Newsletters

The American Institute of CPAs in a March 31 letter to House of Representatives voiced its “strong support” for a series of tax administration bills passed in recent days.

The American Institute of CPAs in a March 31 letter to House of Representatives voiced its “strong support” for a series of tax administration bills passed in recent days.

The four bills highlighted in the letter include the Electronic Filing and Payment Fairness Act (H.R. 1152), the Internal Revenue Service Math and Taxpayer Help Act (H.R. 998), the Filing Relief for Natural Disasters Act (H.R. 517), and the Disaster Related Extension of Deadlines Act (H.R. 1491).

All four bills passed unanimously.

H.R. 1152 would apply the “mailbox” rule to electronically submitted tax returns and payments. Currently, a paper return or payment is counted as “received” based on the postmark of the envelope, but its electronic equivalent is counted as “received” when the electronic submission arrived or is reviewed. This bill would change all payment and tax form submissions to follow the mailbox rule, regardless of mode of delivery.

“The AICPA has previously recommended this change and thinks it would offer clarity and simplification to the payment and document submission process,” the organization said in the letter.

H.R. 998 “would require notices describing a mathematical or clerical error be made in plain language, and require the Treasury Secretary to provide additional procedures for requesting an abatement of a math or clerical adjustment, including by telephone or in person, among other provisions,” the letter states.

H.R. 517 would allow the IRS to grant federal tax relief once a state governor declares a state of emergency following a natural disaster, which is quicker than waiting for the federal government to declare a state of emergency as directed under current law, which could take weeks after the state disaster declaration. This bill “would also expand the mandatory federal filing extension under section 7508(d) from 60 days to 120 days, providing taxpayers with additional time to file tax returns following a disaster,” the letter notes, adding that increasing the period “would provide taxpayers and tax practitioners much needed relief, even before a disaster strikes.”

H.R. 1491 would extend deadlines for disaster victims to file for a tax refund or tax credit. The legislative solution “granting an automatic extension to the refund or credit lookback period would place taxpayers affected my major disasters on equal footing as taxpayers not impacted by major disasters and would afford greater clarity and certainty to taxpayers and tax practitioners regarding this lookback period,” AICPA said.

Also passed by the House was the National Taxpayer Advocate Enhancement Act (H.R. 997) which, according to a summary of the bill on Congress.gov, “authorizes the National Taxpayer Advocate to appoint legal counsel within the Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS) to report directly to the National Taxpayer Advocate. The bill also expands the authority of the National Taxpayer Advocate to take personnel actions with respect to local taxpayer advocates (located in each state) to include actions with respect to any employee of TAS.”

Finally, the House passed H.R. 1155, the Recovery of Stolen Checks Act, which would require the Treasury to establish procedures that would allow a taxpayer to elect to receive replacement funds electronically from a physical check that was lost or stolen.

All bills passed unanimously. The passed legislation mirrors some of the provisions included in a discussion draft legislation issued by the Senate Finance Committee in January 2025. A section-by-section summary of the Senate discussion draft legislation can be found here.

AICPA’s tax policy and advocacy comment letters for 2025 can be found here.

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

The Tax Court ruled that the value claimed on a taxpayer’s return exceeded the value of a conversation easement by 7,694 percent. The taxpayer was a limited liability company, classified as a TEFRA partnership. The Tax Court used the comparable sales method, as backstopped by the price actually paid to acquire the property.

The Tax Court ruled that the value claimed on a taxpayer’s return exceeded the value of a conversation easement by 7,694 percent. The taxpayer was a limited liability company, classified as a TEFRA partnership. The Tax Court used the comparable sales method, as backstopped by the price actually paid to acquire the property.

The taxpayer was entitled to a charitable contribution deduction based on its fair market value. The easement was granted upon rural land in Alabama. The property was zoned A–1 Agricultural, which permitted agricultural and light residential use only. The property transaction at occurred at arm’s length between a willing seller and a willing buyer.

Rezoning

The taxpayer failed to establish that the highest and best use of the property before the granting of the easement was limestone mining. The taxpayer failed to prove that rezoning to permit mining use was reasonably probable.

Land Value

The taxpayer’s experts erroneously equated the value of raw land with the net present value of a hypothetical limestone business conducted on the land. It would not be profitable to pay the entire projected value of the business.

Penalty Imposed

The claimed value of the easement exceeded the correct value by 7,694 percent. Therefore, the taxpayer was liable for a 40 percent penalty for a gross valuation misstatement under Code Sec. 6662(h).

Ranch Springs, LLC, 164 TC No. 6, Dec. 62,636

State and local housing credit agencies that allocate low-income housing tax credits and states and other issuers of tax-exempt private activity bonds have been provided with a listing of the proper population figures to be used when calculating the 2025:

State and local housing credit agencies that allocate low-income housing tax credits and states and other issuers of tax-exempt private activity bonds have been provided with a listing of the proper population figures to be used when calculating the 2025:

• calendar-year population-based component of the state housing credit ceiling under Code Sec. 42(h)(3)(C)(ii);
• calendar-year private activity bond volume cap under Code Sec. 146; and
• exempt facility bond volume limit under Code Sec. 142(k)(5)

These figures are derived from the estimates of the resident populations of the 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, which were released by the Bureau of the Census on December 19, 2024. The figures for the insular areas of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands are the midyear population figures in the U.S. Census Bureau’s International Database.

Notice 2025-18

The value of assets of a qualified terminable interest property (QTIP) trust includible in a decedent's gross estate was not reduced by the amount of a settlement intended to compensate the decedent for undistributed income.

The value of assets of a qualified terminable interest property (QTIP) trust includible in a decedent's gross estate was not reduced by the amount of a settlement intended to compensate the decedent for undistributed income.

The trust property consisted of an interest in a family limited partnership (FLP), which held title to ten rental properties, and cash and marketable securities. To resolve a claim by the decedent's estate that the trustees failed to pay the decedent the full amount of income generated by the FLP, the trust and the decedent's children's trusts agreed to be jointly and severally liable for a settlement payment to her estate. The Tax Court found an estate tax deficiency, rejecting the estate's claim that the trust assets should be reduced by the settlement amount and alternatively, that the settlement claim was deductible from the gross estate as an administration expense (P. Kalikow Est., Dec. 62,167(M), TC Memo. 2023-21).

Trust Not Property of the Estate

The estate presented no support for the argument that the liability affected the fair market value of the trust assets on the decedent's date of death. The trust, according to the court, was a legal entity that was not itself an asset of the estate. Thus, a liability that belonged to the trust but had no impact on the value of the underlying assets did not change the value of the gross estate. Furthermore, the settlement did not burden the trust assets. A hypothetical purchaser of the FLP interest, the largest asset of the trust, would not assume the liability and, therefore, would not regard the liability as affecting the price. When the parties stipulated the value of the FLP interest, the estate was aware of the undistributed income claim. Consequently, the value of the assets included in the gross estate was not diminished by the amount of the undistributed income claim.

Claim Not an Estate Expense

The claim was owed to the estate by the trust to correct the trustees' failure to distribute income from the rental properties during the decedent's lifetime. As such, the claim was property included in the gross estate, not an expense of the estate. The court explained that even though the liability was owed by an entity that held assets included within the taxable estate, the claim itself was not an estate expense. The court did not address the estate's theoretical argument that the estate would be taxed twice on the underlying assets held in the trust and the amount of the settlement because the settlement was part of the decedent's residuary estate, which was distributed to a charity. As a result, the claim was not a deductible administration expense of the estate.

P.B. Kalikow, Est., CA-2

An individual was not entitled to deduct flowthrough loss from the forfeiture of his S Corporation’s portion of funds seized by the U.S. Marshals Service for public policy reasons. The taxpayer pleaded guilty to charges of bribery, fraud and money laundering. Subsequently, the U.S. Marshals Service seized money from several bank accounts held in the taxpayer’s name or his wholly owned corporation. 

An individual was not entitled to deduct flowthrough loss from the forfeiture of his S Corporation’s portion of funds seized by the U.S. Marshals Service for public policy reasons. The taxpayer pleaded guilty to charges of bribery, fraud and money laundering. Subsequently, the U.S. Marshals Service seized money from several bank accounts held in the taxpayer’s name or his wholly owned corporation. The S corporation claimed a loss deduction related to its portion of the asset seizures on its return and the taxpayer reported a corresponding passthrough loss on his return.

However, Courts have uniformly held that loss deductions for forfeitures in connection with a criminal conviction frustrate public policy by reducing the "sting" of the penalty. The taxpayer maintained that the public policy doctrine did not apply here, primarily because the S corporation was never indicted or charged with wrongdoing. However, even if the S corporation was entitled to claim a deduction for the asset seizures, the public policy doctrine barred the taxpayer from reporting his passthrough share. The public policy doctrine was not so rigid or formulaic that it may apply only when the convicted person himself hands over a fine or penalty.

Hampton, TC Memo. 2025-32, Dec. 62,642(M)

An LLC (limited liability company) is not a federal tax entity. LLCs are organized under state law. LLCs are not specifically mentioned in the Tax Code, and there are no special IRS regulations governing the taxation of LLCs comparable to the regulations for C corporations, S corporations, and partnerships. Instead, LLCs make an election to be taxed as a particular entity (or to be disregarded for tax purposes) by following the check-the-box business entity classification regulations. The election is filed on Form 8832, Entity Classification Election. The IRS will assign an entity classification by default if no election is made. A taxpayer who doesn't mind the IRS default entity classification does not necessarily need to file Form 8832.

An LLC (limited liability company) is not a federal tax entity. LLCs are organized under state law. LLCs are not specifically mentioned in the Tax Code, and there are no special IRS regulations governing the taxation of LLCs comparable to the regulations for C corporations, S corporations, and partnerships. Instead, LLCs make an election to be taxed as a particular entity (or to be disregarded for tax purposes) by following the check-the-box business entity classification regulations. The election is filed on Form 8832, Entity Classification Election. The IRS will assign an entity classification by default if no election is made. A taxpayer who doesn't mind the IRS default entity classification does not necessarily need to file Form 8832.

"Check-the-Box" Election

An LLC with more than one member can elect tax status as:

• Partnership
• Corporation
• S corporation (accomplished by electing to be taxed as a corporation, then filing an S corporation election)

An LLC with only one member can elect tax status as:

• Disregarded entity
• Corporation
• S corporation (accomplished by electing to be taxed as a corporation, then filing an S corporation election)

The IRS will assign the following classifications if no entity election is filed for an LLC (the default rules):

• any business entity that is not a corporation is classified as a partnership
• any entity that is wholly-owned by a single person will be disregarded as an entity separate from its owner (taxed as a sole proprietorship).

Typically, an LLC with more than one member will elect to be taxed as a partnership, whereas a single-member LLC will elect to be disregarded and taxed as a sole proprietorship.

If you have any questions relating to LLCs, their benefits, drawbacks, or their treatment under the Tax Code, please contact our offices.

The IRS has issued proposed reliance regulations on the 3.8 percent surtax on net investment income (NII), enacted in the 2010 Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act. The regulations are proposed to be effective January 1, 2014. However, since the tax applies beginning January 1, 2013, the IRS stated that taxpayers may rely on the proposed regulations for 2013. The IRS expects to issue final regulations sometime later this year.

The IRS has issued proposed reliance regulations on the 3.8 percent surtax on net investment income (NII), enacted in the 2010 Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act. The regulations are proposed to be effective January 1, 2014. However, since the tax applies beginning January 1, 2013, the IRS stated that taxpayers may rely on the proposed regulations for 2013. The IRS expects to issue final regulations sometime later this year.

The surtax applies to individuals, estates, and trusts. The surtax applies if the taxpayer has NII and his or her "modified" adjusted gross income exceeds certain statutory thresholds: $250,000 for married taxpayers and surviving spouses; $125,000 for married filing separately; and $200,000 for individuals and other taxpayers. The tax is broad and can raise tax bills by hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars.

Complex provisions

The regulations are extensive and complex. They address a number of issues that were not answered in the statute, such as the interaction of Code Sec. 1411 (the surtax provisions) and Code Sec. 469 (passive activity loss rules). Significant areas addressed in the proposed regulations include:

• Identification of those individuals subject to the surtax,
• Surtax's application to estates and trusts,
• Definition of NII,
• Disposition of interests in partnerships and S corporations,
• Allocable deductions from NII,
• Treatment of qualified plan distributions, and
• Treatment of earnings by controlled foreign corporations and passive foreign investment companies.

Some issues, however, are not yet addressed, such as the application of the Code Sec. 469 material participation rules to trusts and estates. Further guidance from the IRS is expected.

Borrowed definitions and principles

Net investment income that is subject to the new 3.8 percent tax generally includes interest and dividend income as well as capital gains from investments.  But Code Sec. 1411 doesn't stop there, seeking to tax "passive activities" and contrasting those activities with a "trade or business" in often complex ways.

Because Code Sec. 1411 does not define many important terms, the regulations use definitions from several other Tax Code provisions. For example, the definition of a trade or business is determined under Code Sec. 162, regarding trade or business expenses. This definition is essential to Code Sec. 1411, since the application of each of the three categories of net investment income depends on determining whether the income is from a trade or business. The regulations also borrow the definition of a disposition, which applies to category (iii) income, from other provisions, such as Code Section 731 (partnership distributions) and Code Sec. 1001 (dispositions of property).

New elections available

The regulations provide certain elections that may be beneficial to many taxpayers. Taxpayers that engage in multiple activities under Code Sec. are allowed to make another election to regroup their activities. Taxpayers married to a nonresident alien can elect to treat their spouse as a U.S. resident, which allow more income to escape the 3.8 percent surtax.  

Net investment income generally includes interest and dividend income as well as capital gains from investments. To prevent avoidance of the tax, the regulations include substitute payments of interest and dividends in the definition. The IRS also warned in the preamble to the proposed regulations that it will scrutinize activities designed to circumvent the surtax and will challenge questionable transactions using applicable statutes and judicial doctrines. The IRS further warned that taxpayers should figure their exposure to the 3.8 percent tax quickly since liability for this additional tax must be included in quarterly estimated tax computations and payments starting with first quarter 2013.

Please feel free to contact this office for a personalized review of how the 3.8 percent tax may impact you, and what compliance and planning steps should be considered as a consequence.

Effective January 1, 2013, a new Medicare tax takes effect. The Additional Medicare Tax imposes a 0.9 percent tax on compensation and self-employment income above a threshold amount.  Unlike regular Medicare tax, the Additional Medicare Tax has no employer match but employers have withholding obligations. The IRS issued proposed reliance regulations about the Additional Medicare Tax in December 2012.

Effective January 1, 2013, a new Medicare tax takes effect. The Additional Medicare Tax imposes a 0.9 percent tax on compensation and self-employment income above a threshold amount.  Unlike regular Medicare tax, the Additional Medicare Tax has no employer match but employers have withholding obligations. The IRS issued proposed reliance regulations about the Additional Medicare Tax in December 2012.

Medicare

Medicare is funded through payroll taxes.  Employees and employers (and self-employed individuals) all pay into Medicare.  Employees and employers each pay Medicare tax at a rate of 1.45 percent (self-employed individuals pay at a combined rate but are allowed to deduct half of the Medicare tax as an adjustment to income). The Additional Medicare Tax is a new tax that may apply to certain taxpayers in addition to regular Medicare tax.  The new tax was part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act), which was passed by Congress in 2010.  However, Congress delayed the start date of the new tax until 2013. 

Liability

Generally, an individual is liable for Additional Medicare Tax if the individual's wages, compensation, or self-employment income (together with that of his or her spouse if filing a joint return) exceed the threshold amount for the individual's filing status.  Only individuals with incomes above the threshold amount will be liable for the new tax and if their employer does not withhold it, they will have to pay it when then they file their returns.

The threshold amounts are: $250,000 for married couples filing jointly; $200,000 for single individuals, head of household (with qualifying person) and qualifying widow(er) with dependent child; and $125,000 for married couples filing separately.

Withholding

An employer must withhold Additional Medicare Tax from wages it pays to an individual in excess of $200,000 in a calendar year, without regard to the individual's filing status or wages paid by another employer.  The IRS explained in its proposed reliance regulations that the employer has this withholding obligation even though an employee may not be liable for Additional Medicare Tax because, for example, the employee's wages together with that of his or her spouse do not exceed the $250,000 threshold for married couples filing jointly. 

Let's look at an example from the IRS proposed reliance regulations:

Elena, who is married and files a joint return, receives $100,000 in wages from her employer for the calendar year. Caleb, Elena's spouse, receives $300,000 in wages from his employer for the same calendar year. Elena's wages are not in excess of $200,000, so her employer does not withhold Additional Medicare Tax. Caleb's employer is required to collect Additional Medicare Tax only with respect to wages it pays which are in excess of the $200,000 threshold (that is, $100,000) for the calendar year.

Planning considerations

Taxpayers who believe they may be liable for the Additional Medicare Tax in 2013 and beyond should carefully plan ahead.  The IRS has cautioned that an individual may owe more than the amount withheld by the employer, depending on the individual's filing status, wages, compensation, and self-employment income.  All these factors come into play in planning for the Additional Medicare Tax.

One strategy may be to make estimated tax payments and/or request additional income tax withholding.  Our office can help you determine which strategy would work best for you.

Employers

There is no employer match for the Additional Medicare Tax. However, the Affordable Care Act and the IRS proposed reliance regulations require employers to withhold Additional Medicare Tax on wages it pays to an employee in excess of $200,000 in a calendar year, beginning January 1, 2013.  If an employer fails to withhold, the IRS may impose penalties on the employer and the employee would be liable for the tax.

Reliance regulations

The regulations issued by the IRS in December 2012 are proposed reliance regulations.  The IRS explained that it intends to finalize the proposed regulations in 2013. Taxpayers may rely on the proposed regulations for tax period beginning before the date that the regulations are finalized.

If you have any questions about the Additional Medicare Tax, please contact our office.

Beginning with 2012 Forms W-2, large employers must report the aggregate cost of employer-sponsored health insurance provided to employees. 2012 Form W-2s must be furnished to employees by January 31, 2013.

Beginning with 2012 Forms W-2, large employers must report the aggregate cost of employer-sponsored health insurance provided to employees. 2012 Form W-2s must be furnished to employees by January 31, 2013.

For tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2011, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) required that employers report the aggregate cost of employer-sponsored health insurance provided on Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement. The IRS then exempted all employers from the requirement for 2011, making 2011 reporting optional.

Reporting took effect in early 2012, but only for large employers filing 250 or more Forms W-2 for the preceding calendar year (2011). Small employers are exempt from reporting for 2012 and beyond, until the IRS issues further guidance. An employer does not have to report the cost if it is not required to issue a Form W-2. This would be the case for a retiree or other former employee who does not receive compensation.

The aggregate reportable cost should be shown on Form W-2, Box 12, using Code DD. The IRS has reiterated that reporting is for informational purposes only, and that the cost of health insurance generally remains excludable from income.

Reporting applies to applicable coverage under any group health plan provided by an employer or employee organization, if the coverage is excludable from the employee's income or would have been excludable if provided by the employer. Costs for self-insured plans and plans of self-employed persons are covered, unless the only coverage provided by the employer is a self-insured plan that is not subject to COBRA continuation coverage requirements (e.g. a self-insured church plan). Coverage does not include long-term care; accident or disability coverage; coverage for treatment of the mouth; and coverage only for a specified illness or disease.

Reportable costs include both employer costs and employee costs for the health insurance, even if the employee paid his or her share through pre-tax or salary reduction contributions. The aggregate cost includes the cost of coverage included in the employee's income, such as the cost of coverage for a person who is not a dependent or a child under age 27.

However, costs do not include amounts contributed to an Archer Medical Savings Account, health savings account, or health reimbursement arrangement, and salary reduction contributions made to a flexible spending arrangement.

Reporting is required of most employers, including federal, state, and local governments, and churches and other religious organizations.

Please contact this office if you would like further information on how these new reporting obligations may apply to your business.