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)

Before the fast-approaching new year, it’s important to take some time and reflect on year-end tax planning. The weeks pass quickly and the arrival of January 1, 2015 will close the doors to some tax planning strategies and opportunities. Fortunately, there is still time for a careful review of your year-end tax planning strategy.

Before the fast-approaching new year, it’s important to take some time and reflect on year-end tax planning. The weeks pass quickly and the arrival of January 1, 2015 will close the doors to some tax planning strategies and opportunities. Fortunately, there is still time for a careful review of your year-end tax planning strategy.

Traditional year-end planning techniques

For many individuals, a look at traditional year-end tax planning techniques is a good starting point. Spreading the recognition of certain income between 2014 and 2015 is one technique. Individuals need to take into account any possible changes in their income tax bracket. The individual income tax rates for 2014 are unchanged from 2013: 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, 35 and 39.6 percent. Each taxable income bracket is indexed for inflation. The starting points for the 39.6 percent bracket for 2014 are $406,750 for unmarried individuals; $457,600 for married couples filing a joint return and surviving spouses; $432,200 for heads of households; and $228,800 for married couples filing separate returns. For 2014, the top tax rate for qualified capital gains and qualified dividends is 20 percent.

For the second year, individuals also need to plan for potential net investment income (NII) tax liability. The NII tax applies to taxpayers with certain types of income and who fall within the thresholds for liability. Again, spreading income out over a number of years or offsetting the income with both above-the-line and itemized deductions are strategies to consider.

Tax extenders

Many individuals are surprised to learn that some very popular and widely-used tax incentives are temporary. If you claimed the higher education tuition deduction on your 2013 return, you cannot claim it in your 2014 return because the deduction expired after 2013. The same is true for the state and local sales tax deduction, the teachers’ classroom expense deduction, the Code Sec. 25C residential energy credit, transit benefits parity, and more. All of these tax breaks expired after 2013 and unless they are extended by Congress, you will not be able to claim them on your 2014 returns.

Businesses are also affected. A lengthy list of business-oriented tax breaks expired after 2013. They include the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC), research tax credit, Indian employment credit, employer wage credit for military reservists, special incentives for biodiesel and renewable fuels, tax credits for energy-efficient homes and appliances, and more.

The good news is that Congress is likely to extend these tax breaks, probably for two years, and make the extension retroactive to January 1, 2014. That means taxpayers can claim these incentives on their 2014 returns. One hurdle is when Congress will act. In past years, lawmakers waited until very late in the year, or even until the start of the new year, to vote on an extension of these incentives. Late extension puts extra pressure on the IRS to quickly reprogram its return processing systems. Most likely, the IRS will have to delay the start of the filing season. Our office will keep you posted of developments.

Retirement savings

In 2014, the Tax Court surprised many with its decision that a taxpayer could make only one nontaxable rollover contribution within each one-year period regardless of how many IRAs the taxpayer maintained (Bobrow, TC Memo. 2014-21). The one-year limitation is not specific to any single IRA maintained by a taxpayer, but instead applies to all IRAs maintained by the taxpayer. The IRS, in turn, announced that it would change its rules to reflect the court’s decision.

The key point to keep in mind is that the Bobrow decision affects only IRA-to-IRA rollovers. The decision does not limit trustee-to-trustee transfers.

Affordable Care Act

Individuals who obtain health insurance through the Affordable Care Act Marketplace (and the federal government estimates they number seven million) have special tax planning considerations, especially if they are eligible for the Code Sec. 36B premium assistance tax credit. The credit is payable in advance to insurers and it appears that most taxpayers have elected this option. These individuals must reconcile the amount paid in advance with the amount of the actual credit computed when they file their tax returns. Changes in circumstances, such as an increase or decrease in income, marriage, birth or adoption of a child, and so on, may affect the amount of the actual credit.

Remember that the Affordable Care Act requires individuals to have minimum essential coverage for each month, qualify for an exemption, or make a payment when filing his or her federal income tax return. Many individuals will qualify for an exemption if they are covered under employer-sponsored coverage. Individuals covered by Medicare also are exempt.

If you have any questions about year-end planning, please contact our office.

The IRS is moving quickly to alert employers about a new tax credit for health insurance premiums. The recently enacted health care reform package (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010) created the small employer health insurance tax credit. The temporary credit is targeted to small employers that offer or will offer health insurance coverage to their employees. The credit, like so many federal tax incentives, has certain qualifications. Please contact our office and we can arrange to review in detail how the credit may cut the cost of your business's health insurance premiums. The dollar benefits of the credit are substantial and they apply immediately to 2010 premium costs.

Outreach

The IRS is sending postcards to more than four million small businesses in coming weeks. The postcards briefly describe the new tax credit and are just one part of the IRS's outreach campaign to educate employers about the credit. The IRS has also created a special page on its web site on the credit along with a fact sheet and frequently asked questions and answers.

Maximum credit

The new health care credit is effective immediately so employers need to plan now to take advantage of it. The credit, which is available over the next five years, also rises over time but the enhanced credit comes with some additional requirements.

For tax years beginning in 2010 through 2013, the maximum credit reaches 35 percent of qualified premium costs paid by for-profit employers. The maximum credit is 25 percent of qualified premium costs paid by tax-exempt employers.

The maximum credit climbs to 50 percent of qualified premium costs paid by for-profit employers (35 percent for tax-exempt employers) for tax years beginning in 2014 through 2015. However, Congress imposed some additional requirements. An employer may claim the credit only if it offers one or more qualified health plans through a state insurance exchange. The health care reform package requires states to create insurance exchanges by January 1, 2014.

Example. ABC Co. employs nine individuals with average annual wages of $23,000 for each employee in 2010. ABC pays $72,000 in health care premiums for its employees. This amount does not exceed the average premium for the small group market in the state in which ABC offers coverage and ABC otherwise meets the requirements for the credit. ABC's credit for 2010 is $25,200 (35 percent x $72,000).

Tax-exempt employers have additional limitations. If the amount of their credit exceeds the amount of payroll taxes of the tax-exempt employer during the calendar year in which the tax year begins, the credit is limited to the amount of payroll taxes.

FTEs

The maximum credit is available to qualified employers with no more than 10 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees paying average annual wages of $25,000 or less. The credit completely phases out if an employer has 25 or more FTEs or pays $50,000 or more in average annual wages. Effectively, a small employer can have exactly 25 FTEs or pay average annual compensation of exactly $50,000 and not receive a credit under the phase-out rules. The monetary amounts are adjusted for inflation after 2013.

The health care reform package explains how to calculate the number of FTEs. The number of an employer's FTEs is determined by dividing the total hours for which the employer pays wages to employees during the year (but not more than 2,080 hours for any employee) by 2,080. The result, if not a whole number, is rounded to the next lowest whole number. Lawmakers selected 2,080 hours because 2,080 hours comprise the number of hours in a 52-week assuming a 40-hour work week. Any hours beyond 2,080, such as overtime hours, are not taken into account when calculating FTEs.

Example. ABC Co has nine employees. ABC pays Aidan, Bonnie, Catherine, David, and Eddie wages for 2,080 hours each for 2010. ABC pays Francine, Gary and Harry wages for 1,040 hours each for 2010. ABC pays Kieran wages for 2,300 hours for 2010. The total hours not exceeding 2,080 per employee is the sum of: --10,400 hours for the five employees paid for 2,080 hours each (5 x 2,080) plus --3,120 hours for the three employees paid for 1,040 hours each (3 x 1,040) plus --2,080 hours for the one employee paid for 2,300 hours (lesser of 2,300 and 2,080), which add up to 15,600 hours.

To calculate the number of FTEs, 15,600 is divided by 2,080, which results in 7.5, rounded to the next lowest whole number.

Average annual wages

A formula is also used to calculate average annual wages. The amount of average annual wages is determined by first dividing the total wages paid by the employer to employees during the employer's tax year by the number of the employer's FTEs for the year. The result is then rounded down to the nearest $1,000 (if not otherwise a multiple of $1,000).

Example. ABC Co. pays $224,000 in wages and has 10 FTEs. ABC's average annual wages are $224,000 divided by 10 which equals $22,400, and is rounded down to the nearest $1,000 for a final number of $22,000

Owners and family members

Some individuals are excluded from the calculation of FTEs and average annual wages. These include a sole proprietor, a partner in a partnership, a shareholder owning more than two percent of an S corporation, and any owner of more than five percent of other businesses. Certain family members of these individuals are also excluded from the calculation of FTEs and average annual wages. These include a child, a parent, a sibling, and others. This list is not exhaustive. Please contact our office for more details about who is excluded from these calculations.

Premium deduction

Employers generally may deduct the cost of health insurance premiums paid on behalf of employees. The health care reform package does not change this general rule. However, the amount of premiums that an employer may deduct is reduced by the amount of the small employer health care tax credit.

Qualifying arrangement

Only premiums paid by the employer under a qualifying arrangement are counted in calculating the credit. Under a qualifying arrangement, the employer pays premiums for each employee enrolled in health care coverage offered by the employer in an amount equal to a uniform percentage (not less than 50 percent) of the premium cost of the coverage. The IRS is developing transition relief for 2010.

Additionally, the amount of an employer's premium payments is capped in relation to the average premium for the small group market. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will determine the average premium for the small group market in a state.

Congress is currently reviewing the costs of premiums. The health care reform package includes a requirement, effective in 2011, that insurance companies spend at least 80 percent of premium revenue on actual health care. Additionally, the health care reform package establishes a process for the annual review of premium increases prior to their use along with public disclosure of how premium rates are determined.

Claiming the credit

Qualified for-profit employers will claim the credit on their annual income tax return. The IRS is expected to advise how tax-exempt employers will claim the credit. Our office will keep you posted of developments.

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, a qualified small business can choose to start offering health insurance coverage to employees in 2010 and be eligible for the credit. If you are considering providing insurance coverage to your employees, please contact our office. If you have already been paying premiums, don't leave maximizing the new credit to chance; we can help you navigate the many federal rules that come into play.

As always, please contact our office if you have any questions about the new small employer health insurance tax credit.