NJ - Tobacco distributor must use actual price The New Jersey Tax Court determined that a taxpayer was a "distributor," under the Tobacco and Vapors Product Tax (TPT) Act, so was not required to purchase tobacco directly from a manufacturer to u...
NY - Agreement announced on budget with various tax changes New York Gov. Kathy Hochul announced an agreement on the Fiscal Year 2026 state budget package containing a variety of tax changes, including provisions that would:provide a tax cut for midd...
In light of a recent Tax Court ruling, we are currently reviewing the files of our clients who are S corporation officers. It is possible that the decisions of the Tax Court may affect your corporation in the future.
In light of a recent Tax Court ruling, we are currently reviewing the files of our clients who are S corporation officers. It is possible that the decisions of the Tax Court may affect your corporation in the future. In their ruling, the Tax Court held that the sole shareholder and president of an S corporation performed duties similar to those an employee would perform and, therefore, had the status of employee for employment tax purposes. The IRS held the taxpayer liable for FICA and FUTA taxes that it failed to pay because of misclassification of the officer as an independent contractor.
Shareholder distributions versus salary payments may raise similar issues. For federal employment tax purposes, a corporate officer is considered an employee, unless the officer performs no services or only minor services to the corporation and neither receives nor is entitled to payment for these services. The form of payment is immaterial, the only relevant factor being whether the payments were actually received as compensation for employment. Distributions to shareholders may be reclassified as wages subject to FICA and FUTA taxes where compensation appears to be insufficient. Determining the range of reasonableness of compensation for your business where shareholder compensation should fall within that range depends upon many variables. With proper planning, we hope that you and your business can avoid similar scrutiny.
Please contact our office to review and discuss your corporation’s compensation structure.
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. 1152would 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. 517would 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. 1491would 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 passedH.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 foundhere.
AICPA’s tax policy and advocacy comment letters for 2025 can be foundhere.
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 underCode Sec. 6662(h).
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 underCode Sec. 42(h)(3)(C)(ii);
calendar-year private activity bond volume cap underCode Sec. 146; and
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.
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.
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.
As an individual or business, it is your responsibility to be aware of and to meet your tax filing/reporting deadlines. This calendar summarizes important federal tax reporting and filing data for individuals, businesses and other taxpayers for the month of June 2014.
As an individual or business, it is your responsibility to be aware of and to meet your tax filing/reporting deadlines. This calendar summarizes important federal tax reporting and filing data for individuals, businesses and other taxpayers for the month of June 2014.
June 4 Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates May 28-30.
June 6 Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates May 31-June 3.
June 10 Employees who work for tips. Employees who received $20 or more in tips during May must report them to their employer using Form 4070.
June 11 Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates June 4-6.
June 13 Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates June 7-10.
June 16 Individuals. Individuals, partnerships, passthrough entities and corporations make the second installment of 2014 estimated quarterly tax payments.
Individuals. U.S. citizens or resident aliens living and working (or on military duty) outside the United States and Puerto Rico must file Form 1040 and pay any tax, interest, and penalties due.
June 18 Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates June 11-13.
June 20 Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates June 14-17.
June 25 Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates June 18-20.
June 27 Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates June 21-24.
June 30 Foreign Assets. FinCEN Form 114, Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) (formerly Form TD F 90-22.1) due. FinCEN Notice 2013-1 extended the due date for filing FBARs by certain individuals with signature authority over, but no financial interest in, foreign financial accounts of their employer or a closely related entity, to June 30, 2015.
July 2 Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates June 25-27.
July 7 Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates June 28-30.
Retired employees often start taking benefits by age 65 and, under the minimum distribution rules, must begin taking distributions from their retirement plans when they reach age 70 ½. According to Treasury, a 65-year old female has an even chance of living past age 86, while a 65-year old male has an even chance of living past age 84. The government has become concerned that taxpayers who normally retire at age 65 or even age 70 will outlive their retirement benefits.
Retired employees often start taking benefits by age 65 and, under the minimum distribution rules, must begin taking distributions from their retirement plans when they reach age 70 ½. According to Treasury, a 65-year old female has an even chance of living past age 86, while a 65-year old male has an even chance of living past age 84. The government has become concerned that taxpayers who normally retire at age 65 or even age 70 will outlive their retirement benefits.
The government has found that most employees want at least a partial lump sum payment at retirement, so that some cash is currently available for living expenses. However, under current rules, most employer plans do not offer a partial lump sum coupled with a partial annuity. Employees often are faced with an “all or nothing” decision, where they would have to take their entire retirement benefit either as a lump sum payment when they retire, or as an annuity that does not make available any immediate lump-sum cash cushion. For retirees who live longer, it becomes difficult to stretch their lump sum benefits.
Longevity solution
To address this dilemma, the government is proposing new retirement plan rules to allow plans to make available a partial lump sum payment while allowing participants to take an annuity with the other portion of their benefits. Furthermore, to address the problem of employees outliving their benefits, the government would also encourage plans to offer “longevity” annuities. These annuities would not begin paying benefits until ages 80 or 85. They would provide you a larger annual payment for the same funds than would an annuity starting at age 70 ½. Of course, one reason for the better buy-in price is that you or your heirs would receive nothing if you die before the age 80 or 85 starting date. But many experts believe that it is worth the cost to have the security of knowing that this will help prevent you from “outliving your money.”
To streamline the calculation of partial annuities, the government would allow employees receiving lump-sum payouts from their 401(k) plans to transfer assets into the employer’s existing defined benefit (DB) plan and to purchase an annuity through the DB plan. This would give employees access to the DB plans low-cost annuity purchase rates.
According to the government, the required minimum distribution (RMD) rules are a deterrent to longevity annuities. Because of the minimum distribution rules, plan benefits that could otherwise be deferred until ages 80 or 85 have to start being distributed to a retired employee at age 70 ½. These rules can affect distributions from 401(k) plans, 403(b) tax-sheltered annuities, individual retirement accounts under Code Sec. 408, and eligible governmental deferred compensation plans under Code Sec. 457.
Tentative limitations
The IRS proposes to modify the RMD rules to allow a portion of a participant’s retirement account to be set aside to fund the purchase of a deferred annuity. Participants would be able to exclude the value of this qualified longevity annuity contract (QLAC) from the account balance used to calculate RMDs. Under this approach, up to 25 percent of the account balance could be excluded. The amount is limited to 25 percent to deter the use of longevity annuities as an estate planning device to pass on assets to descendants.
Coming soon
Many of these changes are in proposed regulations and would not take effect until the government issues final regulations. The changes would apply to distributions with annuity starting dates in plan years beginning after final regulations are published, which could be before the end of 2012. Our office will continue to monitor the progress of this important development.
A consequence of the economic downturn for many investors has been significant losses on their investments in retirement accounts, including traditional and Roth individual retirement accounts (IRAs). This article discusses when and how taxpayers can deduct losses suffered in Roth IRAs and traditional IRAs ...and when no deduction will be allowed.
A consequence of the economic downturn for many investors has been significant losses on their investments in retirement accounts, including traditional and Roth individual retirement accounts (IRAs). This article discusses when and how taxpayers can deduct losses suffered in Roth IRAs and traditional IRAs ...and when no deduction will be allowed.
Traditional IRAs
Losses on investments held in a traditional IRA, funded only by contributions that you deducted when you made them, are never deductible. Even when you cash out the IRA after retirement, losses cannot be deducted. The theory behind this rule is that you already received a tax benefit in your deduction for making contributions and any loss lowers the amount of taxable income you must realize when you make retirement withdrawals. The technical explanation is that you are presumed to have a zero basis in your account.
On the other hand, if you make nondeductible traditional IRA contributions, and liquidate all of the investments in your traditional IRA, a loss can be recognized if the amounts distributed are less than the remaining unrecovered basis in the traditional IRA. You claim a loss in a traditional IRA on Schedule A, Form 1040, as a miscellaneous itemized deduction subject to the two percent AGI floor.
Example. During 2008, you made $2,000 in nondeductible contributions to a traditional IRA. Your basis in the IRA at the end of 2008 is $2,000. During 2008, the IRA earned $400 in dividend income and you withdrew $600 from the account. As a result, at the end of 2008 the value of your IRA was $1,800 ($2,000 contributed plus $400 dividends minus $600 withdrawal). You compute and report the taxable portion of your $600 withdrawal and your remaining basis on Form 8606, Nondeductible IRA.
In 2009, the year you retired, your IRA lost $500 in value. At the end of 2009, your IRA balance was $1,300 ($1,800 balance at the end of 2008 minus the $500 loss). Your remaining basis at that time in your IRA is $1,500 ($2,000 nondeductible contributions minus the $500 basis in the prior withdrawal). You withdraw the $1,300 balance remaining in the IRA. You can claim a loss of $200 (your $1,500 basis minus the $1,300 withdrawn) on Form 1040, Schedule A. The allowable loss is further subject to the two percent adjusted gross income (AGI) floor on miscellaneous itemized deductions.
If you made significant nondeductible contributions to an IRA over the last few years, and may be considering withdrawing the entire balance in all of your traditional IRAs before the end of the year in order to recognize a loss, keep in mind doing so will mean losing the opportunity to defer gain if the value of your investments in the accounts increases. Those withdrawn amounts cannot be recontributed at a later date.
Roth IRA losses
When you experience losses on Roth IRA investments, you can only recognize the loss for income tax purposes, if and when all the amounts in the Roth IRA accounts have been distributed and the total distributions are less than your basis (e.g. regular and conversion contributions).
To report a loss in a Roth IRA, all the investments held in your Roth IRA (but not traditional IRAs) must be liquidated. Moreover, the loss is an ordinary loss for income tax purposes, not a capital loss, and can only be claimed as a miscellaneous itemized deduction subject to the two percent of AGI floor that applies to miscellaneous itemized deductions on Form 1040, Schedule A.
Since all Roth IRAs must be completely liquidated to generate a loss deduction, it generally provides only a small comfort to investments gone sour. Closing all your Roth IRAs generally forgoes future appreciation on that amount.
If you are considering liquidating your Roth IRA or traditional IRA to take the loss, please contact our office and we can discuss the tax and financial consequences before finalizing any plans.
In order to be tax deductible, compensation must be a reasonable payment for services. Smaller companies, whose employees frequently hold significant ownership interests, are particularly vulnerable to IRS attack on their compensation deductions.
In order to be tax deductible, compensation must be a reasonable payment for services. Smaller companies, whose employees frequently hold significant ownership interests, are particularly vulnerable to IRS attack on their compensation deductions.
Reasonable compensation is generally defined as the amount that would ordinarily be paid for like services by like enterprises under like circumstances. This broad definition is supplemented, for purposes of determining whether compensation is deductible as an ordinary and necessary expense, by a number of more specific factors expressed in varying forms by the IRS, the Tax Court and the Circuit Courts of Appeal, and generally relating to the type and extent of services provided, the financial concerns of the company, and the nature of the relationship between the employee and the employer.
Why IRS Is Interested
A chief concern behind the IRS's keen interest in what a company calls "compensation" is the possibility that what is being labeled compensation is in fact a constructive dividend. If employees with ownership interests are being paid excessive amounts by the company, the IRS may challenge compensation deductions on the grounds that what is being called deductible compensation is, in fact, a nondeductible dividend.
Another area of concern for the IRS is the payment of personal expenses of an employee that are disguised as businesses expenses. There, the business is trying to obtain a business expense deduction without the offsetting tax paid by the employee in recognizing income. In such cases, a business and its owners can end up with a triple loss after an IRS audit: taxable income to the individual, no deduction to the business and a tax penalty due from both parties.
Factors Examined
The factors most often examined by the IRS in deciding whether payments are reasonable compensation for services or are, instead, disguised dividend payments, include:
The salary history of the individual employee
Compensation paid by comparable employers to comparable employees
The salary history of other employees of the company
Special employee expertise or efforts
Year-end payments
Independent inactive investor analysis
Deferred compensation plan contributions
Independence of the board of directors
Viewpoint of a hypothetical investor contemplating purchase of the company as to whether such potential investor would be willing to pay the compensation.
Failure to pass the reasonable compensation test will result in the company's loss of all or part of its deduction. Analysis and examination of a company's compensation deductions in light of the relevant listed factors can provide the company with the assurance that the compensation it pays will be treated as reasonable -- and may in the process prevent the loss of its deductions.
Note: In the case of publicly held corporations, a separate $1 million dollar per person cap is also placed on deductible compensation paid to the CEO and each of the four other highest-paid officers identified for SEC purposes. (Certain types of compensation, including performance-based compensation approved by outside directors, are not included in the $1 million limitation.)
The S Corp Enigma
The opposite side of the reasonable compensation coin is present in the case of some S corporations. By characterizing compensation payments as dividends, the owners of these corporations seek to reduce employment taxes due on amounts paid to them by their companies. In these cases, the IRS attempts to recharacterize dividends as salary if the amounts were, in fact, paid to the shareholders for services rendered to the corporation.
Caution. In the course of performing the compensation-dividend analysis, watch out for contingent compensation arrangements and for compensation that is proportional to stock ownership. While not always indicators that payments are distributions of dividends instead of compensation for services, their presence does suggest the possibility. Compensation plans should not be keyed to ownership interests. Contingent and incentive arrangements are also scrutinized by the IRS. The courts have frequently ruled that a shareholder has a built-in interest in seeing that the company is successful and rewarding him for increasing the value of his own property is inappropriate. Similar to the reasonable compensation test, however, this rule is not hard and fast. Accordingly, the rules followed in each jurisdiction will control there.
Conclusions
Determining whether a shareholder-employee's compensation is reasonable depends upon many variables, such as the contributions that employee makes to your business, the compensation levels within your industry, and whether an independent investor in your company would accept the employee's compensation as reasonable.
Please call our office for a more customized analysis of how your particular compensation package fits into the various rules and guidelines. Further examination of your practices not only may help your business better sustain its compensation deductions; it may also help you take advantage of other compensation arrangements and opportunities.
