Newsletters

NEW YORK—The Internal Revenue Service needs to find ways to better communicate how it is handling technology modernization and transformation, including in areas such as the use of artificial intelligence in its processes, agency Office of Internal Consulting Chief Joseph Zeigler said.

NEW YORK—The Internal Revenue Service needs to find ways to better communicate how it is handling technology modernization and transformation, including in areas such as the use of artificial intelligence in its processes, agency Office of Internal Consulting Chief Joseph Zeigler said.

Speaking during a plenary session August 18, 2026, at the IRS Nationwide Tax Forum, Zeigler said it is his “hope that the IRS is going to a better job of telling this story” about how the agency is using technology to help improve its operations and make lives easier for taxpayers and the tax professionals who assist them.

As an example, Zeigler specifically highlighted some of the work the agency is doing with AI.

“When we talk about AI, AI is not meant to replace bodies or people and computers doing the work and there is no human input,” he said. Rather it is about how the IRS “can give our employees tools and resources [and] technology to make them better, more efficient” and improve the quality of their work. “All of those things is what I believe that AI and technology were meant for.”

He continued: “It’s taking our world-class employees and putting them on steroids, giving them the ability to come to the right answer sooner.”

And at the end is the ultimate goal of making the taxpayer experience that much better and more in line with what they expect from their customer interactions with the private sector.

“If we can come to an answer that right the first time, and we can come to it quick, and we can report it to the taxpayer [and say] here’s what’s going on,” he said. “All those things are at our fingertips.”

The IRS issued guidance in the form of sample forms and proposed rollover procedures to simplify, standardize, and expedite the completion of direct rollovers to or from a retirement plan. The guidance is designed to comply with Section 324 of the SECURE 2.0 Act (P.L. 117-328). Use of the sample forms and proposed rollover procedures is optional.

The IRS issued guidance in the form of sample forms and proposed rollover procedures to simplify, standardize, and expedite the completion of direct rollovers to or from a retirement plan. The guidance is designed to comply with Section 324 of the SECURE 2.0 Act (P.L. 117-328). Use of the sample forms and proposed rollover procedures is optional.

The IRS indicates that these sample forms are not inftended to be used for rollovers and transfers between IRAs. According to reports made by the Government Accountability Office and the IRS's conversations with IRA stakeholders, IRA-to-IRA transfers are already completed through an electronic transfer system that is considered uniform and efficient.

The guidance includes:

• (1) a proposed rollover procedure;
• (2) the participant's rollover request form;
• (3) the receiving plan's request to the distributing plan;
• (4) the distributing plan's rollover certification; and
• (5) the receiving plan's rollover acceptance.

The IRS is considering additional guidance to facilitate rollovers. Guidance under consideration includes: (1) eliminating the safe harbor that allows plans to send paper checks to participants to complete a direct rollover; (2) requiring administrators and trustees to complete rollovers via electronic transfers or paper checks sent directly to the receiving plan; and (3) providing for new safe harbors based on the use of sample forms.

Notice 2026-49

IR 2026-91

The IRS and Treasury have announced their intension to propose regulations relevant to Code Sec. 6433 and the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 (P.L. 117-328). For tax years beginning after December 31, 2026, Code Sec. 6433 allows certain low- and moderate-income individual taxpayers who have made qualified retirement savings contributions to receive matching contributions of up to $1,000 as saver’s match contributions.

The IRS and Treasury have announced their intension to propose regulations relevant to Code Sec. 6433 and the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 (P.L. 117-328). For tax years beginning after December 31, 2026, Code Sec. 6433 allows certain low- and moderate-income individual taxpayers who have made qualified retirement savings contributions to receive matching contributions of up to $1,000 as saver’s match contributions.

Background

On April 30, 2026, President Trump issued an executive order to (1) increase public awareness of saver’s match contributions; (2) facilitate participation in eligible retirement savings vehicles; and (3) establish a website that informs about high-quality, low-cost IRAs and taxpayers without an employer-sponsored retirement plan. These taxpayers include independent contractors.

Saver’s Match Contributions vs Saver’s Credit

For tax years beginning after December 31, 2026, Saver’s Match contributions would replace the Saver’s Credit under Code Sec. 25B. This would apply to elective contributions, qualifying retirement plans and IRAs.

However, the Saver’s Credit would continue to be available after December 31, 2026, with respect to contributions made to ABLE accounts under Code Sec. 529A. Saver’s match contributions would be claimed on a new (unpublished) Form 8880-A, Saver’s Match for Qualified Retirement Savings Contributions.

Eligibility

Individual taxpayers who make qualified retirement savings contributions could be eligible for a Saver's Match contribution based on those contributions. The contributions to a new or already-existing IRA after the end of a tax year could be made until the tax filing deadline. The contributions should be designated as being made for the prior tax year.

Tax Status

An eligible individual taxpayer’s saver’s match contribution directly paid by the Treasury to a retirement plan is generally treated as an elective deferral made by the individual taxpayer. The contribution is not taken into account for any elective deferral and catch-up limitations that apply to Code Secs. 401(k), 403(b), or governmental 457(b) plans.

Comments Requested

The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on the issues addressed on or before October 5, 2026. Comments can be submitted electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov.

Notice 2026-48

IR 2026-89

The Treasury Department and IRS have issued initial guidance on the employer credit under Code Sec. 45S for premiums paid on family and medical leave insurance as provided by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) (P.L. 119-21). Beginning in 2026, an employer may elect to determine the credit based on premiums paid or incurred during the tax year with respect to an insurance policy that provide such leave instead of based on wages paid to a qualifying employee during paid family and medical leave. The Treasury intends to issue proposed regulations that include this guidance.

The Treasury Department and IRS have issued initial guidance on the employer credit under Code Sec. 45S for premiums paid on family and medical leave insurance as provided by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) (P.L. 119-21). Beginning in 2026, an employer may elect to determine the credit based on premiums paid or incurred during the tax year with respect to an insurance policy that provide such leave instead of based on wages paid to a qualifying employee during paid family and medical leave. The Treasury intends to issue proposed regulations that include this guidance.

Premium Method for Credit

The credit may be claimed under the premium method beginning in 2026 only to the extent the insurance premium funds a benefit that would be creditable under the wage method. Thus, the premium must be for insurance coverage with respect to leave that is:

• paid family and medical leave as defined under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), or required by state local law or paid for by a state or local government,
• payable to an individual who is a qualifying employee of the employer at the time the premium is paid or incurred, and
• provides a benefit that would constitute wages to the employee.

In the case of a premium paid or incurred for an insurance policy that provides both creditable coverage and noncreditable coverage, the employer must allocate the premium between the creditable coverage and the noncreditable coverage using any reasonable method. For example, a blended premium would be a premium for coverage that provides both qualifying paid family and medical leave and other types of leave, or coverage for qualifying employees and nonqualifying employees.

An employer may calculate the tax credit using both the wage method with respect to certain leave and the premium method with respect to other leave. However, an employer may not use the wage method to claim a credit for wages paid to the extent that the employer claims a credit using the premium method for creditable coverage that funds such benefits (or vice versa).

Notice 2026-28

IR 2026-86

The IRS updated frequently asked questions (FAQs) for qualified overtime compensation. The FAQs update guidance on (1) the qualified overtime compensation deduction; (2) coverage and exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); (3) Form W-2, Form 1099-MISC, and Form 1099-NEC requirements; and more.

The IRS updated frequently asked questions (FAQs) for qualified overtime compensation. The FAQs update guidance on (1) the qualified overtime compensation deduction; (2) coverage and exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); (3) Form W-2, Form 1099-MISC, and Form 1099-NEC requirements; and more.

Qualified Overtime Compensation Deduction

The deduction is up to $12,500 of qualified overtime compensation earned for the year per individual tax return. It is $25,000 for joint return. The deduction is reduced if a taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) for the tax year exceeds $150,000, and $300,000 for joint filers.

Coverage and Exemptions Under FLSA

The IRS noted that overtime under the FLSA must be paid to individual taxpayers who are (1) covered by the FLSA; and (2) not exempt from the FLSA’s overtime requirement. Ineligible taxpayers would not receive qualified overtime compensation regardless of other laws or circumstances. Employees who are exempt from the FLSA’s overtime requirement include teachers, academic administration personnel, employees of certain seasonal amusement or recreational establishments and more.

Employee-owners of businesses are not FLSA overtime-eligible employees. An employee who owns at least a bona fide 20-percent equity interest in the enterprise in which they are employed is ineligible.

Reporting Requirements

Starting in tax year 2026, payors and employers are required to separately report qualified overtime compensation on a Form 1099-MISC, Form 1099-NEC or Form W-2. Independent contractors would only report qualified overtime compensation on a Form 1099- MISC or Form 1099-NEC.

FS-2026-13

IR 2026-88

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the original public meaning of "limited partner" in Code Sec. 1402(a)(13) is a partner who plays no significant role in managing or running a business. The court rejected the "passive investor" rule followed by the IRS and the Tax Court in Soroban Capital Partners LP (Dec. 62,310). The Fifth Circuit also withdrew its prior opinion in Sirius Solutions, L.L.L.P. (this was the prior name of the limited liability limited partnership in this litigation).

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the original public meaning of "limited partner" in Code Sec. 1402(a)(13) is a partner who plays no significant role in managing or running a business. The court rejected the "passive investor" rule followed by the IRS and the Tax Court in Soroban Capital Partners LP (Dec. 62,310). The Fifth Circuit also withdrew its prior opinion in Sirius Solutions, L.L.L.P. (this was the prior name of the limited liability limited partnership in this litigation).

Background

A limited liability limited partnership operated a business consulting firm, and was owned by several limited partners and one general partner. For the tax years at issue, the limited partnership allocated all of its ordinary business income to its limited partners. Based on the limited partnership tax exception in Code Sec. 1402(a)(13), the limited partnership excluded the limited partners’ distributive shares of partnership income or loss from its calculation of net earnings from self-employment during those years, and reported zero net earnings from self-employment.

The IRS adjusted the limited partnership's net earnings from self-employment, and determined that the distributive share exception in Code Sec. 1402(a)(13) did not apply because none of the limited partnership’s limited partners counted as "limited partners" for purposes of the statutory exception. The Tax Court upheld the adjustments, stating it was bound by Soroban.

Limited Partners and Self Employment Tax

Code Sec. 1402(a)(13) excludes from a partnership's calculation of net earnings from self-employment the distributive share of any item of income or loss of a limited partner, as such, other than guaranteed payments in Code Sec. 707(c) to that partner for services actually rendered to or on behalf of the partnership to the extent that those payments are established to be in the nature of remuneration for those services.

In Soroban, the Tax Court determined that Congress had enacted Code Sec. 1402(a)(13) to exclude earnings from a mere investment, and intended for the phrase "limited partners, as such" to refer to passive investors. Thus, the Tax Court there held that the limited partner exception of Code Sec. 1402(a)(13) did not apply to a partner who is limited in name only, and that determining whether a partner is a limited partner in name only required an inquiry into the limited partner's functions and roles.

No Significant Role in Management

The Fifth Circuit stated that the backdrop against which Congress enacted Code Sec. 1402(a)(13) in 1977 suggested that some participation is allowed, so long as the partners do not exercise control over the business, and that the plain text of the statute points towards this conclusion. The court observed that all relevant sources suggested that when the statute was enacted, the ordinary public meaning of"limited partner" included a partner who did not play a significant role in managing or running the business.

The Fifth Circuit rejected the Tax Court’s Soroban decision, which held that that the term "limited partner" could refer only to passive investors. The court stated that the Tax Court had selected a rule that was divorced from statutory text and that appeared to prohibit even the most minor involvement in corporate affairs. In the Fifth Circuit's view, it would have been understood at the time Congress enacted Code Sec. 1402(a)(13) that a limited partner could not manage the partnership, but perhaps could participate in certain nonmanagerial aspects of the business.

The court also stated that the Soroban decision could not be squared with decades of IRS-approved guidance insisting that what mattered was limited liability alone. The court characterized the IRS's position to be that it could change the meaning of "limited partner" from "limited liability alone" to the "passive investor" standard with no action from Congress to amend the text of Code Sec. 1402(a)(13). Even assuming that the IRS could unilaterally effectuate such changes through tax instructions, the court stated that the IRS's instructions must comport with the original public meaning of the text enacted by Congress.

Withdrawing Sirius Solutions, L.L.L.P., CA-5, 2026-1 ustc ¶50,109, and vacating and remanding an unreported Tax Court opinion.

K Alain, L.L.L.P., CA-5

The IRS has issued final regulations that clarify when backup withholding applies to payments made in settlement of third party network transactions. The final rules reflect amendments to Code Secs. 6050W and 3406 made by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) (P.L. 119-21), and apply to payments made in calendar years beginning after December 31, 2024.

The IRS has issued final regulations that clarify when backup withholding applies to payments made in settlement of third party network transactions. The final rules reflect amendments to Code Secs. 6050W and 3406 made by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) (P.L. 119-21), and apply to payments made in calendar years beginning after December 31, 2024.

Under the de minimis payment rule of Code Sec. 6050W(e) for information reporting purposes, a third party settlement organization (TPSO) must report payments made in settlement of third party network transactions to a payee only if the payments exceed $20,000 and 200 transactions in a calendar year. The final regulations align the backup withholding obligations under Code Sec. 3406 with this reporting threshold.

A payment will be considered a reportable payment subject to backup withholding only if both the $20,000 and 200 transaction thresholds are exceeded during the calendar year. The amount subject to backup withholding includes the entire amount of the transaction that causes either threshold to be breached, whichever occurs later, and the amount of any subsequent transactions made to the payee during the same calendar year. Further, if the TPSO made payments in settlement of third party network transactions to the payee in the previous calendar year that were reportable payments under the backup withholding rules, the de minimis exception to backup withholding would not to payments made to that payee in the current calendar year.

Participating Payees

In the preamble to the Treasury Decision, the Treasury Department and the IRS used the opportunity to clarify that de minimis TPSO reporting and the backup withholding thresholds apply with respect to each participating payee, as defined by Code Sec. 6050W(d)(1).

T.D. 10053

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has issued a final rule that permanently removes the requirement that U.S. companies and U.S. persons must report beneficial ownership information (BOI) to FinCEN under the Corporate Transparency Act. The final rule adopts, with limited changes, an interim final rule issued on March 26, 2025, that narrowed the BOI reporting requirements.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has issued a final rule that permanently removes the requirement that U.S. companies and U.S. persons must report beneficial ownership information (BOI) to FinCEN under the Corporate Transparency Act. The final rule adopts, with limited changes, an interim final rule issued on March 26, 2025, that narrowed the BOI reporting requirements.

The Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) was enacted in 2021 as part of the broader Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020. Its reporting requirement had been characterized as an important step in the fight against money laundering, financing of terrorism, proliferation financing, serious tax fraud, human and drug trafficking, counterfeiting, piracy, securities fraud, financial fraud, and acts of foreign corruption.

In late 2024 and early 2025, however, several federal district courts preliminarily enjoined FinCEN from implementing and enforcing the reporting rule. The Treasury Department announced in March 2025 that it was suspending enforcement of the CTA and its reporting requirements against U.S. citizens, domestic reporting companies, and their beneficial owners, and issued the interim final rule.

BOI Reporting Exemptions

The final rule:

• adopts exemptions that make the rollback of beneficial ownership reporting by U.S. companies permanent,
• exempts foreign pooled investment vehicles registered in the United States from reporting the BOI of a U.S person in control of the investment vehicle, and
• confirms that FinCEN will delete information about any individual that it reasonably believes is a U.S. person (for example, information that is linked to a U.S. passport or U.S. driver's license).

The final rule also makes substantive changes that expand on the relief in the interim final rule, by:

• exempting foreign companies from the requirement to report U.S. person “company applicants” (i.e., the individuals who helped those foreign companies register to do business in the United States), and
• exempting U.S. persons who have applied for FinCEN Identifiers (FinCEN IDs) from having to update or correct the information they provided to FinCEN when they applied.

Foreign entities that are reporting companies are still required under the final rule to report BOI for foreign individuals.

FinCEN has also issued answers to frequently asked questions on the final rule.

FinCEN Final Rule RIN-1506-AB67

Nearly half-way into the year, tax legislation has been hotly debated in Congress but lawmakers have failed to move many bills. Only one bill, legislation to make permanent the research tax credit, has been approved by the House; its fate in the Senate still remains uncertain. Other bills, including legislation to extend many of the now-expired extenders before the 2015 filing season, have stalled. Tax measures could also be attached to other bills, especially as the days wind down to Congress' August recess.

Nearly half-way into the year, tax legislation has been hotly debated in Congress but lawmakers have failed to move many bills. Only one bill, legislation to make permanent the research tax credit, has been approved by the House; its fate in the Senate still remains uncertain. Other bills, including legislation to extend many of the now-expired extenders before the 2015 filing season, have stalled. Tax measures could also be attached to other bills, especially as the days wind down to Congress' August recess.

Tax extenders

Legislation to extend nearly all of the extenders seemed to be almost assured of passage in the Senate after the Senate Finance Committee (SFC) approved the EXPIRE Act in April. The EXPIRE Act would extend through 2015 many of the popular but temporary tax incentives, including the higher education tuition deduction, the state and local sales tax deduction, the deduction for mortgage premiums, research tax credit, Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC), and more. In May, the EXPIRE Act became bogged down in procedural votes in the Senate. Democrats and Republicans could not agree whether amendments would be allowed and if so, how many amendments.

In the meantime, individual lawmakers have introduced bills to extend some of the extenders. The bills must be referred to committees (the SFC or the House Ways and Means Committee) for action. Committee chairs ultimately determine if the bills will be brought before the committee. SFC Chair Ron Wyden, D-Ore., has signaled that the EXPIRE Act is likely his best attempt to move an extenders bill. Wyden has also said that he will not promote another extenders bill after 2015 (hence the name, EXPIRE Act). Ways and Means Chair Dave Camp, R-Mich., has largely kept the committee's focus on the proposals outlined in his proposed Tax Reform Act of 2014.

Lawmakers have roughly eight weeks before their month-long August recess to act on the extenders. Our office will keep you posted of developments.

Research tax credit

The research tax credit is a very popular business tax incentive. Its popularity has pushed it to the front of the line in the House for renewal. One drawback is the credit's cost: estimated at $155 billion over 10 years.

In May, the House approved the American Research and Competitiveness Act of 2014. The bill attracted support from both Democrats and Republicans. The bill makes permanent and enhances the research tax credit. The bill is not offset, which is a stumbling block to winning support from Senate Democrats. In fact, President Obama has said he would veto the bill in its present form if it reaches his desk. There is a possibility, albeit slight, that the Senate could pass its own version of the research tax credit and the House and Senate would try to reach a compromise in conference.

Corporate taxation

President Obama, lawmakers from both parties and many taxpayers agree that the U.S. corporate tax rate should be reduced. They disagree on how to pay, or if to offset, any reduction. President Obama continues to promote the elimination of some business tax preferences, particularly tax incentives for oil, gas and fossil fuel producers, as the way to pay for a corporate tax rate cut. The President also has called for using some of the revenues to fund road and bridge construction.

Democrats in the House and Senate have also honed in on so-called "corporate inversions." These occur when U.S. companies merge with foreign ones for tax purposes. The merged entity is often located in a low-tax jurisdiction, such as Ireland with a corporate tax rate of 12.5 percent, compared to the U.S. corporate tax rate of 35 percent. House and Senate Democrats have introduced companion bills (Stop Corporate Inversions Act of 2014) to curb these mergers. Under current law, a corporate inversion will not be respected for U.S. tax purposes if 80 percent or more of the new combined corporation (incorporated offshore) is owned by historic shareholders of the U.S. corporation. The bill would reduce the threshold to 50 percent. House and Senate Republicans are not expected to support the bill.

Other bills

On July 1, the interest rate on federal subsidized Stafford loans is set to increase from 3.4 to 6.8 percent. Legislation introduced in the Senate, the Bank on Students Loan Fairness Act, would provide a one-year "fix" by setting the rate at the primary interest rate offered through the Federal Reserve discount window. The bill would be paid for by the so-called "Buffett Rule," which generally would disallow certain tax preferences to higher income individuals. Along with the student loan bill, lawmakers have on their agenda legislation to renew federal highway spending, as discussed above. A final highway bill with tax-related provisions could be approved before the August recess. Some lawmakers have proposed a hike in the federal gasoline tax but it is unlikely to be approved.

If you have any questions about tax legislation, please contact our office.

With the April 15th filing season deadline now behind us, it’s not too early to turn your attention to next year’s deadline for filing your 2014 return. That refocus requires among other things an awareness of the direct impact that many "ordinary," as well as one-time, transactions and events will have on the tax you will eventually be obligated to pay April 15, 2015. To gain this forward-looking perspective, however, taking a moment to look back … at the filing season that has just ended, is particularly worthwhile. This generally involves a two-step process: (1) a look-back at your 2013 tax return to pinpoint new opportunities as well as "lessons learned;" and (2) a look-back at what has happened in the tax world since January 1st that may indicate new challenges to be faced for the first time on your 2014 return.

Your 2013 Form 1040

Examining your 2013 Form 1040 individual tax return can help you identify certain changes that you might want to consider this year, as well encourage you to continue what you’re doing right. These "key ingredients" to your 2014 return may include, among many others considerations, a fresh look at:

Your refund or balance due. While it is nice to get a big refund check from the IRS, it often indicates unnecessary overpayments over the course of the year that has provided the federal government with an interest-free loan in the form of your money. Now’s the time to investigate the reasons behind a refund and whether you need to take steps to lower wage withholding and/or quarterly estimated tax payments.

If on the other hand you had to pay the IRS when filing your return (or requesting an extension), you should consider whether it was due to a sudden windfall of income that will not repeat itself; or because you no longer have the same itemized deductions, you had a change in marital status, or you claimed a one-time tax credit such as for energy savings or education. Likewise, examining anticipated changes between your 2013 and 2014 tax years—marriage, the birth of a child, becoming a homeowner, retiring, etc.—can help warn you whether your're headed for an underpayment or overpayment of your 2014 tax liability.

Investment income. One area that blindsided many taxpayers on their 2013 returns was the increased tax bill applicable to investment income. Because of the "great recession," many investors had carryforward losses that could offset gains realized for a number of years as markets gradually improved. For many, however, 2013 saw not only a significant rise in investment income but also a rise in realized taxable investment gains that were no longer covered by carryforward losses used up during the 2010–2012 period.

Furthermore, dividends and long-term capital gains for the first time in 2013 were taxed at a new, higher 20 percent rate for higher income taxpayers and an additional 3.8 percent net investment income tax surtax for those in the higher income brackets. Short-term capital gains saw the highest rate jump, from 35 percent to 43.4 percent rate, which reflected a new 39.6 percent regular rate and the new 3.8 percent net investment income tax rate. This tax structure remains in place for 2014.

Personal exemption/itemized deductions. Effective January 1, 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act (ATRA) revived the personal exemption phaseout (PEP). The applicable threshold levels are $250,000 for unmarried taxpayers; $275,000 for heads of households; $300,000 for married couples filing a joint return (and surviving spouses); and $150,000 for married couples filing separate returns (adjusted for inflation after 2013). Likewise, for it revived the limitation on itemized deductions (known as the "Pease" limitation after the member of Congress who sponsored the original legislation) for those same taxpayers.

Medical and dental expenses. Starting in 2013, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) increased the threshold to claim an itemized deduction for unreimbursed medical expenses from 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) to 10 percent of AGI. However, there is a temporary exemption for individuals age 65 and older until December 31, 2016. Qualified individuals may continue to deduct total medical expenses that exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income through 2016. If the qualified individual is married and only one spouse is age 65 or older, the taxpayer may still deduct total medical expenses that exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income.

Recordkeeping. If you cannot find the paperwork necessary to prove your right to a deduction or credit, you cannot claim it. An organized tax recordkeeping system—whether on paper or computerized–therefore is an essential component to maximizing tax savings.

Filing Season Developments

So far this year, the IRS, other federal agencies and the courts have issued guidance on individual and business taxation, retirement savings, foreign accounts, the ACA, and much more. Congress has also been busy working up a "tax extenders" bill as well as tax reform proposals. All these developments can impact how you plan to maximize benefits on your 2014 income tax return.

Tax reform. President Obama, the chairs of the House and Senate tax writing committees, and individual lawmakers all made tax reform proposals in early 2014. The proposals range from comprehensive tax reform to more piece-meal approaches. Although only small, piecemeal proposals have the most promising chances for passage this year, taxpayers should not ignore the broader push toward tax reform that will be taking shape in 2015 and 2016.

Tax extenders. The Senate Finance Committee (SFC) approved legislation (EXPIRE Act) in April that would extend nearly all of the tax extenders that expired after 2013. Included in the EXPIRE Act are individual incentives such as the state and local sales tax deduction, the higher education tuition deduction, transit benefits parity, and the classroom teacher’s deduction; along with business incentives such as enhanced Code 179 small business expensing, bonus depreciation, the research tax credit, and more. Congress may now move quickly on an extenders bill or it may not come up with a compromise until after the November mid-term elections. Many of these tax benefits are significant and will directly impact the 2014 tax that taxpayers will pay.

Individual mandate. The Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate took effect January 1, 2014. Individuals failing to carry minimum essential coverage after January 1, 2014 and who are not exempt from the requirement will make an individual shared responsibility payment when they file their 2014 federal income tax returns in 2015. There are some exemptions, including a hardship exemption if the taxpayer experienced problems in signing up with a Health Insurance Marketplace before March 31, 2014. Further guidance is expected before 2014 tax year returns need to be filed, especially on how to calculate the payment and how to report to the IRS that an individual has minimum essential coverage.

Employer mandate. The ACA’s shared responsibility provision for employers (also known as the “employer mandate”) will generally apply to large employers starting in 2015, rather than the original 2014 launch date. Transition relief provided in February final regulations provides additional time to mid-size employers with 50 or more but fewer than 100 employees, generally delaying implementation until 2016. Employers that employ fewer than 50 full-time or full time equivalent employees are permanently exempt from the employer mandate. The final regulations do not change this treatment under the statute.

Other recent tax developments to be aware of for 2014 planning purposes include:

• IRA rollovers. The IRS announced that, starting in 2015, it intends to follow a one-rollover-per-year limitation on Individual Retirement Account (IRA) rollovers as an aggregate limit.
• myRAs. In January, President Obama directed the Treasury Department to create a new retirement savings vehicle, “myRA,” to be rolled out before 2015.
• Same-sex married couples. In April, the IRS released guidance on how the Supreme Court’s Windsor decision, which struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), applies to qualified retirement plans, opting not to require recognition before June 26, 2013.
• Passive activity losses. The Tax Court found in March that a trust owning rental real estate could qualify for the rental real estate exception to passive activity loss treatment.
• FATCA deadline. The IRS has indicated that it is holding firm on the July 1, 2014, deadline for foreign financial institutions (FFIs) to comply with the FATCA information reporting requirements or withhold 30 percent from payments of U.S.-source income to their U.S. account holders.
• Vehicle depreciation. The IRS announced that inflation-adjusted limitations on depreciation deductions for business use passenger autos, light trucks and vans first placed in service during calendar year 2014 are relatively unchanged from 2013 (except for first year $8,000 bonus depreciation that may be removed if Congress does not act in time.
• Severance payments. In March, the U.S. Supreme Court held that supplemental unemployment benefits (SUB) payments made to terminated employees and not tied to the receipt of state unemployment benefits are wages for FICA tax purposes.
• Virtual currency. The IRS announced that convertible virtual currencies, such as Bitcoin, would be treated as property and not as currency, thus creating immediate tax consequences for those using Bitcoins to pay for goods.

Please contact this office if you’d like further information on how an examination of your 2013 return, and examination of recent tax developments, may point to revised strategies for lowering your eventual tax bill for 2014.

A new tax applies to certain taxpayers, beginning in 2013—the 3.8 percent Net Investment Income (NII) Tax. This is a surtax that certain higher-income taxpayers may owe in addition to their income tax or alternative minimum tax. The tax applies to individuals, estates, and trusts (but not to corporations). Individuals are subject to the tax if they have NII, and their adjusted gross income exceeds a specified threshold—$250,000 for married taxpayers filing jointly; $200,000 for unmarried individuals.

For trusts, the NII tax applies at a much lower income level—the amount at which the highest tax bracket for a trust begins. This may sound high, but in fact, it is not. For 2014, this bracket begins at $12,150. A trust subject to the NII tax may lower or eliminate its potential liability by distributing NII to its beneficiaries, because the tax applies only to the undistributed NII for the year. The tax may then apply to the recipient, but based on the recipient’s income level.

Exempt and nonexempt trusts

Some trusts are exempt from the NII tax: cemetery perpetual care funds; Alaska Native Settlement Trusts electing to be taxed under Code Sec. 646; wholly charitable trusts; and foreign trusts. However, other trusts are not exempt. These include pooled income funds (where individuals donate remainder interests to charity while retaining an income interest); qualified funeral trusts; electing small business trusts; and charitable remainder trusts.

Passive activity

For individuals, trusts, and estates, the tax applies to income from a trade or business that is a passive activity with respect to the taxpayer. A trade or business is not passive if the taxpayer materially participates in the activity (as determined under Code Sec. 469). There is IRS guidance for determining whether an individual materially participates in an activity.

Material participation

The IRS has never provided guidance on how to determine whether a trust or estate materially participates in a trade or business. When the IRS issued final regulations on the NII tax, it said that the issue was under study, but the IRS has not indicated whether it will issue guidance on the issue.

The IRS regulations conclude that the application of the material participation requirements to trust income potentially subject to the NII tax must be determined at the trust level. The treatment of the income as passive or nonpassive, once determined for the trust, flows through to trust beneficiaries who receive a distribution of NII. Thus, if the trust materially participates in the activity that generated the income, the income is nonpassive to both the trust and its beneficiaries, regardless of the age or involvement of the beneficiaries. If the trust did not materially participate, the income is passive to both the trust and its beneficiaries, even if a beneficiary materially participated in the activity.

In January, the U.S. Tax Court threw a curve ball in many retirement planning strategies. The court held that a taxpayer could make only one nontaxable rollover contribution within each one-year period regardless of how many IRAs the taxpayer has. The court found that the one-year limitation under Code Sec. 408(d)(3)(B) is not specific to any single IRA owned by an individual but instead applies to all IRAs owned by a taxpayer. The court's decision was a departure from a long-time understanding of IRS rules and publications and, for several weeks after, it was unclear what approach the IRS would take. Now, the IRS has announced that it will follow the court's decision and revise its rules and publications. Everyone contemplating an IRA rollover needs to be aware of this important development.

Rollovers

Individuals have traditionally enjoyed flexibility in moving their retirement savings from one type of retirement plan to another type of plan. A rollover is a transfer of a distribution received from an IRA or other retirement plan by the recipient to another IRA or type of retirement plan owned by the same recipient. A rollover has important tax considerations. The amount distributed is not included in the recipient's income if the distribution is transferred to an eligible arrangement within 60 days after it is received. In certain cases, the 60-day period may be extended by the IRS.

Generally, only the owner of the IRA may roll over an amount. A surviving spouse who receives a distribution after the death of the account owner can make rollovers to the same extent as the account owner could have. There are also special rules for Roth IRAs and other retirement arrangements.

Tax Court case

In Bobrow, TC Memo. 2014-21, a married couple received distributions from more than one IRA in 2008. The couple claimed that they could make more than one tax-free rollover. The Tax Court disagreed.

The court found that Code Sec. 408(d)(3)(B) limits the frequency with which a taxpayer may make a nontaxable rollover contribution. The one-year limitation is not specific to any single IRA a taxpayer has but instead applies to all of the taxpayer's IRAs. If Congress had intended to allow individuals to take nontaxable distributions from multiple IRAs per year, the court found that Code Sec. 408(d)(3)(B) would have been worded differently.

Immediately after the decision, many benefits professionals pointed out that the IRS's rules and publications appeared to be contrary to the court's decision. In particular, many taxpayers noted that IRS Publication 590, Individual Retirement Plans, seemed to say that multiple rollovers were permissible if taken from different accounts.

IRS action

The IRS intends to amend the existing rules and revise Publication 590 to clarify that it will adopt the court's decision. Additionally, many IRA trustees, the IRS explained, may need time to make changes to reflect Bobrow. Therefore, in a relief measure, the IRS will not apply the Tax Court's decision to any rollover that involves an IRA distribution occurring before January 1, 2015.

Trustee-to-trustee transfers

A rollover must be distinguished from a trustee-to-trustee transfer. The Tax Court explained in its opinion that individuals who maintain more than one IRA may make multiple direct rollovers from the trustee of one IRA to the trustee of another IRA without triggering the one-year limit under Code Sec. 408(d)(3)(B). Transferring funds directly between trustees, the court found, does not result in a distribution within the meaning of Code Sec. 408(d)(3)(A). Since the funds are not within the direct control and use of the participant, they are not considered to be rollovers.

Planning

The court's decision and the IRS's action may impact your retirement planning. Keep in mind also that trustee-to-trustee transfers are not affected by the court's decision, which leaves some flexibility intact for planning. If you have any questions about IRA rollovers, please contact our office.

One of the most complex, if not the most complex, provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is the employer shared responsibility requirement (the so-called "employer mandate") and related reporting of health insurance coverage. Since passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, the Obama administration has twice delayed the employer mandate and reporting. The employer mandate and reporting will generally apply to applicable large employers (ALE) starting in 2015 and to mid-size employers starting in 2016. Employers with fewer than 50 employees, have never been required, and continue to be exempt, from the employer mandate and reporting.

Employer mandate

The employer mandate under Code Sec. 4980H and employer reporting under Code Sec. 6056 are very connected. Code Sec. 4980H generally provides that an ALE is required to pay a penalty if it fails to offer minimum essential coverage and any full-time employee receives cost-sharing or the Code Sec. 36B premium assistance tax credit. An ALE would also pay a penalty if it offers coverage and any full-time employee receives cost-sharing or the Code Sec. 36B credit.

To receive the Code Sec. 36B credit, an individual must have obtained coverage through an Affordable Care Act Marketplace. The Marketplaces will report the names of individuals who receive the credit to the IRS. ALEs must report the terms and conditions of health care coverage provided to employees (This is known as Code Sec. 6056 reporting). The IRS will use all of this information to determine if the ALE must pay a penalty.

ALEs

Only ALEs are subject to the employer mandate and must report health insurance coverage under Code Sec. 6056. Employers with fewer than 50 employees are never subject to the employer mandate and do not have to report coverage under Code Sec. 6056.

In February, the Obama administration announced important transition rules for the employer mandate that affects Code Sec. 6056 reporting. The Obama administration limited the employer mandate in 2015 to employers with 100 or more full-time employees. ALEs with fewer than 100 full-time employees will be subject to the employer mandate starting in 2016. At all times, employers with fewer than 50 full-time employees are exempt from the employer mandate and Code Sec. 6056 reporting.

Reporting

The IRS has issued regulations describing how ALEs will report health insurance coverage. The IRS has not yet issued any of the forms that ALEs will use but has advised that ALEs generally will report the requisite information to the agency electronically.

ALEs also must provide statements to employees. The statements will describe, among other things, the coverage provided to the employee.

30-Hour Threshold

A fundamental question for the employer mandate and Code Sec. 6056 reporting is who is a full-time employee. Since passage of the Affordable Care Act, the IRS and other federal agencies have issued much guidance to answer this question. The answer is extremely technical and there are many exceptions but generally a full-time employee means, with respect to any month, an employee who is employed on average at least 30 hours of service per week. The IRS has designed two methods for determining full-time employee status: the monthly measurement method and the look-back measurement method. However, special rules apply to seasonal workers, student employees, volunteers, individuals who work on-call, and many more. If you have any questions about who is a full-time employee, please contact our office.

Form W-2 reporting

The Affordable Care Act also requires employers to disclose the aggregate cost of employer-provided health coverage on an employee's Form W-2. This requirement is separate from the employer mandate and Code Sec. 6056 reporting. The reporting of health insurance costs on Form W-2 is for informational purposes only. It does not affect an employee's tax liability or an employer's liability for the employer mandate.

Shortly after the Affordable Care Act was passed, the IRS provided transition relief to small employers that remains in effect today. An employer is not subject the reporting requirement for any calendar year if the employer was required to file fewer than 250 Forms W-2 for the preceding calendar year. Special rules apply to multiemployer plans, health reimbursement arrangements, and many more.

Please contact our office if you have any questions about ALEs, the employer mandate or Code Sec. 6056 reporting.

When an IRS is conducting a detailed audit of a taxpayer, it may want to see documents and records retained by the taxpayer. The examiner will ask the taxpayer what type of documents are maintained, and will request that the taxpayer produce particular documents for inspection.

The IRS uses Form 4564, Information Document Request, to request information from a taxpayer for an audit. There are several versions of Form 4564, such as those for income tax audits, tax-exempt organizations, and tax-exempt bonds. Form 4564 will list documents needed to support taxpayer items that the IRS wants to verify. Taxpayers may want to consult with legal counsel to ensure that they do not provide too much information and do not provide privileged documents.

IDR enforcement

The IRS has put into effect a new IDR enforcement process for IRS examiners to obtain information. In particular, the IRS's Large Business and International Division (LB&I) issued several memos in 2013 and 2014 to provide guidance on the use of IDRs and to explain the new IDR enforcement process. Other divisions follow, or will be following, similar procedures.

Under the guidelines, examiners are instructed to prepare one IDR for each issue being examined; the IDR should describe the issue for which the documents are being requested. IDRs should be clear and concise, and customized to the taxpayer under audit. There is an exception to the requirement that the IDR state the issue. An initial IDR that requests basic books and records and general information about a taxpayer's business does not have to meet this requirement.

Examiners are further instructed to discuss the proposed IDR with the taxpayer and to agree on a reasonable time for the taxpayer to respond. LB&I instituted a three-step process for enforcing the IDR, with strict deadlines: a delinquency notice; a pre-summons letter; and a summons. The process is mandatory. IRS Chief Counsel will enforce IDRs through summons issuance when necessary. The IRS may also apply this stricter process if it believes that the taxpayer's response is incomplete.

Yes. Identity theft is a growing problem and the start of the return filing season is one of the peak times for identity thieves filing fraudulent returns. Criminals file false returns early to get refunds and unsuspecting taxpayers are unaware their identities have been stolen until they file their returns. Individuals who believe they have been victims of identity theft should immediately alert their tax professional and the IRS. The IRS has a number of programs in place to assist victims of identity theft.

Yes. Identity theft is a growing problem and the start of the return filing season is one of the peak times for identity thieves filing fraudulent returns. Criminals file false returns early to get refunds and unsuspecting taxpayers are unaware their identities have been stolen until they file their returns. Individuals who believe they have been victims of identity theft should immediately alert their tax professional and the IRS. The IRS has a number of programs in place to assist victims of identity theft.

Identity theft

Identity theft has been the number one consumer complaint to the Federal Tax Commission for 13 consecutive years, and tax identity theft has been an increasing share of the FTC's identity theft complaints. In 2010, tax identity theft accounted for 15 percent of the FTC's identity theft complaints from consumers, while in 2011 it made up 24 percent of the overall identity theft complaints. In 2012, tax identity theft accounted for more than 43 percent of the identity theft complaints, making it the largest category of identity theft complaints. The IRS has reported similar growth in this troubling problem.

Identity theft occurs when a criminal uses the personal information of another to commit fraud or other crimes. Personal information includes an individual's name, date of birth, Social Security number, bank account numbers, credit card numbers, personal identification numbers, and other identifying information.

In tax identity theft, a criminal typically uses a taxpayer's identity to fraudulently file a tax return and claim a refund. The identity thief has obtained the taxpayer's Social Security Number and other personal information. As mentioned, identity thieves attempt to get a refund early in the filing season. The taxpayer discovers that a false return has been filed when he or she files a genuine return.

IRS actions

The IRS has set up a special Identity Theft Protection Specialized Unit. These employees are the first responders in assisting taxpayers whose identities have been stolen. The IRS will take a report, and request that the victim complete a special form (IRS ID Theft Affidavit Form 14039). This special form requires the taxpayer to briefly describe the events giving rise to the identity theft. The taxpayer also must provide proof of his or her identity by submitting photocopies of identifying documents, such as a passport, driver's license or other valid federal or state government-issued identification.

The IRS is assigning special identity protection personal identification numbers (IP PINs) to victims of identity theft to use when filing their returns. An IP PIN is a unique six-digit number and is assigned annually to victims of identity theft. During the 2014 filing season, the IRS reported that it expects to provide more than 1.2 million identity theft victims with an IP PIN, up from more than 770,000 in 2013.

Additionally, the IRS has overhauled its identity theft screening filters to spot suspected fraudulent returns before they are processed. After a suspected fraudulent return is flagged, the IRS will hold the return for further processing until the agency verifies it is a true return. If you receive a notice from the IRS, please contact our office immediately.

If you have any questions about protecting yourself from identity theft or the IRS's activities to curb tax return identity theft, please contact our office.

Recently-released statistics from the IRS show a drop in audits among all income groups for fiscal year (FY) 2013 with the overall individual audit coverage rate at its lowest level since FY 2006. At the same time, the number of IRS employees working audits has decreased. However, enforcement revenue increased.

Recently-released statistics from the IRS show a drop in audits among all income groups for fiscal year (FY) 2013 with the overall individual audit coverage rate at its lowest level since FY 2006. At the same time, the number of IRS employees working audits has decreased. However, enforcement revenue increased.

Taxpayer groups

For statistical purposes, the IRS groups taxpayers into particular categories. The IRS generally defines higher income taxpayers as taxpayers with incomes over $200,000. The IRS also identifies taxpayers with incomes above $1 million for statistical purposes. Similarly, the IRS groups businesses into various categories; for example, corporations with assets under $10 million and corporations with assets above $10 million, $50 million, or $100 million. The IRS also identifies S corporations and partnerships for statistical purposes.

Audit types

As it does with taxpayers, the IRS groups different types of audits into various categories. Field audits are generally full audits. Correspondence audits are, as the name suggests, generally audits conducted by correspondence with the taxpayer. Keep in mind that these categories are very broad and a particular taxpayer’s audit experience may be different.

Individuals

In FY 2013 (October 1, 2012 to September 30, 2013), the overall individual audit rate; that is audits of all individuals in all income groups, was less than one percent: 0.96 percent. That compares to an overall individual audit rate of 1.03 percent for 2012 and 1.11 percent for 2011. The last time the overall individual audit rate was below one percent was in 2006.

To put the overall percentage in perspective, the IRS received 145,819,388 individual returns in 2013. The agency selected 1,404,931 individual returns for examination. The vast majority of these audits - 1,060,779 - were correspondence audits. The number of field audits was 344,152.

Higher income individuals

As incomes climb, so does the audit coverage rate. The IRS selected 3.26 percent of returns for examination from taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 in 2013 compared to 0.88 percent for taxpayers with incomes under $200,000. Both percentages reflected a drop from 2012, when the IRS selected 3.70 percent of returns for examination from taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 and 0.94 percent of returns for examination from taxpayers with incomes under $200,000.

The audit rate for taxpayers with incomes over $1 million also fell in 2013. The IRS selected 10.85 percent of returns for examination from taxpayers with incomes above $1 million compared to 12.14 percent in 2012 and 12.48 percent in 2011. In each of these years, the number of returns reporting incomes above $1 million increased but the audit rate declined.

Within the higher income groups, the number of field examinations actually increased in 2013 compared to 2012. However, the number of correspondence examinations decreased. Some of the increase in field examinations could be attributed to the IRS’s emphasis on curbing tax evasion by hiding assets in unreported foreign accounts. The IRS has encouraged taxpayers with unreported foreign accounts to come forward in its offshore voluntary compliance program.

Businesses

Audits of all types of businesses also declined in 2013. The IRS reported that it selected 0.61 percent of all business returns for examination compared to 0.71 percent in 2012. For the first time in three years, the audit rate of both small and large corporations declined. The IRS selected 0.95 percent of returns for examination from corporations with assets under $10 million and 15.84 percent of returns from corporations with assets over $10 million.

S corporations and partnerships are among the most popular business entities for small and mid-size businesses. The IRS received 4,476,307 S corporation returns in 2013 and 3,550,071 partnership returns in 2013. The audit percentage rate for S corporations and partnerships was the same in 2013 at 0.42 percent compared to 0.48 percent for S corporations in 2012 and 0.47 percent for partnerships in 2012.

Enforcement revenue

Overall, the IRS’ enforcement activities generated $53.35 billion in FY 2013, compared to $50.20 billion in FY 2012. In the previous year (2011), enforcement brought in $55.20 billion. The IRS reported that collections, appeals and document matching all showed increases in revenue. However, the amount collected through examination decreased to $9.83 billion for 2013 compared to $10.20 billion in 2012.

IRS staffing

The IRS reported that 19,531 employees - revenue agents, revenue officers and special agents - worked enforcement activities in FY 2013. That compares to 22,710 employees in FY 2010 - a decrease of 3,179 employees. Some of this decrease reflects normal separations from service, such as voluntary terminations of employment and retirements. Others reflect employee buyouts, which the IRS has offered several times in recent years in response to budgetary challenges.

If you have any questions about the IRS audit coverage rate, examinations or enforcement, please contact our office.

FY 2013 IRS Enforcement Statistics