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)

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.

Given a choice between recognizing income now or in a later year, most people want to be paid now and be taxed in a later year.  As a practical matter, however, an employee cannot defer compensation after performing services and becoming entitled to payment.  Routine compensation earned over a prescribed pay period -- a week, two weeks, or a month, for example - usually is paid or made available in the same year it was earned.  Recognition of the income cannot be put off to a later year.

If the employee earns compensation in one year but will not receive it until the following year, the amount is treated as deferred compensation (unless the employer has funded or secured its obligation to pay, or the 2 1/2 month rule, noted below, applies). If an amount is treated as deferred compensation, the employer cannot take a deduction until the year the employee includes the compensation in income. This rule applies even if the employer is on the accrual basis and all events have occurred that entitle the employee to a specific bonus amount. This "matching" principle is contained in Code Sec. 404(a)(5).

The 2 1/2 Month Rule

However, payments made in the first 2 1/2 months of the end of the year that the services were performed are not treated as deferred compensation. This allows the employer to accrue and deduct the compensation in the year it is earned (the year the services were performed), not the later year when it is paid. Nevertheless, the employee still is entitled to defer his or her recognition of income into the next year if certain conditions are satisfied.

Employers who want to spare their employees from being taxed in the year a bonus is earned should not make any amounts available to the employee until the following year. This is particularly important if the employee earns a bonus based on an objective measure, such as corporate earnings. If the bonus is paid solely in the employer's discretion, the amounts will not be taxable until the year paid. If the bonus is paid within the first 2 1/2 months of the following year, the amount is not deferred compensation, and an accrual-basis taxpayer can deduct the bonus in the year the employee performed the services.

Elective Deferral Requirements

If an employer wants to give the employee an election to defer the bonus, it is necessary to look to Code Sec. 409A, enacted in the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. Under Code Sec. 409A, a bonus based on measures of the company's or the individual's performance is treated as deferred compensation. If the bonus is based on services performed over a 12-month period or longer, the employee must make an election to defer income at least six months before the end of the bonus period.

The tax rules are very liberal for individuals in the armed forces who are serving in a combat zone. The combat zone extension automatically extends the date for paying tax or claiming a refund, as well as for filing. The extension also applies to paying estimated tax.

Generally, the time period for filing returns, paying taxes or claiming a credit or refund is suspended for the period of the taxpayer's service in the combat zone plus 180 days. The time period is similarly suspended while the taxpayer is hospitalized because of a combat-related injury, or while the individual is missing in action, plus 180 days. If the taxpayer is hospitalized in the U.S., the maximum extension period is five years from the date the taxpayer returns to the U.S.

Example. Sandra is deployed to serve in a combat zone on September 15, 2005. Sandra does not make her third estimated tax payment for the year, due the same day.  The combat zone extension extends her deadline for making her third estimated tax payment for the period of her service in the combat zone plus 180 days after her last day in the combat zone.

Who qualifies?

The extension is available to all persons serving in the U.S. Armed Forces in a combat zone. This includes regular military personnel as well as National Guard and Reserve personnel. Civilian support personnel under the direction of the U.S. Armed Forces also qualify.

Red Cross personnel serving in a combat zone also may take advantage of the extension. Accredited press correspondents similarly qualify.