The Alabama Accountability Act recently passed by the Alabama state legislature provides tax saving opportunities while providing funding to our state's school children. The act helps parents with the cost of private school tuition or the cost of transferring their kids to a different school if their child's school is designated as failing.

Click here to read our take on this topic

With many of these tax provisions set to expire at the end of 2009, business taxpayers with the cash and the credit score considering purchases of business equipment may want to maximize their potential tax savings before the end of the year. Taking advantage of these tax benefits can reduce current taxable income and increase cash flow.

Bonus depreciation

Bonus depreciation and Code Sec. 179 expensing are the primary business incentives set to expire at the end of 2009. Congress extended 50 percent additional first-year bonus depreciation through December 31, 2009 in the 2009 Recovery Act. You deduct 50 percent of the property’s cost basis in the first year, before reducing the basis for normal depreciation computed over the property’s recovery period (formerly called its useful life), including the first year. However, you can irrevocably “elect out” of bonus depreciation.

Bonus depreciation is available for property with a depreciation (recovery) period of 20 years or less, water utility property, off-the-shelf computer software, and qualified leasehold property (farming equipment also qualifies for bonus deprecation, as well as first-year expensing). The property must be new, and therefore begin with the taxpayer. It must be purchased and “placed in service” before December 31, 2009.

Vehicle depreciation

Through 2009, Congress raised the limits on depreciation of “luxury” automobiles for 2009. The first-year depreciation limit, which is ordinarily $3,060 for vehicles purchased in 2009, has been raised to $11,060 (an $8,000 increase) through the end of the year for property that would otherwise qualify for bonus depreciation. The both limits are higher for vans and trucks. To qualify, the vehicle must be used more than 50 percent for business. For the additional $8,000 deduction, the vehicle must be new. Used vehicles first used in a taxpayer’s business still qualify for a deduction, but only up to the $3,060 limit.

First-year expensing

In lieu of bonus depreciation, you can elect to write off part, or all, of the cost of one or more assets, up to the limit on “Code Section 179 expensing.” The limit is $250,000 through 2009. Unlike bonus depreciation, first-year expensing applies to tax years beginning in 2009. Therefore, a fiscal-year taxpayer is not faced with a December 31, 2009 deadline for acquiring property and placing it into service. Additionally, expensing can be claimed on used as well as new property, unlike bonus depreciation.

Note. If you expense property that is also eligible for bonus depreciation, you should deduct the expensed amount from the property’s basis before claiming deprecation. First-year expensing is limited to your taxable income for the year, and cannot be used to generate or increase a net operating loss for the current year. Thus, if you are operating at a loss you should not claim expensing.

The amount that you can expense must be reduced dollar-for-dollar by the amount of the Code Section 179 property placed in service during the year exceeds a specified threshold. The threshold for 2009 is $800,000. The benefit does not fully phase out until investment reaches $1.05 million.

Shortened recovery period

Congress reduced the recovery period from 39 years to 15 years for leasehold improvements, restaurant property and retail improvement property placed in service by December 31, 2009. Leasehold improvements also qualify for bonus depreciation as well.

Investing in assets for your business is not just about taxes. You need to consider whether buying business assets makes financial sense this year. However, if you are contemplating investing in your business this year, act before the end of 2009 to take advantage of these incentives.

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

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

The interim final rule amends the BOI regulations by:

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

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

Reducing Regulatory Burden

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

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

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

Deadlines Extended for Foreign Companies

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

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

Effective Date; Comments Requested

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

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

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

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

FinCEN Interim Final Rule RIN 1506-AB49

FinCEN News Release

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

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

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

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

Exclusions from Gross Income

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

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

Accuracy-Related Penalty

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

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

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

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

Background

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

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

Deemed Paid Foreign Tax Credits Did Not Apply

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

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

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

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

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

Other Reference:

• Code Sec. 960

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

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

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

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

J.A. Martino, CA-11

It's back-to-school time and many families are looking for ways to stretch their education dollars. To help, there are some generous tax breaks. Deductions and credits are available and while they won't lower the cost of education, they can lower the tax bill.

Hope Scholarship credit

The Hope Scholarship credit can help pay for college as well as vocational training. The credit reaches $1,500 per student for the first two years of post-secondary education. It is a 100 percent credit for the first $1,000 and a 50 percent credit on the second $1000 paid in tuition and expenses other than books, healthcare costs, room and board or transportation.

Tax-free grants lower the amount of tuition that is eligible for the credit. The student must attend a qualified institution and no two taxpayers can claim the credit in the same year. This means that either the student or the student's guardian may take the credit, but not both.

The Hope Scholarship credit has special qualifications. The student cannot have completed the first two years of post-secondary education, must be enrolled at least half-time and cannot have been convicted of a felony drug charge.

Lifetime Learning credit  

The Lifetime Learning credit is much akin to the Hope credit. It helps to offset the same expenses. However, this credit can be used in any year that the Hope is not taken. It's available for 20 percent of eligible expenses, up to a maximum of $2,000 per taxpayer, not per student.

Coverdell education savings accounts

Coverdell education savings accounts (ESAs) can also help pay for college, as well as secondary and elementary, schooling. The maximum annual contribution is $2,000 per beneficiary. Any distribution not made for education costs, will be taxed, and an additional 10 percent penalty will be added. This is also true of students whose distributions fund attendance at a military academy, if the student is expected to serve upon dismissal from the institution. Distributions are treated like gifts and may be used for tuition, books, supplies, and equipment.

Scholarships/ fellowships

Scholarships and fellowships, both for merit and financial need, are excluded from income if they are used to pay for tuition, and other related expenses such as books and supplies, but not incidentals, such as room and board. Some grants, such as those in exchange for services the student provides, for example, research, are treated like wages and are included in gross income.  Athletic scholarships are not considered exchange for service.

Student loan interest payments

Student loans may also produce a tax break. There is a valuable above-the-line deduction for interest paid on education loans. For taxpayers making less than $50,000 ($100,000 for joint filers), $2,500 is deductible annually. Only the loan holder can take this deduction. If the loan is taken out in the student's name, but the parent is paying for it, the parent cannot deduct the interest.

Education costs are going up every year and these tax breaks, when they are used well, can help you save some money. Give our office a call today. We'll review your educational expenses and design a tax strategy that maximizes these valuable tax breaks.

The Tax Code encourages charitable donations by businesses and industries. In fact, it is one tax incentive that President Bush has told his tax reform panel that he wants to preserve and strengthen. Taxpayers can make many different types of contributions, including inventory.

Amount of deduction

The amount of your deduction is generally the fair market value (FMV) of the contributed property, reduced by the amount of income you would have recognized if you had sold the property. FMV is the price the property would sell for on the open market. This rule effectively limits your deduction to your basis in the property.

Example. Elsa owns and operates a retail clothing store. She donates inventory that she normally sells in the ordinary course of her business to a charity. The inventory has a FMV of $1,000. It cost $400. If Elsa had sold the inventory, she would have recognized $600 income. Elsa's charitable contribution deduction is $400, her basis in the donated property.

The fair market value of your inventory may be less than its basis. In this case, only the fair market value may be deducted.

Example. Owen also owns and operates a retail clothing store. He follows Elsa's lead and donates inventory that he normally sells in the ordinary course of his business to the same charity. The inventory has a fair market value of $1,000. It cost $1,800. If Owen had sold the inventory, he would have recognized an $800 loss. In this case, the FMV of Owen's inventory is less than its basis. Owen's charitable contribution deduction is limited to $1,000, the FMV of the donated inventory. In this case, Owen is probably better off selling the inventory, recognizing the loss and then contributing $1,000 cash, which is fully deductible.

Costs and expenses

Any costs and expenses pertaining to contributed property incurred in prior tax years must be removed from inventory if they are properly reflected in opening inventory for the year of contribution. They are not part of the costs of good sold. Costs and expenses incurred in the year of contribution, which are properly reflected in the costs of goods sold for that year, are treated as part of the costs of goods sold for that year.

If you are thinking of donating inventory to a charitable organization, give our office a call. We'll help you maximize this valuable deduction.