U.S. consumers added to their debt loads at the fastest pace in 14 years in 2021 as they borrowed more to afford homes, cars and other goods that are becoming increasingly expensive, according to a report released by the New York Federal Reserve. Total household debt grew by $1 trillion last year, marking the largest increase in overall debt since 2007, according to the New York Fed’s quarterly report on household debt and credit. The total debt balance is now $1.4 trillion higher than it was at the end of 2019. “The aggregate balances of newly opened mortgage and auto loans sharply increased in 2021, corresponding to increases in home and car prices,” Wilbert Van Der Klaauw, senior vice president at the New York Fed, said in a statement. Over $4.5 trillion in mortgages were originated in 2021, reaching a historic high for the database, which goes back to 1999. Mortgage balances increased by $258 billion in the fourth quarter to $10.93 trillion at the end of December. Auto loan originations returned to pre-pandemic trends but loan amounts increased in response to rising car prices, New York Fed researchers said.
Struggling with debt? Call our office at 816-524-4949 or click here to schedule a consultation to determine your options.
A new tax season has arrived. The IRS reminds taxpayers receiving Social Security benefits that they may have to pay federal income tax on a portion of those benefits.
Social Security benefits include monthly retirement, survivor and disability benefits. They don’t include supplemental security income payments, which aren’t taxable.
The portion of benefits that are taxable depends on the taxpayer’s income and filing status.
To determine if their benefits are taxable, taxpayers should take half of the Social Security money they collected during the year and add it to their other income. Other income includes pensions, wages, interest, dividends and capital gains.
If they are single and that total comes to more than $25,000, then part of their Social Security benefits may be taxable.
If they are married filing jointly, they should take half of their Social Security, plus half of their spouse’s Social Security, and add that to all their combined income. If that total is more than $32,000, then part of their Social Security may be taxable.
Fifty percent of a taxpayer’s benefits may be taxable if they are:
Filing single, head of household or qualifying widow or widower with $25,000 to $34,000 income.
Married filing separately and lived apart from their spouse for all of 2020 with $25,000 to $34,000 income.
Married filing jointly with $32,000 to $44,000 income.
Up to 85% of a taxpayer’s benefits may be taxable if they are:
Courtesy of the Internal Revenue Service
Filing single, head of household or qualifying widow or widower with more than $34,000 income.
Married filing jointly with more than $44,000 income.
Married filing separately and lived apart from their spouse for all of 2021 with more than $34,000 income.
Married filing separately and lived with their spouse at any time during 2021.
If you’re interested in tax preparation services, give us a call at 816-524-4949 or click here to schedule a consultation.
Statute allows termination of maintenance upon a substantial and continuing change of circumstances that makes the maintenance obligation unreasonable. That can include recipient’s cohabitation, if the cohabitation is a substitute for marriage, which requires a circuit court’s conclusions of law upon findings of fact. Factors include the permanency of the cohabitational relationship and its economic implications. Those findings are subject to deference on appeal. The earliest that maintenance may terminate is personal service or, in the absence of personal service, the filing of an answer. Remanded to determine whether willfully failing to pay maintenance after respondent filed an answer supported a judgment of contempt.
Statute bars compensation for injury resulting from “risk unrelated to the employment to which workers would have been equally exposed outside of and unrelated to the employment in normal nonemployment life.” Claimant choked on his breakfast, passed out, and crashed his work van while on his way to a work assignment. Breakfast, choking, and passing out are unrelated to the employment, part of normal nonemployment life, and caused the crash that caused the injury. Therefore, the statutes barred an award for claimant’s injuries.
Taxpayers have two options when completing a tax return, take the standard deduction or itemize their deductions. Most taxpayers use the option that gives them the lowest overall tax.
Due to all the tax law changes in the recent years, including increases to the standard deduction, people who itemized in the past might want to switch to the standard deduction.
Here are some details about the two options.
Standard deduction The standard deduction amount increases slightly every year and varies by filing status. The standard deduction amount depends on the taxpayer’s filing status, whether they are 65 or older or blind, and whether another taxpayer can claim them as a dependent. Taxpayers who are age 65 or older on the last day of the year and don’t itemize deductions are entitled to a higher standard deduction.
Most filers who use Form 1040 can find their standard deduction on the first page of the form. The standard deduction for most filers of Form 1040-SR, U.S. Tax Return for Seniors, is on page 4 of that form.
A married individual filing as married filing separately whose spouse itemizes deductions—if one spouse itemizes on a separate return, both must itemize.
An individual who files a tax return for a period of less than 12 months. This is uncommon and could be due to a change in their annual accounting period.
An individual who was a nonresident alien or a dual-status alien during the year. However, nonresident aliens who are married to a U.S. citizen or resident alien can take the standard deduction in certain situations.
Itemized deductions Taxpayers choose to itemize deductions by filing Schedule A, Form 1040, Itemized Deductions. Itemized deductions that taxpayers may claim include:
State and local income or sales taxes
Real estate and personal property taxes
Home mortgage interest
Mortgage insurance premiums on a home mortgage
Personal casualty and theft losses from a federally declared disaster
Gifts to a qualified charity
Unreimbursed medical and dental expenses that exceed 7.5% of adjusted gross income
Courtesy of the Internal Revenue Service
Some itemized deductions, such as the deduction for taxes, may be limited. Taxpayers should review the instructions for Schedule A Form 1040 for more information on limitations.
Circuit court was not required to believe that any non-verbal communication between a juror and a spectator addressed, or affected the juror’s view, of the action’s merits. Statutes address evidence from mentally incapacitated persons. One statute provides that such a person is incompetent to testify. Another provides admissibility for the person’s out-of-court statements. But appellant did not show that a declaration of incompetence negates reliability because the two statutes use different standards: the statutes test different characteristics to determine mental capacity, and the latter statute’s considerations include indicia of reliability under the totality of circumstances, while the former limits inquiry to when the person is produced for examination. Law of the case might not bar a challenge to evidence, because the contexts of the earlier trial and later trial can be different, at least when the later trial resulted from a reversal of the earlier judgment.
One statute, governing procedure in non-judicial foreclosure, provides for notice by publication in “a newspaper of general circulation” as further defined. Another statute “allows a circuit court to establish procedures for newspapers seeking to be qualified, but does not require a newspaper to petition the court for approval in the absence of such procedures [,]” so appellants needed no circuit court approval to publish notice. Statutes require registration of fictitious names but do not void any conduct for failure to comply. Affidavits supported summary judgment with first-hand knowledge of material facts. “[T]he best evidence rule does not exclude evidence based on personal knowledge even if documents or other writings would provide some of the same information.” No genuine dispute existed as to the material facts established. A judgment that disposed of less than all claims among all parties, but disposed of all claims between two parties, was subject to certification.
Statutes provide that the elements of a claim for employment security benefits include availability for work. Negating that element was appellant’s request of her employer not to schedule her for work during the COVID pandemic. “[L]imitations on the hours and days the employee is willing to work [divorce claimant] actually and currently from the general labor market.” No statutory policy, nor reasonable fear of COVID, nor reduced wages at other employment, change that result. Appellant’s points are multifarious, but Court of Appeals reviews them nonetheless.
A new statute bars prosecution for drug possession when defendant overdoses on a controlled substance and calls for medical help. That statute applies to events occurring before the statute’s effective date. Savings statute, preserving pre-amendment statutes for prosecution despite amendments, does not apply to new statutes. A new statute can constitute an amendment to existing statutes, but only if that intent appears, which it does not. Dismissal of drug possession charge affirmed.
Confrontation Clauses protect the right of an accused, including a juvenile, to confront State’s witnesses face-to-face. Orders of the Supreme Court and circuit court, addressing procedure during COVID-19 pandemic, barred in-person appearances only as otherwise allowed by law. Those provisions require “witness-specific findings” on “an enhanced risk associated with COVID-19 [,]” to restrict the appearance of appellant to remote means. In appellant juvenile’s adjudication hearing, the circuit court made no such findings as to danger, and the risk of transmitting COVID-19 from the juvenile detention facility was not so great as to bar appellant’s trial counsel, after a visit to that facility, from a personal appearance in “the courtroom with the circuit judge, the circuit judge’s staff, [appellant]’s parents, the juvenile officer, a deputy juvenile officer, a victim services representative, and all the witnesses.” “Properly preserved confrontation clause violations are presumed prejudicial.” Judgment vacated and remanded.
