The IRS has announced a significant increase in enforcement actions for syndicated conservation easement transactions. This is a "priority compliance area" for the agency.

The IRS has announced a significant increase in enforcement actions for syndicated conservation easement transactions. This is a "priority compliance area" for the agency.

Throughout the IRS, coordinated examinations are being conducted in the Small Business and Self-Employed (SB/SE) Division, Large Business and International (LB&I) Division, and Tax Exempt and Government Entities (TE/GE) Division. The IRS Criminal Investigation (CI) Division has also been initiating investigations. The audits and investigations cover billions of dollars of potentially inflated deductions, as well as hundreds of partnerships and thousands of investors.

"We will not stop in our pursuit of everyone involved in the creation, marketing, promotion and wrongful acquisition of artificial, highly inflated deductions based on these aggressive transactions. Every available enforcement option will be considered, including civil penalties and, where appropriate, criminal investigations that could lead to a criminal prosecution," said IRS Commissioner Charles "Chuck" Rettig. "Our innovation labs are continually developing new, more extensive enforcement tools that employ advanced techniques. If you engaged in any questionable syndicated conservation easement transaction, you should immediately consult an independent, competent tax advisor to consider your best available options. It is always worthwhile to take advantage of various methods of getting back into compliance by correcting your tax returns before you hear from the IRS. Our continued use of ever-changing technologies would suggest that waiting is not a viable option for most taxpayers," he added.

Syndicated Conservation Easements

The IRS issued Notice 2017-10, I.R.B. 2017-4, 544, in 2016, which designated certain syndicated conservation easements as listed transactions. In these types of transactions, investors in pass-through entities receive promotional material which offer the possibility of a charitable contribution deduction worth at least two-and-a-half times their investment. The deduction taken in many transactions has been significantly higher than 250 percent of the investment.

Syndicated conservation easements were included on the IRS’s 2019 "Dirty Dozen" list of tax scams to avoid.

Not only do these transactions grossly overstate the value of the easement that was purportedly donated to charity, they often also fail to comply with the basic requirements for claiming a charitable deduction for a donated easement.

Taxpayers may avoid the imposition of penalties for improper contribution deductions if they fully remove the improper contribution and related tax benefits from their returns by timely filing a qualified amended return or timely administrative adjustment request.

Enforcement Actions

The IRS has prevailed in many cases involving the charitable deduction basic requirements, and has established a body of law that it believes supports disallowance of the deduction in a significant number of pending conservation easement cases. The IRS will soon be moving the Tax Court to invalidate the claimed deductions in all cases where the transactions fail to comply with the basic requirements, leaving only the final penalty amount to be determined.

In addition to auditing participants in syndicated conservation easement transactions, the IRS is pursuing investigations of promoters, appraisers, tax return preparers and others, and is evaluating numerous referrals of practitioners to the IRS Office of Professional Responsibility. The IRS will develop and assert all appropriate penalties, including:

• penalties for participants (40 percent accuracy-related penalty);
• penalties for appraisers (penalty for substantial and gross valuation misstatements attributable to incorrect appraisals);
• penalties for promoters, material advisors, and accommodating entities (penalty for promoting abusive tax shelters, and penalty for aiding and abetting understatement of tax liability); and
• penalties for return preparers (penalty for understatement of taxpayer’s liability by a tax return preparer).

Rettig, Desmond Highlight Heightened Focus

Rettig and IRS Chief Counsel Michael J. Desmond have each highlighted the IRS’s heightened, agency-wide focus on syndicated conservations easements.

While speaking at the American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) 2019 National Tax Conference in Washington, D.C., Rettig and Desmond both separately underscored the IRS’s increased enforcement efforts toward abuses of certain tax-advantaged land transactions under Code Sec. 170(h).

"We appreciate the value of conservation easements," Rettig said. "We do not appreciate the activities that have gone on with respect to the syndicated conservation easements—there are some artificial appraisals there… some fatal flaws."

Reiterating the IRS’s tough stance on the matter, Rettig said that the IRS is not going to "stand down." The information in IR-2019-182 issued on November 12 was "fair warning," Rettig said.

Likewise, Desmond stressed that the challenges surrounding syndicated conservation easements are an "institutional concern" for the IRS, "one that we will be responding to," he emphasized.

Treasury and the IRS are expected to release proposed rules in "early 2020" that would clarify certain limitations on the carried interest tax break, according to David Kautter, Treasury’s assistant secretary for tax policy. Kautter briefly addressed the proposed regulations’ timeline while speaking at the American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) 2019 National Tax Conference in Washington, D.C.

Treasury and the IRS are expected to release proposed rules in "early 2020" that would clarify certain limitations on the carried interest tax break, according to David Kautter, Treasury’s assistant secretary for tax policy. Kautter briefly addressed the proposed regulations’ timeline while speaking at the American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) 2019 National Tax Conference in Washington, D.C.

Carried Interest Limitation

The forthcoming regulations are expected to restrict S corporations from taking advantage of a carried interest exemption provision under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97). The TCJA requires certain money managers to hold investments for at least three years before becoming eligible for the lower, 20 percent capital gains rate. However, it exempted corporations from this holding period, which Treasury and many lawmakers on Capitol Hill say resulted in an unintended "loophole."

The proposed regulations are expected to clarify the law’s intent that S corporations are subject to the three-year holding period for carried interest, according to Treasury’s last press release on the matter issued in March 2018 (see "Treasury, IRS Issue Guidance On Carried Interest," at https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm0302).

Legal Questions May Arise

Most notably, however, the TCJA does not expressly contain this limitation on S-corporations, which has left some on Capitol Hill questioning Treasury and the IRS’s authority to implement such a restriction via regulations. The IRS on November 15 directed Wolters Kluwer to Treasury for confirmation on this anticipated rule and projected timeline. As of press time, Treasury had not responded to Wolters Kluwer’s request for comment.

Hopes for a year-end tax extenders package appear to be dwindling on Capitol Hill.

Hopes for a year-end tax extenders package appear to be dwindling on Capitol Hill.

Tax Extenders Need a Legislative Vehicle

Over 30 expired or soon-to-be expired tax breaks known as tax extenders were originally considered a top contender for hitching a ride on a larger, must-pass government funding bill. Considering the lack of time left on the legislative calendar this year, a stand-alone tax bill has been considered an unlikely initiative. Thus, a must-pass appropriations bill was seen by several lawmakers as the likely legislative vehicle for tax extenders and other tax items such as technical corrections to Republicans’ 2017 tax reform law.

However, a spokesperson for Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, confirmed to Wolters Kluwer on October 28 that Grassley believes there is "no hope" for action this year on a tax extenders package if lawmakers do not move quickly with respect to its legislative driver. Many within the practitioner community following these developments have said that the chances of providing taxpayers with certain tax breaks retroactively significantly decrease if Congress moves into next year leaving them expired.

Another Stopgap Spending Bill Appears Likely

Currently, the federal government is operating on a stopgap spending bill temporarily extending fiscal year (FY) 2019 funding levels through November 21. Previously, several lawmakers, in particular Grassley, had hoped that a tax extenders package would be attached to a larger, more comprehensive appropriations bill next month. However, Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Richard Shelby, R-Ala., told reporters that another short-term stopgap spending bill is the more likely option to keep the government open after November 21. "Unless a miracle happens around here with the House and Senate, we will have to put forth another [continuing resolution] CR," Shelby told reporters.

Notably, another short-term government funding bill is considered unlikely to have any policy riders. Generally, stop gap spending bills are usually considered "clean," for the most part. Also playing a role in tax extenders’ fate is whether President Trump would sign a more comprehensive appropriations bill. At this time, his support for a larger FY 2020 funding bill, apart from tax policy reasons, remains unclear.

Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and other top Senate tax writers are calling for Senate action on the bipartisan Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Secure bill (HR 1994) (SECURE Act). The House-approved, bipartisan retirement savings bill has remained stalled in the Senate since May.

Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and other top Senate tax writers are calling for Senate action on the bipartisan Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Secure bill (HR 1994) (SECURE Act). The House-approved, bipartisan retirement savings bill has remained stalled in the Senate since May.

SECURE Act’s Route to Senate Floor Remains Unclear

Grassley’s communications director Michael Zona told Wolters Kluwer on October 21 that it remains "unclear at this point" whether the SECURE Act will move through committee, reach the Senate floor by unanimous consent, or be attached to a larger, year-end tax package. "Grassley supports the House-passed SECURE Act. There are several holds on the bill, and he is working to get them lifted," Zona said.

The SECURE Act cleared the House on May 23 by a 417-to-3 vote. The bipartisan measure, which proposes sweeping changes to retirement savings tax policy, was originally expected to quickly clear the Senate after its approval in the House. However, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex., blocked the bill from reaching the Senate floor. Cruz blocked the bill in protest of House Democrats’ 11th hour-removal of a provision from the original bill that would have expanded tax-advantaged Section 529 education savings plans to include homeschooling and certain elementary and secondary expenses. Cruz and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., are reportedly still holding up the measure from reaching the Senate floor.

Catch-All Tax Package

However, the SECURE Act, among other bipartisan tax-related items including tax extenders, could be attached to a catch-all tax package that is expected on Capitol Hill to hitch a ride on a year-end government funding bill. A "must-pass" appropriations bill, like the one currently being negotiated to keep the government open after funding expires on November 21, could serve as the tax package’s legislative vehicle, thus fast tracking its approval.

"As the economy continues to change, the way we approach retirement savings must change as well. Otherwise, too many Americans will be left behind," Grassley said on October 21, noting that the SECURE Act is under "active consideration."

Similar to Grassley’s push, Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., led a letter sent to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., urging immediate Senate consideration of the SECURE Act. "This bipartisan legislation would expand access to retirement plans for millions of Americans, allow older workers and retirees to contribute more to their retirement accounts, increase 401(k) coverage to part-time employees, prevent as many as 4 million people in private-sector pension plans from losing future benefits, protect 1,400 religiously affiliated organizations whose access to their defined contribution retirement plans is in jeopardy, and do the right thing for Gold Star families," according to Scott.

The Senate blocked a Democratic resolution on October 23 to overturn Treasury rules preventing certain workarounds to the $10,000 state and local tax (SALT) federal deduction cap.

The Senate blocked a Democratic resolution on October 23 to overturn Treasury rules preventing certain workarounds to the $10,000 state and local tax (SALT) federal deduction cap.

SALT Cap Workaround

Senate Democrats’ resolution, S.J. Res. 50, forced a vote on Wednesday to nullify Treasury regulations that block taxpayers from circumventing the SALT cap through certain states’ programs that convert state and local taxes into fully deductible charitable contributions. The resolution failed by a largely party-line vote of 43-to-52.

Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., voted against the Democratic measure while Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., supported it. While the resolution would not repeal the SALT cap itself, House Democrats are reportedly crafting legislation to do so. Democrats and some Republicans, particularly from high-tax states, have criticized the SALT cap since its enactment in 2017 under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97).

Debate on SALT Cap, Treasury Rules

"Without any clear authority to do so, the Treasury Department reversed a long-standing IRS position that had allowed taxpayers a full deduction for charitable contributions to state tax credit programs," Senate Finance Committee (SFC) ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said on the Senate floor before the vote. "My view is the Treasury Department should not be putting its thumb on the scale on behalf of Republican interests, and it shouldn’t be using phony regulatory justifications to fix Republicans’ extraordinarily poorly drafted law."

However, several Republicans cited to a recent report from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), which estimated that repealing the SALT cap beginning in 2019 would result in over $40 billion of the associated tax cut going to taxpayers with incomes of at least $1 million ( JCX-35-19).

"It’s bad enough that my Democratic colleagues want to unwind tax reform, but it’s downright comical that their top priority is helping wealthy people in blue states find loopholes to pay even less," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said from the Senate floor on October 23. "Repealing the SALT cap would give millionaires an average tax cut of $60,000. Meanwhile, the average tax cut for taxpayers earning between $50,000 and $100,000 would be less than ten dollars."

Vaping Tax

In other news, the House Ways and Means Committee approved a bipartisan vaping tax bill, ( HR 4742), on October 23 by a 24-to-15 vote. The bill would establish a $27.81 tax per gram of nicotine used in vaping devices.

Treasury and the IRS on October 31 announced the release of a new, draft form implementing certain reporting requirements under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Opportunity Zone program.

Treasury and the IRS on October 31 announced the release of a new, draft form implementing certain reporting requirements under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Opportunity Zone program.

The proposed Form 8996 for Qualified Opportunity Funds (QOFs) comes after numerous calls on Capitol Hill for more transparency within the Opportunity Zone program. "The form is designed to collect information on the amount of investment by opportunity funds in business property by census tract," according to a Treasury press release.

Opportunity Zones’ Architect Applauds Treasury’s Steps Toward Reporting Requirements

Ken Farnaso, press secretary for Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., chief architect of the TCJA’s bipartisan Opportunity Zone program, told Wolters Kluwer on October 31 that reporting requirements, "an important piece of the puzzle," were, in fact, originally in the bill. "Unfortunately, during the tax reform process, Senate Democrats blocked these requirements from being included in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Since then, Senator Scott has continued working to restore those reporting requirements," Farnaso said.

Additionally, Farnaso told Wolters Kluwer that Scott applauds Treasury’s steps to ensure a clearer picture of the impact the Opportunity Zones initiative can have on the country. "Senator Scott will also continue to push for his current bill restoring robust reporting requirements to create a holistic picture of how the initiative is functioning," Farnaso said. "Overall, today is a good day for Opportunity Zones. We look forward to the more than $44 billion in currently anticipated investment being deployed in distressed communities across the nation, and that number growing even larger in the future."

Opportunity Zones Tax Incentive

The Opportunity Zone Program enacted under TCJA ( P.L. 115-97) is considered on Capitol Hill as one of the most generous and ambitious tax incentives for investors in distressed communities. Under Code Sec. 1400Z-2, investors may defer taxation of capital gains that are invested in a QOF.

Generally, the following investor tax benefits were created under the Opportunity Zone program:

• a temporary tax deferral for capital gains realized on the sale of appreciated assets and reinvested within 180 days in a QOF;
• the elimination of up to 10 or 15 percent of the tax on the capital gain that is invested in the QOF and held between five and seven years; and
• the permanent exclusion of tax when exiting a qualified opportunity fund investment held for at least 10 years.

Draft IRS Form 8996

Specifically, the new, draft Form 8996 for the 2019 tax year requires QOFs to report the following information:

• the Employer Identification Number (EIN) of each business in which the QOF has an ownership interest;
• the census tract location of the tangible property of the business;
  the value of the QOF’s investment; and
• the value and census tract location of qualified business property directly owned or leased.

"This is an important step towards a thorough evaluation of the Opportunity Zone tax incentive," Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said. "We want to understand where Opportunity Zone investments are going and strengthening the economy so that investors and communities can learn from the successes of this bipartisan, pro-growth policy."

Generally, the collection of this information will play a role in allowing lawmakers and the public to evaluate the effects of the tax incentive and to understand why some locations may be more successful than others at attracting investment, according to Treasury.

Opportunity Zones Criticism

The Opportunity Zone program has not come to fruition without its share of criticism, however. Although lawmakers have called for reporting requirements related to QOFs since the TCJA’s enactment, the program has recently come under increased scrutiny and criticism. Senate Finance Committee (SFC) ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., has said that the lack of reporting requirements are "inexcusable."

"Requiring taxpayers to prove they’re actually following the rules of the Opportunity Zone program is a positive first step, but it’s one that should have been taken two years ago…," Wyden said in an October 31 statement. "The Opportunity Zone program has been operating without any effort to ensure compliance and that’s inexcusable."

A California-based medical marijuana dispensary corporation’s motion for summary judgment challenging the constitutionality of Code Sec. 280E was denied. The Tax Court also addressed whether Code Sec. 280E applies to marijuana businesses legally operating under state (California) law, and whether the prohibition on deductions is limited to ordinary and necessary business expenses.

A California-based medical marijuana dispensary corporation’s motion for summary judgment challenging the constitutionality of Code Sec. 280E was denied. The Tax Court also addressed whether Code Sec. 280E applies to marijuana businesses legally operating under state (California) law, and whether the prohibition on deductions is limited to ordinary and necessary business expenses.

Section 280E

Congress enacted Code Sec. 280E after the court had allowed certain deductions for expenses incurred in connection with an illegal drug trade. Generally, Code Sec. 280E disallows any deductions attributable to a taxpayer’s illegal drug related trade or business. Taxpayers may reduce their income by the cost of goods sold (COGS), and Code Sec. 280E does not generally disallow deductions attributable to a taxpayer’s non-drug-related business.

Constitutionality

The Eighth Amendment of the Constitution prohibits excessive fines or penalties. The dispensary in this case claimed that Code Sec. 280E is a punitive provision that violates the Eighth Amendment. However, because Congress generally has the power to levy taxes under the Sixteenth Amendment, the Tax Court found that the law’s denial of certain deductions cannot be construed as a penalty.

Legality Under State Law

The dispensary also argued that its actions could not be considered "trafficking" for purposes of Code Sec. 280E because its activities were not illegal under California law. The court noted that because marijuana is still considered a Schedule I controlled substance and is banned under federal law, the application of Code Sec. 280E does not depend on the legality of marijuana sales under California law.

Additional Deductions

Finally, the dispensary argued that Code Sec. 280E only applies to deductions under Code Sec. 162, and that other deductions such as those under Code Secs. 164 and 167 should be permitted. However, the text of Code Sec. 280E broadly states that "no deduction or credit shall be allowed." It does not limit the deductions to those claimed under Code Sec. 162.

Dissenting Opinions

The Tax Court decision included several concurring and dissenting opinions, which primarily addressed the issue as to whether Code Sec. 280E is in fact a penalty provision that would violate the Eighth Amendment.

The dissenting opinions found that Code Sec. 280E is punitive in nature. One dissenter noted that rather than specify a narrow range of disallowed expenses, Code Sec. 280E attacks the entire marijuana industry with a broad denial of otherwise allowable deductions. The opinion stated that Congress passed Code Sec. 280E order to deter the sale of controlled substances and to penalize the drug trade. That intent was found to be "clearly in the nature of a penalty." Both dissents concluded with two additional questions, which the dissenters felt need to be addressed:

• Is the punitive nature of Code Sec. 280E excessive to the point where it violates the Eighth Amendment?, and
• Does the Eighth Amendment apply to corporation taxpayers?

The IRS has proposed regulations that define an eligible terminated S corporation (ETSC), and provide rules relating to distributions of money by an ETSC after the post-termination transition period (PTTP). The proposed regulations also extend the treatment of distributions of money during the PTTP to all shareholders of the corporation, and update and clarify the allocation of current earnings and profits to distributions of money and other property.

The IRS has proposed regulations that define an eligible terminated S corporation (ETSC), and provide rules relating to distributions of money by an ETSC after the post-termination transition period (PTTP). The proposed regulations also extend the treatment of distributions of money during the PTTP to all shareholders of the corporation, and update and clarify the allocation of current earnings and profits to distributions of money and other property.

Code Sec. 1371(f), as added by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97) extends the period during which C corporation shareholders can benefit from the corporation’s accumulated adjustment account (AAA) generated during its former status as an S corporation. Specifically, the provision allows the C corporation to source qualified distributions of money to which Code Sec. 301 would otherwise apply to in whole or part to AAA. The provision only applies if the corporation is an ETSC as defined in Code Sec. 481(d).

Under the proposed regulations, the revocation of S corporation status may be made during the two-year period beginning on December 22, 2017, even if the effective date for the revocation occurs after the conclusion of the two-year period.

Shareholder Identity Requirement

A former S corporation is not an ETSC unless the owners of its stock are the same owners (and in identical proportions) on December 22, 2017, and on the date of the S corporation revocation. The proposed regulations identify various categories of stock transfers that are not considered an ownership change for purposes of this rule.

ETSC Proration

A distributing ETSC’s AAA is allocated to qualified distributions and the distributions are chargeable to the ETSC’s accumulated earnings and profits (AE&P) based on the ETSC proration. The ETSC proration is implemented in a manner that facilitates the prompt distribution of AAA and full transition to C corporation status. Specifically, the proposed regulations:

• specify the time at which amounts of AAA and AE&P are determined for purposes of the ETSC proration;

• provide AAA and AE&P ratios used to the implement the proration; and

• describe in detail the method of characterizing qualified distributions.

The proposed regulations adopt a "snapshot" approach under which amounts of AAA and AE&P are determined on a specified date. As a result, the same ETSC proration is applied to all qualified distributions. Under the proposed regulations, the determination date is the date when the S corporation revocation election is effective. A "dynamic" approach that recalculated the amounts before each qualified distribution was rejected as administratively cumbersome.

The proposed regulations provide two ratios for determining the part of a qualified distribution that is sourced from AAA and from AE&P. The AAA ratio is the ratio of historical AAA to the sum of historical AAA and historical AE&P. The AE&P ratio is the ratio of historical AE&P and the sum of historical AAA and historical AE&P. The qualified distribution is multiplied by these ratios to determine the amount sourced from AAA and AE&P.

The proposed regulations provide a priority rule under which ETSC proration first applies to qualified distributions during the tax year. The rules of Code Sec. 301 and allocation rules of Code Sec. 316 then apply to any nonqualified distributions that are not fully accounted for by the ETSC proration because the corporation’s AAA or AE&P are exhausted.

Effective Date

The proposed regulations will be effective in tax years beginning after the date they are published as final regulations. A taxpayer may apply the regulations in their entirely to tax years that begin on or before the date of publication as final regulations.

A child with earned income above a certain level is generally required to file a separate tax return as a single taxpayer. However, a child with a certain amount of unearned income (from investments, including dividends, interest, and capital gains) may find that this income becomes subject to tax at his or her parent's highest marginal tax rate. This is referred to as the "kiddie tax," and it is designed to prevent parents from transferring income-producing investments to their children, who would generally be taxed at a lower rate.

A child with earned income above a certain level is generally required to file a separate tax return as a single taxpayer. However, a child with a certain amount of unearned income (from investments, including dividends, interest, and capital gains) may find that this income becomes subject to tax at his or her parent's highest marginal tax rate. This is referred to as the "kiddie tax," and it is designed to prevent parents from transferring income-producing investments to their children, who would generally be taxed at a lower rate.

Does the kiddie tax apply to my situation?

The kiddie tax applies if:

1. The child has investment income greater than the annual inflation-adjusted amount ($1,900 for 2013; $2,000 for 2014);
2. At least one of the child's parents was alive at the end of the tax year;
3. The child is required to file a tax return for the tax year;
4. The child does not file a joint return for the tax year; and
5. The child meets one of the following requirements relating to age and income:
• The child was under age 18 at the end of the tax year; or
• The child was age 18 at the end of the tax year and the child's earned income does not exceed one-half of the child's own support for the year; or
• The child was a full-time student who was under age 24 at the end of the tax year and the child's earned income does not exceed one half of the child's own support for the year (This does not include scholarships.)

Computing the kiddie tax

If the kiddie tax applies to a child, the child's tax is calculated as the greater of one of two items:

1. The tax on all of the child's income, calculated at the rates applicable to single individuals; or
2. The sum of two things:
• The tax that would be imposed on a single individual if the child's taxable income were reduced by net unearned income, plus
• The child's share of the allocable parental tax.

The allocable parent tax is the amount of the increase in the parent's tax liability that results from adding to the parent's taxable income the net unearned income of the parent's children who are subject to the kiddie tax. If a parent has more than one child with unearned income subject to the kiddie tax, then each child's share of the allocable parental tax would be assigned pro rata according to the ratio that its net unearned income bears to the aggregate net unearned income subject to the kiddie tax.

Which tax form should I use?

A parent with a child or children whose unearned income is subject to the kiddie tax must generally complete and file Form 8615, Tax for Certain Children Who Have Investment Income of More Than $1,900, along with his or her tax return. However, if the child's interest and dividend income (including capital gain distributions) total less than $9,500 for 2013 ($10,000 for 2014), the parent may be able to elect to include that income on the parent's return rather than file a separate return for the child. In this case, the parents should complete Form 8814, Parents Election To Report Child's Interest and Dividends. However, the IRS cautions that the federal income tax owed on a child's income may be lower if the parent files a separate tax return for the child, which would enable him or her to take certain tax benefits that cannot be taken on the parents' return.

Divorced, separated, or unmarried parents

The kiddie tax is based on a parent's tax return, but what happens when parents do not file joint returns? Several special rules determine what should happen. If the parents are married, but file separate returns, then the child should use the return of the parent with the largest taxable income to figure the kiddie tax.

If the parents are married, but do not live together, and the custodial parent is considered unmarried then generally the custodial parent's return would be used. However, if the custodial parent is not considered unmarried, the child should use the return of the parent with the largest amount of taxable income.

If the child's parents are divorced or legally separated, and the custodial parent has not remarried, the child should use the custodial parent's return. If the custodial parent has remarried, the child's stepparent, rather than the noncustodial parent, is treated as the child's other parent. Similarly, if the child's parent is a widow or widower who has remarried, the new spouse is treated as the child's other parent.

If the child's parents never married each other, but lived together all year, the child should use the return of the parent with the greater taxable income. If the parents were never married and did not live together all year, the rules are the same as the rules for parents who are divorced.

Calculating the kiddie tax can become confusing as a taxpayer attempts to sort through the numerous rules governing who is subject to the tax, which income is subject to the tax, and how to report it properly. Please do not hesitate to contact our offices with any questions.

The Affordable Care Act set January 1, 2014 as the start date for many of its new rules, most notably, the employer shared responsibility provisions (known as the "employer mandate") and the individual shared responsibility provisions (known as the "individual mandate").  One - the employer mandate - has been delayed to 2015; the other - the individual mandate - has not been delayed.

The Affordable Care Act set January 1, 2014 as the start date for many of its new rules, most notably, the employer shared responsibility provisions (known as the "employer mandate") and the individual shared responsibility provisions (known as the "individual mandate").  One - the employer mandate - has been delayed to 2015; the other - the individual mandate - has not been delayed.

Employer shared responsibility payments

Very broadly, the Affordable Care Act imposes a shared responsibility payment (also known as a penalty) on an applicable large employer that either:

• Fails to offer to its full-time employees (and their dependents) the opportunity to enroll in MEC (Minimum Essential Coverage) under an eligible employer-sponsored plan and  has under its employ one or more full-time employees that are certified to the employer as having received a premium assistance tax credit or cost-sharing reduction (Code Sec. 4980H(a) liability), or
• Offers its full-time employees (and their dependents) the opportunity to enroll in MEC under an eligible employer-sponsored plan and has under its employ one or more full-time employees that are certified to the employer as having received a premium assistance tax credit or cost-sharing reduction (Code Sec. 4980H(b) liability).

The amount of the employer shared responsibility penalty varies depending on whether the employer is liable under Code Sec. 4980H(a) or Code Sec. 4980H(b). The calculations of the payment are very complex but two examples help to shed some light on how they are intended to work. Example 1 is based on Code Sec. 4980H(a) liability and Example 2 is based on Code Sec. 4980H(b) liability.

Example 1.  Employer A fails to offer minimum essential coverage and has 100 full-time employees, 10 of whom receive a Code Sec. 36B premium assistance tax credit for the year for enrolling in a Marketplace plan. For each employee over a 30-employee threshold, the employer would owe $2,000, for a total penalty of $140,000. The Code Sec. 4980H(a) penalty is assessed on a monthly basis. 

Example 2.  Employer B offers minimum essential coverage and has 100 full-time employees, 20 of whom receive a Code Sec. 36B premium assistance tax credit for the year for enrolling in a Marketplace plan. For each employee receiving a tax credit, the employer would owe $3,000 for a total penalty of $60,000. The maximum penalty for Employer B would be capped at the amount of the penalty that would have been assessed for a failure to provide coverage ($140,000 above in Example 1). Since the calculated penalty of $60,000 is less than the maximum amount, Employer B would pay the calculated penalty of $60,000. The Code Sec. 4980H(b) penalty is assessed on a monthly basis.

These examples are merely provided to illustrate how the employer shared responsibility payment is intended to work.  Every employer's situation will be different depending on the number of employees, the type of insurance offered and many other factors. Please contact our office for more details.

IRS guidance

Since enactment of the Affordable Care Act, the IRS and other federal agencies have issued guidance on the employer shared responsibility provision.  The IRS has defined what is an applicable large employer (generally defined as businesses with 50 or more employees), who is a full-time employee with certain exceptions for seasonal workers, and much more.

The IRS has not, however, issued guidance on reporting requirements by employers and insurers.  The Affordable Care Act generally requires employers, insurers and other entities that offer minimum essential coverage to file annual information returns reporting information about the coverage. As originally enacted, this information reporting was scheduled to take effect in 2014, the same year that the employer shared responsibility provisions were scheduled to take effect.

Delay

In early July, the Treasury Department announced that information reporting by employers, insurers and other entities offering minimum essential coverage will not start in 2014 but will be delayed until 2015. The IRS followed-up with transitional guidance. Information reporting by employers, insurers and other entities offering minimum essential coverage is waived for 2014. However, the IRS encouraged employers, insurers and others to voluntarily report this information. The IRS reported it is working on guidance and expects to issue regulations before year-end.

Because information reporting has been delayed, the Affordable Care Act's employer shared responsibility provisions are waived for 2014. The IRS explained that the transitional relief is expected to make it impractical to determine which employers would owe shared responsibility payments for 2014. As a result, no employer shared responsibility payments will be assessed for 2014.

Individual mandate

The January 1, 2014 scheduled start date of the Affordable Care Act's individual shared responsibility provisions is not delayed. Unless exempt, individuals must carry minimum essential health coverage after 2013 or pay a shared responsibility payment (also called a penalty). The Affordable Care Act exempts many individuals, such as most individuals covered by employer-provided health insurance, individuals enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid, and many others.  

After 2013, individuals may be eligible for a new tax credit (the Code Sec. 36B credit) to help offset the cost of obtaining health insurance. The credit is payable in advance to the insurer.
The January 1, 2014 scheduled start date of the Code Sec. 36B is also not delayed.

Small employers

Qualified small employers will be able to offer health insurance to their employees through the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP). Enrollment for coverage through SHOP is scheduled to begin October 1, 2013 for coverage starting January 1, 2014. For 2014, SHOP is open to employers with 50 or fewer employees. Beginning in 2016, SHOP will be open to employers with up to 100 employees.

After 2013, the small employer health insurance tax credit is scheduled to increase from 35 percent to 50 percent for small business employers (and from 25 percent to 35 percent for tax-exempt employers). However, the credit is only available after 2013 to employers that obtain coverage through SHOP. This credit is targeted to very small employers with the credit gradually phasing out as the number of employees reaches 50.

If you have any questions about employer reporting or the employer shared responsibility payment-or any questions about the Affordable Care Act-please contact our office.

The scheduled January 1, 2014 rollout of withholding, reporting and other rules in the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) has been delayed six months, the Treasury Department and the IRS have announced. The six-month delay is expected to give the U.S. more time to conclude negotiations and sign agreements to implement FATCA with foreign governments. The Treasury Department and the IRS have not, however, delayed the rules for reporting by individuals.

The scheduled January 1, 2014 rollout of withholding, reporting and other rules in the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) has been delayed six months, the Treasury Department and the IRS have announced. The six-month delay is expected to give the U.S. more time to conclude negotiations and sign agreements to implement FATCA with foreign governments. The Treasury Department and the IRS have not, however, delayed the rules for reporting by individuals.

Far-reaching scope

FATCA 's scope is very far reaching. FATCA requires certain foreign financial institutions (FFIs) to report information about financial accounts held by U.S. taxpayers or by foreign entities in which U.S. taxpayers hold a substantial ownership interest. The reporting institutions include not only banks, but also other financial institutions, such as investment entities, brokers, and certain insurance companies. Some non-financial foreign entities will also have to report certain of their U.S. owners.  

FATCA also requires that some individuals holding financial assets outside the U.S. must report those assets to the IRS. The IRS has developed Form 8938, Statement of Specified Foreign Financial Assets. This reporting requirement is separate from the long-time reporting requirement under the Bank Secrecy Act to file an "FBAR" (Form TD F 90.22-1, Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts).

Final rules

In early 2013, the Treasury Department and the IRS issued final FATCA regulations. The final rules require withholding agents to withhold 30 percent of certain payments (called "withholdable payments") to FFIs unless the FFI has entered into a reporting agreement with the IRS. To avoid withholding under FATCA, a participating FFI must enter into an agreement with the IRS to:

• Identify U.S. accounts,
• Report certain information to the IRS regarding U.S. accounts, and
• Withhold a 30 percent tax on certain U.S.-connected payments to non-participating FFIs and account holders who are unwilling to provide the required information.

Delay

The final regulations called for the gradual phasing-in of the FATCA rules beginning in 2014 and continuing through 2017. Now, the Treasury Department and the IRS have further delayed the start of some of the FATCA rules, including rules on withholding, reporting and due diligence by FFIs.  Withholding agents generally will be required to begin withholding on withholdable payments made after June 30, 2014 instead of December 31, 2013.

Withholding agents also generally will be required to implement new account opening procedures by July 1, 2014. In addition, Treasury and the IRS intend to modify the final regulations so that the information reports previously required from certain FFIs on U.S. accounts for the 2013 and 2014 calendar years will be required only for 2014 (with respect to   U.S. accounts identified by December 31, 2014).  Reporting by these FFIs would be required by March 31, 2015. Additionally, all qualified intermediary agreements that would otherwise expire on December 31, 2013 will be extended to June 30, 2014. The launch date of the IRS's online FATCA registration site has also been delayed to August 19, 2013.

Agreements

Since FATCA became law, the U.S. has been negotiating with foreign jurisdictions to implement its reporting requirements. The U.S. has developed two model intergovernmental agreements (IGAs). The first model agreement (Model I) generally requires an FFI to report account information to its government, which, in turn, will exchange the information with the IRS.  Under the second model agreement (Model II), an FFI registers with the IRS and reports account information directly to the IRS. As of August 1, 2013, the U.S. has entered into IGAs with nine countries (Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Norway, Mexico, Spain, Switzerland, and the U.K.). The Treasury Department has reported that it hopes to conclude negotiations before 2014 with Argentina, Belgium, Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, South Africa, and many other countries.

Individuals

FATCA's rules for reporting by individuals are not delayed. Generally, FATCA requires taxpayers to file Form 8938 if he or she is a U.S. citizen, a resident alien, and in some cases, a nonresident alien. The taxpayer also must own a "specified foreign financial asset," which includes any financial account maintained by an FFI unless specifically excluded. Additionally, the aggregate value of the specified foreign financial asset must exceed certain reporting thresholds.

For single individuals living in the U.S., the total value of the specified foreign financial assets must be more than $50,000 on the last day of the tax year or more than $75,000 at any time during the tax year. For married couples filing a joint return and living in the U.S these amounts are $100,000 and $150,000. The threshold amounts are higher for taxpayers living outside the U.S.

Form 8938 is not a substitute for the FBAR. The forms have different filing requirements. Please contact our office for more details about the two forms and their filing requirements.  The IRS is also expected to issue rules on FATCA reporting by domestic entities if the entity is formed or used to hold specified foreign financial assets and the assets exceeds the appropriate reporting threshold. Until the IRS issues regulations, only individuals must file Form 8938.

FATCA is a very complex law, which impacts many taxpayers here and abroad. Please contact our office if you have any questions about FATCA.

More than one month after the U.S. Supreme Court found Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional, the IRS has yet to issue guidance in critical areas of tax filing, employee benefits, and more. Many taxpayers and tax professionals are questioning what revisions the IRS will make to its rules and regulations. At the same time, other federal agencies have announced changes in their policies to reflect the demise of Section 3 of DOMA.

More than one month after the U.S. Supreme Court found Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional, the IRS has yet to issue guidance in critical areas of tax filing, employee benefits, and more. Many taxpayers and tax professionals are questioning what revisions the IRS will make to its rules and regulations. At the same time, other federal agencies have announced changes in their policies to reflect the demise of Section 3 of DOMA.

DOMA

On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of DOMA, which provided that the word "marriage" meant only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word "spouse" referred to only a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. Because of Section 3 of DOMA, the IRS did not recognize same-sex married couples as married for federal tax purposes.

Now, same-sex married couples who reside in states that recognize same-sex marriage should be entitled to the same tax benefits and responsibilities of opposite-sex married couples. These include the ability to file a joint federal income tax return as a married couple, possible refunds for open tax years, and to take advantage of many benefits in the Tax Code available to married couples. However, it is unclear if this is true for same-sex married couples who reside in states that do not recognize same-sex marriage. As of August 1, 2013, same-sex marriage is recognized in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia. 

The IRS posted an announcement on its website shortly after the Supreme Court's decision.  The agency promised it would "move swiftly to provide revised guidance in the near future."  To date, that is the only official announcement from the IRS. As a result, there has been much speculation on how the IRS will treat same-sex married couples post-DOMA.  

Common-law marriages

The IRS may take the same approach to same-sex marriage as it did more than 50 years ago with common-law marriage. Some states recognize common-law marriage; others do not. Common-law marriage is a term used to describe a marriage that has not complied with the statutory requirements most states have enacted for a ceremonial marriage.

In Rev. Rul. 58-66, the IRS announced that if a state recognizes common-law marriages, the status of individuals living in this relationship is, for federal income tax purposes, that of husband and wife. This rule also applies in the case of taxpayers who enter into a common-law marriage in a state that recognizes their relationship and who move to a state that does not recognize common-law marriage.  The IRS still treats the common-law couple as married even if they no longer live in a state that recognizes their marriage. The IRS could treat same-sex married couples, who marry in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage and who move to a state that does not recognize their marriage, in the same way.

Other federal agencies

Within days of the Supreme Court's decision, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that it would use the location of legal marriage for a same-sex couple for immigration purposes. On July 17, DHS' Bureau of Immigration Appeals (BIA) made its first official decision post-DOMA. The BIA held that DOMA would no longer be an impediment to the recognition of lawful same-sex marriages and will recognize same-sex spouses under the Immigration and Nationality Act if the marriage is valid under the laws of the state where it was celebrated.

The U.S. government's Office of Personnel Management (OPM) also announced some changes in its benefits post-DOMA. OPM told federal employees that all legally married same-sex spouses and children of legal same-sex marriages will be eligible family members under the federal employees' group life insurance program. Additionally, all legally married same-sex spouses will be able to apply for long-term care insurance under the federal long-term care insurance program.

The U.S. Department of Labor is expected to issue guidance on the status of same-sex spouses under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).  FMLA entitles eligible employees of covered employers to take unpaid, job-protected leave for specified family and medical reasons with continuation of group health insurance coverage under the same terms and conditions as if the employee had not taken leave.  Because of DOMA, spouse was defined only as a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife.

Employers

Many employers are revisiting their employee benefits post-DOMA. Employers may need to review their health and retirement plans, as well as their FMLA and other leave policies. A same-sex married couple presumably would have the same rights to tax-exempt spousal coverage under a health plan and the right to a joint and survivor annuity under a retirement plan as an opposite sex-married couple. The IRS and DOL are expected to issue guidance on how quickly employers must act to make changes to health and retirement plans to reflect the Supreme Court's decision.

If you have any questions about the IRS's expected guidance regarding any of the post-DOMA issues, please contact our office.

A business can deduct only ordinary and necessary expenses. Further, the amount allowable as a deduction for business meal and entertainment expenses, whether incurred in-town or out-of-town is generally limited to 50 percent of the expenses. (A special exception that raises the level to 80 percent applies to workers who are away from home while working under Department of Transportation regulations.)

A business can deduct only ordinary and necessary expenses. Further, the amount allowable as a deduction for business meal and entertainment expenses, whether incurred in-town or out-of-town is generally limited to 50 percent of the expenses. (A special exception that raises the level to 80 percent applies to workers who are away from home while working under Department of Transportation regulations.)

Related expenses, such as taxes, tips, and parking fees must be included in the total expenses before applying the 50-percent reduction. The 50-percent reduction is made only after determining the amount of the otherwise allowable deductions. However, allowable deductions for transportation costs to and from a business meal are not reduced.

The 50-percent deduction limitation also applies to meals and entertainment expenses that are reimbursed under an accountable plan to a taxpayer's employees. In that case, it doesn't matter if the taxpayer reimburses the employees for 100 percent of the expenses.

Employee-only meals.  If the value of any property or service provided to an employee is so minimal that accounting for the property or service would be unreasonable or administratively impracticable, it is a de minimis fringe benefit that is excluded for income and employment tax purposes.  Such benefits that are food-related may include occasional parties or picnics, occasional supper money due to overtime work, and employer-furnished coffee and doughnuts.

A subsidized eating facility can be a de minimis fringe if it is located on or near the business premises and the revenue derived from it normally equals or exceeds direct operating costs. Further, if more than one-half of the employees are furnished meals for the convenience of the employer, all meals provided on the premises are treated as furnished for the convenience of the employer. Therefore, the meals are fully deductible by the employer, instead of possibly being subject to the 50-percent limit on business meal deductions, and excludable by the employees.

Facilitated by the speed, ubiquity, and anonymity of the Internet, criminals are able to easily steal valuable information such as Social Security numbers and use it for a variety of nefarious purposes, including filing false tax returns to generate refunds from the IRS. The victims are often unable to detect the crime until it is too late, generally after the IRS receives the legitimate tax return from the actual taxpayer. By that time the first return has often been long accepted and the refund processed. Because of the ease, speed, and difficulty involved in policing cybercrime, identity theft has grown rapidly. One estimate from the National Taxpayer Advocate Service has calculated that individual identity theft case receipts have increased by more than 666 percent from fiscal year (FY) 2008 to FY 2012.

Facilitated by the speed, ubiquity, and anonymity of the Internet, criminals are able to easily steal valuable information such as Social Security numbers and use it for a variety of nefarious purposes, including filing false tax returns to generate refunds from the IRS. The victims are often unable to detect the crime until it is too late, generally after the IRS receives the legitimate tax return from the actual taxpayer. By that time the first return has often been long accepted and the refund processed. Because of the ease, speed, and difficulty involved in policing cybercrime, identity theft has grown rapidly. One estimate from the National Taxpayer Advocate Service has calculated that individual identity theft case receipts have increased by more than 666 percent from fiscal year (FY) 2008 to FY 2012.

There is, however, another dangerous facet of identity theft that costs the government, taxpayers, and businesses millions of dollars each year. That is business identity theft, which like its consumer counterpart involves the theft or impersonation of a business's identity. To add insult to injury, business identity theft can have crippling federal tax consequences. The following article summarizes the problem of business taxpayer identity theft, the methods employed by thieves, and the means by which you can protect your business.

Business v. individual identity theft

Businesses generally deal with larger transactions, have larger account balances and credit lines than individual taxpayers, and can set up and accept merchant credit card payments with numerous banks. Business information regarding tax identification numbers, profit margins and revenues, officers, and even officer salaries are often public and easily accessed. At the same time remedies and enforcement tend to focus more on individual identity theft. Thus, business identity theft can be more lucrative and arguably less dangerous to engage in than individual taxpayer identity theft.

Methods used

Only some of the many business identity theft schemes relate to tax. Nevertheless, such schemes can be devastating for businesses, resulting in massive employment tax liabilities for fictitious wages or huge deficiencies in reported income. Identity thieves can use a business's employer identification number (EIN) to initiate merchant card payment schemes, file false tax returns, and even generate hundreds of fake Form W-2s in furtherance of more individual taxpayer identity theft.

How they do it

Business identity theft can require less effort than individual identity theft because less information is required to establish a business or open a line of credit than is required of individuals. In general, the thief needs to obtain the business's EIN, which is easy to acquire. Common sources for an EIN include:

• Filings made to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) such as the Form 10-K, which includes the EIN on its first page;
• Public databases that enable users to search for business entities sometimes also display the employer's EIN;
• Websites specifically designed to search for EINs, such as EINFinder.com;
• Business websites sometimes openly display the EIN; and
• Forms W-2, W-9, or 1099.

Once a thief has the EIN, he or she may file reports with various state Secretaries of State to change registered business addresses, registered agents' names, or even appoint new officers. In some cases the thief will apply for a line of credit using this new information. Since the official Secretary of State records display the changed information, potential creditors will not be alerted to the fraud. In one case, however, criminals changed the names of a business's officers by filing with the Secretary of State's office and then sold the whole business to a third party. In the end, however, once an identity thief has established a business name, EIN, and address information, he or she has all the basic tools necessary to perpetrate business identity theft.

Best practices

Businesses should review their banks' policies and recommendations regarding fraud protection. They should know what security measures are being offered and, if commercially reasonable, take them. In a recent U.S. district court case from Missouri, the court found that a bank was not liable for a fraudulent $440,000 wire transfer because it had offered the business a commercially reasonable security procedure, and the business had rejected it. The decision cited Uniform Commercial Code Article 4A-202(b), as adopted by the Missouri Code. Many other states have also adopted the UCC, meaning victimized businesses might find themselves without recourse against their banks in the event of a large fraudulent wire transfer.

Other easy preventative measures that businesses can take include monitoring their financial accounts on a daily basis. They should follow up immediately on any suspicious activity. Businesses should also enroll in email alerts so that they would immediately be apprised of any change in your account name, address, or other information.

A business should also monitor the information on its business registration frequently, whether or not the business is active or inactive. Often businesses that close do not go through the formal dissolution process, which terminates all of the corporate authority. They instead let the charter be forfeited by the Secretary of State. These forfeited charters may be easily reinstated and hijacked by identity thieves.

After fraud occurs

If it is too late, and a fraudulent transaction has occurred in your business's name, take immediate action by contacting your bank, creditors, check verification companies, and credit reporting companies. Report the crime to your local law enforcement authorities and your state's secretary of state business division. Finally, whenever possible, memorialize all correspondence in writing and keep it in your records.

If you'd like more information on how you can take steps to safeguard your personal or business "identity" through safeguarding your tax and other financial accounts, please contact this office.

On June 26, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional (E.S. Windsor, SCt., June 26, 2013). Immediately after the decision, President Obama directed all federal agencies, including the IRS, to revise their regulations to reflect the Court's order. How the IRS will revise its tax regulations - and when - remains to be seen; but in the meantime, the Court's decision opens a number of planning tax opportunities for same-sex couples.

On June 26, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional (E.S. Windsor, SCt., June 26, 2013).  Immediately after the decision, President Obama directed all federal agencies, including the IRS, to revise their regulations to reflect the Court's order.  How the IRS will revise its tax regulations - and when - remains to be seen; but in the meantime, the Court's decision opens a number of planning tax opportunities for same-sex couples.

Background

The Supreme Court agreed in 2012 to hear an appeal of a federal estate tax case.  Due to DOMA, the surviving spouse of a same-sex married couple was ineligible for the federal unlimited marital deduction under Code Sec. 2056(a). The survivor sued for a refund of estate taxes. A federal district court and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals found unconstitutional Section 3 of DOMA, which defines marriage for federal purposes as only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.

Supreme Court's decision

In a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court held that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.  Writing for the five-justice majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said that "DOMA rejects the long-established precept that the incidents, benefits, and obligations of marriage are uniform for all married couples within each State, though they may vary, subject to constitutional guarantees, from one State to the next."  Kennedy explained that "by creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State, DOMA forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect."

Chief Justice John Roberts, who would have upheld DOMA, cautioned that "the Supreme Court did not decide if states could continue to utilize the traditional definition of marriage." Roberts noted that the majority held that the decision and its holding "are confined to those lawful marriages-referring to same-sex marriages that a State has already recognized."

Tax planning

The Supreme Court's decision impacts countless provisions in the Tax Code, covering all life events, such as marriage, employment, retirement and death.  The affect on the Tax Code cannot be overstated. It is expected that the IRS will move quickly to clarify how the decision impacts many of the more far-reaching provisions, such as filing status and employee benefits. Other provisions, especially the complex estate and gift tax provisions, will likely require more time from the IRS to issue guidance.

For federal tax purposes, only married individuals can file their returns as married filing jointly or married filing separately. Because of DOMA, the IRS limited these married filing statuses to opposite-sex married couples. The IRS is expected to issue guidance. Same-sex couples who filed separate returns may want to explore the benefits of filing amended returns (as married filing jointly), if applicable. Our office will keep you posted of developments.

Among the other provisions in the Tax Code affected by the Supreme Court's decision are:

• Adoption benefits
• Child tax credit
• Education tax credits and deductions
• Estate tax marital deduction
• Estate tax portability between spouses
• Gifts made by spouses
• Retirement plans

Looking ahead

Will the federal government look to where the same-sex couple was married (state of celebration) or where the same-sex couple reside (state of residence) for purposes of federal benefits? The Supreme Court did not rule on Section 2 of DOMA, which provides that no state is required to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state. At the time of the Supreme Court's decision, 12 states and the District of Columbia recognize same-sex marriage. 

In some cases, the rules for marital status are determined by federal regulations, which can be changed without action by Congress. In other cases, the rules are set by statute, which would require Congressional action. Sometimes, a federal agency follows one rule for some purposes but another rule for other purposes. Generally, the IRS has used place of domicile for determining marital status. Our office will keep you posted of developments.

If you have any questions about the Supreme Court's decision and its impact on tax planning, please contact our office.

Gain or loss is not recognized when property held for productive use in a trade or business or for investment is exchanged for like-kind property. Instead, the taxpayer's basis and holding period in the property transferred carries over to the property acquired in the exchange. Deferring taxable gain, always a good strategy, makes more sense than ever after the recent rise in tax rates for many taxpayers under the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012. In particular, Code Section 1031 like-kind exchanges deserve a close second look by many businesses and investors.

Gain or loss is not recognized when property held for productive use in a trade or business or for investment is exchanged for like-kind property. Instead, the taxpayer's basis and holding period in the property transferred carries over to the property acquired in the exchange. Deferring taxable gain, always a good strategy, makes more sense than ever after the recent rise in tax rates for many taxpayers under the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.  In particular, Code Section 1031 like-kind exchanges deserve a close second look by many businesses and investors.

Flexibility

More than two properties can be exchanged and more than two parties can participate in a transaction that qualifies for non-recognition treatment. Intermediaries may be used to purchase other property before completing like-kind exchange. Taxpayers can participate in acquisition of other property and qualify for like-kind treatment if there is no actual or constructive receipt of cash proceeds from sale of their property.
It is not required that the properties be given up and received on the same day. However, if the exchange of properties is not simultaneous, the property to be received must be identified within 45 days after the date the relinquished property is transferred. In addition, the identified property must be received within 180 days after the date of transfer or the due date for the return for the tax year in which the transfer occurred, whichever date is earlier.

Certain limitations

Property not qualifying for this treatment includes inventory, securities, foreign real estate and foreign personal property. In an otherwise qualifying exchange, the receipt of boot, in the form of cash, relief from liability, or other non-qualifying property, results in the recognition of realized gain or loss to the extent of the boot received. However, gain so recognized can be postponed if the installment sale rules apply. Depreciation recapture may also result from a like-kind exchange. Losses are not recognized on the acquisition of like-kind property. To recognize a loss, the transaction must be arranged so that the non-recognition provision does not apply.

Literal conformity to the requirements of the non-recognition provisions may not be sufficient to prevent recognition of gain. The substance of the transaction must also satisfy the underlying purpose of the statute. Continuity of investment purpose continues to be emphasized as the primary rationale for non-recognition in a like-kind exchange.

Latest success story

IRS Chief Counsel just this past month approved a taxpayer's exchange of properties as tax-free under Code Sec. 1031 even though the taxpayer used proceeds from the sale of relinquished property to pay down its liabilities. In CCA 201325011, Chief Counsel determined that such use did not trigger constructive receipt. Although taking a look at this winning arrangement may get a bit technical, it is worthwhile if only to provide another example of how like-kind exchange transactions can help your business's tax expenses.

The arrangement. The taxpayer rents equipment to customers. The taxpayer has implemented a like-kind exchange (LKE) program to defer gain from the sales of its rental equipment. The taxpayer has engaged in multiple exchanges under a Master Exchange Agreement (MEA) with a qualified intermediary (QI). Under the MEA, the taxpayer transfers relinquished property to the QI. The QI transfers the relinquished property and acquires replacement property, which it transfers to the taxpayer.

The taxpayer maintains two lines of credit, which are used to purchase replacement property. The taxpayer also uses the lines of credit for general business operations. The lines of credit are secured by the taxpayer's rental properties, accounts receivable, and new equipment sold to customers. The full value of the rental property secures the entire balance on the lines of credit.

The QI must deposit sales proceeds from relinquished property into a joint taxpayer/QI account, and must use the proceeds to pay down the line-of-credit balances. The QI does not use proceeds from the account receivables or the new equipment sales to pay down the lines of credit. The taxpayer then uses borrowed funds to acquire replacement property and complete its exchange. The taxpayer finances the acquisition with new debt in an amount that equals or exceeds the debt that encumbered the relinquished property. Under the MEA, the taxpayer does not have the right to receive, pledge, borrow or otherwise use the money held by the QI.

Chief Counsel's analysis.  The IRS field attorney argued that the debt pay-down arrangement gives the taxpayer actual or constructive receipt of the proceeds from the relinquished property before the deadline for the taxpayer to obtain replacement property. IRS Chief Counsel's Office, however, disagreed. It concluded that the taxpayer was not in constructive receipt of the proceeds received for the relinquished property. This conclusion was not affected by the use of the debt to purchase replacement property and for general business operations, or the QI's use of the proceeds to pay down the lines of credit.
If a taxpayer receives, in part, non-like-kind property, the taxpayer must recognize gain (boot) for the amount of this property. The assumption of a liability, or the transfer of property subject to a liability, is treated as boot. If the relinquished property and the replacement property are both subject to a liability (such as a mortgage), the liabilities are netted and the difference is boot to the party being relieved of the larger mortgage.

Chief Counsel concluded that the taxpayer's transaction was permitted by the regulations where the taxpayer is relieved of debt on the transfer of relinquished property and incurs debt on the acquisition of the replacement property. Under the boot netting rules, there is no gain to the taxpayer.

If you would like further information on how like-kind exchanges might work within your business operations, please do not hesitate to contact our offices.

President Obama’s health care package enacted two new taxes that take effect January 1, 2013. One of these taxes is the additional 0.9 percent Medicare tax on earned income; the other is the 3.8 percent tax on net investment income. The 0.9 percent tax applies to individuals; it does not apply to corporations, trusts or estates. The 0.9 percent tax applies to wages, other compensation, and self-employment income that exceed specified thresholds.

President Obama’s health care package enacted two new taxes that take effect January 1, 2013. One of these taxes is the additional 0.9 percent Medicare tax on earned income; the other is the 3.8 percent tax on net investment income. The 0.9 percent tax applies to individuals; it does not apply to corporations, trusts or estates. The 0.9 percent tax applies to wages, other compensation, and self-employment income that exceed specified thresholds.

Additional tax on higher-income earners

There is no cap on the application of the 0.9 percent tax. Thus, all earned income that exceeds the applicable thresholds is subject to the tax. The thresholds are $200,000 for a single individual; $250,000 for married couples filing a joint return; and $125,000 for married filing separately. The 0.9 percent tax applies to the combined earned income of a married couple. Thus, if the wife earns $220,000 and the husband earns $80,000, the tax applies to $50,000, the amount by which the combined income exceeds the $250,000 threshold for married couples.

The 0.9 percent tax applies on top of the existing 1.45 percent Hospital Insurance (HI) tax on earned income. Thus, for income above the applicable thresholds, a combined tax of 2.35 percent applies to the employee’s earned income. Because the employer also pays a 1.45 percent tax on earned income, the overall combined rate of Medicare taxes on earned income is 3.8 percent (thus coincidentally matching the new 3.8 percent tax on net investment income).

Passthrough treatment

For partners in a general partnership and shareholders in an S corporation, the tax applies to earned income that is paid as compensation to individuals holding an interest in the entity. Partnership income that passes through to a general partner is treated as self-employment income and is also subject to the tax, assuming the income exceeds the applicable thresholds. However, partnership income allocated to a limited partner is not treated as self-employment and would not be subject to the 0.9 percent tax. Furthermore, under current law, income that passes through to S corporation shareholders is not treated as earned income and would not be subject to the tax.

Withholding rules

Withholding of the additional 0.9 percent Medicare tax is imposed on an employer if an employee receives wages that exceed $200,000 for the year, whether or not the employee is married. The employer is not responsible for determining the employee’s marital status. The penalty for underpayment of estimated tax applies to the 0.9 percent tax. Thus, employees should realize that the employee may be responsible for estimated tax, even though the employer does not have to withhold.

Planning techniques

One planning device to minimize the tax  would be to accelerate earned income, such as a bonus, into 2012. Doing this would also avoid any increase in the income tax rates in 2013 from the sunsetting of the Bush tax rates. Holders of stock-based compensation may want to trigger recognition of the income in 2012, by exercising stock options or by making an election to recognize income on restricted stock.

Another planning device would be to set up an S corp, rather than a partnership, for operating a business, so that the income allocable to owners is not treated as earned income. An entity operating as a partnership could be converted to an S corp.

If you have any questions surrounding how the new 0.9 percent Medicare tax will affect the take home pay of you or your spouse, or how to handle withholding if you are a business owner, please contact this office.

Certain planning techniques involve the use of interest rates to value interests being transferred to charity or to private beneficiaries. While the use of these techniques does not necessarily depend on the interest rate, low interest rates may increase their value.

Certain planning techniques involve the use of interest rates to value interests being transferred to charity or to private beneficiaries. While the use of these techniques does not necessarily depend on the interest rate, low interest rates may increase their value.

Taxpayers can obtain a deduction by giving a partial interest in property to a charity, using a trust. Two types of trusts for this purpose are charitable lead trusts and charitable remainder trusts. In a charitable lead trust, the taxpayer funding the trust gives an income interest to charity and the remainder interest to a family member or other preferred beneficiary. In a charitable remainder trust, an individual receives trust income and a charity is entitled to the remainder interest.

AFRs

The IRS’s applicable federal rate (AFR) is used to value these different interests in trusts. Right now, AFRs are relatively low. For example, for May 2017, the AFR for determining the present value of an annuity, an interest for life or a term of years, or a remainder or reversionary interest is only 2.4 percent, a low rate when compared to many past years.

CLTs

When AFRs are low, certain transfer mechanisms become even more useful. In a charitable lead trust (CLT), a low AFR increases the present value of the charity’s income interest. This increases the value of the charitable deduction for the income interest, and reduces the value of the remainder interest passing to private individuals. (For a charitable remainder trust, the same mechanism increases the present value of the individual beneficiary’s income interest, and reduces the value of the remainder interest going to charity.)

PRTs

Another device is a personal residence trust (PRT), where the grantor retains the right to live in the house, instead of receiving income payments, and gives the remainder interest in the property to charity. This provides a current charitable deduction. The amount of the charitable contribution is the fair market value of the property, discounted by the AFR. The lower the AFR, the higher is the value of the remainder interest, and the greater the charitable deduction.

A PRT can also be used to give the remainder interest to a family member or other individual. In this case, the transfer of the remainder interest is subject to gift tax. The lower the AFR, the greater is the value of the remainder interest, and the greater the gift tax.

Loans to family members

Another situation in which low interest rates can work to a taxpayer’s advantage is a loan between family members. For the loan to be bona fide, interest generally must be charged on the loan. However, the lower the AFR, the lower will be the market rate for interest that has to be charged to the borrower. If the interest rate is too low, the IRS may impute a higher rate of interest on the loan, which could result in a gift of the foregone interest to the borrower. Again, when the AFR is low, the lender can make a loan at a lower interest rate.

If you are interested in exploring further how any of the above-mentioned planning techniques can benefit your tax situation especially while interest rates remain low, please do not hesitate to contact this office.

Although it is generally not considered prudent to withdraw funds from a retirement savings account until retirement, sometimes it may appear that life leaves no other option. However, borrowing from certain qualified retirement savings account rather than taking an outright distribution might prove the best solution to getting you through a difficult period. If borrowing from a 401(k) plan or other retirement savings plan becomes necessary, for example to pay emergency medical expenses or for a replacement vehicle essential to getting to work, you should be aware that there is a right way and a number of wrong ways to go about it.

Although it is generally not considered prudent to withdraw funds from a retirement savings account until retirement, sometimes it may appear that life leaves no other option. However, borrowing from certain qualified retirement savings account rather than taking an outright distribution might prove the best solution to getting you through a difficult period. If borrowing from a 401(k) plan or other retirement savings plan becomes necessary, for example to pay emergency medical expenses or for a replacement vehicle essential to getting to work, you should be aware that there is a right way and a number of wrong ways to go about it.

When a plan loan is not a taxable distribution

In general, a loan from a qualified employer plan, such as a 401(a) or 401(k) account, must be treated as a taxable distribution unless you can meet certain requirements with respect to amount, repayment period, and repayment method.

First, however, the terms of the employer-plan must allow for plan loans. Due to administrative costs and other considerations, plan loans are made optional for employer plans. If permitted, however, loans must be made available to all employees.

A loan to a participant or beneficiary is generally not treated as a taxable distribution if:

• The loan is evidenced by a legally enforceable written agreement that specifies the amount and term of the loan and the repayment schedule;
• The amount of the loan does not exceed $50,000 or half of the participant's vested accrued benefit under the plan (whichever is less);
• The loan, by its terms, requires repayment within five years, except for certain home loans; and
• The loan is amortized in level installments over the term of the loan.

Plan loans may be made only from employer-based plans. Individual retirement accounts (IRAs) cannot be used as collateral for a loan, nor can a direct loan be made from the IRA to the account holder.

Calculating the amount of the plan loan

In addition to the $50,000 or 50 percent vested benefit rule, several other provisions apply to the amount of the plan loan. First, a plan participant may take out a loan of up to $10,000, even if that $10,000 is more than one-half of the present value of his vested accrued benefit. Second, if a plan participant decides to take out another plan loan, the new maximum amount of the total plan loans will be determined by the following method:

($50,000 − (highest outstanding loan balance during the preceding 12-month period − outstanding balance on the date of the new loan)) = new plan loan maximum.

That new plan maximum must be reduced further by any outstanding loan balance.

Repayment period

Participants must repay a loan within five years. There is one exception, however, for a loan used to make a purchase of a first-time home that is a principal residence. The loan term may then be as long as 30 years.

If a participant defaults on a loan payment, the entire principal may become due under the terms of the plan. In addition, most plan terms require that you repay the loan within 60 days if you leave or lose your job. If you cannot repay at that time, the balance of the loan is usually considered a taxable distribution deducted from your remaining retirement plan account balance. That deemed distribution may also incur a 10 percent early distribution penalty.

Repayment method

Loan repayments must be made at least every quarter, and are generally deducted automatically from a participant’s paycheck. Defaulting on a loan causes the IRS to treat the entire outstanding loan balance as a premature (and therefore a taxable) distribution from the employer plan. A deemed distribution occurs at the time of the failure to pay an installment, but the plan administrator can allow a grace period. The deemed distribution then becomes subject to both income tax and the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty.

There are benefits to borrowing from an employer retirement plan, such as providing a ready-made source of credit and the benefit of returning interest paid back into the plan account rather than into the pockets of a third-party lender. There are also many drawbacks to taking out a plan loan. To learn more, please contact our offices.

Deductible investment expenses fall into three basic categories:

Deductible investment expenses fall into three basic categories:

(1)  Expenses that are directly deductible against particular items of income, without reduction;
(2)  Expenses of producing income that are taken as miscellaneous itemized deductions; and
(3)  Investment interest expense.

The first category applies to rent and royalty income. Expenses attributable to rents and royalties may be deducted in full from gross income in computing adjusted gross income. The expenses are allowed whether or not the taxpayer itemizes deductions. Rental and royalty income and deductions are reported on Schedule E, Supplemental Income and Loss. The totals are then carried over to Form 1040, line 17 (note: references to particular line numbers in this article are to the 2011 Form 1040 since the IRS is not expected to release 2012 Form 1040 until late December, after Congress acts on 2012 legislation).

This first category also applies to direct costs from purchasing and selling stock (e.g. sales commissions) that are included in cost basis or deducted from amounts realized.

The second category applies to a host of expenses that may be related to investments and financial activities but do not necessarily relate to a particular investment. These expenses can be deducted as ordinary and necessary expenses incurred either for the production of income, or for the management, conservation, or maintenance of property held for the production of income. Examples include expenses for investment counsel, investment advice and management, custodial fees, office rent, clerical help, travel to broker’s offices and investment sites, bank fees and safe deposit box rentals, fees for IRAs, and subscriptions to investment-related publications.

This second category is included in miscellaneous itemized deductions on line 23 (other expenses) of Form 1040, Schedule A, Itemized Deductions (2011 form). Miscellaneous itemized deductions, together with unreimbursed job expenses and tax preparation fees, are only deductible to the extent their total exceeds two percent of adjusted gross income (line 38 of 2011 Form 1040). Most taxpayers will only choose to report their itemized deductions if they exceed the standard deduction, which for 2011 is $11,600, married filing jointly and qualified widow or widower; $8,500, head of household; and $5,800, single taxpayers or married filing jointly.

The third category is investment interest expense. Money borrowed to buy property that is held for investment is investment interest. The deduction is limited to net investment income, determined after deducting investment expenses, such as depreciation, that are directly connected with the production of the investment income. The deductible amount is calculated on Form 4952, Investment Interest Expense Deduction, and carried over to Line 14 (Interest You Paid) of Schedule A.

Taxpayers cannot deduct interest incurred to produce tax-exempt income. Investment interest does not include home mortgage interest or interest taken into account in computing income or loss from a passive activity.

As you can see, the deduction of investment expenses can be complex.  Timing these expenses to align themselves with more comprehensive strategies, such as at year end, can create additional issues.  If you have questions about the treatment of these expenses, please contact our office.

In recent years, the IRS has been cracking down on abuses of the tax deduction for donations to charity and contributions of used vehicles have been especially scrutinized. The charitable contribution rules, however, are far from being easy to understand. Many taxpayers genuinely are confused by the rules and unintentionally value their contributions to charity at amounts higher than appropriate.

In recent years, the IRS has been cracking down on abuses of the tax deduction for donations to charity and contributions of used vehicles have been especially scrutinized. The charitable contribution rules, however, are far from being easy to understand. Many taxpayers genuinely are confused by the rules and unintentionally value their contributions to charity at amounts higher than appropriate.

Vehicle donations

According to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), there are approximately 250 million registered passenger motor vehicles in the United States. The U.S. is the largest passenger vehicle market in the world.  Potentially, each one of these vehicles could be a charitable donation and that is why the IRS takes such a sharp look at contributions of used vehicles and claims for tax deductions. The possibility for abuse of the charitable contribution rules is large.

Bona fide charities

Before looking at the tax rules, there is an important starting point.  To claim a tax deduction, your contribution must be to a bona fide charitable organization. Only certain categories of exempt organizations are eligible to receive tax-deductible charitable contributions. 

Many charitable organizations are so-called “501(c)(3)” organizations (named after the section of the Tax Code that governs charities. The IRS maintains a list of qualified Code Sec. 501(c)(3) organizations. Not all charitable organizations are Code Sec. 501(c)(3)s. Churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques, for example, are not required to file for Code Sec. 501(c)(3) status. Special rules also apply to fraternal organizations, volunteer fire departments and veterans organizations. If you have any questions about a charitable organization, please contact our office.

Tax rules

In past years, many taxpayers would value the amount of their used vehicle donation based on information in a buyer’s guide. Today, the value of your used vehicle donation depends on what the charitable organization does with the vehicle.

In many cases, the charitable organization will sell your used vehicle. If the charity sells the vehicle, your tax deduction is limited to the gross proceeds that the charity receives from the sale. The charitable organization must certify that the vehicle was sold in an arm’s length transaction between unrelated parties and identify the date the vehicle was sold by the charity and the amount of the gross proceeds. 

There are exceptions to the rule that your tax deduction is limited to the gross proceeds that the charity receives from the sale of your used vehicle. You may be able to deduct the vehicle’s fair market value if the charity intends to make a significant intervening use of the vehicle, a material improvement to the vehicle, or give or sell the vehicle to a qualified needy individual. If you have any questions about what a charity intends to do with your vehicle, please contact our office.

Written acknowledgment

The charitable organization must give you a written acknowledgment of your used vehicle donation. The rules differ depending on the amount of your donation.  If you claim a deduction of more than $500 but not more than $5,000 for your vehicle donation, the written acknowledgment from the charity must:

• Identify the charity’s name, the date and location of the donation
• Describe the vehicle
• Include a statement as to whether the charity provided any goods or services in return for the car other than intangible religious benefits and, if so, a description and good faith estimate of the value of the goods and services
• Identify your name and taxpayer identification number
• Provide the vehicle identification number

The written acknowledgement generally must be provided to you within 30 days of the sale of the vehicle.  Alternatively, the charitable organization may in certain cases, provide you a completed Form 1098-C, Contributions of Motor Vehicles, Boats, and Airplanes, that contains the same information.

The written acknowledgment requirements for claiming a deduction under $500 or over $5,000 are similar to the ones described above but there are some differences. For example, if your deduction is expected to be more than $5,000 and not limited to the gross proceeds from the sale of your used vehicle, you must obtain a written appraisal of the vehicle. Our office can help guide you through the many steps of donating a vehicle valued at more than $5,000.

If you are planning to donate a used vehicle, please contact our office and we can discuss the tax rules in more detail.

The Tax Code provides that the IRS generally may not select an individual, partnership, or corporate tax return for audit after a period of three years has expired, dating from the tax return's filing date or due date, whichever is later. For example, if a taxpayer filed his 2011 Form 1040 on February 10, 2012, and the due date for the filing of returns that year was April 17, 2012, then the statute of limitations period ends on April 17, 2015, and not February 10, 2015. On the other hand, if the taxpayer filed his tax return late, on November 10, 2012, and had not obtained an extension of time to file, the statute of limitations period would run from November 10, 2012.

The Tax Code provides that the IRS generally may not select an individual, partnership, or corporate tax return for audit after a period of three years has expired, dating from the tax return's filing date or due date, whichever is later. For example, if a taxpayer filed his 2011 Form 1040 on February 10, 2012, and the due date for the filing of returns that year was April 17, 2012, then the statute of limitations period ends on April 17, 2015, and not February 10, 2015. On the other hand, if the taxpayer filed his tax return late, on November 10, 2012, and had not obtained an extension of time to file, the statute of limitations period would run from November 10, 2012.

If a taxpayer receives an extension of time to file the return (for example, an automatic six-month extension until October 15), however, the return is considered filed on the actual date of filing rather than the extension date.  On the other hand, filing an amended tax return, such as a Form 1040X, however, would generally have no effect on the three-year period if it does not increase tax liability. For example, if the taxpayer filed his tax return on April 17, 2012, subsequently discovered a missing item of deduction, and filed an amended return on May 15, 2012 that did not increase his tax liability, the three-year state of limitations period will still run from April 17, 2012 to April 17, 2015.

For more information on the statute of limitations on tax assessments and any exceptions, please contact our office.