Newsletters

The 2025 cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) that affect pension plan dollar limitations and other retirement-related provisions have been released by the IRS. In general, many of the pension plan limitations will change for 2025 because the increase in the cost-of-living index due to inflation met the statutory thresholds that trigger their adjustment. However, other limitations will remain unchanged.

WASHINGTON–With Congress in its lame duck session to close out the remainder of 2024 and with Republicans taking control over both chambers of Congress in the just completed election cycle, no major tax legislation is expected, although there is potential for minor legislation before the year ends.

The IRS reminded individual retirement arrangement (IRA) owners aged 70½ and older that they can make tax-free charitable donations of up to $105,000 in 2024 through qualified charitable distributions (QCDs), up from $100,000 in past years. 

The IRS reminded individual retirement arrangement (IRA) owners aged 70½ and older that they can make tax-free charitable donations of up to $105,000 in 2024 through qualified charitable distributions (QCDs), up from $100,000 in past years. For those aged 73 or older, QCDs also count toward the year's required minimum distribution (RMD). Following are the steps for reporting and documenting QCDs for 2024:

• IRA trustees issue Form 1099-R, Distributions from Pensions, Annuities, Retirement or Profit-Sharing Plans, IRAs, Insurance Contracts, etc., in early 2025 documenting IRA distributions.
• Record the full amount of any IRA distribution on Line 4a of Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, or Form 1040-SR, U.S. Tax Return for Seniors.
• Enter "0" on Line 4b if the entire amount qualifies as a QCD, marking it accordingly.
• Obtain a written acknowledgment from the charity, confirming the contribution date, amount, and that no goods or services were received.

Additionally, to ensure QCDs for 2024 are processed by year-end, IRA owners should contact their trustee soon. Each eligible IRA owner can exclude up to $105,000 in QCDs from taxable income. Married couples, if both meet qualifications and have separate IRAs, can donate up to $210,000 combined. QCDs did not require itemizing deductions. New this year, the QCD limit was subject to annual adjustments based on inflation. For 2025, the limit rises to $108,000.

Further, for more details, see Publication 526, Charitable Contributions, and Publication 590-B, Distributions from Individual Retirement Arrangements (IRAs).

IR-2024-289

The Treasury Department and IRS have issued final regulations allowing certain unincorporated organizations owned by applicable entities to elect to be excluded from subchapter K, as well as proposed regulations that would provide administrative requirements for organizations taking advantage of the final rules.

The Treasury Department and IRS have issued final regulations allowing certain unincorporated organizations owned by applicable entities to elect to be excluded from subchapter K, as well as proposed regulations that would provide administrative requirements for organizations taking advantage of the final rules.

Background

Code Sec. 6417, applicable to tax years beginning after 2022, was added by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA), P.L. 117-169, to allow “applicable entities” to elect to treat certain tax credits as payments against income tax. “Applicable entities” include tax-exempt organizations, the District of Columbia, state and local governments, Indian tribal governments, Alaska Native Corporations, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and rural electric cooperatives. Code Sec. 6417 also contains rules specific to partnerships and directs the Treasury Secretary to issue regulations on making the election (“elective payment election”).

Reg. §1.6417-2(a)(1), issued under T.D. 9988 in March 2024, provides that partnerships are not applicable entities for Code Sec. 6417 purposes. The 2024 regulations permit a taxpayer that is not an applicable entity to make an election to be treated as an applicable entity, but only with respect to certain credits. The only credits for which a partnership could make an elective payment election were those under Code Secs. 45Q, 45V, and 45X.

However, Reg. §1.6417-2(a)(1) of the March 2024 final regulations also provides that if an applicable entity co-owns Reg. §1.6417-1(e) “applicable credit property” through an organization that has made Code Sec. 761(a) election to be excluded from application of the rules of subchapter K, then the applicable entity’s undivided ownership share of the applicable credit property is treated as (i) separate applicable credit property that is (ii) owned by the applicable entity. The applicable entity in that case may make an elective payment election for the applicable credit related to that property.

At the same time as they issued final regulations under T.D. 9988, the Treasury and IRS published proposed regulations (REG-101552-24, the “March 2024 proposed regulations”) under Code Sec. 761(a) permitting unincorporated organizations that meet certain requirements to make modifications (called “exceptions”) to the then-existing requirements for a Code Sec. 761(a) election in light of Code Sec. 6417.

Code Sec. 761(a) authorizes the Treasury Secretary to issue regulations permitting an unincorporated organization to exclude itself from application of subchapter K if all the organization’s members so elect. The organization must be “availed of”: (1) for investment purposes rather than for the active conduct of a business; (2) for the joint production, extraction, or use of property but not for the sale of services or property; or (3) by dealers in securities, for a short period, to underwrite, sell, or distribute a particular issue of securities. In any of these three cases, the members’ income must be adequately determinable without computation of partnership taxable income. The IRS believes that most unincorporated organizations seeking exclusion from subchapter K so that their members can make Code Sec. 6417 elections are likely to be availed of for one of the three purposes listed in Code Sec. 761(a).

Reg. §1.761-2(a)(3) before amendment by T.D. 10012 required that participants in the joint production, extraction, or use of property (i) own that property as co-owners in a form granting exclusive ownership rights, (ii) reserve the right separately to take in kind or dispose of their shares of any such property, and (iii) not jointly sell services or the property (subject to exceptions). The March 2024 proposed regulations would have modified some of these Reg. §1.761-2(a)(3) requirements.

The regulations under T.D. 10012 finalize some of the March 2024 proposed regulations. Concurrently with the publication of these final regulations, the Treasury and IRS are issuing proposed regulations (REG-116017-24) that would make additional amendments to Reg. §1.761-2.

The Final Regulations

The final regulations issued under T.D. 10012 revise the definition in the March 2024 proposed regulations of “applicable unincorporated organization” to include organizations existing exclusively to own and operate “applicable credit property” as defined in Reg. §1.6417-1(e). The IRS cautions, however, that this definition should not be read to imply that any particular arrangement permits a Code Sec. 761(a) election.

The final regulations also add examples to Reg. §1.761-2(a)(5), not found in the March 2024 proposed regulations, to illustrate (1) a rule that the determination of the members’ shares of property produced, extracted, or used be based on their ownership interests as if they co-owned the underlying properties, and (2) details of a rule regarding “agent delegation agreements.”

In addition, the final regulations clarify that renewable energy certificates (RECs) produced through the generation of clean energy are included in “renewable energy credits or similar credits,” with the result that each member of an unincorporated organization must reserve the right separately to take in or dispose of that member’s proportionate share of any RECs generated.

The Treasury and IRS also clarify in T.D. 10012 that “partnership flip structures,” in which allocations of income, gains, losses, deductions, or credits change at some after the partnership is formed, violate existing statutory requirements for electing out of subchapter K and, thus, are by existing definition not eligible to make a Code Sec. 761(a) election.

The Proposed Regulations

The preamble to the March 2024 proposed regulations noted that the Treasury and IRS were considering rules to prevent abuse of the Reg. §1.761-2(a)(4)(iii) modifications. For instance, a rule mentioned in the preamble would have prevented the deemed-election rule in prior Reg. §1.761-2(b)(2)(ii) from applying to any unincorporated organization that relies on a modification in then-proposed Reg. §1.761-2(a)(4)(iii). The final regulations under T.D. 10012 do not contain any rules on deemed elections, but the Treasury and the IRS believe that more guidance is needed under Code Sec. 761(a) to implement Code Sec. 6417. Therefore, proposed rules (REG-116017-24, the “November 2024 proposed regulations”) are published concurrently with the final regulations to address the validity of Code Sec. 761(a) elections by applicable unincorporated organizations with elections that would not be valid without application of revised Reg. §1.761-2(a)(4)(iii).

Specifically, Proposed Reg. §1.761-2(a)(4)(iv)(A) would provide that a specified applicable unincorporated organization’s Code Sec. 761(a) election terminates as a result of the acquisition or disposition of an interest in a specified applicable unincorporated organization, other than as the result of a transfer between a disregarded entity (as defined in Reg. §1.6417-1(f)) and its owner.

Such an acquisition or disposition would not, however, terminate an applicable unincorporated organization’s Code Sec. 761(a) election if the organization (a) met the requirements for making a new Code Sec. 761(a) election and (b) in fact made such an election no later than the time in Reg. §1.6031(a)-1(e) (including extensions) for filing a partnership return with respect to the period of time that would have been the organization’s tax year if, after the tax year for which the organization first made the election, the organization continued to have tax years and those tax years were determined by reference to the tax year in which the organization made the election (“hypothetical partnership tax year”).

Such an election would protect the organization’s Code Sec. 761(a) election against all terminating acquisitions and dispositions in a hypothetical year only if it contained, in addition to the information required by Reg. §1.761-2(b), information about every terminating transaction that occurred in the hypothetical partnership tax year. If a new election was not timely made, the Code Sec. 761(a) election would terminate on the first day of the tax year beginning after the hypothetical partnership taxable year in which one or more terminating transactions occurred. Proposed Reg. §1.761-2(a)(5)(iv) would add an example to illustrate this new rule.

These provisions would not apply to an organization that is no longer eligible to elect to be excluded from subchapter K. Such an organization’s Code Sec. 761(a) election automatically terminates, and the organization must begin complying with the requirements of subchapter K.

The proposed regulations would also clarify that the deemed election rule in Reg. §1.761-2(b)(2)(ii) does not apply to specified applicable unincorporated organizations. The purpose of this rule, according to the IRS, is to prevent an unincorporated organization from benefiting from the modifications in revised Reg. §1.761-2(a)(4)(iii) without providing written information to the IRS about its members, and to prevent a specified applicable unincorporated organization terminating as the result of a terminating transaction from having its election restored without making a new election in writing.

In addition, the proposed regulations would require an applicable unincorporated organization making a Code Sec. 761(a) election to submit all information listed in the instructions to Form 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership Income, for making a Code Sec. 761(a) election. The IRS explains that this requirement is intended to ensure that the organization provides all the information necessary for the IRS to properly administer Code Sec. 6417 with respect to applicable unincorporated organizations making Code Sec. 761(a) elections.

The proposed regulations would also clarify the procedure for obtaining permission to revoke a Code Sec. 761(a) election. An application for permission to revoke would need to be made in a letter ruling request meeting the requirements of Rev. Proc. 2024-1 or successor guidance. The IRS indicates that taxpayers may continue to submit applications for permission to revoke an election by requesting a private letter ruling and can rely on Rev. Proc. 2024-1 or successor guidance before the proposed regulations are finalized.

Applicability Dates

The final regulations under T.D. apply to tax years ending on or after March 11, 2024 (i.e., the date on which the March 2024 proposed regulations were published). The IRS states that an applicable unincorporated organization that made a Code Sec. 761(a) election meeting the requirements of the final regulations for an earlier tax year will be treated as if it had made a valid Code Sec. 761(a) election.

The proposed regulations (REG-116017-24) would apply to tax years ending on or after the date on which they are published as final.

T.D. 10012

NPRM REG-116017-24

IR-2024-292

National Taxpayer Advocate Erin Collins is criticizing the Internal Revenue Service for proposing changed to how it contacts third parties in an effort to assess or collect a tax on a taxpayer.

Current rules call for the IRS to provide a 45-day notice when it intends to contact a third party with three exceptions, including when the taxpayer authorizes the contact; the IRS determines that notice would jeopardize tax collection or involve reprisal; or if the contact involves criminal investigations.

The agency is proposing to shorten the length of proposing to shorten the statutory 45-day notice to 10 days when the when there is a year or less remaining on the statute of limitations for collection or certain other circumstances exist.

"The IRS’s proposed regulations … erode an important taxpayer protection and could punish taxpayers for IRS delays," Collins wrote in a November 7, 2024, blog post. The agency generally has three years to assess additional tax and ten years to collect unpaid tax. By shortening the timeframe, it could cause personal embarrassment, damage a business’s reputation, or otherwise put unreasonable pressure on a taxpayer to extend the statute of limitations to avoid embarrassment.

"Furthermore, the ten-day timeframe is so short, it is possible that some taxpayers may not receive the notice with enough time to reply," Collins wrote. "As a result, those taxpayers may incur the embarrassment and reputational damage caused by having their sensitive tax information shared with a third party on an expedited basis without adequate time to respond."

"The statute of limitations is an important component of the right to finality because it sets forth clear and certain boundaries for the IRS to act to assess or collect taxes," she wrote, adding that the agency "should reconsider these proposed regulations and Congress should consider enacting additional taxpayer protections for third-party contacts."

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

The IRS has amended Reg. §30.6335-1 to modernize the rules regarding the sale of a taxpayer’s property that the IRS seizes by levy. The amendments allow the IRS to maximize sale proceeds for both the benefit of the taxpayer whose property the IRS has seized and the public fisc, and affects all sales of property the IRS seizes by levy. The final regulation, as amended, adopts the text of the proposed amendments (REG-127391-16, Oct. 15, 2023) with only minor, nonsubstantive changes.

The IRS has amended Reg. §30.6335-1 to modernize the rules regarding the sale of a taxpayer’s property that the IRS seizes by levy. The amendments allow the IRS to maximize sale proceeds for both the benefit of the taxpayer whose property the IRS has seized and the public fisc, and affects all sales of property the IRS seizes by levy. The final regulation, as amended, adopts the text of the proposed amendments (REG-127391-16, Oct. 15, 2023) with only minor, nonsubstantive changes.

Code Sec. 6335 governs how the IRS sells seized property and requires the Secretary of the Treasury or her delegate, as soon as practicable after a seizure, to give written notice of the seizure to the owner of the property that was seized. The amended regulation updates the prescribed manner and conditions of sales of seized property to match modern practices. Further, the regulation as updated will benefit taxpayers by making the sales process both more efficient and more likely to produce higher sales prices.

The final regulation provides that the sale will be held at the time and place stated in the notice of sale. Further, the place of an in-person sale must be within the county in which the property is seized. For online sales, Reg. §301.6335-1(d)(1) provides that the place of sale will generally be within the county in which the property is seized. so that a special order is not needed. Additionally, Reg. §301.6335-1(d)(5) provides that the IRS will choose the method of grouping property selling that will likely produce that highest overall sale amount and is most feasible.

The final regulation, as amended, removes the previous requirement that (on a sale of more than $200) the bidder make an initial payment of $200 or 20 percent of the purchase price, whichever is greater. Instead, it provides that the public notice of sale, or the instructions referenced in the notice, will specify the amount of the initial payment that must be made when full payment is not required upon acceptance of the bid. Additionally, Reg. §301.6335-1 updates details regarding permissible methods of sale and personnel involved in sale.

T.D. 10011

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has announced that certain victims of Hurricane Milton, Hurricane Helene, Hurricane Debby, Hurricane Beryl, and Hurricane Francine will receive an additional six months to submit beneficial ownership information (BOI) reports, including updates and corrections to prior reports.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has announced that certain victims of Hurricane Milton, Hurricane Helene, Hurricane Debby, Hurricane Beryl, and Hurricane Francine will receive an additional six months to submit beneficial ownership information (BOI) reports, including updates and corrections to prior reports.

The relief extends the BOI filing deadlines for reporting companies that (1) have an original reporting deadline beginning one day before the date the specified disaster began and ending 90 days after that date, and (2) are located in an area that is designated both by the Federal Emergency Management Agency as qualifying for individual or public assistance and by the IRS as eligible for tax filing relief.

FinCEN Provides Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Relief to Victims of Hurricane Beryl; Certain Filing Deadlines in Affected Areas Extended Six Months (FIN-2024-NTC7)

FinCEN Provides Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Relief to Victims of Hurricane Debby; Certain Filing Deadlines in Affected Areas Extended Six Months (FIN-2024-NTC8)

FinCEN Provides Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Relief to Victims of Hurricane Francine; Certain Filing Deadlines in Affected Areas Extended Six Months (FIN-2024-NTC9)

FinCEN Provides Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Relief to Victims of Hurricane Helene; Certain Filing Deadlines in Affected Areas Extended Six Months (FIN-2024-NTC10)

FinCEN Provides Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Relief to Victims of Hurricane Milton; Certain Filing Deadlines in Affected Areas Extended Six Months (FIN-2024-NTC11)

National Taxpayer Advocate Erin Collins offered her support for recent changes the Internal Revenue Service made to inheritance filing and foreign gifts filing penalties.

National Taxpayer Advocate Erin Collins offered her support for recent changes the Internal Revenue Service made to inheritance filing and foreign gifts filing penalties.

In an October 24, 2024, blog post, Collins noted that the IRS has "ended its practice of automatically assessing penalties at the time of filing for late-filed Forms 3250, Part IV, which deal with reporting foreign gifts and bequests."

She continued: "By the end of the year the IRS will begin reviewing any reasonable cause statements taxpayers attach to late-filed Forms 3520 and 3520-A for the trust portion of the form before assessing any Internal Revenue Code Sec. 6677 penalty."

Collins said this change will "reduce unwarranted assessments and relieve burden on taxpayers" by giving them an opportunity to explain the circumstances for a late file to be considered before the agency takes any punitive action.

She noted this has been a change the Taxpayer Advocate Service has recommended for years and the agency finally made the change. The change is an important one as Collins suggests it will encourage more taxpayers to file corrected returns voluntarily if they can fix a discovered error or mistake voluntarily without being penalized.

"Our tax system should reward taxpayers’ efforts to do the right thing," she wrote. "We all benefit when taxpayers willingly come into the system by filing or correcting their returns."

Collins also noted that there are "numerous examples of taxpayers who received a once-in-a-lifetime tax-free gift or inheritance and were unaware of their reporting requirement. Upon learning of the filing requirement, these taxpayers did the right thing and filed a late information return only to be greeted with substantial penalties, which were automatically assessed by the IRS upon the late filing of the form 3520," which could have penalized taxpayers up to 25 percent of their gift or inheritance despite having no tax obligation related to the gift or inheritance.

She wrote that the abatement rate of these penalties was 67 percent between 2018 and 2021, with an abatement rate of 78 percent of the $179 million in penalties assessed.

"The significant abetment rate illustrates how often these penalties were erroneously assessed," she wrote. "The automatic assessment of the penalties causes undue hardship, burdens taxpayers, and creates unnecessary work for the IRS. Stopping this practice will benefit everyone."

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

With the April 15th filing season deadline now behind us, it’s not too early to turn your attention to next year’s deadline for filing your 2014 return. That refocus requires among other things an awareness of the direct impact that many "ordinary," as well as one-time, transactions and events will have on the tax you will eventually be obligated to pay April 15, 2015. To gain this forward-looking perspective, however, taking a moment to look back … at the filing season that has just ended, is particularly worthwhile. This generally involves a two-step process: (1) a look-back at your 2013 tax return to pinpoint new opportunities as well as "lessons learned;" and (2) a look-back at what has happened in the tax world since January 1st that may indicate new challenges to be faced for the first time on your 2014 return.

Your 2013 Form 1040

Examining your 2013 Form 1040 individual tax return can help you identify certain changes that you might want to consider this year, as well encourage you to continue what you’re doing right. These "key ingredients" to your 2014 return may include, among many others considerations, a fresh look at:

Your refund or balance due. While it is nice to get a big refund check from the IRS, it often indicates unnecessary overpayments over the course of the year that has provided the federal government with an interest-free loan in the form of your money. Now’s the time to investigate the reasons behind a refund and whether you need to take steps to lower wage withholding and/or quarterly estimated tax payments.

If on the other hand you had to pay the IRS when filing your return (or requesting an extension), you should consider whether it was due to a sudden windfall of income that will not repeat itself; or because you no longer have the same itemized deductions, you had a change in marital status, or you claimed a one-time tax credit such as for energy savings or education. Likewise, examining anticipated changes between your 2013 and 2014 tax years—marriage, the birth of a child, becoming a homeowner, retiring, etc.—can help warn you whether your're headed for an underpayment or overpayment of your 2014 tax liability.

Investment income. One area that blindsided many taxpayers on their 2013 returns was the increased tax bill applicable to investment income. Because of the "great recession," many investors had carryforward losses that could offset gains realized for a number of years as markets gradually improved. For many, however, 2013 saw not only a significant rise in investment income but also a rise in realized taxable investment gains that were no longer covered by carryforward losses used up during the 2010–2012 period.

Furthermore, dividends and long-term capital gains for the first time in 2013 were taxed at a new, higher 20 percent rate for higher income taxpayers and an additional 3.8 percent net investment income tax surtax for those in the higher income brackets. Short-term capital gains saw the highest rate jump, from 35 percent to 43.4 percent rate, which reflected a new 39.6 percent regular rate and the new 3.8 percent net investment income tax rate. This tax structure remains in place for 2014.

Personal exemption/itemized deductions. Effective January 1, 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act (ATRA) revived the personal exemption phaseout (PEP). The applicable threshold levels are $250,000 for unmarried taxpayers; $275,000 for heads of households; $300,000 for married couples filing a joint return (and surviving spouses); and $150,000 for married couples filing separate returns (adjusted for inflation after 2013). Likewise, for it revived the limitation on itemized deductions (known as the "Pease" limitation after the member of Congress who sponsored the original legislation) for those same taxpayers.

Medical and dental expenses. Starting in 2013, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) increased the threshold to claim an itemized deduction for unreimbursed medical expenses from 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) to 10 percent of AGI. However, there is a temporary exemption for individuals age 65 and older until December 31, 2016. Qualified individuals may continue to deduct total medical expenses that exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income through 2016. If the qualified individual is married and only one spouse is age 65 or older, the taxpayer may still deduct total medical expenses that exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income.

Recordkeeping. If you cannot find the paperwork necessary to prove your right to a deduction or credit, you cannot claim it. An organized tax recordkeeping system—whether on paper or computerized–therefore is an essential component to maximizing tax savings.

Filing Season Developments

So far this year, the IRS, other federal agencies and the courts have issued guidance on individual and business taxation, retirement savings, foreign accounts, the ACA, and much more. Congress has also been busy working up a "tax extenders" bill as well as tax reform proposals. All these developments can impact how you plan to maximize benefits on your 2014 income tax return.

Tax reform. President Obama, the chairs of the House and Senate tax writing committees, and individual lawmakers all made tax reform proposals in early 2014. The proposals range from comprehensive tax reform to more piece-meal approaches. Although only small, piecemeal proposals have the most promising chances for passage this year, taxpayers should not ignore the broader push toward tax reform that will be taking shape in 2015 and 2016.

Tax extenders. The Senate Finance Committee (SFC) approved legislation (EXPIRE Act) in April that would extend nearly all of the tax extenders that expired after 2013. Included in the EXPIRE Act are individual incentives such as the state and local sales tax deduction, the higher education tuition deduction, transit benefits parity, and the classroom teacher’s deduction; along with business incentives such as enhanced Code 179 small business expensing, bonus depreciation, the research tax credit, and more. Congress may now move quickly on an extenders bill or it may not come up with a compromise until after the November mid-term elections. Many of these tax benefits are significant and will directly impact the 2014 tax that taxpayers will pay.

Individual mandate. The Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate took effect January 1, 2014. Individuals failing to carry minimum essential coverage after January 1, 2014 and who are not exempt from the requirement will make an individual shared responsibility payment when they file their 2014 federal income tax returns in 2015. There are some exemptions, including a hardship exemption if the taxpayer experienced problems in signing up with a Health Insurance Marketplace before March 31, 2014. Further guidance is expected before 2014 tax year returns need to be filed, especially on how to calculate the payment and how to report to the IRS that an individual has minimum essential coverage.

Employer mandate. The ACA’s shared responsibility provision for employers (also known as the “employer mandate”) will generally apply to large employers starting in 2015, rather than the original 2014 launch date. Transition relief provided in February final regulations provides additional time to mid-size employers with 50 or more but fewer than 100 employees, generally delaying implementation until 2016. Employers that employ fewer than 50 full-time or full time equivalent employees are permanently exempt from the employer mandate. The final regulations do not change this treatment under the statute.

Other recent tax developments to be aware of for 2014 planning purposes include:

• IRA rollovers. The IRS announced that, starting in 2015, it intends to follow a one-rollover-per-year limitation on Individual Retirement Account (IRA) rollovers as an aggregate limit.
• myRAs. In January, President Obama directed the Treasury Department to create a new retirement savings vehicle, “myRA,” to be rolled out before 2015.
• Same-sex married couples. In April, the IRS released guidance on how the Supreme Court’s Windsor decision, which struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), applies to qualified retirement plans, opting not to require recognition before June 26, 2013.
• Passive activity losses. The Tax Court found in March that a trust owning rental real estate could qualify for the rental real estate exception to passive activity loss treatment.
• FATCA deadline. The IRS has indicated that it is holding firm on the July 1, 2014, deadline for foreign financial institutions (FFIs) to comply with the FATCA information reporting requirements or withhold 30 percent from payments of U.S.-source income to their U.S. account holders.
• Vehicle depreciation. The IRS announced that inflation-adjusted limitations on depreciation deductions for business use passenger autos, light trucks and vans first placed in service during calendar year 2014 are relatively unchanged from 2013 (except for first year $8,000 bonus depreciation that may be removed if Congress does not act in time.
• Severance payments. In March, the U.S. Supreme Court held that supplemental unemployment benefits (SUB) payments made to terminated employees and not tied to the receipt of state unemployment benefits are wages for FICA tax purposes.
• Virtual currency. The IRS announced that convertible virtual currencies, such as Bitcoin, would be treated as property and not as currency, thus creating immediate tax consequences for those using Bitcoins to pay for goods.

Please contact this office if you’d like further information on how an examination of your 2013 return, and examination of recent tax developments, may point to revised strategies for lowering your eventual tax bill for 2014.

A new tax applies to certain taxpayers, beginning in 2013—the 3.8 percent Net Investment Income (NII) Tax. This is a surtax that certain higher-income taxpayers may owe in addition to their income tax or alternative minimum tax. The tax applies to individuals, estates, and trusts (but not to corporations). Individuals are subject to the tax if they have NII, and their adjusted gross income exceeds a specified threshold—$250,000 for married taxpayers filing jointly; $200,000 for unmarried individuals.

For trusts, the NII tax applies at a much lower income level—the amount at which the highest tax bracket for a trust begins. This may sound high, but in fact, it is not. For 2014, this bracket begins at $12,150. A trust subject to the NII tax may lower or eliminate its potential liability by distributing NII to its beneficiaries, because the tax applies only to the undistributed NII for the year. The tax may then apply to the recipient, but based on the recipient’s income level.

Exempt and nonexempt trusts

Some trusts are exempt from the NII tax: cemetery perpetual care funds; Alaska Native Settlement Trusts electing to be taxed under Code Sec. 646; wholly charitable trusts; and foreign trusts. However, other trusts are not exempt. These include pooled income funds (where individuals donate remainder interests to charity while retaining an income interest); qualified funeral trusts; electing small business trusts; and charitable remainder trusts.

Passive activity

For individuals, trusts, and estates, the tax applies to income from a trade or business that is a passive activity with respect to the taxpayer. A trade or business is not passive if the taxpayer materially participates in the activity (as determined under Code Sec. 469). There is IRS guidance for determining whether an individual materially participates in an activity.

Material participation

The IRS has never provided guidance on how to determine whether a trust or estate materially participates in a trade or business. When the IRS issued final regulations on the NII tax, it said that the issue was under study, but the IRS has not indicated whether it will issue guidance on the issue.

The IRS regulations conclude that the application of the material participation requirements to trust income potentially subject to the NII tax must be determined at the trust level. The treatment of the income as passive or nonpassive, once determined for the trust, flows through to trust beneficiaries who receive a distribution of NII. Thus, if the trust materially participates in the activity that generated the income, the income is nonpassive to both the trust and its beneficiaries, regardless of the age or involvement of the beneficiaries. If the trust did not materially participate, the income is passive to both the trust and its beneficiaries, even if a beneficiary materially participated in the activity.

As virtual currencies such as Bitcoin rise in prominence and use, the IRS has for the first time described how virtual currency will be treated for tax purposes. The agency concluded in new guidance (Notice 2014–21) that Bitcoin and other virtual currencies like it are not to be treated as currency, but as property.

Definition of virtual currency

Actual (or "real") currency is commonly defined as a system of money in general use in a particular country. The U.S. dollar is an example of actual currency. A single definition of virtual currency, on the other hand, has not yet achieved widespread acceptance. Virtual currency (sometimes referred to as "cryptocurrency") is a medium of exchange that operates like actual currency under some circumstances. Currently, virtual currency does not have legal tender status in any jurisdiction.

How virtual currency works

Virtual currency that has an equivalent value in real currency, or that acts as a substitute for real currency, is referred to as "convertible" virtual currency. Currently, the most prominent example of a convertible virtual currency is Bitcoin, which can be digitally traded between users and can be purchased for, or exchanged into, U.S. dollars, Euros, and other real currencies.

A Bitcoin is created, or "mined," electronically, according to a purely mathematical process. A complex computer algorithm is applied. As more and more Bitcoins are mined, the difficulty of doing so will increase, as it becomes computationally more difficult to create them. This process was designed to mimic the production rate of a commodity such as gold.

Companies like BitPay or Coinbase act as intermediaries in Bitcoin transactions. According to Adam White, the Director of Business Development and Sales at Coinbase, over a million customers use Coinbase as their "Bitcoin wallet," allowing Coinbase to accept Bitcoin payments on their behalf using its payment tools. This includes over 28,000 merchants.

Fees associated with virtual currency transactions are relatively small in contrast with higher fees charged to businesses accepting credit cards. Credit card companies generally charge businesses a fee per swipe of the card, plus two to four percent of the total transaction. On the other hand, businesses that use a merchant processor pay fees of one percent, or less, for Bitcoin transactions. However, virtual currencies are volatile and involve high risk. For example, the value of a Bitcoin went from pennies to $1,200 in a five-year period, and then back down to around $500, where it rested as on April 22, 2014.

U.S. tax treatment

The IRS acknowledged that virtual currency may be used to pay for goods or services, or held for investment. The IRS issued guidance providing answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs) about virtual currency, offering Bitcoin as an example. The FAQs at present provide only basic information on the tax implications of transactions in, or using, virtual currency.

Property. Notice 2014–21 states that virtual currency will be treated as property for U.S. federal tax purposes. As such, it is governed by the same general principles that apply to property transactions generally. The sale or exchange of convertible virtual currency, or its use to pay for goods or services in a real-world economy transaction, has immediate tax consequences that would not apply if it were considered pure "legal tender."

Conversion required. A taxpayer who receives virtual currency in payment for goods or services is required to include the fair market value of the virtual currency in computing gross income. This value must be measured in U.S. dollars as of the date the virtual currency was received. The basis in virtual currency is its fair market value on the date of receipt, determined by converting the virtual currency to U.S. dollars (or another real currency which can be converted into U.S. dollars) at the applicable exchange rate in a reasonable manner that is consistently applied.

Capital gain or ordinary income. The character of gain or loss from the sale or exchange of virtual currency depends on whether the virtual currency is a capital asset in the hands of the taxpayer. If the virtual currency is held as inventory, for example, for sale to customers in a trade or business, gain or loss on its disposition will be ordinary gain or loss. If the virtual currency is held as an investment, gain or loss on its disposition will be capital in nature.

It remains unclear whether Bitcoins will be treated as "coins" for purposes of the 28 percent capital gains rate on collectibles; or whether they will be considered a permitted investment within individual retirement accounts or in other, similar circumstances.

A taxpayer who creates, or mines, virtual currency realizes gross income on receipt of the virtual currency resulting from that activity. The fair market value of the virtual currency as of that date is includible in gross income.

Information reporting. A payment made using virtual currency is subject to information reporting to the same extent as any other payment made in property. Thus, a person who makes a payment of fixed and determinable income using virtual currency with a value in excess of $600 to a U.S. non-exempt recipient is required to report the payment to the IRS and to the payee. This includes payment of rent, salaries, wages, premiums, annuities, and compensation.

Wages paid to employees using virtual currency are taxable to the employee, must be reported by an employer on a Form W–2, and are subject to federal income tax withholding. Also, payments using virtual currency made to independent contractors and other service providers are taxable, and self-employment tax rules generally apply to such payments. Payers using virtual currency must normally issue Form 1099 to the payee.

Penalties. Taxpayers who fail to report their income from virtual currency may potentially be subject to tax penalties. At the April 2 House Committee’s Bitcoin hearing, L. Michael Couvillion, Professor, Plymouth State University, New Hampshire, pointed out that taxpayers who treated virtual currencies inconsistently with IRS Notice 2014–21 before it was issued will not receive penalty relief unless they can establish that their underpayment or failure to properly file information returns was due to reasonable cause. This will require many businesses and individuals to go back and determine the existence of gain or loss on transactions that occurred in the past, perhaps several years in the past.

The applicable federal rates (AFRs) are used for a number of federal tax provisions. For example, Code Sec. 1274 uses AFRs to determine whether a debt instrument has original issue discount (OID or imputed interest). This determination requires the calculation of the present value of payments made on the debt instrument; present value is calculated using a discount rate equal to the AFR, compounded semi-annually.

Determining AFRs

AFRs are based on the average market yield on outstanding marketable obligations of the United States government. Under Code Sec. 1274(d), the AFR includes the federal short-term rate (based on the interest rates for debt instruments of three years or less); the federal mid-term rate (based on the rates for debt instruments of three to nine years); and the federal long-term rate (based on the rates for debt instruments exceeding nine years).

The IRS computes AFRs for each calendar month and publishes them in a revenue ruling. As an example, Rev. Rul. 2014–1, published January 6, 2014, provided the AFRs for January 2014. AFRs may be compounded (and therefore applied) monthly, quarterly, semiannually, or annually. In addition, some amounts are calculated using a higher percentage of the basic AFR. The monthly revenue rulings provide AFRs equal to 110 percent of the base AFR, 120 percent, 130 percent, 150 percent, and 175 percent.

Applying AFRs

The Tax Code uses AFRs to determine appropriate amounts under a multitude of provisions. These include:

• The present value of an annuity, life interest, term of years interest, remainder interest, or reversionary interest under Code Sec. 7520;
• Loans with below-market interest rates, under Code Sec. 7872 (the applicable rate depending on the term of the loan);
• Insurance reserves under Code Sec. 807, as well as insurance provisions under Code Secs. 811 and 812;
• The present value of golden parachute payments under Code Sec. 280G (120 percent of the AFR, compounded semiannually);
• Payments for the use of property or services under Code Sec. 467;
• Unrelated business income and debt-financed income under Code Sec. 514; and
• The recharacterization of gain from straddles under Code Sec. 1058.

The AFR revenue rulings also provide adjusted AFRs, which are used to determine the Code Sec. 382 limits on NOLs following ownership changes, and to determine OID on tax-exempt obligations under Code Sec. 1288.

Code Sec. 162 permits a business to deduct its ordinary and necessary expenses for carrying on the business. However, Code Sec. 274 restricts the deduction of entertainment expenses incurred for business by disallowing expenses of entertainment activities and entertainment facilities. Many expenses are totally disallowed; other amounts, if allowed under Code Sec. 274, are limited to 50 percent of the expense.

The income tax regulations define entertainment as any activity of a type generally considered to be entertainment, amusement, or recreation, such as entertaining at night clubs, lounges, theaters, country clubs, golf and athletic clubs, and sports events, as well as hunting, fishing, vacation and similar trips. There are special rules for the costs of facilities used to entertain the customer, such as a boat or a country club membership. Dues or fees for any social, athletic or sporting club or organization are treated as items involving facilities.

Deduction allowed

Expenses are allowed if the expense was either "directly related" to the active conduct of the taxpayer’s trade or business, or "associated with" the conduct of the trade or business. An activity is "associated with" business if the activity directly precedes or follows a substantial and bona fide business discussion.

Entertainment expenses are not directly related to the business if the activity occurred under circumstances with little or no possibility of engaging in the active conduct of the trade or business. These circumstances include an activity where the distractions are substantial, such as a meeting or discussion at a night club, theater, or sporting event. However, taking a customer to a meal at a restaurant or for drinks at a bar can be considered conducive to a business discussion, if there are no substantial distractions to a discussion.

Substantial business discussion

For expenses that are either directly related to or associated with business, the taxpayer must establish that the he or she conducted a substantial and bona fide business discussion with the customer. The IRS has said that there is no specified length for a discussion to be substantial; all facts and circumstances will be considered. The discussion is substantial if the active conduct of the business was the principal character of the combined business and entertainment activity, but it is not necessary that more time be devoted to business than to entertainment.

For an activity that is associated with, the discussion can directly precede or follow the activity. For a discussion to be directly before or after the activity, it generally must be on the same day as the activity. However, facts and circumstances may allow the entertainment and the discussion to be on consecutive days, for example if the customer is from out of town.

Season tickets

The special rules for facilities do not apply to season tickets. Instead, the taxpayer must allocate the cost of the season tickets to each separate entertainment event. The amount deductible is limited to the face value of the ticket. For a "skybox" or other area leased and used exclusively by the taxpayer and guests, the amount deductible is limited to the face value of non-luxury seats for the area covered by the lease.

Under these rules, it appears that the deductible costs of baseball season tickets must be determined separately for each baseball game. Attendance at a baseball game would involve a "distracting" activity that is not conducive to a business discussion, so the cost of the game would not be directly related to the conduct of the trade or business. However, attendance at a game before or after the conduct of a substantial business discussion could qualify as being associated with the business; in these circumstances, the cost of the event would be deductible.

If the taxpayer provided food to the customer at the baseball game, the cost of the food would be deductible as part of the cost of the event. Some "luxury" seats include food provided by the baseball team to the ticket user. It appears that the taxpayer would have to determine the fair market value of the ticket and the food separately, although the costs of food actually provided to the customer may still be deductible.

The current likelihood that your business will become involved in an employment tax audit or an employment-related income tax audit has increased: the IRS is aggressively attempting to reduce the "tax gap" of uncollected revenues in a time of increasing budget austerity. Employment tax noncompliance is estimated by the IRS to account for approximately $54 billion of the tax gap. Under-reporting of FICA makes up $14 billion; under-reporting of self-employment tax accounts for $39 billion; and under-reporting of unemployment tax accounts for $1 billion in lost revenue. Add to that total amount over $50 billion in estimated employment-associated income tax lost that is the result of missteps in withholding obligations, tip reporting, and proper fringe benefit classification . . . and employers are forewarned. The IRS is stepping up its auditing in these areas and has been conducting studies to maximize the best use of its agents' time to do so.

Latest audit survey

The IRS is conducting an intensive audit of 6,000 employment tax returns to obtain an up-to-date picture of taxpayers' employment tax practices. This will enable the IRS to better devote its compliance resources to the most important areas of noncompliance and to the taxpayers most likely not to be in compliance.

Based on these audits, the IRS's Chief of Employment Tax Policy has spotlighted several areas of concern that the IRS will focus on. These areas include backup withholding, tip reporting, worker classification, and fringe benefit reporting.

Backup withholding. Backup withholding is the number one problem uncovered in the audits. The IRS can impose backup withholding on income reported on Forms 1099 that is not ordinarily subject to withholding, such as interest, dividends, and nonemployee compensation. Failure to provide a taxpayer identification number (TIN) on the Form 1099, an incorrect TIN, or a TIN that does not match the name on the form can trigger backup withholding. A taxpayer's failure to report the income can also trigger backup withholding.

Tip reporting. Tip reporting is a major concern of the IRS. The IRS considers noncompliance a widespread problem, especially for small businesses that are not aware of the issues. The IRS has been focusing on educating employers, and is not auditing employment tax returns filed before 2014. An important issue is the failure to differentiate between service charges and tips. A payment that is automatically added to a bill may be a service charge. A service charge is characterized as Social Security wages, rather than Social Security tips. The distinction is important, because employers can claim a Social Security credit for FICA obligations attributable to tips that exceed the minimum wage, but cannot claim a credit for taxes paid on service charges.

Worker misclassification. To avoid FICA and FUTA taxes and income tax withholding, some employers intentionally classify employees as independent contractors. This has been a longstanding concern for the IRS, and the recent audits have shown that the problem continues. The agency regularly conducts employment tax audits to reclassify workers as employees. To facilitate reclassification to employee status, the IRS has two settlement programs for employers: the Classification Settlement Program (CSP) for taxpayers under audit, and the Voluntary Classification Settlement Program (VCSP) for companies that are not under an employment tax audit and meet other requirements. The IRS has received 1,550 applications under the VCSP and has reclassified approximately 25,000 workers. Companies that agree to prospectively treat workers as employees generally pay reduced taxes and may get audit protection for past years.

Fringe benefit reporting. Fringe benefits can be cash or noncash benefits provided in addition to regular wages. As a compliance matter, fringe benefits are taxable and must be included in the recipient's income, unless the Tax Code specifically excludes the benefit from taxable income. Moreover, if the recipient is an employee, the value of the benefit is additional compensation subject to employment taxes. Fringe benefits can be a particular problem for small companies, where owners seek to reduce their taxable income by taking noncash benefits, such as the use of company vehicles. A bargain sale of a house to an employee could also generate taxable income subject to employment taxes.

Conclusions

Employment taxes present an increasing risk to employers as the IRS steps up focuses on what it suspects is a heretofore largely untapped source of revenue. The IRS is certain to use the data now being harvested through its latest audit surveys. Many employers may do well to review how their employment tax compliance now measures up to this new degree of scrutiny.

Tax reform, frequently discussed in Washington, got a boost from two recent proposals, one from the chair of the House tax writing committee and another from the White House. Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, released a massive tax reform bill in late February. In early March, President Obama released his fiscal year (FY) 2015 budget proposals, detailing over 160 tax proposals. Both proposals share some similarities but also key differences.

Camp's plan

Camp unveiled a sweeping tax reform plan (the Tax Reform Act of 2014) that would leave almost no part of the Tax Code unchanged. Everyone-individuals, businesses, exempt-organizations, governmental entities-would be impacted in one way or another. Some of Camp's far-reaching proposals are:

• Consolidation of individual tax brackets
• Higher standard deduction
• Increased child tax credit
• Revised treatment of capital gains and dividends with a 40 percent exemption
• Repeal of alternative minimum tax (AMT)
• Consolidated education tax incentives
• Simplified tax return for seniors
• Reform of charitable contribution deduction
• Modified home mortgage interest deduction
• Top corporate tax rate of 25 percent
• Reform of rules for depreciation
• Permanent research tax credit
• Reform of the casualty loss rules

To pay for lower tax rates, Camp's proposal would repeal many popular current tax incentives for individuals. They include the state and local sales tax deduction, higher education tuition deduction, student loan interest deduction, residential energy efficiency credits, adoption credit, and the itemized medical expense deduction. Many tax-advantage benefits of retirement plans would be curtailed or eliminated. Businesses also would lose many tax incentives, such as the Code Sec. 199 domestic production activities deduction, credits for production of fossil and alternative fuels, and the Work Opportunity Tax Credit. Camp's plan would also repeal the like-kind exchange rules, the last-in, first-out (LIFO) method of accounting, and reform the rules for the treatment of travel and entertainment expenses. The foreign tax system would also be overhauled.

Camp did not propose to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Camp did, however, propose to repeal the Affordable Care Act's medical excise tax and prohibition of using health FSA dollars for over-the-counter medications. Camp has supported separate bills to delay the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate but did not address this in his tax reform plan.

Obama's proposals

President Obama's FY 2015 budget renews a number of past proposals and makes some new proposals. New proposals include significant enhancements to the child tax credit and the earned income credit. President Obama did not go so far as Camp to propose reducing the number of individual tax brackets but he did call for reducing the value of certain exclusions and deductions for higher income individuals and imposing a minimum tax rate of 30 percent on individuals with adjusted gross incomes above $1 million. For homeowners, the President proposed to extend the now-expired exclusion for cancellation of certain home mortgage debt. In the education area, the President called on Congress to make permanent the AOTC.

As in his past budget proposals, President Obama also signaled his willingness to reduce the corporate tax rate but businesses would need to give up some tax incentives in exchange. These could include many of the so-called business tax extenders, such as special expensing rules for television productions, environmental remediation and similar ones. The President did propose to permanently increase Code Sec. 179 small business expensing to $500,000 with a $2 million investment limit. However, bonus depreciation would not be extended.

Outlook

Several of the President's proposals are similar to ones from Camp. The President called for repealing the last-in, first-out (LIFO) method of accounting and many fossil fuel preferences. A new proposal would limit the amount of capital gain deferred under Code Sec. 1031 from a like-kind exchange of real property to $1 million per taxpayer per year, effective for exchanges completed after December 31, 2014. Both the President and Camp proposed to make permanent the research tax credit. They differed significantly on which other temporary incentives to continue or eliminate.

The GOP-controlled House is not expected to take up many of President Obama's proposals, with the possible exception of some tax administration changes. The President's budget received a more enthusiastic response from Senate Democrats, but passage in the Senate requires a supermajority of 60 votes, which Democrats lack. The outlook for Camp's proposals is equally murky. As chair of the Ways and Means Committee, Camp may schedule hearings on his plan but the House GOP leadership ultimately must bring the bill to the full House for a vote, and it is unlikely to do so this year.

If you have any questions about the President's proposals or Camp's bill, please contact our office.

In January, the U.S. Tax Court threw a curve ball in many retirement planning strategies. The court held that a taxpayer could make only one nontaxable rollover contribution within each one-year period regardless of how many IRAs the taxpayer has. The court found that the one-year limitation under Code Sec. 408(d)(3)(B) is not specific to any single IRA owned by an individual but instead applies to all IRAs owned by a taxpayer. The court's decision was a departure from a long-time understanding of IRS rules and publications and, for several weeks after, it was unclear what approach the IRS would take. Now, the IRS has announced that it will follow the court's decision and revise its rules and publications. Everyone contemplating an IRA rollover needs to be aware of this important development.

Rollovers

Individuals have traditionally enjoyed flexibility in moving their retirement savings from one type of retirement plan to another type of plan. A rollover is a transfer of a distribution received from an IRA or other retirement plan by the recipient to another IRA or type of retirement plan owned by the same recipient. A rollover has important tax considerations. The amount distributed is not included in the recipient's income if the distribution is transferred to an eligible arrangement within 60 days after it is received. In certain cases, the 60-day period may be extended by the IRS.

Generally, only the owner of the IRA may roll over an amount. A surviving spouse who receives a distribution after the death of the account owner can make rollovers to the same extent as the account owner could have. There are also special rules for Roth IRAs and other retirement arrangements.

Tax Court case

In Bobrow, TC Memo. 2014-21, a married couple received distributions from more than one IRA in 2008. The couple claimed that they could make more than one tax-free rollover. The Tax Court disagreed.

The court found that Code Sec. 408(d)(3)(B) limits the frequency with which a taxpayer may make a nontaxable rollover contribution. The one-year limitation is not specific to any single IRA a taxpayer has but instead applies to all of the taxpayer's IRAs. If Congress had intended to allow individuals to take nontaxable distributions from multiple IRAs per year, the court found that Code Sec. 408(d)(3)(B) would have been worded differently.

Immediately after the decision, many benefits professionals pointed out that the IRS's rules and publications appeared to be contrary to the court's decision. In particular, many taxpayers noted that IRS Publication 590, Individual Retirement Plans, seemed to say that multiple rollovers were permissible if taken from different accounts.

IRS action

The IRS intends to amend the existing rules and revise Publication 590 to clarify that it will adopt the court's decision. Additionally, many IRA trustees, the IRS explained, may need time to make changes to reflect Bobrow. Therefore, in a relief measure, the IRS will not apply the Tax Court's decision to any rollover that involves an IRA distribution occurring before January 1, 2015.

Trustee-to-trustee transfers

A rollover must be distinguished from a trustee-to-trustee transfer. The Tax Court explained in its opinion that individuals who maintain more than one IRA may make multiple direct rollovers from the trustee of one IRA to the trustee of another IRA without triggering the one-year limit under Code Sec. 408(d)(3)(B). Transferring funds directly between trustees, the court found, does not result in a distribution within the meaning of Code Sec. 408(d)(3)(A). Since the funds are not within the direct control and use of the participant, they are not considered to be rollovers.

Planning

The court's decision and the IRS's action may impact your retirement planning. Keep in mind also that trustee-to-trustee transfers are not affected by the court's decision, which leaves some flexibility intact for planning. If you have any questions about IRA rollovers, please contact our office.

One of the most complex, if not the most complex, provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is the employer shared responsibility requirement (the so-called "employer mandate") and related reporting of health insurance coverage. Since passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, the Obama administration has twice delayed the employer mandate and reporting. The employer mandate and reporting will generally apply to applicable large employers (ALE) starting in 2015 and to mid-size employers starting in 2016. Employers with fewer than 50 employees, have never been required, and continue to be exempt, from the employer mandate and reporting.

Employer mandate

The employer mandate under Code Sec. 4980H and employer reporting under Code Sec. 6056 are very connected. Code Sec. 4980H generally provides that an ALE is required to pay a penalty if it fails to offer minimum essential coverage and any full-time employee receives cost-sharing or the Code Sec. 36B premium assistance tax credit. An ALE would also pay a penalty if it offers coverage and any full-time employee receives cost-sharing or the Code Sec. 36B credit.

To receive the Code Sec. 36B credit, an individual must have obtained coverage through an Affordable Care Act Marketplace. The Marketplaces will report the names of individuals who receive the credit to the IRS. ALEs must report the terms and conditions of health care coverage provided to employees (This is known as Code Sec. 6056 reporting). The IRS will use all of this information to determine if the ALE must pay a penalty.

ALEs

Only ALEs are subject to the employer mandate and must report health insurance coverage under Code Sec. 6056. Employers with fewer than 50 employees are never subject to the employer mandate and do not have to report coverage under Code Sec. 6056.

In February, the Obama administration announced important transition rules for the employer mandate that affects Code Sec. 6056 reporting. The Obama administration limited the employer mandate in 2015 to employers with 100 or more full-time employees. ALEs with fewer than 100 full-time employees will be subject to the employer mandate starting in 2016. At all times, employers with fewer than 50 full-time employees are exempt from the employer mandate and Code Sec. 6056 reporting.

Reporting

The IRS has issued regulations describing how ALEs will report health insurance coverage. The IRS has not yet issued any of the forms that ALEs will use but has advised that ALEs generally will report the requisite information to the agency electronically.

ALEs also must provide statements to employees. The statements will describe, among other things, the coverage provided to the employee.

30-Hour Threshold

A fundamental question for the employer mandate and Code Sec. 6056 reporting is who is a full-time employee. Since passage of the Affordable Care Act, the IRS and other federal agencies have issued much guidance to answer this question. The answer is extremely technical and there are many exceptions but generally a full-time employee means, with respect to any month, an employee who is employed on average at least 30 hours of service per week. The IRS has designed two methods for determining full-time employee status: the monthly measurement method and the look-back measurement method. However, special rules apply to seasonal workers, student employees, volunteers, individuals who work on-call, and many more. If you have any questions about who is a full-time employee, please contact our office.

Form W-2 reporting

The Affordable Care Act also requires employers to disclose the aggregate cost of employer-provided health coverage on an employee's Form W-2. This requirement is separate from the employer mandate and Code Sec. 6056 reporting. The reporting of health insurance costs on Form W-2 is for informational purposes only. It does not affect an employee's tax liability or an employer's liability for the employer mandate.

Shortly after the Affordable Care Act was passed, the IRS provided transition relief to small employers that remains in effect today. An employer is not subject the reporting requirement for any calendar year if the employer was required to file fewer than 250 Forms W-2 for the preceding calendar year. Special rules apply to multiemployer plans, health reimbursement arrangements, and many more.

Please contact our office if you have any questions about ALEs, the employer mandate or Code Sec. 6056 reporting.

Mid-size employers may be eligible for recently announced transition relief from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's employer shared responsibility requirements. Final regulations issued by the IRS in late January include transition relief for mid-size employers for 2015. Mid-size employers for this relief are defined generally as businesses employing at least 50 but fewer than 100 full-time employees. Exceptions and complicated measurement rules continue to apply. The final regulations also describe the treatment of seasonal employees, volunteer workers, student employees, the calculation of the employer shared responsibility payment, and much more.

Mid-size employers may be eligible for recently announced transition relief from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's employer shared responsibility requirements. Final regulations issued by the IRS in late January include transition relief for mid-size employers for 2015. Mid-size employers for this relief are defined generally as businesses employing at least 50 but fewer than 100 full-time employees. Exceptions and complicated measurement rules continue to apply. The final regulations also describe the treatment of seasonal employees, volunteer workers, student employees, the calculation of the employer shared responsibility payment, and much more.

Delayed implementation

As enacted in 2010, the Affordable Care Act required applicable large employers (ALEs) to make an assessable payment if any full-time employee is certified to receive a health insurance premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction, and either:

• The employer does not offer to its full-time employees and their dependents the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage (MEC) under an eligible employer-sponsored plan; or
• The employer offers its full-time employees and their dependents the opportunity to enroll in MEC under an employer-sponsored plan, but the coverage is either unaffordable or does not provide minimum value.

The employer shared responsibility requirement was scheduled to apply January 1, 2014, the same effective date for the individual mandate and the health insurance premium assistance tax credit. In July 2013, the Obama administration announced that employer shared responsibility requirements would not apply for 2014.

The final regulations make further changes. Under the final regulations, the employer mandate will generally apply to large employers (employers with 100 or more employees) starting in 2015 and to qualified mid-size employers (employers with 50 to 99 employees) starting in 2016. Employers that employ fewer than 50 full-time employees (including full-time equivalents (FTEs)) are not subject to the employer mandate.

Caution. Determining the number of employees for purposes of the employer shared responsibility requirement is a complex calculation for many employers that is beyond the scope of this article. The Affordable Care Act and the final regulations describe how to calculate full-time employees (including FTEs) and also which employees are excluded from that calculation. Please contact our office for details about the Affordable Care Act and your business.

Transition relief for mid-size employers

Qualified employers are not subject to the employer mandate until 2016 if they satisfy certain conditions. Among other requirements, the employer must employ on average at least 50 full-time employees (including FTEs) but fewer than 100 full-time employees (including FTEs) on business days during 2014. Additionally, the final regulations impose a broad maintenance of previously offered heath coverage requirement.

The final regulations do not allow an employer to reduce the size of its workforce or the overall hours of service of its employees in order to satisfy the workforce size condition and thus be eligible for the transition relief. A reduction in workforce size or overall hours of service for bona fide business reasons, however, will not be considered to have been made in order to satisfy the workforce size condition. This provision is certainly one that is expected to generate many questions. The IRS may provide additional guidance and/or clarification in 2014 and our office will keep you posted of developments.

Additionally, the final regulations also modify the extent of required coverage. Proposed regulations required that the employer provide coverage to 95 percent of its full-time employees. The final regulations delay the 95 percent requirement until 2016 for larger employers. For 2015, larger employers need only provide coverage to 70 percent of their full-time employees.

Special types of employees

Since passage of the Affordable Care Act, questions have arisen about the treatment of certain types of employees. These include seasonal employees, short-term employees, volunteer workers, and student employees. The final regulations clarify some of the issues surrounding these employees.

Many industries employ seasonal workers. The final regulations describe who may qualify as a seasonal worker. The retail industry, which employs many workers for the holiday season, asked the IRS to specify which events or periods of time that would be treated as holiday seasons. The final regulations, however, do not indicate specific holidays or the length of any holiday season as these will differ for different employers, the IRS explained.

For volunteer workers, such as volunteer fire fighters and first responders, the final regulations provide that an individual's hours of service do not include hours worked as a "bona fide volunteer." This definition, the IRS explained, encompasses any volunteer who is an employee of a government entity or a Code Sec. 501(c)(3) organization whose compensation is limited to reimbursement of certain expenses or other forms of compensation.

Many college, university and vocational students are engaged in federal and state work-study programs. The final regulations provide that hours of service for purposes of the employer mandate do not include hours of service performed by students in federal or other governmental work-study programs. The IRS noted the potential for abuse by labeling individuals who receive compensation as "interns" to avoid the employer mandate. Therefore, the IRS did not adopt a special rule for student employees working as interns for an outside employer, and the general rules apply.

The final regulations also describe how the employer mandate may or may not apply to adjunct faculty, members of religious orders, airline industry employees, employees who must work “on-call” hours, short-term employees and others. Special rules may apply to these employees in some cases.

Waiting period limitation

The Affordable Care Act generally requires that an employee (or dependent) cannot wait more than 90 days before employer-provided coverage becomes effective. The IRS issued final regulations in February on the 90-day waiting period limitation. The IRS also issued proposed regulations generally allowing employers to require new employees to complete a reasonable orientation period. The proposed regulations set forth one month as the maximum length of any orientation period.

If you have any questions about the final regulations for the employer mandate, the transition relief, the 90-day waiting period, or any aspects of the Affordable Care Act, please contact our office.

TD 9655, TD 9656, NPRM REG-122706-12

The IRS's final "repair" regulations became effective January 1, 2014. The regulations provide a massive revision to the rules on capitalizing and deducting costs incurred with respect to tangible property. The regulations apply to amounts paid to acquire, produce or improve tangible property; every business is affected, especially those with significant fixed assets.

The IRS's final "repair" regulations became effective January 1, 2014. The regulations provide a massive revision to the rules on capitalizing and deducting costs incurred with respect to tangible property. The regulations apply to amounts paid to acquire, produce or improve tangible property; every business is affected, especially those with significant fixed assets.

Required and elective changes

There is a lot of work ahead for most taxpayers to comply with the new rules. There are three categories of changes under the regulations:

• Changes that are required and are retroactive, with full adjustments under Code Sec. 481(a), in effect applying the regulations to previous years;
• Required changes with modified or prospective Code Sec. 481(a) adjustment beginning in 2014; and
• Elective changes that do not require any adjustments under Code Sec. 481.

Required changes with full adjustments include unit of property changes, deducting repairs (including the routine maintenance safe harbor), deducting dealer expenses that facilitate the sale of property, the optional method for rotable spare parts, capitalizing improvements and capitalizing certain acquisition or production costs. Elective changes can include capitalizing repair and maintenance costs of they are capitalized for financial accounting purposes.

Rev. Proc. 2014-16

The IRS issued Rev. Proc. 2014-16, granting automatic consent to taxpayers to change their accounting methods to comply with the final regulations. Rev. Proc. 2014-16 applies to all the significant provisions in the final regulations, such as repairs and improvements; materials and supplies, including rotable and temporary spare parts; and costs that have to be capitalized as improvements. Rev. Proc. 2014-16 supersedes Rev. Proc. 2012-19, which applied to changes made under the temporary and proposed repair regulations issued at the end of 2011.

There are 14 automatic method changes provided by Rev. Proc. 2014-16 for the repair regulations. Taxpayers may file for automatic consent on a single Form 3115, even if they are making changes in more than area. The normal scope limitations on changing accounting methods do not apply to a taxpayer making one or more changes for any tax year beginning before January 1, 2015. Scope changes would normally apply if the taxpayer is under examination, is in the final year of a trade or business, or is changing the same accounting method it changed in the previous five years.

Filing deadlines

For past years, taxpayers can apply the 2011 proposed and temporary (TD 9564) regulations or the 2013 final regulations to either 2012 or 2013, and can do this on a section-by-section basis. Taxpayers that decide to apply the final or temporary regulations to 2013 must file for an automatic change of accounting method (Form 3115) by September 15, 2014. Taxpayers applying the regulations to 2014 must file for an automatic change by September 15, 2015. (Both dates apply to calendar-year taxpayers.) The government has indicated it is unlikely to postpone the effective date of the regulations.

Dispositions

Rev. Proc. 2014-16 does not apply to dispositions of tangible property. The government issued reproposed regulations in this area (NPRM REG-110732-13). Although these regulations may not be finalized until later in 2014, the IRS expects to issue Rev. Proc. 2014-17 before then to allow taxpayers to make automatic accounting method changes under the proposed regulations. The procedure will provide some relief by allowing taxpayers to revoke general asset account elections that they made under the temporary regulations. No comments were submitted on these proposed regulations; it is likely the final regulations will not have any significant changes.

Yes. Identity theft is a growing problem and the start of the return filing season is one of the peak times for identity thieves filing fraudulent returns. Criminals file false returns early to get refunds and unsuspecting taxpayers are unaware their identities have been stolen until they file their returns. Individuals who believe they have been victims of identity theft should immediately alert their tax professional and the IRS. The IRS has a number of programs in place to assist victims of identity theft.

Yes. Identity theft is a growing problem and the start of the return filing season is one of the peak times for identity thieves filing fraudulent returns. Criminals file false returns early to get refunds and unsuspecting taxpayers are unaware their identities have been stolen until they file their returns. Individuals who believe they have been victims of identity theft should immediately alert their tax professional and the IRS. The IRS has a number of programs in place to assist victims of identity theft.

Identity theft

Identity theft has been the number one consumer complaint to the Federal Tax Commission for 13 consecutive years, and tax identity theft has been an increasing share of the FTC's identity theft complaints. In 2010, tax identity theft accounted for 15 percent of the FTC's identity theft complaints from consumers, while in 2011 it made up 24 percent of the overall identity theft complaints. In 2012, tax identity theft accounted for more than 43 percent of the identity theft complaints, making it the largest category of identity theft complaints. The IRS has reported similar growth in this troubling problem.

Identity theft occurs when a criminal uses the personal information of another to commit fraud or other crimes. Personal information includes an individual's name, date of birth, Social Security number, bank account numbers, credit card numbers, personal identification numbers, and other identifying information.

In tax identity theft, a criminal typically uses a taxpayer's identity to fraudulently file a tax return and claim a refund. The identity thief has obtained the taxpayer's Social Security Number and other personal information. As mentioned, identity thieves attempt to get a refund early in the filing season. The taxpayer discovers that a false return has been filed when he or she files a genuine return.

IRS actions

The IRS has set up a special Identity Theft Protection Specialized Unit. These employees are the first responders in assisting taxpayers whose identities have been stolen. The IRS will take a report, and request that the victim complete a special form (IRS ID Theft Affidavit Form 14039). This special form requires the taxpayer to briefly describe the events giving rise to the identity theft. The taxpayer also must provide proof of his or her identity by submitting photocopies of identifying documents, such as a passport, driver's license or other valid federal or state government-issued identification.

The IRS is assigning special identity protection personal identification numbers (IP PINs) to victims of identity theft to use when filing their returns. An IP PIN is a unique six-digit number and is assigned annually to victims of identity theft. During the 2014 filing season, the IRS reported that it expects to provide more than 1.2 million identity theft victims with an IP PIN, up from more than 770,000 in 2013.

Additionally, the IRS has overhauled its identity theft screening filters to spot suspected fraudulent returns before they are processed. After a suspected fraudulent return is flagged, the IRS will hold the return for further processing until the agency verifies it is a true return. If you receive a notice from the IRS, please contact our office immediately.

If you have any questions about protecting yourself from identity theft or the IRS's activities to curb tax return identity theft, please contact our office.

Many taxpayers find the ability to carry back a net operating loss (NOL) one of the most business-friendly provisions in the Tax Code. This is often true for new businesses. In times of economic difficulty, Congress has even relaxed the NOL carryback rules. However, there may be times when it is tax-advantaged not to carry back an NOL.

Many taxpayers find the ability to carry back a net operating loss (NOL) one of the most business-friendly provisions in the Tax Code. This is often true for new businesses. In times of economic difficulty, Congress has even relaxed the NOL carryback rules. However, there may be times when it is tax-advantaged not to carry back an NOL.

NOLs

An NOL arises when allowed deductions exceed a taxpayer's gross income for a tax year. An NOL can be generated from business activity losses as a sole proprietor or partner in a partnership, among other activities. The rules for NOLs differ for different types of business structures. Generally, taxpayers can carry back an NOL for two years and then carry it forward for 20 years.

The decision not to carry back an NOL can be influenced by a variety of factors. These include the tax rates that may have been applicable to the years in which the NOL would be carried back. Taxpayers also need to consider the impact that an NOL would have on deductions, exemptions and credits. Taxpayers may also need to weigh the benefits of carrying back an NOL against the benefits of carryovers for other deductions.

Election

The election not to carry back an NOL is made by attaching a statement to a timely filed (including extensions) return for the year in which the NOL arose. The election must state that it is made under Code Sec. 172 and provide sufficient information to identify the election, the period to which it applies and the taxpayer's basis or entitlement for the election.

The tax rules do not allow taxpayers to relinquish a portion of an NOL. The election must be to forgo the entire NOL. However, in certain limited cases, such as farming losses, there is some flexibility in the rules. The election also must relinquish the entire carryback period.

Once made, the election to relinquish an NOL carryback cannot be revoked without the permission of the IRS. However, there have been exceptions such as under the Worker, Homeownership and Business Assistance Act of 2009, which allowed taxpayers to revoke a previously made election not to carryback an NOL in order to take advantage of an extended carryback period under that law.

If you have any questions about electing not to carry back an NOL, please contact our office.

Taxpayers using real estate in their business often can generate significant tax savings and increase cash flow by using the technique of cost segregation. Cost segregation is the identification and separate depreciation of personal property components and land improvements. Like its predecessor, component depreciation, cost segregation allows a taxpayer to separately depreciate various elements of a building more rapidly than the underlying building itself.

Taxpayers using real estate in their business often can generate significant tax savings and increase cash flow by using the technique of cost segregation. Cost segregation is the identification and separate depreciation of personal property components and land improvements. Like its predecessor, component depreciation, cost segregation allows a taxpayer to separately depreciate various elements of a building more rapidly than the underlying building itself.

Real and personal property

Under MACRS, a building must be depreciated over 27.5 years (residential rental property) or 39 years (nonresidential real property), using the straight-line method. Cost segregation allows depreciation and recovery of the cost of personal property elements of the building over five to seven years, using an accelerated depreciation method (200-percent declining balance). Components that are not classified as personal property must be included in the building’s basis and depreciated over the appropriate period as real property.

Building elements are eligible for cost segregation if they are considered personal property under Code Sec. 1245 and under the former investment tax credit rules of Code Sec. 38. Classification as personal property under state law can also avoid state and local real property taxes.

Cost segregation study

To use cost segregation, the taxpayer must obtain a cost segregation study, which may be conducted by a cost segregation specialist. The specialist will conduct a feasibility study to determine whether a cost segregation study can provide tax savings. The building must be inspected, and the study must identify the components that may qualify as depreciable personal property. The actual installed cost of the component must be obtained.

The items of personal property must be identified in the study. The study should also provide the legal authority (regulations, cases, rulings, etc.) for treating an item as personal property or a land improvement, and should explain the methodology for determining the property’s depreciable basis.

Ideally, the study should be conducted before the building is placed in service (e.g. when the building is under construction or at the time of purchase), although the study can be conducted after a building is placed in service. The building does not have to be new. If the building is being purchased, the sales contract can allocate the sales price between real and personal property.

Stock held by an investor is a capital asset under the tax law. Gain from the sale of stock held for more than a year qualifies as long-term capital gain, taxed at a reduced rate (zero, 15 or 20 percent) compared to the rates that apply to ordinary income. To achieve these favorable rates, investors generally want to hold their stock for more than a year. (Note: Depending on economic conditions, an investor may decide it is better to lock-in gains by selling the stock, even if the holding period is one year or less and the gains would be short-term.)

Stock held by an investor is a capital asset under the tax law. Gain from the sale of stock held for more than a year qualifies as long-term capital gain, taxed at a reduced rate (zero, 15 or 20 percent) compared to the rates that apply to ordinary income. To achieve these favorable rates, investors generally want to hold their stock for more than a year. (Note: Depending on economic conditions, an investor may decide it is better to lock-in gains by selling the stock, even if the holding period is one year or less and the gains would be short-term.)

Trade Date

A transfer of stock traded on an exchange involves a trade date and a settlement date. Stock is considered purchased or sold for tax purposes on its trade date, when the trade is made, rather than on its settlement date, when the stock is delivered and payment is made. There is a gap between the trade date and the settlement date, with the trade date coming first. Conversely, if an investor wants to realize a loss in the current year from a sale of stock, the investor must ensure that the trade date is on or before December 31.

Holding Period

The stock's holding period is based on the trade date. The holding period actually begins on the day after the trade date and includes the day it is disposed of. The settlement date is not relevant when computing the holding period. The holding period is measured in calendar months, not days; thus, one month has elapsed on the same date of the succeeding month as the date of purchase, regardless of the number of days in the month.

Example. Benny buys stock on December 16, 2012 and sells the stock on December 16, 2013. Benny has held the stock for exactly one year; any gain will be short-term capital gain. The fact that the settlement date is not until December 20 does not lengthen the holding period. If Benny instead sells the stock on December 17, 2013, he will have held the stock for more than a year (one year and one day); any gain will be long-term capital gain.

For nonpublicly traded stock, the holding period begins with the receipt of title, and ends on the day of transfer, not the contract date.

Identification of Stock Sold

When the same stock is acquired on different dates, the first stock purchased is considered to be the first stock sold, unless the taxpayer can specifically identify the stock being sold. Securities left in the custody of a broker are adequately identified when the specific securities to be sold are indicated to the broker, and a written confirmation of the identification is received within a reasonable time. This identification process can also apply to stock issued without certificates. Stock acquired at different times (and usually at different prices) can be treated as different lots; the seller can identify the specific lot being sold.

Broker Reporting

Brokers report stock sales on Form 1099-B, Proceeds From Broker and Barter Exchange Transactions. For corporate stock purchased in or after 2011, brokers must report not only the sales proceeds but the dates of acquisition and sale, the type of gain or loss, and the cost or other basis.

Brokers must provide this information to their customers by February 15 of the succeeding year. Taxpayers should check the basis reported by the broker and should contact their broker immediately if they feel that the information is incorrect. The broker can issue a corrected Form 1099-B. If the broker reports an incorrect basis, and the taxpayer is not able to get it corrected, the taxpayer may have to go through the expense of substantiating the basis to the IRS.

A child with earned income above a certain level is generally required to file a separate tax return as a single taxpayer. However, a child with a certain amount of unearned income (from investments, including dividends, interest, and capital gains) may find that this income becomes subject to tax at his or her parent's highest marginal tax rate. This is referred to as the "kiddie tax," and it is designed to prevent parents from transferring income-producing investments to their children, who would generally be taxed at a lower rate.

A child with earned income above a certain level is generally required to file a separate tax return as a single taxpayer. However, a child with a certain amount of unearned income (from investments, including dividends, interest, and capital gains) may find that this income becomes subject to tax at his or her parent's highest marginal tax rate. This is referred to as the "kiddie tax," and it is designed to prevent parents from transferring income-producing investments to their children, who would generally be taxed at a lower rate.

Does the kiddie tax apply to my situation?

The kiddie tax applies if:

1. The child has investment income greater than the annual inflation-adjusted amount ($1,900 for 2013; $2,000 for 2014);
2. At least one of the child's parents was alive at the end of the tax year;
3. The child is required to file a tax return for the tax year;
4. The child does not file a joint return for the tax year; and
5. The child meets one of the following requirements relating to age and income:

• The child was under age 18 at the end of the tax year; or
• The child was age 18 at the end of the tax year and the child's earned income does not exceed one-half of the child's own support for the year; or
• The child was a full-time student who was under age 24 at the end of the tax year and the child's earned income does not exceed one half of the child's own support for the year (This does not include scholarships.)

Computing the kiddie tax

If the kiddie tax applies to a child, the child's tax is calculated as the greater of one of two items:

1. The tax on all of the child's income, calculated at the rates applicable to single individuals; or
2. The sum of two things:

• The tax that would be imposed on a single individual if the child's taxable income were reduced by net unearned income, plus
• The child's share of the allocable parental tax.

The allocable parent tax is the amount of the increase in the parent's tax liability that results from adding to the parent's taxable income the net unearned income of the parent's children who are subject to the kiddie tax. If a parent has more than one child with unearned income subject to the kiddie tax, then each child's share of the allocable parental tax would be assigned pro rata according to the ratio that its net unearned income bears to the aggregate net unearned income subject to the kiddie tax.

Which tax form should I use?

A parent with a child or children whose unearned income is subject to the kiddie tax must generally complete and file Form 8615, Tax for Certain Children Who Have Investment Income of More Than $1,900, along with his or her tax return. However, if the child's interest and dividend income (including capital gain distributions) total less than $9,500 for 2013 ($10,000 for 2014), the parent may be able to elect to include that income on the parent's return rather than file a separate return for the child. In this case, the parents should complete Form 8814, Parents Election To Report Child's Interest and Dividends. However, the IRS cautions that the federal income tax owed on a child's income may be lower if the parent files a separate tax return for the child, which would enable him or her to take certain tax benefits that cannot be taken on the parents' return.

Divorced, separated, or unmarried parents

The kiddie tax is based on a parent's tax return, but what happens when parents do not file joint returns? Several special rules determine what should happen. If the parents are married, but file separate returns, then the child should use the return of the parent with the largest taxable income to figure the kiddie tax.

If the parents are married, but do not live together, and the custodial parent is considered unmarried then generally the custodial parent's return would be used. However, if the custodial parent is not considered unmarried, the child should use the return of the parent with the largest amount of taxable income.

If the child's parents are divorced or legally separated, and the custodial parent has not remarried, the child should use the custodial parent's return. If the custodial parent has remarried, the child's stepparent, rather than the noncustodial parent, is treated as the child's other parent. Similarly, if the child's parent is a widow or widower who has remarried, the new spouse is treated as the child's other parent.

If the child's parents never married each other, but lived together all year, the child should use the return of the parent with the greater taxable income. If the parents were never married and did not live together all year, the rules are the same as the rules for parents who are divorced.

Calculating the kiddie tax can become confusing as a taxpayer attempts to sort through the numerous rules governing who is subject to the tax, which income is subject to the tax, and how to report it properly. Please do not hesitate to contact our offices with any questions.

Despite the passage of the American Tax Relief Act of 2012 - which its supporters argued would bring greater certainty to tax planning - many taxpayers have questions about the tax rates on qualified dividends and capital gains.

Despite the passage of the American Tax Relief Act of 2012 - which its supporters argued would bring greater certainty to tax planning - many taxpayers have questions about the tax rates on qualified dividends and capital gains.

Background

Before ATRA, the maximum tax rate on net capital gains and qualified dividends was 15 percent for taxpayers in the 25, 28, 33, or 35 percent individual income tax brackets (the 35 percent rate was the highest individual tax bracket before ATRA). For 2008 through 2012, taxpayers in the 10 and 15 percent individual income tax brackets enjoyed a zero percent tax rate on net capital gains and qualified dividends. Generally, the 15 and zero percent rates applied to long-term capital gains (resulting from the sale of an asset held for longer than one year) and qualified dividends (such as dividends received from a domestic corporation and certain foreign corporations).

ATRA's rates

Under ATRA, the 15 percent rate on net capital gains and qualified dividends is made permanent for taxpayers in the 25, 28, 33, or 35 percent individual income tax brackets. This treatment applies for 2013 and all subsequent years unless modified by Congress in the future. ATRA also made permanent the zero percent tax rate on net capital gains and qualified dividends for taxpayers in the 10 and 15 percent income tax brackets. This treatment applies for 2013 and all subsequent years unless modified by Congress.

Additionally, ATRA created a 20 percent tax rate on net capital gains and qualified dividends intended to apply to higher income taxpayers. The 20 percent tax rate applies to qualified capital gains and dividends of taxpayers subject to the revived 39.6 percent income tax bracket. Taxpayers are subject to the 39.6 percent income tax bracket to the extent their taxable income exceeds certain thresholds: $450,000 for married couples filing joint returns and surviving spouses, $425,000 for heads of households, $400,000 for single filers, and $225,000 for married couples filing separate returns. These threshold amounts are projected to be slightly higher in 2014 as indexed for inflation.

Collectibles and unrecaptured Code Sec. 1250 gain

The Tax Code has special tax rates for collectibles and unrecaptured Code. Sec. 1250 gain. These tax rates were not changed by ATRA or other legislation. A 28 percent tax rate applies to collectibles, and a 25 percent tax rate applies to unrecaptured Code Sec. 1250 gain.

Short-term capital gains

The tax rates are significantly different for short-term capital gains than for long-term capital gains. Short-term capital gains are taxed at ordinary income tax rates. This means that the tax rate on short-term capital gains can range from 10 percent to 39.6 percent, depending on the taxpayer's situation. Income generated from non-capital assets are also subject to these rates.

Net investment income surtax

Unrelated to ATRA's changes is a new 3.8 percent surtax imposed by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) on individuals, estates and trusts that have certain investment income above threshold amounts including $250,000 for married couples filing jointly and $200,000 for single filers. These amounts are not subject to an annual adjustment for inflation. The 3.8 percent surtax took effect January 1, 2013 and therefore will be reflected on 2013 returns filed in 2014.

Timing the recognition of capital gain and offsetting losses when possible can frequently lower overall tax liability. Year-end tax planning can be a particularly advantageous in this regard. If you have any questions about the capital gains and dividends tax rates, please contact our office.

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

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

Individual mandate

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

Exchanges

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

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

Small employer credit

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

Employer mandate

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

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

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

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

The Affordable Care Act set January 1, 2014 as the start date for many of its new rules, most notably, the employer shared responsibility provisions (known as the "employer mandate") and the individual shared responsibility provisions (known as the "individual mandate").  One - the employer mandate - has been delayed to 2015; the other - the individual mandate - has not been delayed.

The Affordable Care Act set January 1, 2014 as the start date for many of its new rules, most notably, the employer shared responsibility provisions (known as the "employer mandate") and the individual shared responsibility provisions (known as the "individual mandate").  One - the employer mandate - has been delayed to 2015; the other - the individual mandate - has not been delayed.

Employer shared responsibility payments

Very broadly, the Affordable Care Act imposes a shared responsibility payment (also known as a penalty) on an applicable large employer that either:

• Fails to offer to its full-time employees (and their dependents) the opportunity to enroll in MEC (Minimum Essential Coverage) under an eligible employer-sponsored plan and  has under its employ one or more full-time employees that are certified to the employer as having received a premium assistance tax credit or cost-sharing reduction (Code Sec. 4980H(a) liability), or
• Offers its full-time employees (and their dependents) the opportunity to enroll in MEC under an eligible employer-sponsored plan and has under its employ one or more full-time employees that are certified to the employer as having received a premium assistance tax credit or cost-sharing reduction (Code Sec. 4980H(b) liability).

The amount of the employer shared responsibility penalty varies depending on whether the employer is liable under Code Sec. 4980H(a) or Code Sec. 4980H(b). The calculations of the payment are very complex but two examples help to shed some light on how they are intended to work. Example 1 is based on Code Sec. 4980H(a) liability and Example 2 is based on Code Sec. 4980H(b) liability.

Example 1.  Employer A fails to offer minimum essential coverage and has 100 full-time employees, 10 of whom receive a Code Sec. 36B premium assistance tax credit for the year for enrolling in a Marketplace plan. For each employee over a 30-employee threshold, the employer would owe $2,000, for a total penalty of $140,000. The Code Sec. 4980H(a) penalty is assessed on a monthly basis. 

Example 2.  Employer B offers minimum essential coverage and has 100 full-time employees, 20 of whom receive a Code Sec. 36B premium assistance tax credit for the year for enrolling in a Marketplace plan. For each employee receiving a tax credit, the employer would owe $3,000 for a total penalty of $60,000. The maximum penalty for Employer B would be capped at the amount of the penalty that would have been assessed for a failure to provide coverage ($140,000 above in Example 1). Since the calculated penalty of $60,000 is less than the maximum amount, Employer B would pay the calculated penalty of $60,000. The Code Sec. 4980H(b) penalty is assessed on a monthly basis.

These examples are merely provided to illustrate how the employer shared responsibility payment is intended to work.  Every employer's situation will be different depending on the number of employees, the type of insurance offered and many other factors. Please contact our office for more details.

IRS guidance

Since enactment of the Affordable Care Act, the IRS and other federal agencies have issued guidance on the employer shared responsibility provision.  The IRS has defined what is an applicable large employer (generally defined as businesses with 50 or more employees), who is a full-time employee with certain exceptions for seasonal workers, and much more.

The IRS has not, however, issued guidance on reporting requirements by employers and insurers.  The Affordable Care Act generally requires employers, insurers and other entities that offer minimum essential coverage to file annual information returns reporting information about the coverage. As originally enacted, this information reporting was scheduled to take effect in 2014, the same year that the employer shared responsibility provisions were scheduled to take effect.

Delay

In early July, the Treasury Department announced that information reporting by employers, insurers and other entities offering minimum essential coverage will not start in 2014 but will be delayed until 2015. The IRS followed-up with transitional guidance. Information reporting by employers, insurers and other entities offering minimum essential coverage is waived for 2014. However, the IRS encouraged employers, insurers and others to voluntarily report this information. The IRS reported it is working on guidance and expects to issue regulations before year-end.

Because information reporting has been delayed, the Affordable Care Act's employer shared responsibility provisions are waived for 2014. The IRS explained that the transitional relief is expected to make it impractical to determine which employers would owe shared responsibility payments for 2014. As a result, no employer shared responsibility payments will be assessed for 2014.

Individual mandate

The January 1, 2014 scheduled start date of the Affordable Care Act's individual shared responsibility provisions is not delayed. Unless exempt, individuals must carry minimum essential health coverage after 2013 or pay a shared responsibility payment (also called a penalty). The Affordable Care Act exempts many individuals, such as most individuals covered by employer-provided health insurance, individuals enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid, and many others.  

After 2013, individuals may be eligible for a new tax credit (the Code Sec. 36B credit) to help offset the cost of obtaining health insurance. The credit is payable in advance to the insurer.
The January 1, 2014 scheduled start date of the Code Sec. 36B is also not delayed.

Small employers

Qualified small employers will be able to offer health insurance to their employees through the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP). Enrollment for coverage through SHOP is scheduled to begin October 1, 2013 for coverage starting January 1, 2014. For 2014, SHOP is open to employers with 50 or fewer employees. Beginning in 2016, SHOP will be open to employers with up to 100 employees.

After 2013, the small employer health insurance tax credit is scheduled to increase from 35 percent to 50 percent for small business employers (and from 25 percent to 35 percent for tax-exempt employers). However, the credit is only available after 2013 to employers that obtain coverage through SHOP. This credit is targeted to very small employers with the credit gradually phasing out as the number of employees reaches 50.

If you have any questions about employer reporting or the employer shared responsibility payment-or any questions about the Affordable Care Act-please contact our office.

More than one month after the U.S. Supreme Court found Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional, the IRS has yet to issue guidance in critical areas of tax filing, employee benefits, and more. Many taxpayers and tax professionals are questioning what revisions the IRS will make to its rules and regulations. At the same time, other federal agencies have announced changes in their policies to reflect the demise of Section 3 of DOMA.

More than one month after the U.S. Supreme Court found Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional, the IRS has yet to issue guidance in critical areas of tax filing, employee benefits, and more. Many taxpayers and tax professionals are questioning what revisions the IRS will make to its rules and regulations. At the same time, other federal agencies have announced changes in their policies to reflect the demise of Section 3 of DOMA.

DOMA

On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of DOMA, which provided that the word "marriage" meant only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word "spouse" referred to only a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. Because of Section 3 of DOMA, the IRS did not recognize same-sex married couples as married for federal tax purposes.

Now, same-sex married couples who reside in states that recognize same-sex marriage should be entitled to the same tax benefits and responsibilities of opposite-sex married couples. These include the ability to file a joint federal income tax return as a married couple, possible refunds for open tax years, and to take advantage of many benefits in the Tax Code available to married couples. However, it is unclear if this is true for same-sex married couples who reside in states that do not recognize same-sex marriage. As of August 1, 2013, same-sex marriage is recognized in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia. 

The IRS posted an announcement on its website shortly after the Supreme Court's decision.  The agency promised it would "move swiftly to provide revised guidance in the near future."  To date, that is the only official announcement from the IRS. As a result, there has been much speculation on how the IRS will treat same-sex married couples post-DOMA.  

Common-law marriages

The IRS may take the same approach to same-sex marriage as it did more than 50 years ago with common-law marriage. Some states recognize common-law marriage; others do not. Common-law marriage is a term used to describe a marriage that has not complied with the statutory requirements most states have enacted for a ceremonial marriage.

In Rev. Rul. 58-66, the IRS announced that if a state recognizes common-law marriages, the status of individuals living in this relationship is, for federal income tax purposes, that of husband and wife. This rule also applies in the case of taxpayers who enter into a common-law marriage in a state that recognizes their relationship and who move to a state that does not recognize common-law marriage.  The IRS still treats the common-law couple as married even if they no longer live in a state that recognizes their marriage. The IRS could treat same-sex married couples, who marry in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage and who move to a state that does not recognize their marriage, in the same way.

Other federal agencies

Within days of the Supreme Court's decision, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that it would use the location of legal marriage for a same-sex couple for immigration purposes. On July 17, DHS' Bureau of Immigration Appeals (BIA) made its first official decision post-DOMA. The BIA held that DOMA would no longer be an impediment to the recognition of lawful same-sex marriages and will recognize same-sex spouses under the Immigration and Nationality Act if the marriage is valid under the laws of the state where it was celebrated.

The U.S. government's Office of Personnel Management (OPM) also announced some changes in its benefits post-DOMA. OPM told federal employees that all legally married same-sex spouses and children of legal same-sex marriages will be eligible family members under the federal employees' group life insurance program. Additionally, all legally married same-sex spouses will be able to apply for long-term care insurance under the federal long-term care insurance program.

The U.S. Department of Labor is expected to issue guidance on the status of same-sex spouses under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).  FMLA entitles eligible employees of covered employers to take unpaid, job-protected leave for specified family and medical reasons with continuation of group health insurance coverage under the same terms and conditions as if the employee had not taken leave.  Because of DOMA, spouse was defined only as a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife.

Employers

Many employers are revisiting their employee benefits post-DOMA. Employers may need to review their health and retirement plans, as well as their FMLA and other leave policies. A same-sex married couple presumably would have the same rights to tax-exempt spousal coverage under a health plan and the right to a joint and survivor annuity under a retirement plan as an opposite sex-married couple. The IRS and DOL are expected to issue guidance on how quickly employers must act to make changes to health and retirement plans to reflect the Supreme Court's decision.

If you have any questions about the IRS's expected guidance regarding any of the post-DOMA issues, please contact our office.

Gain or loss is not recognized when property held for productive use in a trade or business or for investment is exchanged for like-kind property. Instead, the taxpayer's basis and holding period in the property transferred carries over to the property acquired in the exchange. Deferring taxable gain, always a good strategy, makes more sense than ever after the recent rise in tax rates for many taxpayers under the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012. In particular, Code Section 1031 like-kind exchanges deserve a close second look by many businesses and investors.

Gain or loss is not recognized when property held for productive use in a trade or business or for investment is exchanged for like-kind property. Instead, the taxpayer's basis and holding period in the property transferred carries over to the property acquired in the exchange. Deferring taxable gain, always a good strategy, makes more sense than ever after the recent rise in tax rates for many taxpayers under the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.  In particular, Code Section 1031 like-kind exchanges deserve a close second look by many businesses and investors.

Flexibility

More than two properties can be exchanged and more than two parties can participate in a transaction that qualifies for non-recognition treatment. Intermediaries may be used to purchase other property before completing like-kind exchange. Taxpayers can participate in acquisition of other property and qualify for like-kind treatment if there is no actual or constructive receipt of cash proceeds from sale of their property.
It is not required that the properties be given up and received on the same day. However, if the exchange of properties is not simultaneous, the property to be received must be identified within 45 days after the date the relinquished property is transferred. In addition, the identified property must be received within 180 days after the date of transfer or the due date for the return for the tax year in which the transfer occurred, whichever date is earlier.

Certain limitations

Property not qualifying for this treatment includes inventory, securities, foreign real estate and foreign personal property. In an otherwise qualifying exchange, the receipt of boot, in the form of cash, relief from liability, or other non-qualifying property, results in the recognition of realized gain or loss to the extent of the boot received. However, gain so recognized can be postponed if the installment sale rules apply. Depreciation recapture may also result from a like-kind exchange. Losses are not recognized on the acquisition of like-kind property. To recognize a loss, the transaction must be arranged so that the non-recognition provision does not apply.

Literal conformity to the requirements of the non-recognition provisions may not be sufficient to prevent recognition of gain. The substance of the transaction must also satisfy the underlying purpose of the statute. Continuity of investment purpose continues to be emphasized as the primary rationale for non-recognition in a like-kind exchange.

Latest success story

IRS Chief Counsel just this past month approved a taxpayer's exchange of properties as tax-free under Code Sec. 1031 even though the taxpayer used proceeds from the sale of relinquished property to pay down its liabilities. In CCA 201325011, Chief Counsel determined that such use did not trigger constructive receipt. Although taking a look at this winning arrangement may get a bit technical, it is worthwhile if only to provide another example of how like-kind exchange transactions can help your business's tax expenses.

The arrangement. The taxpayer rents equipment to customers. The taxpayer has implemented a like-kind exchange (LKE) program to defer gain from the sales of its rental equipment. The taxpayer has engaged in multiple exchanges under a Master Exchange Agreement (MEA) with a qualified intermediary (QI). Under the MEA, the taxpayer transfers relinquished property to the QI. The QI transfers the relinquished property and acquires replacement property, which it transfers to the taxpayer.

The taxpayer maintains two lines of credit, which are used to purchase replacement property. The taxpayer also uses the lines of credit for general business operations. The lines of credit are secured by the taxpayer's rental properties, accounts receivable, and new equipment sold to customers. The full value of the rental property secures the entire balance on the lines of credit.

The QI must deposit sales proceeds from relinquished property into a joint taxpayer/QI account, and must use the proceeds to pay down the line-of-credit balances. The QI does not use proceeds from the account receivables or the new equipment sales to pay down the lines of credit. The taxpayer then uses borrowed funds to acquire replacement property and complete its exchange. The taxpayer finances the acquisition with new debt in an amount that equals or exceeds the debt that encumbered the relinquished property. Under the MEA, the taxpayer does not have the right to receive, pledge, borrow or otherwise use the money held by the QI.

Chief Counsel's analysis.  The IRS field attorney argued that the debt pay-down arrangement gives the taxpayer actual or constructive receipt of the proceeds from the relinquished property before the deadline for the taxpayer to obtain replacement property. IRS Chief Counsel's Office, however, disagreed. It concluded that the taxpayer was not in constructive receipt of the proceeds received for the relinquished property. This conclusion was not affected by the use of the debt to purchase replacement property and for general business operations, or the QI's use of the proceeds to pay down the lines of credit.
If a taxpayer receives, in part, non-like-kind property, the taxpayer must recognize gain (boot) for the amount of this property. The assumption of a liability, or the transfer of property subject to a liability, is treated as boot. If the relinquished property and the replacement property are both subject to a liability (such as a mortgage), the liabilities are netted and the difference is boot to the party being relieved of the larger mortgage.

Chief Counsel concluded that the taxpayer's transaction was permitted by the regulations where the taxpayer is relieved of debt on the transfer of relinquished property and incurs debt on the acquisition of the replacement property. Under the boot netting rules, there is no gain to the taxpayer.

If you would like further information on how like-kind exchanges might work within your business operations, please do not hesitate to contact our offices.

No, parking tickets are not deductible. Internal Revenue Code Sec. 162 (a) provides that no deduction is allowed for fines or penalties paid to a government (U.S. or foreign, federal or local). While many delivery businesses consider parking tickets as a cost of doing business and more akin to an occasional "rental" payment for a place to park, a parking ticket is a fine and, as such, it is not deductible. By definition, parking tickets are civil penalties imposed by state or local law. The Tax Court decided that parking tickets are not business deductions way back in 1975 in a case dealing with a taxpayer that was trying to deduct as a business expense some parking tickets, among other things. The court allowed the other deductions but did not allow the parking tickets, citing Code Sec. 162.

Q. A promising investment opportunity proved too good to be true and I have incurred some stock losses. I still have faith in the company and don't want to abandon it but can I use some of these losses to offset gains from other stocks? If I sell these shares at a loss and immediately buy them back, what would the tax consequences be?

A. The IRS calls these transactions "wash sales." Very simply, a wash sale takes place when a person sells stocks or bonds at loss and buys substantially similar stocks or bonds within 30 days. The wash sale rules are intended to curb this practice, which the IRS views as done only for tax reasons.

Here's an example:

Donna invested part of her inheritance in an airline company. Donna purchased 3,000 shares of the airline's stock. Two years later, the airline is teetering on bankruptcy. Donna sells 1,000 shares at a loss of $2,000. Less than one month later, Donna buys another 1,000 shares of the same company's stock for $5,000. Instead of allowing the deduction of the $2,000 on Donna's return, the wash sale rules require Donna to adjust the basis of her newest purchase to $7,000.  When Donna sells the stock later at $10,000, instead of having a $5,000 gain ($10,000 sales price minus $5,000 purchase price), Donna's gain would only be $3,000 ($10,000 sales price minus $7,000 adjusted basis).

The wash sale rules can be made less harsh with careful planning. You must keep good track of the purchase and sale dates of your securities overall.

If you decide to reinvest in a similar investment vehicle, make sure that some element of the new security is different enough to avoid the "substantially similar" rule. For example, if you sell a stock mutual fund, you can purchase another type of stock mutual fund. Or if you sell shares in one oil company, you can purchase stock in another oil company and therefore maintain your position in that specific industry.

This is merely a brief introduction to the wash sale rules. If you have any questions or are concerned that a transaction you entered into could be viewed by the IRS as a wash sale, give our office a call. We'll be happy to take a look at your portfolio and help you avoid any potential wash sale troubles.

Holiday season - a time for giving to friends and family, but not, you hope, to the IRS. Many, if not most, people are aware that the Tax Code imposes a tax on certain gifts, but not everyone is certain as to how this works. How do you know when you've given the gift that keeps on taking - a taxable gift?

Exclusion Amount

The general rule is that there is a designated limit above which gifts become taxable to the giver. For the 2009 tax year, that limit is $13,000. The gift tax threshold is from each donor to each recipient per year. In other words, a donor may give multiple gifts to a single recipient in 2009 up to $13,000, and may repeat this with an unlimited number of recipients without incurring gift tax liability.

Furthermore, married couples may give up to $26,000 during 2009 to each recipient in a year without incurring tax, but to do this, they must indicate on a gift tax return that they are electing to split the gift.

Contributions to so-called 529 plans are subject to this limitation, except that a donor may "front-load" giving by contributing up to $60,000 to an individual's account in a single tax year and counting the gift against that year and the four succeeding years. This does make any gifts to that individual in the subsequent years taxable.

Exceptions to the Rule

Some gifts do not count against this threshold. There is no limitation on gifts to spouses or charitable organizations (although there are limits on the tax benefits of charitable contributions). Payments for medical or educational expenses also do not count against the threshold if the money is paid directly to the source of the expenses. A gift of $15,000 to a relative for college tuition is a taxable gift, but a $15,000 payment to the college is not.

Even when a gift exceeds the threshold, it is not necessary to pay tax on the gift. This is because in addition to the annual exclusion amount, there is a lifetime credit against the estate and gift tax. The credit effectively exempts the first $3.5 million of taxable gifts from gift tax in 2009, and must be claimed by filing a gift tax return, Form 709.

The gift tax applies not only to gifts of cash, but also to property. The value of property given as a gift counted against the exclusion amount is the fair market value of the property at the time of the gift, whether the gift is of stocks and other securities or more traditional holiday presents, including food and drink.

The Business Context

Sometimes, gift giving makes for good business. However, even if you give an employee or business contact a gift completely out of gratitude, with no expectation of profit in return, the IRS treats these gifts as business gifts. As such, certain tax rules apply. Gifts of cash within a business context are always taxed to the recipient, whether an employee, contractor or other business. Gifts of property are similarly taxed subject, however, to a de minimis exception for small gifts of approximately $35 or less. The silver lining for this rule is that if it is taxable to an employee, it is also deductible by the employer. In addition, that rule also has a favorable exception within it: the employer may deduct the cost of a de minimis gift or the cost of a general holiday office party (subject to the entertainment deduction limitations).

To sum up, a taxable holiday gift occurs when the total value of all gifts, both of money and property, to an individual over the course of a year, excluding direct payments for medical and educational expenses, exceeds the exclusion amount, which is currently $13,000. When given with a business context, however, it is the recipient and not the giver who is generally subject to tax. Nevertheless, certain important exceptions apply within that general rule. If you need further assistance in sorting out the tax repercussions of holiday gift giving, please feel free to contact this office.