Newsletters

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has removed the requirement that U.S. companies and U.S. persons must report beneficial ownership information (BOI) to FinCEN under the Corporate Transparency Act.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has removed the requirement that U.S. companies and U.S. persons must report beneficial ownership information (BOI) to FinCEN under the Corporate Transparency Act. This interim final rule is consistent with the Treasury Department's recent announcement that it was suspending enforcement of the CTA against U.S. citizens, domestic reporting companies, and their beneficial owners, and that it would be narrowing the scope of the BOI reporting rule so that it applies only to foreign reporting companies.

The interim final rule amends the BOI regulations by:

• changing the definition of "reporting company" to mean only those entities that are formed under the law of a foreign country and that have registered to do business in any U.S. State or Tribal jurisdiction by filing of a document with a secretary of state or similar office (these entities had formerly been called "foreign reporting companies"), and
• exempting entities previously known as "domestic reporting companies" from BOI reporting requirements.

Under the revised rules, all entities created in the United States (including those previously called "domestic reporting companies") and their beneficial owners are exempt from the BOI reporting requirement, including the requirement to update or correct BOI previously reported to FinCEN. Foreign entities that meet the new definition of "reporting company" and do not qualify for a reporting exemption must report their BOI to FinCEN, but are not required to report any U.S. persons as beneficial owners. U.S. persons are not required to report BOI with respect to any such foreign entity for which they are a beneficial owner.

Reducing Regulatory Burden

On January 31, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14192, which announced an administration policy "to significantly reduce the private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations to secure America’s economic prosperity and national security and the highest possible quality of life for each citizen" and "to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens" on the American people.

Consistent with the executive order and with exemptive authority provided in the CTA, the Treasury Secretary (in concurrence with the Attorney General and the Homeland Security Secretary) determined that BOI reporting by domestic reporting companies and their beneficial owners "would not serve the public interest" and "would not be highly useful in national security, intelligence, and law enforcement agency efforts to detect, prevent, or prosecute money laundering, the financing of terrorism, proliferation finance, serious tax fraud, or other crimes."The preamble to the interim final rule notes that the Treasury Secretary has considered existing alternative information sources to mitigate risks. For example, under the U.S. anti-money laundering/countering the financing of terrorism regime, covered financial institutions still have a continuing requirement to collect a legal entity customer's BOI at the time of account opening (see 31 CFR 1010.230). This will serve to mitigate certain illicit finance risks associated with exempting domestic reporting companies from BOI reporting.

BOI reporting by foreign reporting companies is still required, because such companies present heightened national security and illicit finance risks and different concerns about regulatory burdens. Further, the preamble points out that the policy direction to minimize regulatory burdens on the American people can still be achieved by exempting foreign reporting companies from having to report the BOI of any U.S. persons who are beneficial owners of such companies.

Deadlines Extended for Foreign Companies

When the interim final rule is published in the Federal Register, the following reporting deadlines apply:

• Foreign entities that are registered to do business in the United States before the publication date of the interim final rule must file BOI reports no later than 30 days from that date.
• Foreign entities that are registered to do business in the United States on or after the publication date of the interim final rule have 30 calendar days to file an initial BOI report after receiving notice that their registration is effective.

Effective Date; Comments Requested

The interim final rule is effective on the date of its publication in the Federal Register.

FinCEN has requested comments on the interim final rule. In light of those comments, FinCEN intends to issue a final rule later in 2025.

Written comments must be received on or before the date that is 60 days after publication of the interim final rule in the Federal Register.

Interested parties can submit comments electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, comments may be mailed to Policy Division, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, P.O. Box 39, Vienna, VA 22183. For both methods, refer to Docket Number FINCEN-2025-0001, OMB control number 1506-0076 and RIN 1506-AB49.

FinCEN Interim Final Rule RIN 1506-AB49

FinCEN News Release

Melanie Krause, the IRS’s Chief Operating Officer, has been named acting IRS Commissioner following the retirement of Doug O’Donnell. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent acknowledged O’Donnell’s 38 years of service, commending his leadership and dedication to taxpayers.

Melanie Krause, the IRS’s Chief Operating Officer, has been named acting IRS Commissioner following the retirement of Doug O’Donnell. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent acknowledged O’Donnell’s 38 years of service, commending his leadership and dedication to taxpayers. O’Donnell, who had been acting Commissioner since January, will retire on Friday, expressing confidence in Krause’s ability to guide the agency through tax season. Krause, who joined the IRS in 2021 as Chief Data & Analytics Officer, has since played a key role in modernizing operations and overseeing core agency functions. With experience in federal oversight and operational strategy, Krause previously worked at the Government Accountability Office and the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General. She became Chief Operating Officer in 2024, managing finance, security, and procurement. Holding advanced degrees from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Krause will lead the IRS until a permanent Commissioner is appointed.

A grant disbursement to a corporation to be used for rent payments following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center was not excluded from the corporation's gross income. Grants were made to affected businesses with funding provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The corporation's grant agreement required the corporation to employ a certain number of people in New York City, with a portion of those people employed in lower Manhattan for a period of time. Pursuant to this agreement, the corporation requested a disbursement as reimbursement for rent expenses.

A grant disbursement to a corporation to be used for rent payments following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center was not excluded from the corporation's gross income. Grants were made to affected businesses with funding provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The corporation's grant agreement required the corporation to employ a certain number of people in New York City, with a portion of those people employed in lower Manhattan for a period of time. Pursuant to this agreement, the corporation requested a disbursement as reimbursement for rent expenses.

Exclusions from Gross Income

Under the expansive definition of gross income, the grant proceeds were income unless specifically excluded. Payments are only excluded under Code Sec. 118(a) when a transferor intends to make a contribution to the permanent working capital of a corporation. The grant amount was not connected to capital improvements nor restricted for use in the acquisition of capital assets. The transferor intended to reimburse the corporation for rent expenses and not to make a capital contribution. As a result, the grant was intended to supplement income and defray current operating costs, and not to build up the corporation's working capital.

The grant proceeds were also not a gift under Code Sec. 102(a). The motive for providing the grant was not detached and disinterested generosity, but rather a long-term commitment from the company to create and maintain jobs. In addition, a review of the funding legislation and associated legislative history did not show that Congress possessed the requisite donative intent to consider the grant a gift. The program was intended to support the redevelopment of the area after the terrorist attacks. Finally, the grant was not excluded as a qualified disaster relief payment under Code Sec. 139(a) because that provision is only applicable to individuals.

Accuracy-Related Penalty

Because the corporation relied on Supreme Court decisions, statutory language, and regulations, there was substantial authority for its position that the grant proceeds were excluded from income. As a result, the accuracy-related penalty was not imposed.

CF Headquarters Corporation, 164 TC No. 5, Dec. 62,627

The parent corporation of two tiers of controlled foreign corporations (CFCs) with a domestic partnership interposed between the two tiers was not entitled to deemed paid foreign tax credits under Code Sec. 902 or Code Sec. 960 for taxes paid or accrued by the lower-tier CFCs owned by the domestic partnership. Code Sec. 902 did not apply because there was no dividend distribution. Code Sec. 960 did not apply because the Code Sec. 951(a) inclusions with respect to the lower-tier CFCs were not taken into account by the domestic corporation.

The parent corporation of two tiers of controlled foreign corporations (CFCs) with a domestic partnership interposed between the two tiers was not entitled to deemed paid foreign tax credits under Code Sec. 902 or Code Sec. 960 for taxes paid or accrued by the lower-tier CFCs owned by the domestic partnership. Code Sec. 902 did not apply because there was no dividend distribution. Code Sec. 960 did not apply because the Code Sec. 951(a) inclusions with respect to the lower-tier CFCs were not taken into account by the domestic corporation.

Background

The parent corporation owned three CFCs, which were upper-tier CFC partners in a domestic partnership. The domestic partnership was the sole U.S. shareholder of several lower-tier CFCs.

The parent corporation claimed that it was entitled to deemed paid foreign tax credits on taxes paid by the lower-tier CFCs on earnings and profits, which generated Code Sec. 951 inclusions for subpart F income and Code Sec. 956 amounts. The amounts increased the earnings and profits of the upper-tier CFC partners.

Deemed Paid Foreign Tax Credits Did Not Apply

Before 2018, Code Sec. 902 allowed deemed paid foreign tax credit for domestic corporations that owned 10 percent or more of the voting stock of a foreign corporation from which it received dividends, and for taxes paid by another group member, provided certain requirements were met.

The IRS argued that no dividends were paid and so the foreign income taxes paid by the lower-tier CFCs could not be deemed paid by the entities in the higher tiers.

The taxpayer agreed that Code Sec. 902 alone would not provide a credit, but argued that through Code Sec. 960, Code Sec. 951 inclusions carried deemed dividends up through a chain of ownership. Under Code Sec. 960(a), if a domestic corporation has a Code Sec. 951(a) inclusion with respect to the earnings and profits of a member of its qualified group, Code Sec. 902 applied as if the amount were included as a dividend paid by the foreign corporation.

In this case, the domestic corporation had no Code Sec. 951 inclusions with respect to the amounts generated by the lower-tier CFCs. Rather, the domestic partnerships had the inclusions. The upper- tier CFC partners, which were foreign corporations, included their share of the inclusions in gross income. Therefore, the hopscotch provision in which a domestic corporation with a Code Sec. 951 inclusion attributable to earnings and profits of an indirectly held CFC may claim deemed paid foreign tax credits based on a hypothetical dividend from the indirectly held CFC to the domestic corporation did not apply.

Eaton Corporation and Subsidiaries, 164 TC No. 4, Dec. 62,622

Other Reference:

• Code Sec. 960

An appeals court affirmed that payments made by an individual taxpayer to his ex-wife did not meet the statutory criteria for deductible alimony. The taxpayer claimed said payments were deductible alimony on his federal tax returns.

An appeals court affirmed that payments made by an individual taxpayer to his ex-wife did not meet the statutory criteria for deductible alimony. The taxpayer claimed said payments were deductible alimony on his federal tax returns.

The taxpayer’s payments were not deductible alimony because the governing divorce instruments contained multiple clear, explicit and express directions to that effect. The former couple’s settlement agreement stated an equitable division of marital property that was non-taxable to either party. The agreement had a separate clause obligating the taxpayer to pay a taxable sum as periodic alimony each month. The term “divorce or separation instrument” included both divorce and the written instruments incident to such decree.

Unpublished opinion affirming, per curiam, the Tax Court, Dec. 62,420(M), T.C. Memo. 2024-18.

J.A. Martino, CA-11

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