962	$0.000127	$0.000127
		$1.462500	$1.462500	$1.139552	$0.035704	$0.322948	$0.038016	$0.235644	$1.103848	$0.000508	$0.000508

Series L Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock Dividends 
CUSIP # 253868822 
Ticker Symbol: DLRPRL

The 2022 taxable dividend for Digital Realty Trust, Inc.’s Series L Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock is $1.300000 per share.  For tax reporting purposes, $1.012936 per share (78%) will be reported on Form 1099-DIV as ordinary income and $0.287064 per share (22%) as capital gain distribution. 

The following table contains this information on a quarterly basis:  

Record Dates	Payment Dates	Cash Distribution ($ per share)	Taxable Dividend ($ per share)	Box 1a Ordinary Dividend ($ per share)	Box 1b Qualified Dividend ($ per share)	Box 2a  Long-Term Capital Gain  ($ per share)	Box 2b Unrecaptured Section 1250 Gain  ($ per share)	Box 2f Section 897 Capital Gain ($ per share)	Box 5 Section 199A Dividend ($ per share)	Section 1061 One-Year Amounts Disclosure ($ per share)	Section 1061 Three-Year Amounts Disclosure ($ per share)
03/15/2022	03/31/2022	$0.325000	$0.325000	$0.253234	$0.007935	$0.071766	$0.008448	$0.052365	$0.245299	$0.000113	$0.000113
06/15/2022	06/30/2022	$0.325000	$0.325000	$0.253234	$0.007935	$0.071766	$0.008448	$0.052365	$0.245299	$0.000113	$0.000113
09/15/2022	09/30/2022	$0.325000	$0.325000	$0.253234	$0.007935	$0.071766	$0.008448	$0.052365	$0.245299	$0.000113	$0.000113
12/15/2022	12/30/2022	$0.325000	$0.325000	$0.253234	$0.007935	$0.071766	$0.008448	$0.052365	$0.245299	$0.000113	$0.000113
		$1.300000	$1.300000	$1.012936	$0.031740	$0.287064	$0.033792	$0.209460	$0.981196	$0.000452	$0.000452

Note that ticker symbols may vary by stock quote provider. 

About Digital Realty 
Digital Realty brings companies and data together by delivering the full spectrum of data center, colocation and interconnection solutions. PlatformDIGITAL®, the Company’s global data center platform, provides customers with a secure data “meeting place” and a proven Pervasive Datacenter Architecture (PDx™) solution methodology for powering innovation and efficiently managing Data Gravity challenges.  Digital Realty gives its customers access to the connected communities that matter to them with a global data center footprint of 300+ facilities in 50+ metros across 27 countries on six continents. To learn more about Digital Realty, please visit digitalrealty.com or follow us on LinkedIn and Twitter.

Safe Harbor Statement 
This press release contains forward-looking statements which are based on current expectations, forecasts and assumptions that involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially, including statements related to the amount and payment of dividends on our common stock and preferred stock.  For a list and description of such risks and uncertainties, see the reports and other filings by the company with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.  The company disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. 

For Additional Information

Investor Relations 
Jordan Sadler / Jim Huseby 
Digital Realty 
(737) 281-0101 
[email protected]

SOURCE Digital Realty

Originally Appeared Here

OPINION AND COMMENTARY

Editorials and other Opinion content offer perspectives on issues important to our community and are independent from the work of our newsroom reporters.

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Ted Budd talks during a campaign rally with Sen. Ted Cruz in Selma, N.C., Tuesday, Oct. 25, 2022.

Ethan Hyman

ehyman@newsobserver.com

It didn’t take long for Ted Budd, recently sworn in as North Carolina’s newest U.S. senator, to start twisting the truth.

Budd has joined the fight to “stop Biden’s IRS expansion,” announcing Friday that he has sponsored a bill that will spare working families from the terror of 87,000 new IRS agents.

Here’s the thing: it’s based on a wildly misleading claim that has been repeatedly debunked.

The bill — known as the BAD IRS Activities Act — would rescind the roughly $70 billion in Internal Revenue Service funding that Congress approved last year as part of the Inflation Reduction Act. A similar bill was passed by the House earlier this month as its very first piece of legislation under a new Republican majority.

Republicans allege that those dollars will be used to assemble an “army of 87,000 IRS agents” who will target hard-working Americans. Some have even gone so far as to say that the agents will be armed. In a press release, Budd said the government “should not be hiring 87,000 new IRS agents to treat working families and small startup businesses like tax cheats.”

It’s a good thing that’s not actually happening.

The GOP has pushed this wildly exaggerated narrative for months, even though it has never been true. The 87,000 figure was pulled without context from a May 2021 estimate from the Treasury Department, and it captures the total number of employees the IRS hopes to hire over the course of the next decade.

First of all — as a slew of fact-checkers have pointed out — only a fraction of those hires would be enforcement agents. Second, the majority of those hires will be necessary to simply maintain the size of the agency’s shrinking workforce, as some 50,000 workers are expected to retire in the next decade. In fact, the funding increases will actually be of benefit to taxpayers, as the services provided by the IRS have suffered over the years due to budget cuts.

If Budd wants to help his constituents, he shouldn’t try to weaken the agency that ensures people pay their taxes. Investing in IRS improvements would generate $180 billion in revenue over 10 years, according to recent Congressional Budget Office estimates. Nobody’s taxes would go up — it would simply ensure compliance with existing tax policies and laws. Rescinding the funding, per Republican wishes, would increase the federal deficit by $114 billion through 2032, the CBO said.

Budd and his colleagues surely know this, but they’re ignoring it because truth doesn’t help them much politically. It’s troubling to see Budd being dishonest after just a couple of weeks on the job, and it doesn’t inspire much hope for the next six years of his term. He might have a new job, but he’s still the same Ted Budd.

BEHIND OUR REPORTING

What is the Editorial Board?

The Charlotte Observer and Raleigh News & Observer editorial boards combined in 2019 to provide fuller and more diverse North Carolina opinion content to our readers. The editorial board operates independently from the newsrooms in Charlotte and Raleigh and does not influence the work of the reporting and editing staffs. The combined board is led by N.C. Opinion Editor Peter St. Onge, who is joined in Raleigh by deputy Opinion editor Ned Barnett and opinion writer Sara Pequeño and in Charlotte by Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist Kevin Siers and opinion writer Paige Masten. Board members also include McClatchy Vice President of Local News Robyn Tomlin, Observer editor Rana Cash, News & Observer editor Bill Church and longtime News & Observer columnist Barry Saunders. For questions about the board or our editorials, email pstonge@charlotteobserver.com.

This story was originally published January 27, 2023 1:35 PM.

Related stories from Charlotte Observer

Originally Appeared Here

State Sen. Kristen McDonald Rivet’s first piece of legislation, which would expand Michigan’s Earned Income Tax Credit, was passed Tuesday by the Michigan Senate’s Housing and Human Services Committee.

The bill is scheduled for a Senate vote later this week.

Members of the Michigan EITC Coalition praised this decision as the bill would expand the tax credit from a 6 percent match of the federal credit to 30 percent. Of states with their own EITC, Michigan currently has one of the lowest percentages in the country. The passage of Senate Bill 3 will make Michigan a national leader in better supporting workers, delivering approximately $600 more annually to struggling working families.   

“I’ve been working on this issue for years so I am over the moon excited,” said McDonald Rivet, D-Bay City. “You only  need to go to your local grocery store and try to buy food for a week for a family to know that families that are living at the bottom edge of our income scales really need some help and they need it right now…This is something we can do immediately. We have the resources at the state to make it happen and I cannot see a reason why partisan bickering would get in the way of this.”

Senate Bill 3 would apply retroactively, providing the tax cut to filers for the 2022 tax year, immediately helping Michigan families dealing with the effects of high inflation.

The bill is supported by more than 230 groups from around Michigan, including influential state business, religious, health and social services organizations, as well as both Republicans and Democrats. 

“It is not political, it’s not partisan,” McDonald Rivet said. “It’s good for Michigan and I expect that we will have significant Republican support.”

State Rep. Bill G. Schuette, R-Midland, agreed that Michigan families will benefit from immediate help. Earlier this month, Schuette introduced legislation with the retroactive component, allowing people to obtain relief on their upcoming tax returns as opposed to waiting a year or more under initial Democrat proposals.

“I’m pleased Senate Democrats have started to respect that urgency by changing their approach to reflect what we’ve initially proposed and making this credit retroactive to the 2022 tax year,” Schuette said. “I’m hopeful this will continue to be a component of plans that move forward. Let’s pass immediate tax relief for all Michiganders. Hard-working families are counting on it.”

McDonald Rivet estimates the bill could be up for Gov. Whitmer’s approval as soon as February.

“I’m very hopeful that it will  maintain a very high level of support as it moves through the process and hope that it would be on the governor’s desk as early as next month,” she said. 

She explained that two-thirds of EITC recipients only receive the credit for two years. 

“It is meant to be a reward for work that helps create a path for families that are economically fragile and working,” she said.

The EITC is a refundable Federal Credit established in 1975 by Michigan’s own President Gerald Ford, with support from both Democrats and Republicans. It was later expanded by President Ronald Reagan. The Michigan EITC was started in 2006 with bipartisan support. 
 
Benefits only go to working taxpayers and phase out at higher incomes, ending at $57,414 for a couple with three dependents.
 
More than 730,000 Michigan households received the state EITC in 2019 – impacting nearly one million Michigan children – putting nearly $110 million back into Michigan’s economy. McDonald Rivet’s proposal would boost that by $460 million to an estimated $570 million.

 

Originally Appeared Here

Shouldn’t they have a role?

Why is the National Archives being left out of these investigations into missing classified documents found years later in current and former presidents’ private possession? Most libraries document the items checked out, identify a date for their return and would aggressively attempt to secure their return. This is a basic expectation of the National Archives’ handling of our government’s classified documents. What else is missing?

Vivienne Armstrong, East Dallas

Too narrow a view

I see the first bill the new House Republicans passed was one to eliminate increased Internal Revenue Service funding provided in the Inflation Reduction Act. The IRS has been starved of funding for years to the point that not only is there a large gap between taxes owed and collected, it’s also impossible to reach the IRS on the phone for help during filing season or at any time. Since we depend on taxes to run our country, it seems prudent to give them the funds needed to do their job. Collecting taxes owed will also help reduce our budget deficit.

The federal government has been demonized for years, ignoring the essential services it provides. It would be nice to have a reasoned discussion about government and spending without all the bomb throwing.

I’ve also heard some Republicans want to eliminate spending to assist the defense of Ukraine. I heard an interview on the radio with a man from The Economist, a conservative publication, who said we’re getting a great deal when we support Ukraine. Our adversary is being weakened and the U.S. has not had to send a single soldier.

I hope Congress will look at the big picture.

Donna Gregory, Dallas

Private school on my dime?

Most families sending a student to private school in Texas (308,611 in the 2022-23 school year, about 5% of all students) are usually able to afford it, so why should the state of Texas supplement that? Especially when it comes at the expense of public education, where most students remain.

Every dollar taken out of the public school system chips away at the overall public school experience, resulting in a less-educated population. If your child qualifies and you can afford to send them to private school, by all means do so. They should have a great education. Just don’t ask the rest of us to pay for it. That’s up to you.

David Seay, Plano

Tip those familiar faces

Re: “Hard work teaches skills,” by Anne Davidoff, Jan. 9 Letters.

Customer service has been a thing of the past for years, but it was even more affected by the pandemic. Staffing shortages have caused employees to be underpaid and overworked. To have high expectations for better service is ludicrous.

We still go out and eat at our favorite haunts, and appreciate that our favorite waitstaff still is able to manage a smile. We tip them even more than we used to because we understand what they are going through.

Chuck Brecht, Rowlett

So thankful for Allred

How I miss being a constituent of Rep. Colin Allred. We were recently redistricted out of Allred’s district, but I can still get pleasure in hearing him call out the crazy stuff that comes out of the mouth of Sen. Ted Cruz.

Whether it is Cruz blaming Damar Hamlin’s cardiac arrest on the COVID-19 vaccine, or blaming Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg for the decades-long underfunding (by Congress) and failure to upgrade the Federal Aviation Administration’s air traffic control system, or equating the current classified documents situation in President Joe Biden’s office to former President Donald Trump’s insistence that he was entitled to have them and intended to keep them, Allred points out — in a calm, intelligent way — the nonsense that Cruz often espouses. Maybe he might replace Cruz in the upper chamber next time around?

Scott Nason, Dallas/Preston Hollow

Consistency, anyone?

Does anyone else find it laughably ironic that Sen. Ted Cruz is ready to fight against the government invading our kitchens and taking away our gas stoves, and yet is fine with letting the government invade a woman’s right to privacy and how she governs her own body? Just sayin’ …

B.J. Anderson, Dallas

Your beliefs do not mirror mine

As a result of redistricting, my congressman is now Dr. Michael C. Burgess. His 2022 annual report to his constituents has not been posted to his website. However, he wrote in his 2021 report that, “I do not believe that the government should hinder a doctor’s ability to act in the best interest of their patient. … Patients and doctors should be in charge — not governments.”

His position does not seem consistent with his anti-abortion agenda and history of voting. I don’t object to his strongly held religious beliefs or his belief that life begins at conception. I object to him applying his religious beliefs on behalf of everyone else. And I object to his religious beliefs superseding decades of research in embryology, neurology and developmental neuroscience on when life begins. How much longer will voters, and especially women voters, tolerate politicians who limit their access to health care?

Steve Richardson, Plano

Marine Corps ‘soft’? Nope

Re: “Toughen up our military,” by Pat Grove, Tuesday Letters.

I, too, served in the Marine Corps. I don’t know if I would do it again, but I became much more self-disciplined as a result. I thank the big green machine for that every day. As to whether it is as tough at the present as it was in 1967, I could not say with any veracity.

But I cannot imagine the Marine Corps being soft. The history of that proud organization would not allow that to happen. As a tool for learning hard work, a never-give-up mindset and the ability to see a difficult job through to the end, I recommend the Corps to every high school graduate. Semper fi.

John Hodge, Grand Saline

We welcome your thoughts in a letter to the editor. See the guidelines and submit your letter here.

Originally Appeared Here

Imagine coming to work every day and facing a workload you know you can’t finish. That no one could finish. Every day you frustrate hundreds, maybe thousands of people seeking your help. The backlog grows out of your control. The reputation of your agency worsens, drip by drip, with each unfulfilled item.

That’s what I imagine life must be like for operators at IRS call centers.

You’ve read the stories, seen the reports for several…

READ MORE

Imagine coming to work every day and facing a workload you know you can’t finish. That no one could finish. Every day you frustrate hundreds, maybe thousands of people seeking your help. The backlog grows out of your control. The reputation of your agency worsens, drip by drip, with each unfulfilled item.

That’s what I imagine life must be like for operators at IRS call centers.

You’ve read the stories, seen the reports for several years now on the agency’s inability to answer phones in reasonable times, and give accurate answers to callers. As National Taxpayer Advocate Eric Collins pointed out, in the first year of the pandemic, the annual calls to IRS nearly tripled to 282 million. Now it’s running at about 172 million, still twice pre-pandemic levels. The main reason is tax return processing slowdowns and letters going to once-empty offices.

Call centers don’t scale the way digital systems do. If a workload for a computer application triples, an agency can add servers or, in today’s parlance, spin up new instances in the elastic commercial cloud. But, unless they can talk like Alvin the Chipmunk, people answering phones can only handle so many calls per hour. Plus, they have no control over what a given incoming call will bring in terms of complexity of the query.

Worse, if someone gets mad at a computer application — and who doesn’t? — they can smash a monitor, crush a keyboard, curse at the top of their lungs, and guess what? The application doesn’t care. It doesn’t even know how you feel. Too many people also feel privileged to take their frustrations out on phone people, including those of the IRS. They do know you’re mad and feel it. They’re caught in the same mad complex of problems the callers are.

As Collins told me, referring to IRS phone people, “They’re the messenger, so to speak. Don’t take it out on them that we have problems in our system.”

She added, “It’s an incredibly difficult job that they have, there’s a lot of expectation. And unfortunately, a lot of the folks by the time they reach a human, they may not be such happy people.” IRS operators “sometimes get the brunt of it.”

The Taxpayer Advocate report notes that the IRS has hired thousands more phone agents, added call-back technology to 35 of its 62 phone lines, to spare people the horrors of on-hold music, and implemented chat-bots on some lines to take some burden off the people.

And then there’s this: The same people who answer the phones also process returns. Imagine that. Time on the phone is time not on returns. And vice versa. It’s a wonder any of them still have hair on their heads.

IRS has a constellation of needs. They’ve all been well documented. On the information technology front, it ultimately must integrate dozens of systems into a single, coherent case management system. In theory that’s when business and personal taxpayers can do most things online in a self-service mode. Which gets back to the Mount Everest of the challenge, namely the individual and business Master File Systems, and how to modernize them. They hold data, Collins said, “going back to the dawn of time.” You can say the same thing about the code they’re programmed in.  It could take until the return of the Messiah before IRS licks the Master File problem.

In the meantime, don’t take it out on the people working the phones.

 

Originally Appeared Here

If you buy a new plug-in electric vehicle (EV) or fuel cell vehicle (FCV) in 2023 or after, you may qualify for a clean vehicle tax credit. Find out if you qualify.

Find information on credits for used clean vehicles, qualified commercial clean vehicles, and new plug-in EVs purchased before 2023.

Who Qualifies

You may qualify for a credit up to $7,500 under Internal Revenue Code Section 30D if you buy a new, qualified plug-in EV or fuel cell electric vehicle (FCV). The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 changed the rules for this credit for vehicles purchased from 2023 to 2032.

The credit is available to individuals and their businesses.

To qualify, you must:

• Buy it for your own use, not for resale
• Use it primarily in the U.S.

In addition, your modified adjusted gross income (AGI) may not exceed:

• $300,000 for married couples filing jointly 
• $225,000 for heads of households
• $150,000 for all other filers

You can use your modified AGI from the year you take delivery of the vehicle or the year before, whichever is less. If your modified AGI is below the threshold in 1 of the two years, you can claim the credit.

The credit is nonrefundable, so you can’t get back more on the credit than you owe in taxes. You can’t apply any excess credit to future tax years.

If you bought and placed in service a new qualified plug-in electric vehicle (EV) or fuel cell vehicle (FCV) on January 1, 2023 or later and meet certain income limitations, you may be eligible for a clean vehicle tax credit up to $7,500 under Internal Revenue Code Section 30D.

Qualified Manufacturers of the vehicles listed below have indicated that the vehicles are currently eligible for a credit provided other requirements are met.  Check back for additions to this list.

For vehicles purchased in 2022 or before, credit eligibility was determined under different criteria. 

North America Final Assembly and MSRP Requirements

Vehicle make/models that appear in the list below do not automatically qualify. They must also 

• Have undergone final assembly in North America 
• Not exceed a manufacturer suggested retail price (MSRP) of
  • $80,000 for vans, sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks
  • $55,000 for other vehicles

To see if a specific vehicle meets the assembly requirements:

Index to Manufacturers

This manufacturer has entered into a written agreement with us to become a “qualified manufacturer” but hasn’t yet submitted a list of specific makes and models that are eligible. Please check back here for updated information.

 

Model Year	Vehicle Description	Applicable MSRP Limit
2023	Audi Q5 TFSI e Quattro (PHEV)	$80,000

Model Year	Vehicle Description	Applicable MSRP Limit
2021, 2022, 2023	BMW 330e	$55,000
2021, 2022, 2023	BMW X5 xDrive45e	$80,000

Model Year	Vehicle Description	Applicable MSRP Limit
2022, 2023	Ford Escape Plug-In Hybrid	$55,000
2022, 2023	Ford E-Transit	$80,000
2022, 2023	Ford F-150 Lightning	$80,000
2022, 2023	Ford Mustang Mach-E	$55,000
2022, 2023	Lincoln Aviator Grand Touring	$80,000
2022, 2023	Lincoln Corsair Grand Touring	$55,000

Model Year	Vehicle Description	Applicable MSRP Limit
2022, 2023	Chevrolet Bolt	$55,000
2022, 2023	Chevrolet Bolt EUV	$55,000
2022, 2023	Cadillac Lyriq	$55,000

This manufacturer has entered into a written agreement with us to become a “qualified manufacturer” but hasn’t yet submitted a list of specific makes and models that are eligible. Please check back here for updated information.

This manufacturer has entered into a written agreement with us to become a “qualified manufacturer” but hasn’t yet submitted a list of specific makes and models that are eligible. Please check back here for updated information.

This manufacturer has entered into a written agreement with us to become a “qualified manufacturer” but hasn’t yet submitted a list of specific makes and models that are eligible. Please check back here for updated information.

This manufacturer has entered into a written agreement with us to become a “qualified manufacturer” but hasn’t yet submitted a list of specific makes and models that are eligible. Please check back here for updated information.

This manufacturer has entered into a written agreement with us to become a “qualified manufacturer” but hasn’t yet submitted a list of specific makes and models that are eligible. Please check back here for updated information.

This manufacturer has entered into a written agreement with us to become a “qualified manufacturer” but hasn’t yet submitted a list of specific makes and models that are eligible. Please check back here for updated information.

Model Year	Vehicle Description	Applicable MSRP Limit
2021, 2022, 2023	Nissan Leaf S	$55,000
2021, 2022	Nissan Leaf S Plus	$55,000
2021, 2022	NIssan Leaf SL Plus	$55,000
2021, 2022	Nissan Leaf SV	$55,000
2021, 2022, 2023	Nissan Leaf SV Plus	$55,000

This manufacturer has entered into a written agreement with us to become a “qualified manufacturer” but hasn’t yet submitted a list of specific makes and models that are eligible. Please check back here for updated information.

This manufacturer has entered into a written agreement with us to become a “qualified manufacturer” but hasn’t yet submitted a list of specific makes and models that are eligible. Please check back here for updated information.

This manufacturer has entered into a written agreement with us to become a “qualified manufacturer” but hasn’t yet submitted a list of specific makes and models that are eligible. Please check back here for updated information.

Model Year	Vehicle Description	Applicable MSRP Limit
2022, 2023	Rivian R1S	$80,000
2022, 2023	Rivian R1T	$80,000

Model Year	Vehicle Description	Applicable MSRP Limit
2022, 2023	Chrysler Pacifica PHEV	$80,000
2022, 2023	Jeep Wrangler 4xe	$80,000
2022, 2023	Jeep Grand Cherokee 4xe	$80,000

This manufacturer has entered into a written agreement with us to become a “qualified manufacturer” but hasn’t yet submitted a list of specific makes and models that are eligible. Please check back here for updated information.

 

Model Year	Vehicle Description	Applicable MSRP Limit
2022, 2023	Tesla Model 3 Rear Wheel Drive	$55,000
2022, 2023	Tesla Model 3 Long Range	$55,000
2022, 2023	Tesla Model Y All-Wheel Drive – 7 seat variant (3-rows)	$80,000
2022, 2023	Tesla Model Y Long Range – 7 seat variant (3-rows)	$80,000
2022, 2023	Tesla Model Y Performance – 7 seat variant (3-rows)	$80,000
2022, 2023	Tesla Model Y All-Wheel Drive – 5 seat variant (2-rows)	$55,000
2022, 2023	Tesla Model Y Long Range – 5 seat variant (2-rows)	$55,000
2022, 2023	Tesla Model Y Performance – 5 seat variant (2-rows)	$55,000

This manufacturer has entered into a written agreement with us to become a “qualified manufacturer” but hasn’t yet submitted a list of specific makes and models that are eligible. Please check back here for updated information.

 

Model Year	Vehicle Description	Applicable MSRP Limit
2023	Volkswagen ID.4	$55,000
2023	Volkswagen ID.4 Pro	$55,000
2023	Volkswagen ID.4 Pro S	$55,000
2023	Volkswagen ID.4 S	$55,000
2023	Volkswagen ID.4 AWD Pro	$80,000
2023	Volkswagen ID.4 AWD Pro S	$80,000

Volvo Car North America, LLC
Manufacturers and Models for New Qualified Clean Vehicles Purchased in 2023 or After – Qualified Vehicles

To qualify, a vehicle must:

The sale qualifies only if:

• You buy the vehicle new
• The seller reports required information to you at the time of sale and to the IRS.
  • Sellers are required to report your name and taxpayer identification number to the IRS for you to be eligible to claim the credit.

In addition, the vehicle’s manufacturer suggested retail price (MSRP) can’t exceed:

• $80,000 for vans, sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks
• $55,000 for other vehicles

MSRP is the retail price of the automobile suggested by the manufacturer, including options, accessories and trim but excluding destination fees. It isn’t necessarily the price you pay.

To confirm whether a vehicle is a van, sport utility vehicle, pickup truck or other, see our qualified vehicles and manufacturers.

You can find your vehicle’s weight, battery capacity, final assembly location (listed as “final assembly point”) and VIN on the vehicle’s window sticker.

To check online if a specific vehicle meets the requirements for final assembly location, go to the Department of Energy’s page on Electric Vehicles with Final Assembly in North America and use the VIN Decoder tool under “Specific Assembly Location Based on VIN.”

How to Claim the Credit

To claim the credit, file Form 8936, Qualified Plug-in Electric Drive Motor Vehicle Credit (Including Qualified Two-Wheeled Plug-in Electric Vehicles) with your tax return. You will need to provide your vehicle’s VIN.

Related

Originally Appeared Here

LANSING — A boom in state revenues is likely to trigger a reduction in the state income tax rate for the 2023 tax year, from 4.25% to 4.05%, the House Fiscal Agency said in a report released Thursday.

The income tax reduction, which if enacted would cost the state general fund something in the range of $660 million per year, would be triggered by a 2015 law designed to reduce the income tax rate when state general fund revenues exceed certain levels.

The report said that House fiscal experts can’t make the call with certainty until final numbers are in for the 2022 fiscal year.

However, “based on preliminary FY 2021-22 general fund revenue, the trigger would take effect and lower the income tax rate for TY (tax year) 2023 to 4.05%,” the report said.

More:Michigan tax revenues remain strong, but economists say that will soon change

More:New House speaker Joe Tate: Don’t mistake Detroit Dem’s kindness for weakness, allies say

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, asked about the report at a Thursday news conference held to highlight Democratic tax cut and tax credit plans that neither include, nor budget for, an across-the-board cut in the state income tax rate, said the projection is “premature,” because the state has not yet closed its financial books on the 2022 fiscal year.

Asked if Democrats would try to amend the 2015 law if such an action was necessary to prevent a cut in the income tax rate, Whitmer said: “I’m not going to speculate on what may or may not happen.”

The House Fiscal Agency report was prepared for a state revenue estimating conference that is to be held at the Capitol Friday. At that conference, the treasurer, the state budget director and other officials try to reach a consensus on how much tax revenue the state can expect to collect over the next three years.

Higher-than-forecast state revenues have resulted in roughly a $7 billion surplus in combined general fund and School Aid Fund revenues, even after significant spending on economic development incentives and other projects.

But news of the likely trigger comes as many economists are warning of a recession.

The last revenue estimating conference was held in May. Based on numbers presented then, a 0.2-point reduction in the state income tax rate could cost the state about $660 million a year. That number could change somewhat, based on updated revenue estimates reached at Friday’s meeting.

Republican lawmakers have been pushing for an across-the-board cut in the income tax rate, but Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has vetoed such bills, instead calling for an increase in the Earned Income Tax Credit, which helps low-income working families, and a reversal of increased taxes on pensions introduced under former Gov. Rick Snyder. Those ideas are incorporated into bills Whitmer highlighted at a Capitol press conference with House Speaker Joe Tate, D-Detroit, and Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks, D-Grand Rapids, on Thursday.

Bills introduced in the House and Senate would, separately, restore the state EITC to 20% of the federal credit, and gradually increase it to 30% of the federal credit.

In the 2019 tax year, about 738,380 Michigan families received an average credit of $150, putting more than $110 million back into the local economy. Restoring the credit to 20% of the federal credit would bring Michigan up to speed with other states, the Michigan League for Public Policy said in a news release. Increasing Michigan’s EITC to 30% of the federal credit would mean an average credit of $749 for these families, the league said.

Whitmer has said the proposed changes in pension taxes would save about 500,000 Michigan seniors an average of about $1,000 a year each.

Both groups “had the rug pulled out from under them” by the previous administration and high inflation currently makes it more important than ever “to do right by the people of Michigan,” Whitmer said.

State Republicans, meanwhile, have also introduced a bill to increase the EITC to 20% of the federal tax credit and another that would give tax relief to seniors more broadly.

“(All retirees) need this relief during times of inflation and the rise in the cost of living, and therefore, we’re proposing broad relief for all Michigan seniors,” House Minority Leader Matt Hall, R-Richland Township, said at a Wednesday news conference.

Staff writer Dave Boucher contributed to this report.

Contact Paul Egan: 517-372-8660 or pegan@freepress.com. Follow him on Twitter @paulegan4.

Originally Appeared Here