IRS Issues Tips to Help Individuals Identify Scams The IRS has issued updated guidance to help individuals recognize legitimate communication from the agency and avoid falling victim to scams. As reports of fraud through emails, texts, social media an...
NJ - Controlling interest transfer tax changes discussed New Jersey updated its guidance on the controlling interest transfer tax for entities owning Class 4A commercial property.Effective July 10, 2025, the tax applies graduated rates based on total consid...
PA - Household income limits for rebate claims increased Pennsylvania increased household income limits for property tax and rent rebate claims for 2025 by 3.41%. The updated limits and maximum rebates are:$0–$8,550, $1,000 max rebate;$8,551–$16,040, $7...
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 IRS has outlined key provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (P.L. 119-21), signed into law on July 4, 2025, that introduce new deductions beginning in tax year 2025. The deductions apply through 2028 and cover qualified tips, overtime pay, car loan interest, and a special allowance for seniors.
The IRS has outlined key provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (P.L. 119-21), signed into law on July 4, 2025, that introduce new deductions beginning in tax year 2025. The deductions apply through 2028 and cover qualified tips, overtime pay, car loan interest, and a special allowance for seniors.
Under the “No Tax on Tips” provision, employees and self-employed individuals may deduct up to $25,000 in voluntary cash or charged tips received in IRS-designated tip-based occupations. Tips must be reported on Form W-2, Form 1099 or directly on Form 4137. The deduction phases out above $150,000 in modified adjusted gross income ($300,000 for joint filers). Self-employed individuals engaged in a Specified Service Trade or Business under Code Sec. 199A and employees of SSTBs are ineligible.
The “No Tax on Overtime” provision permits workers to deduct the premium portion of overtime pay required under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The deduction is capped at $12,500 ($25,000 for joint filers), with a similar income-based phaseout.
The “No Tax on Car Loan Interest” rule allows individuals to deduct up to $10,000 in interest on loans used to purchase new, personal-use vehicles assembled in the U.S. Qualifying loans must originate after December 31, 2024, and be secured by the vehicle. Used and leased vehicles do not qualify. The deduction phases out for income above $100,000 ($200,000 for joint filers).
Finally, taxpayers aged 65 or older can claim a new $6,000 deduction per person in addition to the current senior standard deduction. The deduction phases out above $75,000 ($150,000 for joint filers).
All deductions are available to itemizing and non-itemizing taxpayers. Transition relief for tax year 2025 will be provided.
Funding uncertainty and a constantly changing tax law environment are presenting challenges to the Internal Revenue Service as it works to meet legislative and executive mandates to improve the taxpayer experience.
Funding uncertainty and a constantly changing tax law environment are presenting challenges to the Internal Revenue Service as it works to meet legislative and executive mandates to improve the taxpayer experience.
A July Government Accountability Officereporthighlighted three specific challenges that the agency is facing as it works to improve the taxpayer experience.
GAO noted that"uncertainty about stable multiyear funding hinders efforts to modernize IRS computer systems and offer digital services to quickly resolve taxpayer issues. "
IRS had been using the supplemental funding provided by the Inflation Reduction Act to help address these issues, but those fundings have been a constant target for Republicans in Congress as well as the current Trump Administration, despite regular calls for stable and adequate funding.
The second challenge GAO reported was that"complicated and changing tax laws limit IRS’s ability to offer timely guidance to taxpayers,"the report states, though agency officials said it had plans in place to ensure the guidance flowing from the IRS is provided in a manner that is accurate, up-to-date, and available in a user-friendly format.
Staffing was highlighted as the third challenge.
GAO reported that"being unable to hire enough staff trained to help taxpayers can undercut the ability to optimally improve taxpayer experiences. IRS officials said IRS had efforts to boost hiring and training as well as improved systems to enable staff to improve taxpayer experiences."
However, in March 2025,"IRS officials said it was unclear how reductions to the IRA funding and to its staffing will affect these efforts to address the challenges,"GAO reported.
The government watchdog also noted that IRS has not established key practices to:
Define taxpayer experience goals related to service improvements;
Generate new evidence from measures, analytical tools, and dashboards to track progress with the taxpayer experience goals;
Involve external stakeholders to help assess the affects of its service improvements on the taxpayer experience; and
Promote accountability for achieving the taxpayer experience goals.
"IRS officials said establishing an evidence-based approach using these and other key practices has been delayed,"GAO reports."The IRS offices that had been coordinating IRA and taxpayer experience initiatives were disbanded in March 2025 and April 2025, respectively, according to IRS officials."
GAO recommends that the agency"fully establish an evidence-based approach to determine the effects of service improvements on the taxpayer experience."
Audits on high-income individuals and partnerships have increased in recent years as audits on large corporations have decreased in response to the Internal Revenue Service’s focus on the former group, the Treasury Inspector General For Tax Administration found.
Audits on high-income individuals and partnerships have increased in recent years as audits on large corporations have decreased in response to the Internal Revenue Service’s focus on the former group, the Treasury Inspector General For Tax Administration found.
In areporton trends in compliance activities through fiscal year 2023 dated July 10, 2025, examination starts for partnerships increased 63 percent from FY 2020 (4,106 starts) to FY 2023 (6,709 starts), while examination starts decreased 18 percent in the same time frame from 1,700 to 1,400.
For individuals, the overall combined number of examinations open and closed from FY 2020 through 2023 decreased from 466,921 to 400,446. For individuals with income tax returns of $400,000 or less, the percentage of examinations opened and closed dropped from 94.8 percent to 91.2 percent (442,856 to 365,229) while the percentage of examinations opened and closed for individual income tax returns more than $400,000 increased from 5.2 percent to 8.8 percent (24,065 to 35,217).
"The IRS planned to increase enforcement activities to help ensure tax compliance among high-income and high-wealth individuals,"TIGTA reported, adding that it planned to use the supplemental funding provided by the Inflation Reduction Act and that the IRS as of May 2024, the agency plans to audit twice the number of individual returns with more than $400,000 in FY 2024 compared to FY 2023.
However, whether the IRS will be able to meet any compliance goals for both individuals as well as partnerships and corporations is questionable, with agency’s"ability to move forward with hiring efforts in these complex audit areas of corporations, partnerships and high-income individuals is uncertain considering the decreased enforcement funding and recent government staffing cuts."
To that end, the agency’s Field Collection, Campus Collection, and Examination staff is already on a downward trend.
TIGTA reported that the staff decreased from 18,472 employees in FY 2020 to 17,475 in 2023 due to attrition. The Collection staff slightly increased from 7,246 to 7,371 and the Examination staff decreased from 11,226 to 10,104.
"The status of the IRS’s IRA plan, other IRA transformational initiatives, along with the IRS’s hiring plans is uncertain, at best,"TIGTA reported."Although the IRS made substantial progress with hiring 4,048 revenue officers and revenue agents in FY 2024, the recissions of IRA funding, the hiring freeze, early retirement incentives, and future reductions in force present a challenge to improving taxpayer service and enforcing the nation’s tax laws."
The report also noted that in FY 2023, $10.1 billion in enforcement revenue was collected by the Automated Collection System. Field Collection collected a total of $5.9 billion.
In a separate report dated July 10, 2025, TIGTA reported the IRS planned to increase examinations across individuals, partnerships and businesses reporting total positive income of more than $400,000 in FY 2024. The average starts from FY 2019-2023 was 29,466 and the IRS planned to increase that to 70,812. At the same time, the number of returns with a total positive income reported of less and $400,000 is planned to decrease from an average of 452,051 from FY 2019-2023 to 354,792 in FY 2024. But it is not clear whether the agency will be able to meet these targets even though it was on track to meet these goals.
The agency"has not defined key terminology or aspects of its methodology for compliance to meet with these goals as outlined in the 2022 Treasury Directive that higher income earners would be targeted for audit,"TIGTA reported."The IRS stated that the FY 2024 plan was created with the assumptions available at the time. Any subsequent decisions about these issues could affect the effectiveness of future examination plans in meeting compliance requirements."
TIGTA did not make any recommendations in either report and the IRS did not make any comments on them.
The IRS has released guidance clarifying the withholding and reporting obligations for employers and plan administrators when a retirement plan distribution check is uncashed and later reissued.
The IRS has released guidance clarifying the withholding and reporting obligations for employers and plan administrators when a retirement plan distribution check is uncashed and later reissued.
In the scenario addressed, a plan administrator issued an $800 designated distribution to a former employee, withheld the correct amount of federal income tax underCode Sec. 3405, and sent the remaining balance by check. When that check went uncashed and was subsequently voided, a second check was mailed. Because the original withholding amount was correct and fully remitted, the IRS has concluded that no refund or adjustment is available underCode Secs. 6413or6414, as there was no overpayment involved.
For the second check, the IRS has stated that no further withholding is required if the amount reissued is equal to or less than the original distribution. However, if the new amount exceeds the prior distribution—due, for example, to accumulated earnings—the excess portion is treated as a separate designated distribution subject to new withholding underCode Sec. 3405.
With respect to reporting obligations, the IRS noted thatCode Sec. 6047(d)requires a Form 1099-R to be filed for designated distributions of $10 or more. For the first check, the $800 distribution must be reported for the applicable year, with the full amount listed in Boxes 1 and 2a, and the tax withheld in Box 4. No additional reporting is required for the second check if the amount is equal to or less than the original. However, if the second check includes an excess of $10 or more, that additional amount must be reported on a separate Form 1099-R for the year in which the second distribution occurs.
The Treasury Department and the IRS have withdrawn proposed rules addressing the treatment of built-in income, gain, deduction, and loss taken into account by a loss corporation after an ownership change under Code Sec. 382(h). The withdrawal, effective July 2, 2025, follows public criticism on the proposed regulations’ approach.
The Treasury Department and the IRS have withdrawn proposed rules addressing the treatment of built-in income, gain, deduction, and loss taken into account by a loss corporation after an ownership change underCode Sec. 382(h). The withdrawal, effective July 2, 2025, follows public criticism on the proposed regulations’ approach.
The proposed rules wereReg. §1.382-1, proposed on September 10, 2019 (84 FR 47455), and Reg. §§1.382-1,1.382-2and1.382-7, proposed on January 14, 2020 (85 FR 2061). The proposed regulations would have adopted as mandatory, with certain modifications, (a) the safe harbor net unrealized built-in gain (NUBIG) and net unrealized built-in loss (NUBIL) computation provided inNotice 2003-65, 2003-40 I.R.B. 747, based on the principles ofCode Sec. 1374, and (b) the “1374 approach,” (as described inNotice 2003-65) for the identification of recognized built-in gain and recognized built-in loss. The IRS considered that the 1374 approach would make it easier for taxpayers to calculate built-in gains and built-in losses and comply withCode Sec. 382(h).
The IRS received critical comments from practitioners on the proposed rules, leading the agency to conclude that further study is needed before issuing any new proposed regulations.
The proposed regulations are withdrawn. Taxpayers may continue to rely onNotice 2003-65for applyingCode Sec. 382(h)to an ownership change before the effective date of any temporary or final regulations underCode Sec. 382(h).
The Treasury and IRS removed this final rule from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that involved gross proceeds reporting by brokers for effectuating digital asset sales.
The Treasury and IRS removed this final rule from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that involved gross proceeds reporting by brokers for effectuating digital asset sales. The agencies reverted the relevant text of the CFR back to the text that was in effect immediately prior to the effective date of this final rule.
Congress passed a joint resolution disapproving the final rule titled “Gross Proceeds Reporting by Brokers that Regularly Provide Services Effectuating Digital Asset Sales.” The Treasury Department and the IRS were not soliciting comments on this action, nor delaying the effective date.
A more then 25 percent reduction in the Internal Revenue Service workforce will likely present some significant challenges on the heels of a 2025 tax season described as a "measured success," according to the Office of the National Taxpayer Advocate.
A more then 25 percent reduction in the Internal Revenue Service workforce will likely present some significant challenges on the heels of a 2025 tax season described as a"measured success,"according to the Office of the National Taxpayer Advocate.
In the"Fiscal Year 2026 ObjectivesReportto Congress,"National Taxpayer Advocate Erin Collins noted that the 2025 filing season marked the IRS’"third consecutive year of delivering a generally successful filing season, and by some measures, it was the smoothest yet. Most taxpayers filed their returns and paid their taxes or received their refunds without any delays or intervention from the IRS."
The report highlights that more than 95 percent of individual returns were filed electronically and more than 60 percent of taxpayers received refunds,"the majority within standard processing timeframes."
Despite having a successful season, the agency has reduced its workforce by more than 25 percent since the federal government under President Trump began cutting the federal workforce.
In analyzing what agency functions are affected by this workforce reduction, the report states that"many functions are more visible to taxpayers and directly impact service delivery, while other functions play vital supporting roles in providing taxpayer service and delivering on the IRS’s mission."
Collins in the report when on to encourage Congress ignore requests to cut the IRS budget and ensure the agency is properly staffed and financed.
"The Administration’s budget proposal envisions a 20 percent reduction in appropriated IRS funding next year and an overall reduction of 37 percent after taking into account after taking into account the decrease in supplemental funding from the Inflation Reduction Act. A reduction of that magnitude is likely to impact taxpayers and potentially the revenue collected."
The issues of the workforce reduction could be compounded by the expected permanent extension of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
Collins stated that most of the changes related to the extension won’t take effect until January 1, 2026,"but several provisions impacting tens of millions of taxpayers will likely be effective during the 2025. This suggests additional complexity with taxpayers file their 2025 tax returns during the 2026 filing season and more complexity the following year. In addition, the reduction of more than 25 percent in the IRS workforce has the potential to reduce taxpayer services."
The report also echoed ongoing calls it has made in the past, as well as calls by other stakeholders, to continue to improve its information technology modernization strategy. Collins notes that in recent years,"the agency has made notable strides in modernizing its systems. … If this momentum continues, the IRS will be well positioned to deliver high quality service, enhance the taxpayer experience, and perhaps improve tax compliance at a reduced cost."
She highlighted the improvements that were made possible through the supplemental funding from the Inflation Reduction Act, but added that the Trump Administration has paused indefinitely or cancelled projects and replaced them with nine distinct modernization"’vertical,’ which are technology projects designed to meet specified technology demands."
"While these initiatives are promising, the IRS must provide clear and detailed communication to Congress and the public regarding the objectives, scope, business value, milestones, projected timelines, costs, and anticipated impacts of these nine vertical projects on taxpayer service,"the report stated."Without such transparency, there is a real risk these initiatives could stall or deviate from their intended outcomes."
Collins also made a case for sustained funding for IT improvements, recalling a 2023 blog post where she highlighted that large U.S. banks"spend between $10 billion and $14 billion a year on technology, often more than half on new technology systems. Yet in fiscal year (FY) 2022, Congress appropriated just $275 million for the IRS’s Business Systems Modernization (BSM) account. That’s less than five percent of what the largest banks are spending on new technology each year, and the IRS services far more people and entities than any bank."
The Internal Revenue Service Electronic Tax Administration Advisory Committee (ETAAC) released its 2025 annual report during a public meeting in Washington, D.C., outlining 14 recommendations—ten directed to the IRS and four to Congress.
The Internal Revenue Service Electronic Tax Administration Advisory Committee (ETAAC) released its 2025 annualreportduring a public meeting in Washington, D.C., outlining 14 recommendations—ten directed to the IRS and four to Congress. ETAAC operates under the Federal Advisory Committee Act and collaborates with the Security Summit, a joint initiative established in 2015 by the IRS, state tax agencies and the tax industry to address identity theft and cybercrime.
ETAAC recommended that the IRS update tax return forms to strengthen security and reduce fraud and identity theft. It also advised the agency to revise Modernized e-File reject codes and explanations, expand information sharing with state and industry partners, and continue transitioning taxpayers toward fully digital interactions.
Congress was urged to support tax simplification aligned with policy objectives, grant the IRS authority to regulate non-credentialed tax return preparers, ensure stable funding for taxpayer services and operations, and prioritize sustained technology modernization. For more information, visit theElectronic Tax Administration Advisory Committee (ETAAC) page.
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.
