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

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

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

All four bills passed unanimously.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

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

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

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

Rezoning

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

Land Value

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

Penalty Imposed

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notice 2025-18

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

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

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

Trust Not Property of the Estate

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

Claim Not an Estate Expense

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)-the Obama administration's health care reform law-was enacted in 2010 and many of its provisions have taken effect. But other important provisions will first take effect in 2014 and 2015. These provisions of the law will require affected parties to take action-or at least to be aware of the law's impact-in 2013 and 2014. These provisions affect individuals, families, employers, and health insurers, among others.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)-the Obama administration's health care reform law-was enacted in 2010 and many of its provisions have taken effect. But other important provisions will first take effect in 2014 and 2015. These provisions of the law will require affected parties to take action-or at least to be aware of the law's impact-in 2013 and 2014. These provisions affect individuals, families, employers, and health insurers, among others.

Individual mandate

The individual mandate will apply beginning in 2014. The mandate applies separately for each month. Individuals and their dependents must either carry health insurance or pay a penalty, known as the individual shared responsibility payment. The health insurance must qualify as minimum essential coverage (MEC). Most employer-offered plans, as well as Medicare and Medicaid, qualify as MEC. Certain groups are exempt from the individual mandate, including members of a health sharing ministry, taxpayers without an income tax filing requirement, members of federally-recognized Indian tribes, and persons for whom coverage is unaffordable (more than eight percent of the individual's household income).

Exchanges

Affordable health insurance marketplaces (exchanges) are ramping up and will be open for business October 1, 2013. Exchanges will provide an open enrollment season during which individuals and families without health insurance can sign up for an insurance policy offered through the exchange, effective January 1, 2014. Anyone needing insurance, or looking for cheaper insurance, can use an exchange. Persons who obtain coverage through an exchange will avoid owing a penalty under the individual mandate. Employers have to start notifying existing employees about the existence of exchanges by October 1, 2013, and must notify new employees when hired.

Low-income individuals and families who purchase insurance through an exchange may qualify for the health insurance premium tax credit for 2014 if their household income falls between 100 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty level for 2013. Individuals who do not have a filing requirement for 2013 do not need to file a return to qualify for the credit. Individuals will generally self-certify as to their eligibility for the credit. Based on this information, the exchange will determine whether the insured person qualifies for the credit. Taxpayers may qualify for an advanced credit; in this case, the exchange will pay the credit directly to the insurer during 2014 to offset a portion of the health insurance premium.

Small employer credit

Small employers may be able to claim the maximum small employer health insurance credit, if the employer has 10 or fewer employees and average wages per employee of $25,000 or less. While the credit has been around since 2010, the amount of the credit increases for 2014 and 2015 to 50 percent of premiums paid for taxable employers, and 35 percent for nonprofit employers.

Employer mandate

The employer mandate (the employer shared responsibility payment) was scheduled to take effect in 2014, but the IRS postponed it until 2015. Nevertheless, during 2014 employers will want to start paying attention to whether they would qualify as an "applicable large employer" (ALE), since status as an ALE for 2015 depends on 2014 employees. An employer who has 50 or more full-time equivalent employees is an ALE. New employers will be treated as an ALE if they "reasonable expect" to have 50 employees. Employers that are members of an affiliated group of companies under Code Sec. 414 must determine their status as ALEs based on the number of employees in the group.

Employers will also want to look at their health insurance offerings. Once the employer mandate applies, employers must offer MEC to 95 percent of their full-time employees. The coverage must also be affordable and must provide minimum value. Employers should look at whether they need to redesign their plan offerings or change the employees' share of the cost to comply with these requirements. If the employer's coverage does not satisfy these requirements, if the employee purchases insurance through an exchange, and if an employee qualifies for the insurance premium tax credit, the employer may be responsible for the employer mandate and owe a penalty.

Employer reporting. The requirements for employers and insurers to report health insurance coverage provided to employees and others were also postponed until 2015. Nevertheless, the IRS is encouraging health insurer issuers to experiment with the requirements by filing the necessary reports for 2014. Larger employers also have to report the value of their health insurance coverage on the employee's Form W-2. The amount reported is not taxable.

Wellness programs. Beginning in 2014, employers may offer wellness programs as part of their health care benefits offered to employees. Employers may offer benefits, such as premium reductions, to employees who satisfy certain health-related requirements.

The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, signed into law on January 2, 2013, extended the American Opportunity Tax Credit through (and including) the 2017 tax year. The credit, which is an enhanced version of the Hope tax credit for tuition, allows taxpayers to claim a credit against federal income taxes for costs of tuition and other qualified educational expenses paid for the taxpayer, his or her spouse, or a dependent claimed on the tax return who is enrolled at an eligible educational institution. An eligible educational institution would include any accredited public, nonprofit, or private college, university, vocational school, or other post-secondary institution.

The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, signed into law on January 2, 2013, extended the American Opportunity Tax Credit through (and including) the 2017 tax year. The credit, which is an enhanced version of the Hope tax credit for tuition, allows taxpayers to claim a credit against federal income taxes for costs of tuition and other qualified educational expenses paid for the taxpayer, his or her spouse, or a dependent claimed on the tax return who is enrolled at an eligible educational institution. An eligible educational institution would include any accredited public, nonprofit, or private college, university, vocational school, or other post-secondary institution.

The maximum American Opportunity Tax Credit amount is $2,500 per eligible student per year, and it is available for each of the first four years of a student's post-secondary education. (This represents an increase from the Hope credit maximum amount of $1,800 for each of the first two years of post-secondary education.)

The American Opportunity Tax Credit amount is not $2,500 across the board for each claimant, however. Broken down, the maximum credit amount is more accurately stated as being 100 percent of the first $2,000 of qualified tuition and related expenses, plus 25 percent of the next $2,000 of qualified tuition and related expenses. If, by way of an example, a taxpayer had only $3,000 of total qualified tuition and other related expenses, the maximum credit amount the taxpayer could claim would be $2,250. In addition, the credit is also partially refundable if a taxpayer's total tax liability is less than the amount of the credit. Up to 40 percent of the credit amount is refundable.

The American Opportunity Tax Credit v. other educational benefits

The American Opportunity Tax Credit is one of several education tax benefits available to taxpayers, but because it cannot always be used in conjunction with these other benefits, taxpayers should compute their tax savings for each tax benefit and then decide which one claim. For example, a taxpayer cannot claim a tuition and fees tax deduction in the same taxable year that he or she claims either the American Opportunity Tax Credit or the Lifetime Learning Credit. Neither can a taxpayer claim the Lifetime Learning Credit for any student if he or she has opted to claim the American Opportunity Credit for that same student for the same tax year.

A taxpayer may, however, claim both an education tax credit and take distributions from a Coverdell Education Savings Account or a Qualified Tuition Program. The taxpayer must, however, subtract any qualified expenses used to figure the education credit from the amount of qualified expenses he or she subsequently uses to determine what portion of a distribution from a Coverdell ESA or a qualified tuition program is tax-free.

Before computing an education credit or deduction, the taxpayer should also determine whether or not the credit can be used towards those particular educational expenses. For example, the American Opportunity Tax Credit can be used not just toward tuition, but also toward expenses for books, equipment, and supplies that are required for coursework, but are not required as a condition of enrollment. The Lifetime Learning Credit on the other hand cannot be used for such expenses unless they are a condition of enrollment. However, the American Opportunity Tax credit can only be used for qualified education expenses incurred during each of the first four years of post-secondary education, whereas the Lifetime Learning Credit can be used toward graduate school expenses.

Other differences include that the American Opportunity Tax Credit can be used on a per student basis, meaning if one household has two qualified students, the tax return can claim two American Opportunity Tax Credits. But only one Lifetime Learning Credit can be claimed per return.

The American Opportunity Tax Credit, however, imposes a requirement that the student for whom the credit is claimed has no felony drug convictions. The Lifetime Learning Credit has no such requirement.

We will assume for now that the taxpayer has decided to go ahead and calculate the amount he or she can claim for an American Opportunity Tax Credit. The next question to ask is whether a taxpayer's adjusted gross income (AGI) falls beneath the phase-out limit. The credit was designed for lower- and middle- income families, meaning higher-income families generally cannot claim the credit.

Who is eligible?

A taxpayer can claim the American Opportunity Tax Credit for qualified expenses paid by the taxpayer for the post-secondary education of the taxpayer, the taxpayer's spouse, or the taxpayer's claimed dependent for the tax year for which the credit is claimed. There is a threshold on the amount of adjusted gross income (AGI) a taxpayer can have before the credit amount begins to phase out. The credit amount begins to phase out for single filers, heads of household, and qualifying widowers with AGI of $80,000 and completely phases out for these taxpayers if their AGI exceeds $90,000. The threshold range for married taxpayers who file jointly is from $160,000 to $180,000. Married taxpayers who file separately cannot claim the credit.

Computing the credit

Step One: Computing total qualified education expenses. In order to compute the amount of the American Opportunity Tax Credit a taxpayer must first add up all his or her qualified education expenses. Generally, qualified education expenses are amounts paid during the tax year toward tuition and fees required for the student's enrollment or attendance at an eligible educational institution. Often an educational institution will issue to the taxpayer a Form 1098-T, Tuition Statement, which includes the amount of tuition a taxpayer paid for that tax year. However, the IRS has warned that this amount can differ from the amount the taxpayer actually paid. For purposes of computing the credit, the IRS directs the taxpayer to use only the tuition amounts that he or she actually paid during the tax year.

Qualified education expenses do not include costs of room and board, insurance, medical expenses (including student health fees), transportation, and other similar personal, living, or family expenses. The costs associated with courses involving sports, games, or hobbies, or any noncredit course are generally not qualified education expenses unless such course or other education is part of the student's degree program. As we stated above, taxpayers calculating the American Opportunity Tax Credit can also include amounts spent on books, supplies, and equipment that are required for a course of study in their qualified education expenses.

Step Two: Adjusting the amount of qualified educational expenses. The taxpayer must subtract from his or her total qualified educational expenses amounts received as tax-free educational assistance received during the tax year that are allocable to the particular academic period in question. Tax-free educational assistance includes:

• The tax-free part of any scholarship or fellowship;
• The tax-free part of any employer-provided educational assistance;
• Tax-free veterans' educational assistance, and
• Any other educational assistance that is excludable from gross income (tax free).

"Tax-free" assistance does not include a gift, bequest, devise, or inheritance. It also does not include any portion of a scholarship or fellowship that must be included in gross income.

If after making these adjustments the amount of qualified education expenses exceeds the maximum credit of $2,500, the taxpayer can only claim $2,500. If the amount is lower than $2,500, the taxpayer can claim the whole amount. (Or less, if the taxpayer's AGI is within the phase-out range. See Step Three, below.)

Step Three: Calculating any phase-out of the credit. A taxpayer whose AGI falls within the phase out ranges must reduce his or her credit amount ratably. To do this, the taxpayer should subtract his or her AGI from the top threshold amount ($180,000 for married joint filers; $90,000 for single filers, heads of household, and qualifying widowers). Next the taxpayer must divide the difference by either $20,000 (married joint filers) or $10,000 (single filers, heads of household, and qualifying widowers). The resulting quotient should be multiplied by the total amount of qualified education expenses after adjustments for tax-free educational assistance. The product of that should be subtracted from the total amount of qualified education expenses, after adjustments. The result is the amount of the American Opportunity Tax Credit the taxpayer can claim.

For example, if a single taxpayer in 2012 had $85,670 in AGI, he or she must subtract that amount from the top threshold amount for single taxpayers ($90,000). Then he would take the difference ($4,330) and divide it by $10,000. The quotient is .433, meaning the taxpayer must reduce his American Opportunity tax credit amount by 43.3 percent. If, the amount of the taxpayer's qualified education expenses, after adjustments for scholarships, was $1,600, then the total credit amount that he could claim would be $891.20 because:

$1,600 - ($1,600 × .443) = $891.20

The refundable American Opportunity Tax Credit

If a taxpayer has a tax liability that is lower than the amount of the credit claimed, he or she may be eligible to receive a refundable tax credit of up to 40 percent of the credit amount (a maximum of $1,000). This means, that beyond just lowering a taxpayer's federal tax liability, a portion of the full credit amount will be returned to the taxpayer in cash as part of the tax refund.

Another set of rules applies for purposes of determining who is eligible for the refundable portion. Generally the rules on refundability appear to be designed to benefit to low-income households with little or no tax liability. Thus, the refundable portion rules seem to exclude from eligibility single filing students, who may have some earned income from a summer job or work-study. The rules state that a taxpayer cannot receive a refundable American Opportunity Tax Credit if the taxpayer:

• Is under age 18 at the end of the tax year; or
• Is over age 18 at the end of the tax year and has income that was less than one-half of the taxpayer's support; or
• Is between age 18 and 24 at the end of the tax year, a full-time student, and has earned income that was less than one-half of his or her support; and
• Has at least one living parent at the end of the tax year; and
• Is not filing a joint return for 2012.

If the taxpayer is eligible for the refundable portion, the taxpayer multiplies the total amount of qualified educational expenses, after adjustments, that he or she is able to claim as an American Opportunity Tax Credit by 40 percent (or .40). That product becomes refundable and is entered onto Form 1040, line 66, in the Payments section of the tax return.

The rules for computing education credits and deductions can be confusing. Please contact our offices with any questions.

Most people are familiar with tax withholding, which most commonly takes place when an employer deducts and withholds income and other taxes from an employee's wages. However, many taxpayers are unaware that the IRS also requires payors to withhold income tax from certain reportable payments, such as interest and dividends, when a payee's taxpayer identification number (TIN) is missing or incorrect. This is known as "backup withholding."

Backup Withholding in General

A payor must deduct, withhold, and pay over to the IRS a backup withholding tax on any reportable payments that are not otherwise subject to withholding if:

• the payee fails to furnish a TIN to the payor in the manner required;
• the IRS or a broker notifies the payor that the TIN provided by the payee is incorrect;
• the IRS notifies the payor that the payee failed to report or underreported the prior year's interest or dividends; or
• the payee fails to certify on Form W-9, Request for Taxpayer Identification Number and Certification, that he or she is not subject to withholding for previous underreporting of interest or dividend payments.

The backup withholding rate is equal to the fourth lowest income tax rate under the income tax rate brackets for unmarried individuals, which is currently 28 percent.

Only reportable payments are subject to backup withholding. Backup withholding is not required if the payee is a tax-exempt, governmental, or international organization. Similarly, payments of interest made to foreign persons are generally not subject to information reporting; therefore, these payees are not subject to backup withholding. Additionally, a payor is not required to backup withhold on reportable payments for which there is documentary evidence, under the rules on interest payments, that the payee is a foreign person, unless the payor has actual knowledge that the payee is a U.S. person. Furthermore, backup withholding is not required on payments for which a 30 percent amount was withheld by another payor under the rules on foreign withholding.

Reportable Payments

Reportable payments generally include the following types of payments of more than $10:

• Interest;
• Dividends;
• Patronage dividends (payments from farmers' cooperatives) paid in money;
• Payments of $600 or more made in the course of a trade or business;
• Payments for a nonemployee's services provided in the course of a trade or business;
• Gross proceeds from transactions reported by a broker or barter exchange;
• Cash payments from certain fishing boat operators to crew members that represent a share of the proceeds of the catch; and
• Royalties.

Reportable payments also include payments made after December 31, 2011, in settlement of payment card transactions.

Failure to Furnish TIN

Payees receiving reportable payments through interest, dividend, patronage dividend, or brokerage accounts must provide their TIN to the payor in writing and certify under penalties of perjury that the TIN is correct. Payees receiving other reportable payments must still provide their TIN to the payor, but they may do so orally or in writing, and they are not required to certify under penalties of perjury that the TIN is correct.

A payee who does not provide a correct taxpayer identification number (TIN) to the payer is subject to backup withholding. A person is treated as failing to provide a correct TIN if the TIN provided does not contain the proper number of digits --nine --or if the number is otherwise obviously incorrect, for example, because it contains a letter as one of its digits.

The IRS compares TINs provided by taxpayers with records of the Social Security Administration to check for discrepancies and notifies the bank or the payer of any problem accounts. The IRS has requested banks and other payers to notify their customers of these discrepancies so that correct TINs can be provided and the need for backup withholding avoided.