Newsletters

The American Institute of CPAs in a March 31 letter to House of Representatives voiced its “strong support” for a series of tax administration bills passed in recent days.

The American Institute of CPAs in a March 31 letter to House of Representatives voiced its “strong support” for a series of tax administration bills passed in recent days.

The four bills highlighted in the letter include the Electronic Filing and Payment Fairness Act (H.R. 1152), the Internal Revenue Service Math and Taxpayer Help Act (H.R. 998), the Filing Relief for Natural Disasters Act (H.R. 517), and the Disaster Related Extension of Deadlines Act (H.R. 1491).

All four bills passed unanimously.

H.R. 1152 would apply the “mailbox” rule to electronically submitted tax returns and payments. Currently, a paper return or payment is counted as “received” based on the postmark of the envelope, but its electronic equivalent is counted as “received” when the electronic submission arrived or is reviewed. This bill would change all payment and tax form submissions to follow the mailbox rule, regardless of mode of delivery.

“The AICPA has previously recommended this change and thinks it would offer clarity and simplification to the payment and document submission process,” the organization said in the letter.

H.R. 998 “would require notices describing a mathematical or clerical error be made in plain language, and require the Treasury Secretary to provide additional procedures for requesting an abatement of a math or clerical adjustment, including by telephone or in person, among other provisions,” the letter states.

H.R. 517 would allow the IRS to grant federal tax relief once a state governor declares a state of emergency following a natural disaster, which is quicker than waiting for the federal government to declare a state of emergency as directed under current law, which could take weeks after the state disaster declaration. This bill “would also expand the mandatory federal filing extension under section 7508(d) from 60 days to 120 days, providing taxpayers with additional time to file tax returns following a disaster,” the letter notes, adding that increasing the period “would provide taxpayers and tax practitioners much needed relief, even before a disaster strikes.”

H.R. 1491 would extend deadlines for disaster victims to file for a tax refund or tax credit. The legislative solution “granting an automatic extension to the refund or credit lookback period would place taxpayers affected my major disasters on equal footing as taxpayers not impacted by major disasters and would afford greater clarity and certainty to taxpayers and tax practitioners regarding this lookback period,” AICPA said.

Also passed by the House was the National Taxpayer Advocate Enhancement Act (H.R. 997) which, according to a summary of the bill on Congress.gov, “authorizes the National Taxpayer Advocate to appoint legal counsel within the Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS) to report directly to the National Taxpayer Advocate. The bill also expands the authority of the National Taxpayer Advocate to take personnel actions with respect to local taxpayer advocates (located in each state) to include actions with respect to any employee of TAS.”

Finally, the House passed H.R. 1155, the Recovery of Stolen Checks Act, which would require the Treasury to establish procedures that would allow a taxpayer to elect to receive replacement funds electronically from a physical check that was lost or stolen.

All bills passed unanimously. The passed legislation mirrors some of the provisions included in a discussion draft legislation issued by the Senate Finance Committee in January 2025. A section-by-section summary of the Senate discussion draft legislation can be found here.

AICPA’s tax policy and advocacy comment letters for 2025 can be found here.

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

The Tax Court ruled that the value claimed on a taxpayer’s return exceeded the value of a conversation easement by 7,694 percent. The taxpayer was a limited liability company, classified as a TEFRA partnership. The Tax Court used the comparable sales method, as backstopped by the price actually paid to acquire the property.

The Tax Court ruled that the value claimed on a taxpayer’s return exceeded the value of a conversation easement by 7,694 percent. The taxpayer was a limited liability company, classified as a TEFRA partnership. The Tax Court used the comparable sales method, as backstopped by the price actually paid to acquire the property.

The taxpayer was entitled to a charitable contribution deduction based on its fair market value. The easement was granted upon rural land in Alabama. The property was zoned A–1 Agricultural, which permitted agricultural and light residential use only. The property transaction at occurred at arm’s length between a willing seller and a willing buyer.

Rezoning

The taxpayer failed to establish that the highest and best use of the property before the granting of the easement was limestone mining. The taxpayer failed to prove that rezoning to permit mining use was reasonably probable.

Land Value

The taxpayer’s experts erroneously equated the value of raw land with the net present value of a hypothetical limestone business conducted on the land. It would not be profitable to pay the entire projected value of the business.

Penalty Imposed

The claimed value of the easement exceeded the correct value by 7,694 percent. Therefore, the taxpayer was liable for a 40 percent penalty for a gross valuation misstatement under Code Sec. 6662(h).

Ranch Springs, LLC, 164 TC No. 6, Dec. 62,636

State and local housing credit agencies that allocate low-income housing tax credits and states and other issuers of tax-exempt private activity bonds have been provided with a listing of the proper population figures to be used when calculating the 2025:

State and local housing credit agencies that allocate low-income housing tax credits and states and other issuers of tax-exempt private activity bonds have been provided with a listing of the proper population figures to be used when calculating the 2025:

• calendar-year population-based component of the state housing credit ceiling under Code Sec. 42(h)(3)(C)(ii);
• calendar-year private activity bond volume cap under Code Sec. 146; and
• exempt facility bond volume limit under Code Sec. 142(k)(5)

These figures are derived from the estimates of the resident populations of the 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, which were released by the Bureau of the Census on December 19, 2024. The figures for the insular areas of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands are the midyear population figures in the U.S. Census Bureau’s International Database.

Notice 2025-18

The value of assets of a qualified terminable interest property (QTIP) trust includible in a decedent's gross estate was not reduced by the amount of a settlement intended to compensate the decedent for undistributed income.

The value of assets of a qualified terminable interest property (QTIP) trust includible in a decedent's gross estate was not reduced by the amount of a settlement intended to compensate the decedent for undistributed income.

The trust property consisted of an interest in a family limited partnership (FLP), which held title to ten rental properties, and cash and marketable securities. To resolve a claim by the decedent's estate that the trustees failed to pay the decedent the full amount of income generated by the FLP, the trust and the decedent's children's trusts agreed to be jointly and severally liable for a settlement payment to her estate. The Tax Court found an estate tax deficiency, rejecting the estate's claim that the trust assets should be reduced by the settlement amount and alternatively, that the settlement claim was deductible from the gross estate as an administration expense (P. Kalikow Est., Dec. 62,167(M), TC Memo. 2023-21).

Trust Not Property of the Estate

The estate presented no support for the argument that the liability affected the fair market value of the trust assets on the decedent's date of death. The trust, according to the court, was a legal entity that was not itself an asset of the estate. Thus, a liability that belonged to the trust but had no impact on the value of the underlying assets did not change the value of the gross estate. Furthermore, the settlement did not burden the trust assets. A hypothetical purchaser of the FLP interest, the largest asset of the trust, would not assume the liability and, therefore, would not regard the liability as affecting the price. When the parties stipulated the value of the FLP interest, the estate was aware of the undistributed income claim. Consequently, the value of the assets included in the gross estate was not diminished by the amount of the undistributed income claim.

Claim Not an Estate Expense

The claim was owed to the estate by the trust to correct the trustees' failure to distribute income from the rental properties during the decedent's lifetime. As such, the claim was property included in the gross estate, not an expense of the estate. The court explained that even though the liability was owed by an entity that held assets included within the taxable estate, the claim itself was not an estate expense. The court did not address the estate's theoretical argument that the estate would be taxed twice on the underlying assets held in the trust and the amount of the settlement because the settlement was part of the decedent's residuary estate, which was distributed to a charity. As a result, the claim was not a deductible administration expense of the estate.

P.B. Kalikow, Est., CA-2

An individual was not entitled to deduct flowthrough loss from the forfeiture of his S Corporation’s portion of funds seized by the U.S. Marshals Service for public policy reasons. The taxpayer pleaded guilty to charges of bribery, fraud and money laundering. Subsequently, the U.S. Marshals Service seized money from several bank accounts held in the taxpayer’s name or his wholly owned corporation. 

An individual was not entitled to deduct flowthrough loss from the forfeiture of his S Corporation’s portion of funds seized by the U.S. Marshals Service for public policy reasons. The taxpayer pleaded guilty to charges of bribery, fraud and money laundering. Subsequently, the U.S. Marshals Service seized money from several bank accounts held in the taxpayer’s name or his wholly owned corporation. The S corporation claimed a loss deduction related to its portion of the asset seizures on its return and the taxpayer reported a corresponding passthrough loss on his return.

However, Courts have uniformly held that loss deductions for forfeitures in connection with a criminal conviction frustrate public policy by reducing the "sting" of the penalty. The taxpayer maintained that the public policy doctrine did not apply here, primarily because the S corporation was never indicted or charged with wrongdoing. However, even if the S corporation was entitled to claim a deduction for the asset seizures, the public policy doctrine barred the taxpayer from reporting his passthrough share. The public policy doctrine was not so rigid or formulaic that it may apply only when the convicted person himself hands over a fine or penalty.

Hampton, TC Memo. 2025-32, Dec. 62,642(M)

In light of the IRS’s new Voluntary Worker Classification Settlement Program (VCSP), which it announced this fall, the distinction between independent contractors and employees has become a “hot issue” for many businesses. The IRS has devoted considerable effort to rectifying worker misclassification in the past, and continues the trend with this new program.  It is available to employers that have misclassified employees as independent contractors and wish to voluntarily rectify the situation before the IRS or Department of Labor initiates an examination.

The distinction between independent contractors and employees is significant for employers, especially when they file their federal tax returns. While employers owe only the payment to independent contractors, employers owe employees a series of federal payroll taxes, including Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment, and federal tax withholding. Thus, it is often tempting for employers to avoid these taxes by classifying their workers as independent contractors rather than employees.

If, however, the IRS discovers this misclassification, the consequences might include not only the requirement that the employer pay all owed payroll taxes, but also hefty penalties. It is important that employers be aware of the risk they take by classifying a worker who should or could be an employee as an independent contractor.

“All the facts and circumstances”

The IRS considers all the facts and circumstances of the parties in determining whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. These are numerous and sometimes confusing, but in short summary, the IRS traditionally considers 20 factors, which can be categorized according to three aspects: (1) behavioral control; (2) financial control; (3) and the relationship of the parties.

Examples of behavioral and financial factors that tend to indicate a worker is an employee include:

• The worker is required to comply with instructions about when, where, and how to work;
• The worker is trained by an experienced employee, indicating the employer wants services performed in a particular manner;
• The worker’s hours are set by the employer;
• The worker must submit regular oral or written reports to the employer;
• The worker is paid by the hour, week, or month;
• The worker receives payment or reimbursement from the employer for his or her business and traveling expenses; and
• The worker has the right to end the employment relationship at any time without incurring liability.

In other words, any existing facts or circumstances that point to an employer’s having more behavioral and/or financial control over the worker tip the balance towards classifying that worker as an employee rather than a contractor. The IRS’s factors do not always apply, however; and if one or several factors indicate independent contractor status, but more indicate the worker is an employee, the IRS may still determine the worker is an employee.

Finally, in examining the relationship of the parties, benefits, permanency of the employment term, and issuance of a Form W-2 rather than a Form 1099 are some indicators that the relationship is that of an employer–employee.

Conclusion

Worker classification is fact-sensitive, and the IRS may see a worker you may label an independent contractor in a very different light. One key point to remember is that the IRS generally frowns on independent contractors and actively looks for factors that indicate employee status.

Please do not hesitate to call our offices if you would like a reassessment of how you are currently classifying workers in your business, as well as an evaluation of whether IRS’s new Voluntary Classification Program may be worth investigating.

Charitable contributions traditionally peak at the end of the year-end. While tax savings may not be your prime motivator for making a gift to charity, your donation could help your tax bottom-line for 2015. As with many tax incentives, the rules for tax-deductible charitable contributions are complex, especially the rules for substantiating your donation. Also important to keep in mind are some enhanced charitable giving incentives scheduled to expire at the end of 2015.

Year-end charitable giving can benefit your 2015 tax bottom-line

Charitable contributions traditionally peak at the end of the year-end. While tax savings may not be your prime motivator for making a gift to charity, your donation could help your tax bottom-line for 2015. As with many tax incentives, the rules for tax-deductible charitable contributions are complex, especially the rules for substantiating your donation. Also important to keep in mind are some enhanced charitable giving incentives scheduled to expire at the end of 2015.

Tips

The IRS has posted tips for deducting charitable contributions on its website. The tips are a good refresher of the fundamental rules for deducting charitable contributions:

• To be tax-deductible, a contribution must be made to a qualified organization.
• To deduct a charitable contribution, you must file Form 1040 and itemize deductions on Schedule A.
• If you receive a benefit because of your contribution such as merchandise, tickets to a ball game or other goods and services, then you can deduct only the amount that exceeds the fair market value of the benefit received.
• Donations of clothing and household items must generally be in good used condition or better to be tax-deductible.
• Special rules apply to donations of motor vehicles.
• Many donations must be substantiated; the substantiation rules vary for different donations.

Qualified organizations

Some individuals are surprised to learn that their donation is not tax-deductible because the recipient is not a qualified charitable organization. Generally, churches, temples, synagogues, mosques, and other religious organizations are qualified charitable organizations. Nonprofit community service, educational, and health organizations are also generally qualified charitable organizations. Special rules apply to foreign charities. If you have any questions whether the organization is a qualified charitable organization, please contact our office.

Substantiation rules

Unless a charitable contribution is properly substantiated, the IRS may deny your deduction.

Regardless of the amount, to deduct a contribution of cash, check, or other monetary gift, you must maintain a bank record, payroll deduction records or a written communication from the organization containing the name of the organization, the date of the contribution and amount of the contribution. Remember, this rule applies to all cash contributions, even contributions of small monetary amounts. The IRS will not accept certain personal records. For example, you cannot substantiate a contribution by reference to a diary or notes made at the time of the donation.

In recent years, text message donations have grown in popularity. For text message donations, a telephone bill will meet the record-keeping requirement if it shows the name of the receiving organization, the date of the contribution, and the amount given.

To claim a deduction for contributions of cash or property equaling $250 or more you must have a bank record, payroll deduction records or a written acknowledgment from the qualified organization showing the amount of the cash and a description of any property contributed, and whether the organization provided any goods or services in exchange for the gift.

One document may satisfy both the written communication requirement for monetary gifts and the written acknowledgement requirement for all contributions of $250 or more. If your total deduction for all noncash contributions for the year is over $500, you must complete and attach IRS Form 8283, Noncash Charitable Contributions, to your return.

Additional rules apply for donations valued at more than $5,000. These donations generally require an appraisal and you must advise the IRS of that appraisal by filing a special form.

Expiring provisions

Under current law, certain IRA owners can directly transfer tax-free, up to $100,000 annually from the IRA to a qualified charitable organization. The benefit is limited. The IRA owner must be age 70 ½ or older. Additionally, the contribution does not qualify for the deduction for charitable donations. To qualify, the IRA funds must be contributed directly by the IRA trustee to the qualified charitable organization. You can also take advantage of this tax incentive if you itemize or do not itemize deductions.

Unless extended, this incentive will have officially expired after December 31, 2014. It is unclear if Congress will extend the incentive retroactively for 2015 or beyond. If you are considering a charitable contribution from your IRA, please contact our office so we can review the rules in detail.

Several other enhanced charitable giving incentives will no longer be available for the 2015 tax year and beyond. They include special rules for contributions of food inventory.

Clothing and household items

Cleaning out your closet can help generate year-end tax savings. However, not all charitable contributions of clothing and household items are deductible. Generally, clothing and household items donated to a charitable organization must be in good used or better condition. Other rules also apply to donations of clothing and household items. Properly valuing the items to withstand any IRS examination is also important.

Motor vehicles and other types of donations

The tax deduction for a motor vehicle, boat or airplane donated to charity is fraught with complexity. The substantiation requirements depend on the amount of your claimed deduction. If you are considering donating a motor vehicle, boat or airplane to charity, please contact our office so we can help you navigate the substantiation rules to maximize your tax benefits.

The rules for donations of conservation easements, intellectual property and other items likewise require expert planning. Otherwise, you could miss the tax benefit.

Limitations

The Tax Code includes a number of provisions limiting tax-deductible contributions. Limitations may be based on the individual’s income, the type of donation and the nature of the recipient organization. Our office can describe how these limitations may impact you.

As in past years, a provision known as the limitation on itemized deductions applied to higher-income individuals. This provision reduces the total amount of a higher-income individual's allowable deductions; however, some deductions are not impacted. For purposes of the limitation on itemized deduction, a taxpayer's total, itemized deductions do not include deductions for medical expenses, investment interest expenses, casualty or theft losses, and allowable wagering losses; charitable deductions do count, however.

If you have any questions about the mechanics of tax-deductible charitable contributions, please contact our office.