taxworkbook.comtaxworkbook.com/files/2015/10/rulingsandcases.pdf · the reasonable basis standard...
Post on 29-Jun-2020
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
© 2015 Land Grant University Tax Education Foundation, Inc. 607
RULINGS AND CASES
16AUTHORITY FOR TAX POSITIONS . . . . . . . 608
Substantial Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 609Reasonable Basis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 609Circuit Courts of Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 610Organization of the Internal Revenue Code 611Deciphering Treasury Regulations . . . . . . . . 614
ACCOUNTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 616REG-109187-11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 616
AGRICULTURAL ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 616Field Attorney Advice 2015-08-01F . . . . 616
BANKRUPTCY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 618In re Wilson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 618In re Fahey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 618Yuska v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 619
BASIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 619Rev . Proc . 2015-37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 619REG-107595-11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 620
BUSINESS ENTITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 622Corporations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 622
Bell v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 622Letter Ruling 2015-22-001 . . . . . . . . . . . 623
Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 624Coastal Heart Medical Group, Inc.
v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 624REG-151416-06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 625Letter Ruling 2015-28-001 . . . . . . . . . . . 625Prop . Treas . Reg . § 1 .83-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 626Methvin v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . 626
S Corporations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 627Eaglehawk Carbon, Inc. v. United States . 627
BUSINESS ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 628Deductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 628
McMillan v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . 628Olive v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 628Chief Counsel Advice 2015-31-016 . . . . 629Chief Counsel Advice 2014-39-001 . . . . 629Letter Ruling 2014-47-027 . . . . . . . . . . . 630
Letter Ruling 2015-28-026 . . . . . . . . . . . 631Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 631
T .D . 9696 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 631Central Motorplex, Inc. v. Commissioner . 632Notice 2015-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 633Letter Ruling 2014-41-004 . . . . . . . . . . . 633
Hobby Losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 634McMillan v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . 634
CANCELLATION OF DEBT INCOME . . . . . . 635Wyatt v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 635Chief Counsel Advice 2015-25-010 . . . . 635
DOMESTIC PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES DEDUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 636Large Business and International
Directive I-04-0315-001 . . . . . . . . . . . 636ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 637
T .D . 9725 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 637Letter Ruling 2015-23-003 . . . . . . . . . . . 638Frequently Asked Questions
on Estate Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 639FOREIGN TAX ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 640
Rogers v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . 640HEALTH CARE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 640
Letter Ruling 2015-28-004 . . . . . . . . . . . 640INDIVIDUAL ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 642
Capital Gains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 642Fargo v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 642
Credits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 643Estate of Menges v. Commissioner . . . . . 643Saenz v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . 643
Deductions: Charitable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 644Kunkel v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . 644Costello v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . 645Mitchell v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . 646Bosque Canyon Ranch, L.P.
v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 647Kaufman v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . 648
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
608 AUTHORITY FOR TAX POSITIONS
2.Therelevantfactsaffectingthetaxtreatmentoftheitemareadequatelydisclosedonthereturnandthereisareasonablebasisforthepositiontakenonthetaxreturn.
AUTHORITY FOR TAX POSITIONS If the IRS successfully challenges a tax return position that understates tax, the taxpayer may face an accuracy-related penalty .
I.R.C.§6662generallyimposesa20%penaltyonataxpayerwhotakesataxreturnpositionthatsubstantiallyunderstatesthetaxdueiftheIRSsuccessfullychallengestheposition.However,thepenaltydoesnotapplyintwocircumstances:
1.Thereissubstantialauthoritytosupportthepositiontakenonthetaxreturn.
Deductions: Home Mortgage Interest . . 648Copeland v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . 648Chief Counsel Advice 2014-51-027 . . . . 649Voss v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 649Phan v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 651
Deductions: Vacation Home . . . . . . . . . . 651Redisch v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . 651Van Malssen v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . 652
Deductions: Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 653Iglicki v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 653Cutler v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 653
Filing Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 654Obergefell v. Hodges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 654Ibrahim v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . 655
Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 655Elbaz v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 655Maines v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . 656Sewards v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . 657Campbell v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . 658Speer v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 658Notice 2015-21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 659Letter Ruling 2015-21-009 . . . . . . . . . . . 659Prop . Treas . Reg . § 1 .529-1 et seq . . . . . . 660REG-136018-13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 661
Self-Employment Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 662Morehouse v . Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . 662
IRS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 663Due Dates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 663
Revenue Ruling 2015-13 . . . . . . . . . . . . 663Notice 2015-57 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 663REG-136676-13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 664
Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 665Field Attorney Advice 2015-10-02F . . . . 665
Penalties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 665Chief Counsel Advice 2015-19-029 . . . . 665Chief Counsel Advice 2015-20-010 . . . . 666
SBSE-04-0615-0045 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 667Musa v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 667Notice 2014-58 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 668
Power of Attorney . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 669Chief Counsel Advice 2015-22-005 . . . . 669
Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 670Notice 2015-38 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 670Gyorgy v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . 671Heckman v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . 671Karagozian v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . 672
Refunds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 673Butts v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 673T .D . 9727 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 674
LIKE-KIND EXCHANGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 674North Central Rental & Leasing, LLC
v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 674NET OPERATING LOSSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 675
Marvel Enterprises, Inc. v. Commissioner . 675PASSIVE ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 676
Williams v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . 676Lamas v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 676
RECORDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 677Sabolic v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . 677
RETIREMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 678Ellis v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 678Announcement 2014-32 . . . . . . . . . . . . 679Letter Ruling 2015-23-019 . . . . . . . . . . . 679Letter Ruling 2015-10-060 . . . . . . . . . . . 681
TAX PRACTICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 681Specht v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 681Annual Filing Season Program . . . . . . . . 682
TRADE OR BUSINESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 682Boneparte v. Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . 682
TRUSTS AND ESTATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 683Program Manager Technical Assistance
Letter 2014-18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 683
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
Reasonable Basis 609
16
9.PrivateletterrulingsandtechnicaladvicememorandaissuedafterOctober31,1976
10.Actionsondecisions(AODs)andgeneralcounselmemorandaissuedafterMarch12,1981
11.IRSinformationreleasesorpressreleases,and notices, announcements, and otheradministrativepronouncementspublishedbytheIRSintheInternalRevenueBulletin
Authority for More Than One Position
There may be substantial authority for more than one position with respect to the same item or set of facts [Treas . Reg . § 1 .6662-4(d)(3)(i)] . That means it is possible for two different taxpayers who take two different positions on the same issue to each have substantial authority for the chosen position .
Timeliness of Substantial Authority
Tax law sometimes changes over time . There is substantial authority for the treatment of an item if there is substantial authority
■■ at the time the return containing the item is filed, or
■■ on the last day of the tax year to which the return relates [Treas . Reg . § 1 .6662-4(d)(3)(iv)(C)] .
Reasonable Basis
Thereasonablebasisstandardisnotasstringentasthesubstantialauthoritystandard.Thereisareasonablebasisforapositiononataxreturnifthereissomeauthorityforthepositioneveniftheweightofcontraryauthorityisgreater.How-ever,thereasonablebasisstandardisnotsatisfiedbyareturnpositionthatismerelyarguableorismerelyacolorableclaim.Itmustbereason-ablybasedonauthoritiesthatcanbeusedtofindsubstantialauthorityforaposition—takingintoaccounttherelevanceandpersuasivenessoftheauthoritiesandsubsequentdevelopments[Treas.Reg.§1.6662-3(b)(3)].
Adequate Disclosure on Tax Return
Disclosure is adequate if an item is properly reported on Form 8275, Disclosure Statement, or Form 8275-R, Regulation Disclosure Statement . Some items are considered adequately disclosed on the tax return itself . See Rev . Proc . 2015-16, 2015-7 I .R .B . 596 .
Substantial Authority
Thereissubstantialauthorityforapositiontakenonataxreturnonlyiftheweightofauthoritiessupportingthepositionissubstantialinrelation-shiptotheweightofauthoritiessupportingcon-trarypositions.Theweightofauthoritiesdoesnothavetomeetthemore-likely-than-notstandard—thestandardthatismetwhenthereisagreaterthan50%likelihoodofthepositionbeingupheld.However,thesubstantialauthoritystandardismorestringentthanthereasonablebasisstandarddiscussednext.
Thepossibilitythatareturnwillnotbeauditedor,ifaudited,thatanitemwillnotberaisedonauditisnotrelevantindeterminingwhetherthesubstantialauthoritystandard(orthereasonablebasisstandard)issatisfied[Treas.Reg.§1.6662-4(d)(2)].
Indeterminingwhetherthereissubstantialauthorityforapositiontakenonataxreturn,thefollowingitemsrepresentauthority:
1.ApplicableprovisionsoftheInternalRev-enueCodeandotherstatutoryprovisions
2.Proposed,temporary,andfinalregulationsconstruingsuchstatutes
3.Revenuerulingsandrevenueprocedures4.Tax treaties and regulations thereunder,
andTreasuryDepartmentandotherofficialexplanationsofsuchtreaties
5.Federalcourtcases6.Congressionalcommitteereports7.Jointexplanatorystatementsincludedincon-
gressionalconferencecommitteereports8.Generalexplanationsoftaxlegislationpre-
paredbytheJointCommitteeonTaxation
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
610 AUTHORITY FOR TAX POSITIONS
8.EighthCircuit—Minnesota,Iowa,Missouri,Arkansas,Nebraska,NorthDakota,SouthDakota
9.NinthCircuit—Montana,Idaho,Washing-ton,Oregon,California,Nevada,Arizona,Alaska,Hawaii,Guam,NorthernMarianaIslands
10.TenthCircuit—Wyoming,Utah,Colorado,NewMexico,Kansas,Oklahoma
11.EleventhCircuit—Alabama,Georgia,Florida12.District of Columbia Circuit—District of
Columbia13.FederalCircuit—anyfederaldistrictcourt,US
CourtofFederalClaims,USCourtofInter-nationalTrade,USCourtofAppealsforVet-eransClaims
Precedent for Tax CourtTheTaxCourt’sjurisdictionistheentireUnitedStatesanditspossessions.Therefore,aTaxCourtopinioninvolvingataxpayerinCaliforniaisprecedentialforataxpayerinNewYork.How-ever,TaxCourtcasesareappealedtotheUScir-cuitcourtofappealsforthecircuitinwhichthetaxpayerlives.Ifacircuitcourtofappealsover-rulesaTaxCourtcase,thecaseisoverruledonly
FIGURE 16.1 Map of Circuit Courts of Appeals Jurisdictions
Circuit Courts of Appeals
Thereare13U.S.circuitcourtsofappeals.ExceptfortheFederalCircuit,eachcourt’sjurisdictiontohearappealsislimitedgeographically,asshowninFigure 16.1.ThesecourtscanhearappealsfromtaxpayersintheirjurisdictionsofdecisionsbytheUSdistrictcourtsandtheTaxCourt.
Jurisdiction of Circuit Courts of Appeals
1.FirstCircuit—Maine,NewHampshire,Mas-sachusetts,RhodeIsland,PuertoRico
2.Second Circuit—Vermont, New York,Connecticut
3.ThirdCircuit—Pennsylvania,NewJersey,Delaware,USVirginIslands
4.FourthCircuit—Maryland,Virginia,WestVirginia,NorthCarolina,SouthCarolina
5.FifthCircuit—Texas,Louisiana,Mississippi6.SixthCircuit—Michigan,Ohio,Kentucky,
Tennessee7.SeventhCircuit—Wisconsin,Illinois,Indiana
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
Organization of the Internal Revenue Code 611
16
chapter1oftheInternalRevenueCode.Othercodesections,regulations,andIRSrulingsrefertosubchapters,suchassubchapterC,J,K,S,orT.Whatdosuchreferencesmean?
Mostfederallawsareconsolidatedinto51titlesthatconstitutetheUnitedStatesCode.Ingeneral,eachtitleisdividedintosubtitles,chap-ters,subchapters,andsections.Title26oftheU.S.CodefocusesonfederaltaxlawandisalsocalledtheInternalRevenueCode.Generally,taxlawresearchbeginswithanInternalRevenueCodesection.
However,aspreviouslystated,aresearcheroftenneedstoknowwhatsectionsareincludedinalargergrouping.ChapternumbersandsectionnumbersaregenerallyconsecutivethroughouttheInternalRevenueCode,althoughsomehavebeenrepealedorhavebeenskipped(reservedforfutureuse).Nochapterorsectionnumbersarerepeatedinthecurrentcode,althoughthenum-berofarepealedsectionmaybereassignedtoanewsection.
Figure 16.2showsthesubtitlesandchaptersoftheInternalRevenueCode,andFigure 16.3 liststhesubchaptersofchapter1oftheInternalRevenueCode.Subchapteralphasarerepeatedwithindifferentchapters.Forexample,chapters1,3,and6ofsubtitleAeachincludeasubchap-terA,sothatthechapternumberaswellasthesubchapteralphamustbeknowntoresearchasubchapterwithoutknowingthesectionnumber.
withrespecttotaxpayerswholiveinthatcircuit[Treas.Reg.§1.6662-4(d)(3)(iii)].Taxpayersout-sidethejurisdictionofthecircuitcourtofappealsthatoverruledtheTaxCourtarenotboundbythatdecision.
Effect on Substantial AuthorityTreas.Reg.§1.6662-4(d)(3)(iv)(B)saysthatthetaxpayer’sresidenceisnottakenintoaccountforpurposesoftheapplicabilityofacourtcaseindeterminingwhetherornotthereissubstantialauthorityforthetaxtreatmentofanitem.Conse-quently,eventhoughtaxpayersarenotboundbycircuitcourtofappealsopinionsoutsideoftheirowncircuit,theycanandmustconsiderthoseopinionswhendeterminingwhetherthereissub-stantialauthorityforapositiononataxreturn.
Organization of the Internal Revenue Code
Treas.Reg.§1.1411-1,whichprovidesgeneralrulesforthenetinvestmentincometax(NIIT),beginswiththegeneralrulethat,exceptasoth-erwiseprovided,all InternalRevenueCodeprovisionsthatapplyforchapter1purposesindeterminingataxpayer’staxableincomealsoapplyindeterminingtheNIIT.Toapplythisrule,ataxprofessionalmustknowwhatisincludedin
FIGURE 16.2 Subtitles and Chapters of the Internal Revenue Code
Grouping Title Sections
Subtitle A Income Taxes §§ 1–1563
Chapter 1 Normal Taxes and Surtaxes §§ 1–1400U-3
Chapter 2 Tax on Self-Employment Income §§ 1401–1403
Chapter 2A Unearned Income Medicare Contribution § 1411
Chapter 3 Withholding of Tax on Nonresident Aliens and Foreign Corporations §§ 1441–1464
Chapter 4 Taxes to Enforce Reporting on Certain Foreign Accounts §§ 1471–1474
Chapter 5 [Repealed]
Chapter 6 Consolidated Returns §§ 1501–1563
Subtitle B Estate and Gift Taxes §§ 2001–2801
Chapter 11 Estate Tax §§ 2001–2210
Chapter 12 Gift Tax §§ 2501–2524
Chapter 13 Tax on Generation-Skipping Transfers §§ 2601–2664
Chapter 14 Special Valuation Rules §§ 2701–2704
Chapter 15 Gifts and Bequests From Expatriates § 2801
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
612 AUTHORITY FOR TAX POSITIONS
Subtitle C Employment Taxes and Collection of Income Tax §§ 3101–3510
Chapter 22 Railroad Retirement Tax Act §§ 3201–3241
Chapter 23 Federal Unemployment Tax Act §§ 3301–3311
Chapter 23A Railroad Unemployment Repayment Tax §§ 3321–3322
Chapter 24 Collection of Income Tax at Source §§ 3401–3406
Chapter 25 General Provisions Relating To Employment Taxes and Collection of Income Taxes at Source
§§ 3501–3510
Subtitle D Miscellaneous Excise Taxes §§ 4001–5000
Chapter 31 Retail Excise Taxes §§ 4001–4053
Chapter 32 Manufacturers Excise Taxes §§ 4064–4227
Chapter 33 Facilities and Services §§ 4251–4293
Chapter 34 Policies Issued By Foreign Insurers §§ 4371–4377
Chapter 35 Taxes on Wagering §§ 4401–4424
Chapter 36 Certain Other Excise Taxes §§ 4461–4484
Chapter 37 [Repealed]
Chapter 38 Environmental Taxes §§ 4611–4682
Chapter 39 Registration-Required Obligations § 4701
Chapter 40 General Provisions Relating to Occupational Taxes §§ 4901–4907
Chapter 41 Public Charities §§ 4911–4912
Chapter 42 Private Foundations and Certain Other Tax-Exempt Organizations §§ 4940–4967
Chapter 43 Qualified Pension, etc ., Plans §§ 4971–4980I
Chapter 44 Qualified Investment Entities §§ 4981–4982
Chapter 45 Provisions Relating to Expatriated Entities § 4985
Chapter 46 Golden Parachute Payments § 4999
Chapter 47 Certain Group Health Plans § 5000
Chapter 48 Maintenance of Minimum Essential Coverage § 5000A
Chapter 49 Cosmetic Services § 5000B
Chapter 50 Foreign Procurement § 5000C
Subtitle E Alcohol, Tobacco, and Certain Other Excise Taxes §§ 5001–5891
Chapter 51 Distilled Spirits, Wines, and Beer §§ 5001–5692
Chapter 52 Tobacco Products and Cigarette Papers and Tubes §§ 5701–5763
Chapter 53 Machine Guns, Destructive Devices, and Certain Other Firearms §§ 5801–5872
Chapter 54 Greenmail § 5881
Chapter 55 Structured Settlement Factoring Transactions § 5891
Subtitle F Procedure and Administration §§ 6001–7874
Chapter 61 Information and Returns §§ 6001–6117
Chapter 62 Time and Place for Paying Tax §§ 6151–6167
Chapter 63 Assessment §§ 6201–6255
Chapter 64 Collection §§ 6301–6344
Chapter 65 Abatements, Credits, and Refunds §§ 6401–6432
Chapter 66 Limitations §§ 6501–6533
Chapter 67 Interest §§ 6601–6631
Chapter 68 Additions to the Tax, Additional Amounts, and Assessable Penalties §§ 6651–6751
Chapter 69 General Provisions Relating to Stamps §§ 6801–6808
FIGURE 16.2 Subtitles and Chapters of the Internal Revenue Code (Continued)
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
Organization of the Internal Revenue Code 613
16
Subtitle F Procedure and Administration (continued) §§ 6001–7874
Chapter 70 Jeopardy, Receivership, etc . §§ 6851–6873
Chapter 71 Transferees and Fiduciaries §§ 6901–6905
Chapter 72 Licensing and Registration §§ 7001–7012
Chapter 73 Bonds §§ 7101–7103
Chapter 74 Closing Agreements and Compromises §§ 7121–7124
Chapter 75 Crimes, Other Offenses, and Forfeitures §§ 7201–7344
Chapter 76 Judicial Proceedings §§ 7401–7491
Chapter 77 Miscellaneous Provisions §§ 7501–7528
Chapter 78 Discovery of Liability and Enforcement of Title §§ 7601–7655
Chapter 79 Definitions §§ 7701–7704
Chapter 80 General Rules §§ 7801–7874
Subtitle G The Joint Committee on Taxation §§ 8001–8023
Chapter 91 Organization and Membership of the Joint Committee §§ 8001–8005
Chapter 92 Powers and Duties of the Joint Committee §§ 8021–8023
Subtitle H Financing of Presidential Election Campaigns §§ 9001–9042
Chapter 95 Presidential Election Campaign Fund §§ 9001–9013
Chapter 96 Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account §§ 9031–9042
Subtitle I Trust Fund Code §§ 9500–9602
Short title § 9500
Chapter 98 Trust Fund Code §§ 9501–9602
Subtitle J Coal Industry Health Benefits §§ 9701–9722
Chapter 99 Coal Industry Health Benefits §§ 9701–9722
Subtitle K Group Health Plan Requirements §§ 9801–9834
Chapter 100 Group Health Plan Requirements §§ 9801–9834
FIGURE 16.3 Subchapters of Chapter 1, “Normal Taxes and Surtaxes”Subchapter Title Sections
Subchapter A Determination of Tax Liability §§ 1–59B
Subchapter B Computation of Taxable Income §§ 61–291
Subchapter C Corporate Distributions and Adjustments §§ 301–385
Subchapter D Deferred Compensation, etc . §§ 401–436
Subchapter E Accounting Periods and Methods of Accounting §§ 441–483
Subchapter F Exempt Organizations §§ 501–530
Subchapter G Corporations Used to Avoid Income Tax on Shareholders §§ 531–565
Subchapter H Banking Institutions §§ 581–597
Subchapter I Natural Resources §§ 611–638
Subchapter J Estates, Trusts, Beneficiaries, and Decedents §§ 641–692
Subchapter K Partners and Partnerships §§ 701–777
Subchapter L Insurance Companies §§ 801–848
Subchapter M Regulated Investment Companies and Real Estate Investment Trusts §§ 851–860G
Subchapter N Tax Based on Income From Sources Within or Without the United States §§ 861–999
Subchapter O Gain or Loss on Disposition of Property §§ 1001–1092
Subchapter P Capital Gains and Losses §§ 1201–1298
FIGURE 16.2 Subtitles and Chapters of the Internal Revenue Code (Continued)
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
614 AUTHORITY FOR TAX POSITIONS
areseparatedbyahyphen(forexample,Treas.Reg.§1.162-4).Ifaregulationrelatestoaspecificsubsection,thesubsectionmaybeidentifiedinparenthesesafterthesectionnumber.
Thepartnumberdescribesthetypeofregu-lation.Incometaxregulationsmostoftenbeginwitha1,butFigure 16.4 shows that theseregulationscanbeginwithanynumberfrom1through19.
Deciphering Treasury Regulations
TreasuryregulationsareusuallyformattedwithaprefixthatisapartnumberfollowedbyanInter-nalRevenueCodesectionnumberfollowedbyasequentialnumber.Thepartnumberandthesectionnumberareseparatedbyaperiod,andthesectionnumberandthesequentialnumber
Subchapter Q Readjustment of Tax Between Years and Special Limitations §§ 1301–1351
Subchapter R Election to Determine Corporate Tax on Certain International Shipping Activities Using Per Ton Rate
§§ 1352–1359
Subchapter R [Repealed]
Subchapter S Tax Treatment of S Corporations and Their Shareholders §§ 1361–1379
Subchapter T Cooperatives and Their Patrons §§ 1381–1388
Subchapter U Designation and Treatment of Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Communities, and Rural Development Investment Areas
§§ 1391–1397F
Subchapter V Title 11 Cases §§ 1398–1399
Subchapter W District of Columbia Enterprise Zone §§ 1400–1400C
Subchapter X Renewal Communities §§ 1400E–1400J
Subchapter Y Short-Term Regional Benefits §§ 1400L–1400U-3
FIGURE 16.4 Prefixes That Begin Treasury Regulation Citations
Subchapter Type of Tax Part Numbers
Subchapter A Income tax Parts 1 to 19
Subchapter B Estate and gift taxes Parts 20 to 27
Subchapter C Employment taxes and collection of income tax at source
Parts 30 to 37
Subchapter D Miscellaneous excise taxes Parts 40 to 158
Subchapter E [Reserved]
Subchapter F Procedure and administration Parts 300 to 421
Subchapter G Regulations under tax conventions Parts 500 to 521
Subchapter H Internal Revenue practice Parts 600 to 802
Example 16.1 Basis of Property Acquired from a Decedent
I.R.C.§1014setsouttherulesfordeterminingbasisinpropertythatistransferredfromadece-denttoasurvivorbybequest,devise,orinheri-tanceorbytransfertothedecedent’sestateaswellastransfersbytrustandothermeans.Therearenineregulationsthatfleshouttherules.Theyarenumbered1through9andthenumberofeachoneisprecededby§1.1014-,forexample,§1.1014-1.Eachoftheregulationshasaheading
thatdescribesthecontentoftheregulation:forexample,§1.1014-2,“Propertyacquiredfromadecedent.”
Example 16.2 Temporary Treasury Regulation
I.R.C.§162(l)providesthatself-employedindi-vidualsmaytakeadeductionfortheirmedicalinsurancecostsasanadjustmenttogrossincomeifspecificcriteriaaremet.Temp.Treas.Reg.
FIGURE 16.3 Subchapters of Chapter 1, “Normal Taxes and Surtaxes” (Continued)
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
Deciphering Treasury Regulations 615
16
Figure 16.5liststheincometaxregulationprefixesandregulationsections.Notethatmostoftheprefixesexceptfor1relatetotemporaryregulationsissuedunderspecificlaws.(Someoftheseoldertemporaryregulations,suchasTemp.Treas.Reg.§7.465-2,“Determinationofamountatrisk.”stillexist.)TheTreasury’spracticenow,though,istousea1prefixforsuchregulationsandaddaTtotheendoftheregulationnumber.
§1.162(l)-1Tisatemporaryincometaxregu-lationapplicablefortaxyearsbeginningafterDecember31,2013, thatwillexpireonJuly24,2017.TheregulationcoordinatestheI.R.C.§162(l)deductionwiththenewpremiumtaxcreditunderI.R.C.§36B.
FIGURE 16.5 Income Tax Regulation Prefixes
Part Topic Regulations
Part 1 Income taxes §§ 1 .0-1 to 1 .9300-1
Part 2 Maritime construction reserve fund §§ 2 .1 to 2 .1-28
Part 3 Capital construction fund §§ 3 .0 to 3 .11
Part 4 Temporary income tax regulations under section 954 of the Internal Revenue Code
§§ 4 .954-0 to 4 .954-2
Part 5 Temporary income tax regulations under the Revenue Act of 1978 §§ 5 .856-1 to 5 .6411-1
Part 5c Temporary income tax regulations under the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981
§§ 5c .44f-1 to 5c .1305-1
Part 5e Temporary income tax regulations, travel expenses of members of Congress
§§ 5e .274-8 to5e .274-8
Part 5f Temporary income tax regulations under the Tax Equity And Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982
§§ 5f .103-1 to5f .168(f)(8)-1
Part 6a Temporary regulations under title II of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1980
§§ 6a .103a-1 to 6a .6652(g)-1
Part 7 Temporary income tax regulations under the Tax Reform Act of 1976
§§ 7 .48-1 to7 .6041-1
Part 8 Temporary income tax regulations under section 3 of the Act of October 26, 1974 (Pub . L . No . 93-483)
§ 8 .1
Part 9 Temporary income tax regulations under the Tax Reduction Act of 1975
§§ 9 .1 to9 .3
Part 11 Temporary income tax regulations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act Of 1974 (ERISA)
§§ 11 .401(a)-11 to11 .412(c)-12
Part 12 Temporary income tax regulations under the Revenue Act of 1971 §§ 12 .3 to12 .9
Part 13 Temporary income tax regulations under the Tax Reform Act of 1969
§§ 13 .0-13 .3 to13 .11
Part 15 Temporary income tax regulations relating to exploration expenditures in the case of mining
§§ 15 .0-1 to15 .1-4
Part 15a Temporary income tax regulations under the Installment Sales Revision Act
§§ 15a .453-0 to15a .453-2
Part 16 Temporary regulations under the Revenue Act of 1962 §§ 16 .3-1 to16 .3-1
Part 16a Temporary income tax regulations relating to the partial exclusion for certain conservation cost-sharing payments
§§ 16a .126-0 to16a .1255-2
Part 18 Temporary income tax regulations under the Subchapter S Revision Act of 1982
§§ 18 .0 to18 .1379-2
Part 19 Temporary regulations under the Revenue Act of 1964 §§ 19 .3-1 to19 .3-1
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
616 ACCOUNTING
TheproposedregulationsrepublishinTreas.Reg.§1.453B-1(c)thegeneralruleinTreas.Reg.§1.453-9(c)(2)underwhichgainorlossisnotrec-ognizeduponcertaindispositions.
Inaddition,theproposedregulationsincorpo-rateandexpandtheholdingofRev.Rul.73-423,1973-2C.B.161,toprovidethatatransferorrec-ognizesgainorlossunderI.R.C.§453B(a)whenthetransferordisposesofaninstallmentobliga-tioninatransactionthatresultsinthesatisfactionoftheinstallmentobligation,includingwhenacorporation’sorpartnership’sinstallmentobli-gationiscontributedtothecorporationorpart-nershipinexchangeforanequityinterestinthecorporationorpartnership.
[REG-109187-11,2015-2I.R.B.277]
Agricultural Issues
Field Attorney Advice 2015-08-01FI.R.C.§§199and1388
■☞ A nonexempt agricultural cooperative did not make per unit retains paid in money (PURPIM) with respect to grain purchases by a related LLC from the taxpayer’s patrons for purposes of the domestic production activity deduction .
FactsThe taxpayerwas anonexempt agriculturalcooperativethatfiledForm1120-C,U.S.IncomeTaxReturnforCooperativeAssociations.Thetaxpayerwasformed“toengageinanycoopera-tiveactivityforthemutualbenefitofitscommonstockholdersandpatronsinconnectionwiththepurchasingordistributionoffarmsuppliesortheproduction,marketingorsellingofagriculturalproducts”and“topurchase,handle,store,dealin,marketandsellgrain,soybeansandotheragricul-turalcommodities.”Thetaxpayerwasorganizedwithcapitalstock,bothpreferredandcommon,andseveralclassesofpreferredstockwereissued.
RULINGS AND CASES This chapter contains a selection of court cases, Treasury regulations, revenue rulings, revenue procedures, IRS announcements and notices, letter rulings, and IRS chief counsel advice memoranda issued since the publication of the 2014 National Income Tax Workbook .
Theseitemshavebeeneditedandappear inacondensedform.Theyshouldnotbeusedassubstantialauthorityuntiltheentiretextoftheauthorityhasbeenread.
Accounting
REG-109187-11I.R.C.§453B
■☞ Proposed regulations provide that a transferor must recognize gain or loss on the disposition of an installment obligation if the obligation is trans-ferred to the issuer in return for an equity interest .
ProposedregulationsunderI.R.C.§453Bgen-erallyprovidethatgainoflossisnotrecognizedonthedispositionofaninstallmentobligationifsuchgainorlossisnotrecognizedunderanotherprovisionoftheInternalRevenueCode.Theproposedregulationsalsoprovidethatthisgen-eralruledoesnotapplytothesatisfactionofaninstallmentobligation,suchaswhentheholderofaninstallmentobligationtransferstheobligationtotheissuerforanequityinterestintheissuer.
I.R.C.§453B(a)providesthatgainorlossisrecognizedwhenaninstallmentobligationissatisfiedatotherthanitsfacevalueorwhentheobligationisdistributed,transmitted,sold,oroth-erwisedisposedof.
ExistingTreas.Reg.§1.453-9(c)(2)statesthatifgainorlossforcertaindispositionsisnotrec-ognizedundertheInternalRevenueCode,thenthegainorlossisnotrecognizedonthedispo-sitionofaninstallmentobligationthatqualifiesforthatexception.ExceptionsidentifiedinTreas.Reg.§1.453-9(c)(2)includecertaintransferstocorporationsunderI.R.C.§§351and361,con-tributionstopartnershipsunderI.R.C.§721,anddistributionsbypartnershipstopartnersunderI.R.C.§731(exceptasprovidedbyI.R.C.§§736and751).
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
Agricultural Issues 617
16
TheLLCmarketedtheproducts,andthepur-chaseagreementswerebetweentheLLCandthegrainproducers,someofwhomwerethetaxpay-er’spatrons.Anamountpaidtoapatronbasedonacontractbetweenthepatronandapersonotherthanacooperativedoesnotmeetthedefini-tionofaper unit retainbecausethecontractsignedbythepatronisnotanagreementwiththecoop-erative,asrequiredbyI.R.C.§1388(f).
TheLLCcharacterized thepayments forgrainaspurchases,andthetaxpayercouldnotrecharacterizetheLLCpurchasesfrompatronsasPURPIMforpurposesofcalculatingthetax-payer’sDPADandQPAI.
I.R.C.§199allowsadeductionequalto9%ofthelesserofQPAIortaxableincome,limitedto50%ofW-2wagesrelatedtotheproductionofqualifiedproductionproperty.QPAIincludesincomefromthesalebyagrainmerchantofagri-culturalitemsproducedintheUnitedStatesthatthemerchantpurchasedfromthefarmers,stored,dried,cleaned,andsoforthinfacilitieslocatedintheUnitedStates[Treas.Reg.§1.199-3(e)(5)].
AnLLC(taxableasapartnershipforfederalincometaxpurposes)engagedinthebusinessofbuying,storing,andsellinggrainhasDPGRfromitsgrainsalesifitsellsgraintoprocessorstobeprocessedintorefinedagriculturalproductsintheUnitedStates,thegrainwasoriginallypro-ducedintheUnitedStates,andthepartnership’sstorageandhandlingfacilitiesarelocatedintheUnitedStates.
ExceptforlossesanddeductionsdisallowedtoapartnerunderI.R.C.§465,469,or704(d),apartnerisrequiredtoincludeinhisorhercal-culationoftheallowabledeductionunderI.R.C.§199thepartner’sdistributiveshareofpartner-shipDPGRanditemsallocabletoDPGR(includ-ingcostofgoodssold)passedthroughtothepartnerfromthepartnershipinaccordancewithI.R.C.§§702and704.
UnderI.R.C.§199(d)(3)(C)thereisan“add-back”rule forcooperatives.ForpurposesofI.R.C.§199,thetaxableincomeofaspecifiedagriculturalorhorticulturalcooperativemustbecomputedwithoutregardtoanydeductionallow-ableunderI.R.C.§1382(b)or(c)(relatingtopatronagedividends,perunitretainallocations,andnonpatronagedistributions).
Afterpayinganydividendsoncapitalstockdeclaredbytheboardofdirectorsandafterset-tingasidereasonableandadequatereserves,thetaxpayerwasrequiredtodistributeitsremainingnetearningsonthebasisofpatronagetoitsmem-bersandotherpatronswhomettherequirementstoparticipateinpatronagedistributions.Thetax-payer’smemberswereitscommonstockholders.Otherproducersthatpatronizedthecooperativebutwhowerenotcommonstockholderswerealsoeligibletoreceivepatronagedistributionsiftheymetcertainrequirements.
Thetaxpayerjoinedwithtwoothercoopera-tivestoformalimitedliabilitycompanythatwasalicensedgraindealerthatfiledreturnsasapart-nershipforfederalincometaxpurposes.
InexchangeforaninterestintheLLC,thetaxpayeragreedtocontributeitsgrainmarketingandwarehousingbusinessestotheLLC,includ-ingland,grainfacilitiesandequipment,transpor-tationequipment,grainaccountingsoftware,andcertainintangibleassets;sellitsgraininventorytotheLLCatcurrentreplacementcost;surren-deritsgraindealer’slicense;signanagreementnottocompetewiththeLLC;andleasecertainemployeestotheLLCtomanagethebusiness,operatethegrainfacilities,marketthegrain,andkeepthebooks.
TheLLCissuedSchedulesK-1(Form1065),Partner’sShareofIncome,Deductions,Cred-its,etc.,tothetaxpayer,andpassedthroughthetaxpayer’sshareofdomesticproductiongrossreceipts(DPGR),costofgoodssold,andwagesrelated to thedomesticproductionactivitiesdeduction(DPAD).
Thetaxpayeraddedbackthevalueofthepur-chasesofgrainbytheLLCfromthetaxpayer’spatronsasPURPIM. ThetaxpayeralsoincludedactivitiesfromitsownoperationsintheDPAD.Thetaxpayer’sDPGR,costofgoodssold,anddeductionsandlossesallocabletoDPGRforitsownoperationsyieldedanegativequalifiedpro-ductionactivitiesincome(QPAI).
AnalysisI.R.C.§1388(f)definesaperunitretainallocationas“anyallocation,byanorganizationtowhichpartIofthissubchapterapplies,toapatronwithrespecttoproductsmarketedforhim,theamountofwhichisfixedwithoutreferencetothenetearn-ingsoftheorganizationpursuanttoanagreementbetweentheorganizationandthepatrons.”
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
618 BANKRUPTCY
HoldingThe courtheld that apenalty for failure tofileatimelyincometaxreturnwasdischargeableinbankruptcy if thebankruptcypetitionwasfiledmorethan3yearsafterthedatethetaxeswereinitially due, without regard for an automaticextension.
[In re Wilson,527B.R.635(Bankr.N.D.Calif.2015)]
In re Fahey11U.S.C.§523
■☞ Failure to timely file state income tax returns pre-vented the discharge of state taxes in bankruptcy .
FactsThecaseinvolvedfourtaxpayerswhoallfailedtotimelyfiletheirMassachusettsincometaxreturnsformultipleyearsinarow.Thetaxpay-ersalsofailedtopay(eithertimelyorotherwise)theirtaxestotheMassachusettsDepartmentofRevenue(theDepartment).Eventually,eachdebtorfiledalatetaxreturnbutstillfailedtopayalltaxes,interest,andpenaltiesthatweredue.Morethan2yearslater,theyfiledforchapter7bankruptcy.Thedebtorssoughtarulingthattheirobligationtopaythetaxestheyfailedtopaywasdischargeable.TheDepartmentcontendedthatnoreturnwastimelyfiledbyMassachusetts’sstatutorydeadline,andtheunpaidtaxesfitwithinanexceptiontodischarge.
Analysis11U.S.C.§523prohibitsthedischargeinbank-ruptcyofataxwithrespecttowhichareturn(1)wasnotfiled;or(2)wasfiledafterthedateonwhichsuchreturnwaslastdue,underappli-cablelaworunderanyextension,andafter2yearsbeforethedateofthefilingofthepetition.11U.S.C.§523(a),enactedin2005,statesthat“theterm‘return’meansareturnthatsatisfiestherequirementsofapplicablenonbankruptcylaw(includingapplicablefilingrequirements).SuchtermincludesareturnpreparedpursuanttoI.R.C.§6020(a),orsimilarstateorlocallaw,orawrittenstipulationtoajudgmentorafinalorderenteredbyanonbankruptcytribunal,butdoesnotincludeareturnmadepursuanttoI.R.C.§6020(b),orasimilarstateorlocallaw.”
RulingTheIRSruledthat thetaxpayercooperativecouldnottreattheLLC’sgrainpurchasesfromthetaxpayer’spatronsasitsownPURPIMforpurposesoftheDPAD.
[F.A.A.2015-08-01F(February27,2015)]
Bankruptcy
In re WilsonI.R.C.§6651
■☞ The penalty for failure to file a timely income tax return was dischargeable in bankruptcy, where the bankruptcy petition was filed more than 3 years after the date the taxes were initially due .
FactsOnJuly24,2012,thetaxpayerfiledforchapter7bankruptcy. The taxpayer had filed the 2008tax return in 2011 but did not pay the taxesowed.Thetaxpayerhadobtainedanautomaticextension for the 2008 return. The bankruptcytrusteepaidthetaxesowedfor2008butdidnotpay any penalties. The IRS assessed penaltiesunder I.R.C. § 6651(a)(1) for failure to file areturn.
AnalysisUnder 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7)(B), federal taxpenaltiesaredischargediftheyare“imposedwithrespect toa transactionorevent” thatoccurredmorethan3yearsbeforethebankruptcypetition.The taxpayer argued that the penalties wereimposedwithrespecttothe2008taxliabilityonApril15,2009,thedatethe2008returnwasdue,and thereforewere imposedmore than3yearsbefore the taxpayer filed for bankruptcy. TheIRSarguedthatthepenaltyforfailuretofilewasimposedonOctober15,2009,whenthetaxpayermissed the extended filing deadline, and wastherefore imposed less than 3 years before thebankruptcypetitionwasfiled.
ThecourtheldthatincometaxesaccrueonApril 15 of the year following the tax year inquestion; therefore, a penalty for failure to file2008taxeswasimposedonApril15,2009,adatethatwasmorethan3yearsbeforethetaxpayerfiledforbankruptcy.
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
Basis 619
16
beencommencedbeforethecommencementofthe[bankruptcy]case.”
ThecourtheldthatI.R.C.§§6320(pertain-ingtoliens)and6330(pertainingtolevies)wereenactedtoprovidespecifiedprotectionsfortax-payersintaxcollectionmatters.I.R.C.§6320providesthatthesecretaryoftheTreasuryshallfurnishapersondescribedinI.R.C.§6321withwrittennoticeofthefilingofanoticeoflienunderI.R.C.§6323.ThenoticerequiredbyI.R.C.§6320mustbeprovidednotmorethan5businessdaysafterthedayofthefilingofthenoticeoflien.I.R.C.§6320furtherprovidesthatthepersonmayrequestadministrativereviewofthematter(intheformofanAppealsOfficehear-ing)within30daysbeginningonthedayafterthe5-dayperiod.I.R.C.§6320(c)providesthattheAppealsOfficehearinggenerallyshallbecon-ductedconsistentwiththeproceduressetforthinI.R.C.§6330(c),(d),and(e).
TheissuebeforethecourtwaswhetherthepostbankruptcypetitionfilingoftheNoticeofDeterminationConcerningCollectionActionswasacontinuationofanadministrativeproceed-ingagainstthetaxpayer/debtor.Priortofilingthebankruptcypetition,thetaxpayerhadrequestedadministrativereviewofthenoticeoflienfiling,andthecourtheldthatthisadministrativereviewwasstayedunder11U.S.C.§362(a)(1)duringthebankruptcycase.ThecourtalsoheldthattheIRSfilingoftheNoticeofDeterminationCon-cerningCollectionActionswasacontinuationofthatadministrativereviewinviolationoftheautomaticstay.
HoldingThecourtheldthatfilingtheNoticeofDetermi-nationConcerningCollectionActionsafterthefilingofthebankruptcypetitionviolatedtheauto-maticstayandwasinvalid.
[Yuska v. Commissioner,T.C.Memo.2015-77]
Basis
Rev. Proc. 2015-37 I.R.C.§1014
■☞ The IRS has added a new area to the list of areas for which it will not issue private letter rulings .
ThecourtfoundthatunderMassachusettslawanincometaxreturnwasrequiredtobefiledbythefifteenthdayofthefourthmonthfollowingthecloseofthetaxyear.Thus,thecourtheldthat,underMassachusettslaw,anuntimelyreturnwasnotareturnforpurposesof11U.S.C.§523(a)becausethelatereturndidnotsatisfythe“appli-cablefilingrequirements.”Therefore,11U.S.C.§523(a)(1)(B)prohibitsthedischargeofanytaxesowedforthetaxyearsforwhichthetaxpayersfiledlatereturnswithin2yearsbeforethebank-ruptcyfiling.
HoldingThecourtheldthatthetaxpayerswerenotentitledtoadischargeofstateincometaxesowedforthetaxyearsforwhichthetaxpayersfileduntimelyreturnswithin2yearsoffilingforbankruptcy.
[In re Fahey,779F.3d1(1stCir.2015)]
Yuska v. CommissionerI.R.C.§§6320and6330
■☞ A postbankruptcy petition filing of a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Actions violated the bankruptcy automatic stay .
FactsOnNovember19,2013,theIRSsentthetax-payeraNoticeofFederalTaxLienFilingandYourRighttoaHearingUnderI.R.C.6320withrespecttotaxyears2005and2006.OnDecem-ber3,2013,thetaxpayersubmittedtotheIRSatimelyrequestforadministrativereviewunderI.R.C.§6320,andonSeptember29,2014,thetaxpayerfiledforreliefunderchapter13oftheBankruptcyCode.OnOctober7,2014,theIRSissuedtothetaxpayer/debtoraNoticeofDeter-minationConcerningCollectionActionsforthetaxyears2005and2006.OnNovember12,2014,thetaxpayer/debtorfiledapetitioninthebank-ruptcycourtclaimingthattheIRSnoticewasinvalidbecauseitviolatedthebankruptcyauto-maticstay.
AnalysisTheautomaticstayunder11U.S.C.§362(a)(1)bars“thecommencementorcontinuation,includ-ingtheissuanceoremploymentofprocess,ofajudicial,administrative,orotheractionorpro-ceedingagainstthedebtorthatwasorcouldhave
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
620 BASIS
expendituresincurredbythedecedentunderI.R.C.§48withinthemeasuringperiodthataretreatedashavingbeenincurredbythetransfereedecreasethetransferee’sbasisforpurposesofthesubstantialrehabilitationtest.
Prop.Treas.Reg.§1.83-4(b)(1)providesthatifpropertytowhichI.R.C.§83appliesisacquiredbyanypersonwhilesuchpropertyissubstantiallynonvested,suchperson’sbasisinthepropertyreflectsanyadjustmentstobasispro-videdunderI.R.C.§1022,aswellasunderI.R.C.§§1015and1016.
Prop. Treas. Reg. §§ 1.179-4(c)(1)(iv),1.267(d)-1(a)(3),1.336-1(b)(5)(i)(A),and1.355-6(d)(1)(i)(A)(2)providethatpropertyacquiredfromadecedentinatransactioninwhichtherecipient’sbasis isdeterminedunderI.R.C.§1022isnotacquiredbypurchaseorexchangeforpurposesofI.R.C.§§179,267,336,and355(d).
Prop.Treas.Reg.§1.197-2(h)(5)(i)providesthattheantichurningrulesofTreas.Reg.§1.197-2(h)donotapplytotheacquisitionofanI.R.C.§197(f)(9)intangibleiftheacquiringtaxpayer’sbasisintheintangibleisdeterminedunderI.R.C.§1022.
Prop.Treas.Reg.§1.306-3(e)providesthatI.R.C.§306stockcontinuestobeclassifiedasI.R.C.§306stockifthebasisofsuchstockisdeter-minedbyreferencetothedecedent-stockholder’sbasisunderI.R.C.§1022.Inaddition,therevi-sionofthelastsentenceoftheexistingregulationclarifiesthereferenceto“theoptionalvaluationdateundersection1014”bychangingthelan-guagetoreferexpresslytotheelectiontousethealternatevaluationdateunderI.R.C.§2032.
Prop.Treas.Reg.§1.382-9providesthatforpurposesofTreas.Reg.§1.382-9(d)(5)(i),thedefi-nitionofqualified transferisexpandedtoincludesituationswhere the transferee’sbasis in theindebtednessisdeterminedunderI.R.C.§1022.
Prop.Treas.Reg.§1.421-2(c)(4)providesthatanoptiongrantedunderanemployeestockpurchaseplanacquiresabasis,determinedunderI.R.C.§1014(orI.R.C.§1022,ifapplicable),onlyifthetransferofthesharepursuanttotheexerciseofsuchoptionqualifiesforthespecialtaxtreatmentprovidedbyI.R.C.§421(a).
Prop.Treas.Reg.§1.423-2(k)(2)providesthatifthespecialrulesprovidedunderTreas.Reg.§1.423-2(k)areapplicabletoashareofstockuponthedeathofanemployee,thenthe
ThisrevenueprocedureamplifiesRev.Proc.2015-3,2015-1I.R.B.129,whichsetsforthareasoftheInternalRevenueCodeinwhichtheIRSwillnot issue letterrulingsordeterminationletters.
TheIRSwillnotissueaprivateletterrulingastowhethertheassetsinagrantortrustreceiveanI.R.C.§1014basisadjustmentatthedeathofthedeemedownerofthetrustforincometaxpurposeswhenthoseassetsarenotincludibleinthegrossestateofthatownerunderchapter11ofsubtitleBoftheInternalRevenueCode.
[Rev.Proc.2015-37,2015-26I.R.B.1196]
REG-107595-11I.R.C.§1022
■☞ Proposed regulations add references to I .R .C . § 1022 to various Treasury regulations involving basis rules .
I.R.C.§1022(a)(1)generallyprovidesthatprop-ertyacquiredfromadecedent[withinthemean-ingofI.R.C.§1022(e)]whodiedin2010istreatedashavingbeentransferredbygift.Ifthedece-dent’sadjustedbasiswaslessthanorequaltotheproperty’sFMVdeterminedasofthedecedent’sdateofdeath,therecipient’sbasisistheadjustedbasisofthedecedent.Ifthedecedent’sadjustedbasiswasgreaterthanthatFMV,therecipient’sbasisislimitedtothatFMV.
Ifthedecedent’sadjustedbasisintheprop-ertywaslessthantheproperty’sFMVonthedecedent’sdateofdeath,I.R.C.§1022(b)and(c)allowtheexecutorofadecedent’sestatetoallo-cateadditionalbasistocertainassetsthatwereownedbythedecedentatdeathandareacquiredfromthedecedent.However,theproperty’stotalbasismaynotexceedtheproperty’sFMVonthedateofdeath.
AlthoughI.R.C.§1022wasapplicableonlytodecedentsdyingincalendaryear2010,aprop-erty’sbasisdeterminedpursuanttothatsectionwillcontinuetoberelevantuntilalloftheprop-ertyforwhichbasiswasdeterminedunderthatsectionhasbeensoldorotherwisedisposedof.Therefore,theIRSdeterminedthattheexist-ingregulationsmustbeupdatedtoincorporateappropriatereferencestobasisdeterminedunderI.R.C.§1022.
Prop.Treas.Reg.§1.48-12(b)(2)(vii)(B)pro-videsthatifatransferee’sbasisisdeterminedunderI.R.C.§1022,anyqualifiedrehabilitation
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
Basis 621
16
byreasonofdeathofUStransferordecedentsdyingin2010.IftheexecutorofaUSdecedentdoesnotmakeanI.R.C.§1022election,thepro-posedregulationsconfirmthatthegeneralexcep-tiontogainrecognitionwillapply.IftheexecutorofaUSdecedentdoesmakeanI.R.C.§1022election,theproposedregulationsprovidethatthereisgainrecognition.AnybasisincreasethattheexecutorallocatesunderI.R.C.§1022willreducetheamountofgaininthatpropertyforpurposesofI.R.C.§684.
Prop.Treas.Reg.§1.742-1(a)providesthatthebasisofapartnershipinterestacquiredfromadecedentwhodiedin2010,andwhoseexecu-tormadeanI.R.C.§1022election,istheloweroftheadjustedbasisofthedecedentortheFMVoftheinterestatthedateofthedecedent’sdeath.ThebasisofpropertyacquiredfromadecedentmaybefurtherincreasedunderI.R.C.§1022(b)or1022(c),butnotabovetheFMVoftheinterestonthedateofthedecedent’sdeath.
Prop.Treas.Reg.§1.995-4(d)(2)providesthattheperiodduringwhichashareholderofstockinadomesticinternationalsalescorporation(DISC)hasheldstockincludestheperiodheorsheisconsideredtohavehelditbyreasonoftheappli-cationofI.R.C.§1223,andiftheshareholder’sbasisisdeterminedinwholeorinpartundertheprovisionsofI.R.C.§1022,theholdingperiodincludestheholdingperiodofthedecedent.
Prop.Treas.Reg.§1.1014-4(a)providesthatthebasisofpropertyacquiredfromadecedent,includingbasisdeterminedunderI.R.C.§1022,isuniforminthehandsofeverypersonhavingpossessionorenjoymentofthepropertyatanytime,whetherobtainedunderthewillorotherinstrument,orunderthelawsofdescentanddistribution.
Prop.Treas.Reg.§1.1014-5(b)providesthatindetermininggainorlossfromthesaleorotherdispositionofaterminterestinproperty,theadjustedbasisofwhichisdeterminedpursuanttoI.R.C.§1022,thatpartoftheadjusteduniformbasisassignableundertherulesofTreas.Reg.§1.1014-5(a)totheinterestsoldorotherwisedis-posedofisdisregardedtotheextentandinthemannerprovidedbyI.R.C.§1001(e).
Prop.Treas.Reg.§1.1223-1(b)providesthattheholdingperiodunderI.R.C.§1223oftherecipientofpropertyacquiredfromadecedentwhodiedin2010,andwhoseexecutormadean
basisoftheshareinthehandsoftheestateorthepersonreceivingthestockbybequestorinheri-tanceshallbedeterminedunderI.R.C.§1014(orI.R.C.§1022,ifapplicable).
Prop.Treas.Reg.§1.467-7(c)(2)providesthatI.R.C.§467recapturedoesnotapplytoadisposi-tionondeathofthetransferorifthebasisofthepropertyinthehandsofthetransfereeisdeter-minedunderI.R.C.§1022.However,I.R.C.§467recapturedoesapplytopropertythatconstitutesarighttoreceiveanitemofincomeinrespectofadecedent.Prop.Treas.Reg.§1.467-7(c)(4)pro-videsthat,ifthetransfereesubsequentlydisposesofthepropertyinatransactiontowhichTreas.Reg.§1.467-7(a)applies,thepriorunderstatedinclusioniscomputedbytakingintoaccounttheamountsattributabletotheperiodofthetrans-feror’sownershipofthepropertypriortothefirstdisposition.
Prop.Treas.Reg.§1.617-3(d)(5)(ii)(b)pro-videsthattheamountoftheadjustedexplorationexpendituresforminingpropertyinthehandsofthetransfereeimmediatelyafteradispositionofpropertythatissubjecttoI.R.C.§1022isequaltotheamountoftheadjustedexplorationexpen-dituresforminingpropertyinthehandsofthetransferorimmediatelybeforethedisposition,minustheamountofanygaintakenintoaccountunderI.R.C.§617(d).Inaddition,underTreas.Reg.§1.617-4(c)(1)(i),nogainisrecognizedonthegiftofminingproperty.Forpurposesofdeter-mininggainfromthedispositionofcertainmin-ingproperty,thetermgift isexpandedtoincludeadispositionofpropertywithabasisthatisdeter-minedunderI.R.C.§1022.
I.R.C.§684generallyrequiresgaintoberecognizedonanytransferofappreciatedprop-ertybyaUSpersontoaforeignnongrantortrustorforeignestate.Fordecedentsdyingin2010,I.R.C.§684alsoappliestocertaintransfersofpropertybyreasonofdeathtononresidentaliens.GainisdeterminedbyreferencetotheFMVofthepropertyovertheadjustedbasisofsuchprop-ertyinthehandsofthetransferor.Treas.Reg.§1.684-3(c)currentlyprovidesthat,inthecaseofatransferofpropertybyreasonofdeathofaUStransferortoaforeignnongrantortrust,nogainrecognitionisrequiredifthebasisoftheprop-ertyinthehandsofthetrustisdeterminedunderI.R.C.§1014(a).Prop.Treas.Reg.§1.684-3(c)providesthatthisruleismodifiedtoclarifytheapplicationofI.R.C.§684totransfersofproperty
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
622 BUSINESS ENTITIES
thedecedentimmediatelybeforehisorherdeathorthebasisthatwouldhavebeendeterminedunderI.R.C.§1014orI.R.C.§1022,asappli-cable,withoutregardtothisparagraph.
Prop.Treas.Reg.§1.1312-7(b)providesthatthetaxpayerwithrespecttowhomtheerroneoustreatmentoccurredmustbeataxpayerwhohadtitletothepropertyatthetimeoftheerroneouslytreatedtransactionandfromwhom,mediatelyorimmediately,thetaxpayerwithrespecttowhomthedeterminationismadederivedtitle,ifthebasisofthepropertyinthehandsofthetaxpayerwithrespecttowhomthedeterminationismadeisdeterminedunderI.R.C.§1022.
[REG-107595-11,2015-21I.R.B.986,80F.R.26873(May11,2015)]
Business Entities
Corporations
Bell v. CommissionerI.R.C.§351
■☞ Transfer of a sole proprietorship’s assets to a corporation was a capital contribution where taxpayers owned the proprietorship and the corporation .
FactsThetaxpayers,husbandandwife,eachworkedinrealestate.Thehusbandoperatedasolepro-prietorshipasarealestatebroker,andthewifeworkedas anappraiser.Due toan increaseinbusinessinforeclosuresales,thetaxpayersformedacorporationandsoldthesolepropri-etorshipassetstothecorporationinexchangefor$225,000tobepaidinmonthlyinstallmentpay-mentsof$10,000ormoreat10%interest.Theassetsconsistedprimarilyofrealestatecontractsandincluded“alltheworkinprocess,customerlists,contracts,licenses,franchiserights,tradenames,goodwill,andothertangibleandintan-gibleassets.”Priortothetransferthecorporationhadnoassets.Althoughapurchaseagreementwassigned,nopromissorynotewasissued,nocol-lateralsecuredtheagreement,andnoappraisaloftheassetswasperformed.Mostofthepurchasepricewasallocatedto40contractsbetweenthehusbandandvariouslenderswithforeclosure
I.R.C.§1022election,includestheperiodthatthepropertywasheldbythedecedent.
Prop.Treas.Reg.§§1.1245-2(c)(2)(ii)(d)and1.1245-3(a)(3)providethatifI.R.C.§1245prop-ertyisacquiredfromadecedentwhodiedin2010andwhoseexecutormadeanI.R.C.§1022election,theamountoftheadjustmentsreflectedintheadjustedbasisofthepropertyinthehandsofthetransfereeimmediatelyafterthetransferisequaltotheamountoftheadjustmentsreflectedintheadjustedbasisofthepropertyinthehandsofthetransferorimmediatelybeforethetransfer,minustheamountofanygaintakenintoaccountunderI.R.C.§1245(a)(1)bythetransferoruponthetransfer.Further,eventhoughpropertyisnotofacharactersubjecttotheallowancefordepre-ciationinthehandsofthetaxpayer,thepropertyissection1245propertyifthetaxpayer’sbasisinthepropertyisdeterminedunderI.R.C.§1022andthepropertywasofacharactersubjecttotheallowancefordepreciationinthehandsofthedecedent.
Prop. Treas. Reg. § 1.1245-4(a)(1) pro-videsthatnogainisrecognizedunderI.R.C.§1245(a)(1)uponatransferofI.R.C.§1245prop-ertyfromadecedentwhoseexecutormadetheI.R.C.§1022election.
Prop.Treas.Reg.§1.1250-4(c)(5)providesthattheholdingperiodunderI.R.C.§1250(e)fortherecipientofpropertyacquiredfromadece-dentwhodiedin2010,andwhoseexecutormadeanI.R.C.§1022election,includestheperiodthatthepropertywasheldbythedecedent.
Prop. Treas. Reg. § 1.1254-2(a)(1) pro-videsthatnogainisrecognizedunderI.R.C.§1254(a)(1)onatransferofnaturalresourcerecapturepropertyfromadecedentwhodiedin2010andwhoseexecutormadeanI.R.C.§1022election.
Prop.Treas.Reg.§§1.1254-3(b),1.1254-4(e)(4),and1.1254-5(c)(2)(iv)providethatforpur-posesofdeterminingtheamountofI.R.C.§1254costsfromthedispositionofnaturalresourcerecaptureproperty,thetermgiftisexpandedtoincludethetransferofpropertywithabasisthatisdeterminedunderI.R.C.§1022.
Prop.Treas.Reg.§1.1296-1(d)(4)providesthatthebasisofstockofapassiveforeigninvest-mentcompanyforwhichanI.R.C.§1296elec-tionwasineffectasofthedateofthedecedent’sdeaththatisacquiredfromadecedentistheloweroftheadjustedbasisofthestockinthehandsof
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
Business Entities 623
16
6.the thinly capitalized corporation wasunlikelytobeabletoobtainsuchcreditfromindependentlenders.
Thecourtheldthatthemajorityoffactorsindicatedthatthetransactionwasacontribu-tionofthesoleproprietorshipassetstothecor-poration.Thecourtcharacterizedtheinstallmentpaymentsasdistributionstothetaxpayers,andbecausetheearningsandprofitsofthecorpora-tionexceededthedistributions,thedistributionsweretreatedasdividends.
HoldingThetransferofataxpayer’ssoleproprietorshipassetstoawhollyownedcorporationwasacapi-talcontributionofthepropertytothecorporationandnotasale.
[Bell v. Commissioner and MBA Real Estate, Inc. v. Commissioner,T.C.Memo.2015-111]
Letter Ruling 2015-22-001I.R.C.§301
■☞ A corporation that was inadvertently terminated temporarily under state law for failure to file and pay tax was not terminated for federal tax purposes .
FactsThetaxpayercorporationwasadministrativelydissolvedbyitsstateofincorporationwhenthetaxpayerinadvertentlyfailedtofileareturnandpaystateexcisetaxes.Thetaxpayerwaslaterreincorporated.
AnalysisTheIRSstatedthatacorporationisliableforfed-eralcorporatetaxesbasedonitsstatusunderfed-erallaw;therefore,thetaxpayerremainedliableforcorporatetaxessolongasthetaxpayercontin-uedtooperateinacorporatemanner.
RulingTheIRSruledthatthetaxpayercorporationwasnotterminatedforfederalcorporatetaxpurposesafterbecomingadministrativelydissolvedunderstatelawforaninadvertentfailuretopaystatetaxes.
[Ltr.Rul.2015-22-001(January21,2015)]
properties.Weeksafterthepurchaseagreementwassigned,thecorporation’sdirectorsresolvedtoissue250sharestothehusbandand250sharestothewife,inexchangefor$500.
Thetaxpayersreportedgainfromthesaleofthesoleproprietorshipassetsaslong-termcapitalgainandreportedinterestincomeontheinstall-mentpayments.Thecorporationamortizedthepurchasepriceover5years.
TheIRScharacterizedthesaleasacontribu-tiontothecorporation,treatedtheinstallmentpaymentsasdividends,andarguedthattheassetstransferredtothecorporationcouldnotbedepre-ciatedoramortized.
AnalysisThecourtfoundthattheinseparablerelation-shipbetweenthecorporation’sorganizationandthetransferofthesoleproprietorship’sassetsweighedinfavorofafindingthatthetransferwasacapitalcontribution,particularlybecausetherewasnoevidenceofabusinessreasonfordividingthetransaction.
Thecourtappliedan11-factortesttodeter-minewhetherthetransferofassetswasasaleoracapitalcontribution.Thecourtfoundthattwoofthefactors,nochangeinownershipofthebusi-nessandlackofanysubordinationofthedebt,wereneutral.
Thefollowingfactorsindicatedthatthetrans-actionwasasale:(1)thewrittenagreementcon-tainedlanguagesimilartoapromissorynote,(2)thewrittenagreementprovidedforafixedpaymentdate,and(3)thetaxpayerstreatedthetransactionasasale.
Thefollowingfactorsindicatedthatthetrans-actionwasacontributiontothecorporation:
1.paymentbythecorporationwascontingentonthecorporation’searnings;
2.theagreementhadnocollateral,andthetax-payers’onlyrecoursefornonpaymentwouldbeagainsttheirowncompany;
3.the corporation had no capital prior tothetransaction;
4.thetaxpayersbecamethecorporation’ssoleshareholders;
5.the interest on the deferred installmentpaymentswaspaidbythecorporation’searn-ingsandprofits;and
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
624 BUSINESS ENTITIES
thepartnertothepartnershipandincreasesthebasisofthepartner’sinterestinthepartnershipbytheamountassumed[I.R.C.§752(a);Treas.Reg.§1.752-1(b)].Apartnermayassumeapart-nership’sliabilitieswhenthepartnercontributespropertysubjecttoaliabilitytoapartnershipbutremainspersonallyliabletothecreditorandnoneoftheotherpartnersbearanyoftheeconomicriskoflossfortheliabilityunderstatelaworoth-erwise[Treas.Reg.§1.752-1(g),Example1].
Thecourtstatedthatanobligationtomakepaymentsunderanoperatingleaseisnotcharac-terizedasaliabilityunlessthetermsoftheleasegiverisetoaconditionalpurchase.Withrespecttothetransferofequipment,courtshavestatedthatfactorsindicatingthataconditionalpurchasemorelikelyexistsincludethefollowing:
1.Theleasetermextendsthroughouttheequip-ment’sentireusefullife.
2.Thesumoftherentalpaymentsapproxi-matelyequalsthecostoftheequipment.
3.Thelesseehasanoptionattheendoftheagreementtopurchasetheequipmentatanominalorbelow-marketprice.
Inthiscasethecourtfoundthattheleaseperiodextendedthroughtheentire5-yearusefullifeofthescanner,andthecorporationhadtheoptiontopurchasethescanneratlessthanmar-ketvalue;therefore,theleasewasaconditionalpurchasebythecorporation.
Inorderforaliabilitytobeconsideredapart-nershipliabilityunderI.R.C.§752,theunder-lyingpropertysubjecttotheliabilitymustbepartnershipproperty[Treas.Reg.§1.752-1(e)].Thus,becausethescannerwasnotcontributedtotheLLCandtheleasewasnotassignedtotheLLC,noliabilityconnectedtothescannerwastransferredtotheLLC,andthetaxpayer’sbasisintheLLCinterestwasnotincreasedbythetax-payer’sguaranteeofthelease.
HoldingThetaxpayerwasnotallowedtoclaimlossespassedthroughfromanLLCbecausethetaxpay-er’sbasisintheLLCinterestwasnotincreasedbythetaxpayer’spersonalguaranteeofaleasewheretheleasedpropertywasnotLLCproperty.
[Coastal Heart Medical Group, Inc. v. Commissioner,T.C.Memo.2015-84]
Partnerships
Coastal Heart Medical Group, Inc. v. CommissionerI.R.C.§§704and752
■☞ An LLC member could not increase basis in an LLC interest for a personal guarantee of an equip-ment lease where the rented equipment was not LLC property .
FactsThetaxpayerwasamedicaldoctorwhooperatedhismedicalpracticethroughawhollyownedCcorporation.Thecorporation leasedaCTscannerfor60monthsandsecuredtheleasewithalifeinsurancepolicyonthetaxpayer’slife.Theleaseprovidedanoptiontopurchasethescannerforlessthanmarketvalue.Theleaseprohibitedassignment.Thetaxpayerandtwootherindivid-ualsformedanLLC,taxedasapartnership,tomanagethescanner.TheLLCpassedlossesfromthescanneroperationsthroughtothetaxpayer.
Thecorporationtreatedtheleaseasaleaseandclaimeddeductionsfortheleasepayments.TheLLCtreatedtheleaseasapurchaseandclaimeddepreciationdeductionsforthescanner.
The taxpayerclaimed thathepersonallyguaranteedthelease/purchaseofthescannerandthattheguaranteeincreasedthetaxpayer’sbasisinthetaxpayer’sinterestintheLLC.In2004thetaxpayerclaimedanonpassivelossdeductionforhisshareofthelossesfromtheLLC.TheIRSdis-allowedthelossesbecausethetaxpayerdidnothaveenoughbasisinthetaxpayer’sLLCinterest.
AnalysisI.R.C.§704(d)limitsthedeductibilityofapart-ner’sdistributiveshareofpartnershiplossestotheadjustedbasisofapartner’sinterestinthepart-nership.Apartner’sadjustedbasisinthepartner-shipisessentiallythepartner’scontributiontothepartnershipincreasedbythepartner’sdistribu-tiveshareofpartnershipincomeanddecreasedbyallcashdistributionsandthepartner’sdistrib-utiveshareofpartnershiplosses[I.R.C.§705(a)].
Generally,whenapartnercontributesprop-ertysubjecttoaliabilitytoapartnership,thepart-nershipistreatedashavingassumedtheliability[Treas.Reg.§1.7521(e)].Whenapartnerassumesapartnership’sliabilities,theassumptionofsuchliabilitiesresultsinadeemedcontributionby
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
Business Entities 625
16
partnershipownsI.R.C.§751propertyimmedi-atelyafterthedistribution.
[REG-151416-06,2014-47I.R.B.870]
Letter Ruling 2015-28-001I.R.C.§83
■☞ The I .R .C . § 83(b) election is effective if the tax-payer filed the election with the IRS within 30 days of the date of the transfer of property but failed to attach the election to the annual return .
FactsThetaxpayerreceivedseveralstockunitsinacompanyascompensationforservicesthatthetaxpayerprovidedtothecompany.ThetaxpayerexecutedanelectionpursuanttoI.R.C.§83(b).TheelectionmetthecontentrequirementsofTreas.Reg.§1.83-2(e)andwasfiledwiththeIRSwithin30daysofthedateofthetransferofthestockunits.However,thetaxpayerfailedtoattachacopyofthesection83(b)electiontotheannualreturn,asrequiredbyTreas.Reg.§1.83-2(c).
AnalysisI.R.C.§83(a)providesthat if, inconnectionwiththeperformanceofservices,propertyistransferredtoanypersonotherthanthepersonforwhomsuchservicesareperformed,thefairmarketvalue(FMV)oftheproperty(minustheamountpaidfortheproperty)shallbeincludedinthegrossincomeoftherecipientinthefirsttaxyearinwhichtherecipient’sinterestinthepropertyisnotsubjecttoasubstantialriskoffor-feiture.I.R.C.§83(b)(1)providesthatanypersonwhoperformsservicesinconnectionwithwhichpropertyistransferredmayelecttoincludeingrossincomeforthetaxyearofthetransfertheexcessoftheproperty’sFMVovertheamountpaidfortheproperty.I.R.C.§83(b)(2)providesthatanelectionmadepursuanttoI.R.C.§83(b)(1)shallbemadeinthemannerprescribedbythesecretaryoftheTreasuryandshallbemadenotlaterthan30daysafterthedateofthetransfer.
Treas.Reg.§1.83-2(c)providesthatasec-tion83(b)electionismadebyfilingonecopyofawrittenstatementwiththeIRSofficewherethetaxpayerfileshisorherreturn.Inaddition,thetaxpayermustfileonecopyofthestatementwithhisorherincometaxreturnfortheyearoftrans-fer.Treas.Reg.§1.83-2(d)providesthattheper-sonwhoperformedtheservicesmustalsosubmit
REG-151416-06I.R.C.§§704,732,736,and751
■☞ Proposed regulations prescribe the measurement of a partner’s interest in I .R .C . § 751 property (unrealized receivables and substantially appreci-ated inventory items) and describe the effect of distributions .
TheIRShasissuedproposedregulationsthat(1)prescribehowapartnershouldmeasureitsinterestinapartnership’sunrealizedreceivablesandinventoryitems,and(2)provideguidanceregardingthetaxconsequencesofadistribu-tionthatcausesareductioninthatinterest.Theproposedregulationstakeintoaccountstatutorychangesthatoccurredaftertheissuanceofexist-ingregulations.
I.R.C.§751(a)providesthattheamountofanymoney[orthefairmarketvalue(FMV)ofanyproperty]receivedbyatransferorpartnerinexchangeforallorpartofthatpartner’sinterestinthepartnership’sunrealizedreceivablesandinventoryitemsisconsideredanamountrealizedfromthesaleorexchangeofpropertyotherthanacapitalasset.
Further,I.R.C.§751(b)overridesthenonrec-ognitionprovisionsofI.R.C.§731whenapart-nerreceivesadistributionfromthepartnershipthatcausesashiftbetween(1)thepartner’sinter-estinthepartnership’sunrealizedreceivablesorsubstantiallyappreciatedinventoryitemsand(2)thepartner’sinterestinthepartnership’sotherproperty.
Theproposedregulationsadoptthehypothet-icalsaleapproachdescribedinNotice2006-14,2006-1C.B.498,forapplicationofI.R.C.§751.Thisrequiresapartnershiptocompare(1)theamountofordinaryincome(orordinaryloss)thateachpartnerwouldrecognizeifthepartnershipsolditspropertyforFMVimmediatelybeforethedistributionwith(2)theamountofordinaryincome(orordinaryloss)eachpartnerwouldrec-ognizeifthepartnershipsolditspropertyandthedistributeepartnersoldthedistributedassetsforFMVimmediatelyafterthedistribution.
TheproposedregulationsalsoreviseTreas.Reg.§1.704-1(b)(2)(iv)(f)regardingrevaluationsofpartnershippropertytomakeitsprovisionsmandatoryif(1)apartnershipdistributesmoneyorotherpropertytoapartnerasconsiderationforan interest in thepartnershipand(2) the
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
626 BUSINESS ENTITIES
thetransferoftheproperty,andthetaxpayermustsubmitacopywithhisorhertaxreturn.
TheIRShasdiscoveredthattaxpayerswhoe-filecannotmaketheelectionbecausethetaxpreparationsoftwaredoesnotprovideameanstoincludeacopyofthepriorelectionwiththecur-rente-filedreturn.
The proposed regulations eliminate therequirementunderTreas.Reg.§1.83-2(c)thatthetaxpayersubmitacopyofthesection83(b)electionwiththeindividual’staxreturnfortheyearthepropertyistransferred.Underthepro-posedregulationstheelectionismadebyfilingawrittenstatementattheIRSofficewheretheserviceproviderfilesfederalincometaxreturns.
[REG-135524-14,80F.R.42439(July17,2015)]
Methvin v. CommissionerI.R.C.§1401
■☞ The taxpayer received self-employment (SE) income from interests in oil and gas ventures .
FactsInthe1970sthetaxpayeracquiredtwo2%to3%workinginterestsinseveraloilandgasventures.Theworkinginterestswerenotpartofabusi-nessorganizationthatwasregisteredunderthelawsofanystate.Thetaxpayer’sworkinginter-estsweregovernedbyapurchaseandoperationagreementthatthetaxpayerenteredintowithanunrelatedcorporationservingastheoperatoroftheinterests.
Undertheagreementthecorporationman-agedtheoperationsoftheventuresandallocatedtothetaxpayerincomeandexpensesfromhisworkinginterests.Thetaxpayerhadnorightofinvolvementinthemanagementoroperationoftheventures.Undertheagreementthepartieselected“tobeexcludedfromtheapplicationofsub-chapterK”oftheCode.Eachyearthecorpo-rationgavethetaxpayerayear-endaccountingindicatingtherevenuesandexpensesallocatedtothetaxpayer’sworkinginterests.
During2011thetaxpayer’sworkinginterestsundertheagreementsgenerated$10,797inrev-enues.Theoperatorincurredexpensestotaling$4,037thatwereallocabletothetaxpayer’swork-inginterests.For2011thecorporationidentifiedtherevenuesasnonemployeecompensationandissuedthetaxpayeraForm1099-MISC,Miscel-laneousIncome,relatingtohisworkinginterests.
acopyofthestatementtothepersonforwhomtheserviceswereperformed.
Treas.Reg.§1.83-2(e)providesthatthestate-mentmustbesignedbythepersonmakingtheelectionandmustindicatethatitisbeingmadeunderI.R.C.§83(b).Thestatementmustcontainthefollowinginformation:thename,address,andtaxpayeridentificationnumberofthetax-payer;adescriptionofeachpropertywithrespecttowhichtheelectionisbeingmade;thedateordatesonwhichthepropertywastransferredandthetaxyearforwhichtheelectionwasmade;thenatureoftherestrictionorrestrictionstowhichthepropertyissubject;theFMVatthetimeoftransferofeachpropertywithrespecttowhichtheelectionisbeingmade;theamount(ifany)paidforsuchproperty;and,withrespecttoelec-tionsmadeafterJuly21,1978,astatementtotheeffectthatcopieshavebeenfurnishedtootherpersonsasprovidedinTreas.Reg.§1.83-2(d).
RulingTheIRSruledthat thetaxpayer fulfilledtherequirementsforavalidelectionunderI.R.C.§83(b)whenthestatementwasmailedtotheIRSofficewithin30daysofthedateofthetransferofthestockunits.Thefailuretosubmitacopyofthestatementwiththetaxreturndidnotaffectthevalidityoftheelection.
[Ltr.Rul.2015-28-001(March24,2015)]
Prop. Treas. Reg. § 1.83-2I.R.C.§83
■☞ The IRS has issued proposed regulations allowing the I .R .C . § 83(b) election to be made by filing a written statement with IRS .
TheIRShasissuedproposedregulationsrelat-ingtopropertytransferredinconnectionwiththe performance of services. The proposedregulationsaffectcertaintaxpayerswhoreceiveproperty transferred in connectionwith theperformanceofservicesandmakeanelectiontoincludethevalueofsubstantiallynonvestedpropertyinincomeintheyearoftransfer.I.R.C.§83(b)andTreas.Reg.§1.83-2(a)permitaser-viceprovidertoelecttoincludeingrossincome,ascompensationforservices,theexcess(ifany)oftheFMVofthepropertyatthetimeoftransferovertheamount(ifany)paidfortheproperty.Theelectionmustbemadewithin30daysafter
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
Business Entities 627
16
thetaxpayer’sbehalfbyagentsoremployees.Thecourtalsoheldthattheagreementdidnotcontrolthecharacterofthetaxpayer’sbusinessunderotherareasoftheInternalRevenueCode.
HoldingThecourtheldthatthetaxpayer’sdistributionsfrominterestsinoilandgasventureswereSEincome.
[Methvin v. Commissioner,T.C.Memo.2015-81]
S Corporations
Eaglehawk Carbon, Inc. v. United StatesI.R.C.§6621
■☞ S corporations are entitled to interest on overpay-ments of taxes at the reduced interest rate for corporate tax overpayments exceeding $10,000 .
FactsThetaxpayersarefivecoalcompaniesformedasScorporations.Thetaxpayerswereentitledtoandreceivedrefundsofoverpaidtaxesplusinter-est.ThetaxpayersarguedthattheIRSshouldusetheinterestrateapplicabletoindividuals,andtheIRSclaimedthattheyshouldusetheinterestrateapplicabletocorporations.
AnalysisI.R.C.§6621(a)(1)providesforthepaymentofinterestonoverpaymentsoftaxesinanamountequaltothefederalshort-termrateplus2%inthecaseofacorporation.However,inthecaseofcorporateoverpaymentsinexcessof$10,000,theinterestrateistheshort-termrateplus0.5%.
ThetaxpayersarguedthatScorporationswerenotcorporationsforpurposesofI.R.C.§6621butweremorelikepartnershipsbecausetheyarepass-throughentities.
Thecourtrejectedthisargumentbecauseitwasnotsupportedbytheplainlanguageofthestatute,andScorporationsarecorporationsundertheInternalRevenueCode.
HoldingInterestonrefundsduetoScorporationswasthefederalshort-termrateplus0.5%.
[Eaglehawk Carbon, Inc. v. United States,122Fed.Cl.209(2015)]
ThetaxpayerdidnotreceiveaScheduleK-1(Form1065),Partner’sShareofIncome,Deduc-tions,Credits,etc.,fromthecorporation,andthecorporationdidnotfileaForm1065,U.S.ReturnofPartnershipIncome,relatingtoanyofthetax-payer’sworkinginterests.
Thetaxpayertimelyfiledhis2011taxreturnandreported$6,760ofnetincome($10,797inrevenuesminus$4,037inexpenses)fromhisworkinginterestsas“Otherincome”online21ofhisForm1040,U.S.IndividualIncomeTaxReturn.ThetaxpayerdidnotpayanySEtaxonhisnetincomefromtheoilandgasventure.TheIRSassessedadditionaltaxbasedonthedetermi-nationthatthetaxpayer’sincomefromhiswork-inginterestswasatradeorbusinesscarriedonbyapartnershipandwassubjecttoSEtax.
AnalysisNet earnings from self-employment is generallydefinedbyI.R.C.§1402(a)asthegrossincomederivedbyanindividualfromanytradeorbusi-nesscarriedonbytheindividual,minusalloweddeductionsattributabletosuchtradeorbusiness,plushisorherdistributableshareofincomeorlossfromanytradeorbusinesscarriedonbythepartnershipofwhichheorsheisamember.
Apartnershipisbroadlydefinedas“asyn-dicate,group,pool,jointventure,orotherunin-corporatedorganization,throughorbymeansofwhichanybusiness,financialoperation,orven-tureiscarriedon,andwhichisnot,withinthemeaningofthistitle,atrustorestateoracorpora-tion.”Thetermpartnerincludesamemberinsuchasyndicate,group,pool,jointventure,ororga-nization[I.R.C.§7701(a)(2);seealsoTreas.Reg.§1.1402(a)-2(f)].Thus,forfederaltaxpurposesthetermpartnershipisnotlimitedtothecommonlawmeaningofpartnershipbutisbroaderinscopeandincludesgroupsnotcommonlycalledpartnerships [Treas.Reg. §301.7701-1(a)(1)and(2)].
Thetaxpayerarguedthatthetaxpayer’ssmallinterestsintheoilandgasventuresandlackofactiveparticipationdemonstratedthatthetax-payerhadonlyaninvestmentintheventures.Inaddition,theoperationagreementprovidedthattheventureselectedtobeexcludedfromsub-chapterKandnottaxedasapartnership.
Thecourtheldthatthelackofday-to-dayinvolvementdidnotexcludetheexistenceofapartnershipwheretheventureiscarriedouton
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
628 BUSINESS ISSUES
Olive v. CommissionerI.R.C.§280E
■☞ A medical marijuana dispensary was not allowed to deduct business expenses from business income for federal tax purposes .
FactsThetaxpayeroperatedalegalmedicalmarijuanadispensaryinCalifornia.Inadditiontosellingmedicalmarijuanainvariousforms,theopera-tionwassetupmuchlikeacommunitycenter,withcouches,chairs,andtableslocatedthrough-outtheestablishment.Italsoprovidedgames,books,andartsuppliesforpatrons’generaluse,andofferedservicessuchasyoga,movies,andmassagetherapy.Customerscoulddrinkcom-plimentaryteaorwaterduringtheirvisits,ortheycouldeatcomplimentarysnacks,includingpizzaandsandwiches.Thetaxpayerofferedtheseactivitiesandamenitiesatnocharge.
ThetaxpayerfiledScheduleC(Form1040),ProfitorLossFromBusiness(SoleProprietor-ship),anddeductedfromgrossincometheordi-naryandnecessarybusinessexpensesincurredintheoperation.TheIRSdisallowedthebusinessexpensedeductionsunderI.R.C.§280Ebecausethebusinessinvolved“traffickingincontrolledsubstances.”
AnalysisI.R.C. § 280Eprovides an exception to thedeductibilityofordinaryandnecessaryexpensesofatradeorbusiness.Itexcludesamountspaidorincurredduringthetaxyearforthepurposeofcarryingonanytradeorbusinessthatconsistsoftraffickingincontrolledsubstances.Marijuanaisasubstancecontrolledunder21U.S.C.§812(c).
Thetaxpayerarguedthatthesaleofmedi-calmarijuanawasonlyincidentaltothebusinessofthe“communitycenter.”Therefore,thetax-payer’sbusinessdidnotconsistoftraffickinginmarijuana.
Thecourtfoundthatthesaleofmedicalmari-juanawasthetaxpayer’sonlyincome-producingactivityanditssolebusiness,whichissubjecttotherestrictionsofI.R.C.§280E.
Thecourtwasnotpersuadedbythetaxpay-er’sargumentthatI.R.C.§280Eshouldnotbeconstruedtoapplytomedicalmarijuanadispen-sariesbecausethosedispensariesdidnotexistwhenCongressenactedthatsection.
Business Issues
Deductions
McMillan v. CommissionerI.R.C.§162
■☞ A business deduction was allowed for 50% of legal fees from a suit involving the taxpayer’s resi-dence where 50% of the residence was used for the taxpayer’s business .
FactsThetaxpayertimelyfiledaScheduleC(Form1040),ProfitorLossFromBusiness(SolePro-prietorship),forthetaxpayer’sinformationtech-nologyanddatabasemanagementbusiness.TheScheduleC(Form1040)includedexpensesforlegalservicesandcostsrelatedtothe50%useof thetaxpayer’sresidenceasahomeoffice.Thelegalcostswereincurredinalawsuitfiledbythetaxpayeragainstherneighborsandthehomeownersassociationforthetaxpayer’scon-dominium.Thetaxpayerallegedconstructiondefectsthatcausedmold,noiseproblems,andbarkingandtrespassingdogs.Inconnectionwiththatlitigation,thetaxpayerwaschargedwithmisdemeanorcriminalcharges,andthetaxpayerdeductedthecostsofthecriminallitigationonScheduleC(Form1040).
TheIRSarguedthatthelegalexpenseswerenotrelatedtothetaxpayer’sbusinessandwerenondeductiblepersonalexpenses.
AnalysisOrdinaryandnecessarylegalexpensesaregener-allydeductibleunderI.R.C.§162whentheyarisefrom,orareproximatelyrelatedto,abusinessactivity.Becausethetaxpayerused50%ofherresidenceforherbusinessactivity,andthelawsuitinvolvednoiseandotherissuesthataffectedherbusinessuseoftheresidence,the50%ofthelegalfeesrelatingtoheruseoftheresidencecouldbeallocatedtothebusiness.
HoldingThecourtheldthatthetaxpayerwasallowedabusinessdeductionfor50%ofthelegalfeesrelat-ingtothetaxpayer’sresidence,ofwhich50%wasusedinthetaxpayer’sbusiness.
[McMillan v. Commissioner,T.C.Memo.2015-109]
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
Business Issues 629
16
localtaxesthatarepaidoraccruedyearincarry-ingonatradeorbusinessoranactivitydescribedinI.R.C.§212(relatingtoexpensesforproduc-tionofincome).Anytaxpaidoraccruedbythetaxpayerinconnectionwithanacquisitionordispositionofpropertyistreatedaspartofthecostoftheacquiredpropertyor,inthecaseofadisposition,asareductionintheamountrealizedonthedisposition.
ThelastsentenceofI.R.C.§164(a)wasaddedby§134(a)(2)oftheTaxReformActof1986,Pub.L.99-514,100Stat.2085,2116,tomakeitclearthatstate,local,orforeigntaxes[otherthanthetaxesenumeratedin§164(a)]thatareincurredinatradeorbusinessorinanincome-producingactivityandthatareconnectedwiththeacquisi-tionordispositionofpropertymustbecapital-ized[Sleiman v. Commissioner,187F.3d1352(11thCir.1999);Sandy Lake Rd. Ltd. P’ship v. Commis-sioner,T.C.Memo.1997-295].
ThestateofWashingtonmarijuanaexcisetaxisataxpaidoraccruedinconnectionwiththedispositionofpropertybyatradeorbusi-ness.Accordingly,pursuanttoI.R.C.§164(a),ataxpayerwhopaidthemarijuanaexcisetaxmusttreattheexpenditureasareductionintheamountrealizedonthesaleofthepropertyratherthanaseitherapartoftheinventoriablecostofthatpropertyoradeductionfromgrossincome.AlthoughI.R.C.§280Eprohibitsdeductionsandcreditsformarijuanabusinesses,theexcisetaxisneitheradeductionfromgrossincomenorataxcredit.Consequently,I.R.C.§280Edoesnotpre-cludeataxpayerfromaccountingfortheexcisetaxasareductionintheamountrealizedonthesaleoftheproperty.
RulingAmedicalmarijuanadispensarythatpaidthestateofWashingtonmarijuanaexcisetaxshouldtreattheexpenditureasareductionintheamountrealizedonthesaleoftheproperty.[C.C.A.2015-31-016(June9,2015)]
Chief Counsel Advice 2014-39-001I.R.C.§§263Aand471
■☞ Restaurants that are subject to the uniform capitalization rules should not be forced to use the simplified production method for allocating kitchen labor costs if they implement a reason-able facts and circumstances method instead .
HoldingThetaxpayerwasnotallowedtodeductbusinessexpensesforitsmedicalmarijuanabusiness.
[Olive v. Commissioner,792F.3d1146(9thCir.2015)]
Chief Counsel Advice 2015-31-016I.R.C.§§164(a)and280E
■☞ A medical marijuana dispensary was not allowed to deduct business expenses from business income for federal tax purposes .
FactsOnNovember6,2012,InitiativeMeasureNo.502wasapprovedinthestateofWashington.Thisinitiativeauthorizedthestateliquorcontrolboardtoregulateandtaxmarijuanaforpersons21yearsofageandolder.Certainactsperformedbyvalidlylicensedmarijuanaproducers,val-idlylicensedmarijuanaprocessors,andvalidlylicensedmarijuanaretailersdonotconstitutecriminalorciviloffensesunderWashingtonstatelaw.
AfterthepassageofInitiativeMeasureNo.502, the stateofWashingtonenacteda25%excisetaxonmarijuanaproducers,marijuanaprocessors,andmarijuanaretailers.
AnalysisI.R.C.§280Eprovides:
Nodeductionorcreditshallbeallowedforanyamountpaidorincurredduringthetaxableyearincarryingonanytradeorbusinessifsuchtradeorbusiness(ortheactivitieswhichcomprisesuchtradeorbusiness)consistsoftraffickingincon-trolledsubstances(withinthemeaningofscheduleIandIIoftheControlledSub-stancesAct)whichisprohibitedbyFed-erallaworthelawofanyStateinwhichsuchtradeorbusinessisconducted.
Forpurposesof§280E,marijuanaisaSched-uleIcontrolledsubstanceundertheControlledSubstancesAct[Olive v. Commissioner,792F.3d1146(9thCir.2015)].
I.R.C.§164(a)allowsadeductionforstateandlocalrealpropertytaxes,personalpropertytaxes,andincomeandexcessprofittaxes.Inaddition,thereisadeductionforotherstateand
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
630 BUSINESS ISSUES
andindirectcosts,butthesimplifiedproductionmethodisgenerallylessprecisethanafactsandcircumstancesmethod.IfkitchenlaborcostsaretreatedasadditionalI.R.C.§263Acostsunderthesimplifiedproductionmethod,asignificantamountofkitchenlaborcostswillbecapitalizedtotheendinginventory,eventhoughthosecoststypicallyrelatealmostentirelytotheproductionoffoodthatisnolongeronhand.
Alternatively,ifamoreprecisefactsandcir-cumstancesmethodisusedorifkitchenlaborcostsaretreatedasanI.R.C.§471costunderthesimplifiedproductionmethod,thesekitchenlaborcostswillbeallocatedtothecostoffoodthatisincludedinthecost-of-goods-solddeduction.
RulingTheadvicememorandumstatesthattheIRSOfficeofChiefCounselwillgenerallynotsup-porttheimpositionofthesimplifiedproductionmethodinexaminationorlitigationifataxpayeriswillingtodevelopandimplementareasonablefactsandcircumstancesmethodinstead.
ThememoalsoadvisedLB&IthatiftheIRSimposedthesimplifiedproductionmethod,therestaurantcouldrequestapprovalofachangeinitsmethodofaccountingto(1)treatkitchenlaborasanI.R.C.§471costor(2)useamoreprecisefactsandcircumstancesmethod,andthememostatedthatcounselgenerallywouldgrantsuchchanges.
The memo also concluded that counselwouldsupportallowingarestaurantthatusesthesimplifiedproductionmethodtotreatallofitsdirectproductioncosts(includingkitchenlabor)asI.R.C.§471costsunderthatmethodratherthanasadditionalI.R.C.§263Acosts.
[C.C.A.2014-39-001(July24,2014)]
Letter Ruling 2014-47-027I.R.C.§199
■☞ A 52-53-week tax year is deemed to end on December 31, 2017, for purposes of the domes-tic production activities deduction .
I.R.C.§199(b)(2)providesthattheamountofthedomesticproductionactivitiesdeduction(DPAD)allowableforanytaxyearshallnotexceed50%oftheFormW-2,WageandTaxStatement,wagesthetaxpayerpaidwithrespecttoemploymentduringthecalendaryearendingduringthetaxyear.
IssueThe IRS’sLargeBusiness and International(LB&I)operatingdivisionfoundthatseveralrestaurantsunderexaminationwerenotinclud-inganylaborcostsintheirendinginventories.Instead,theendinginventoriesconsistedentirelyoralmostentirelyofrawmaterials:theingredi-entsthathadnotyetenteredtherestaurant’spro-ductionprocess.LB&IrequestedadvicefromtheIRSchiefcounselastowhetheritwasappropri-atetoimposethesimplifiedproductionmethodinthesecases.
Ingeneral,therestaurantstreatedkitchen-relatedcosts(back-of-the-house costs)ascapitaliz-ableproductioncostsunderI.R.C.§263Aandcostsrelatedtotheservingarea(front-of-the-house costs)asnoncapitalizablecosts.However,someoftherestaurantsdidnotcapitalizesomeback-of-the-housecoststheyincurredtoproducefood,includingkitchenlabor(thewagespaidtocooksandtofoodpreparationstaff).
Law and AnalysisI.R.C. § 263A(a) andTreas.Reg. § 1.263A-1(a)(3)(ii)provide,inpart,thattaxpayersthatproducerealortangiblepersonalpropertymustcapitalize
■■ alldirectcostsofproducingtheproperty,and
■■ theproperty’sproperlyallocableshareofindirectcosts.
Directcostsincludethecostsoflaborthatcanbeidentifiedorassociatedwithparticularunitsorgroupsofunitsofspecificpropertyproduced.Indirectcostsareallcostsotherthandirectcosts.Indirectcostsareproperlyallocabletopropertyproducedwhenthecostsdirectlybenefitorareincurredbyreasonoftheperformanceofproduc-tionactivities.TheI.R.C.§263Acoststhatareallocabletoitemsthatremainonhandattheendofthetaxyeargenerallymustbecapitalized.
Factsandcircumstancesmethodsthatmaybeusedtoallocatecostsincludeaspecificidentifica-tionmethod,astandardcostmethod,aburdenratemethod,andanyotherreasonableallocationmethoddefinedundertheprinciplesofTreas.Reg.§1.263A-1(f)(4).
Treas.Reg.§1.263A-1(f)(1)allowsproduc-ers touse thesimplifiedproductionmethod[seeTreas.Reg.§1.263A-2(b)]toallocatedirect
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
Business Issues 631
16
AnalysisI.R.C.§162(a)allowsadeductionfortheordi-naryandnecessaryexpensespaidorincurredduringthetaxyearincarryingonanytradeorbusiness.Treas.Reg.§1.162-1(a)providesthatdeductiblebusinessexpensesincludetheordi-naryandnecessaryexpendituresdirectlycon-nectedwithorpertainingtothetaxpayer’stradeorbusiness.UnderI.R.C.§162(f)nodeductionisallowedunderI.R.C.§162(a)foranyfineorsimilarpenaltypaidtoagovernmentforthevio-lationofanylaw.Treas.Reg.§1.162-21(b)(1)(iii)providesthat,forpurposesofI.R.C.§162,afineorsimilarpenaltyincludesanamountpaidinset-tlementofataxpayer’sactualorpotentialliabilityforafineorpenalty,whethercivilorcriminal.Treas.Reg.§1.162-21(b)(2)providesthatcom-pensatorydamagespaidtoagovernmentdonotconstituteafineorpenalty.
TheIRSdeterminedthattherestitutionpay-mentswerenotpartofthecriminalpenaltyinthatthepenaltieswereotherwiseprovided,thepenaltieswereseparatefromtherestitutionpay-ments,andtherestitutionwasnotmadeinlieuofforfeiture.TheIRSalsodeterminedthattheres-titutionpaymentsweremadeinconnectionwiththetaxpayer’stradeorbusinessbecausethecrim-inalactswereperformedaspartofthetaxpayer’snormalcourseofbusinessforthecompany,andtherestitutionpaymentswouldbeappropriateandhelpfultothebusiness.
RulingThetaxpayer’srestitutionpaymentsforcriminalactscommittedwhileperformingservicesforacompanyweredeductibleasordinaryandneces-sarybusinessexpenses.
[Ltr.Rul.2015-28-026(April13,2015)]
Employees
T.D. 9696I.R.C.§§162and262
■☞ Final regulations provide a safe harbor for treating local lodging expenses incurred for attendance at a business function as ordinary and necessary business expenses .
I.R.C.§441(f)(2)(A)providesthatwhentheeffectivedateoftheapplicabilityofanyprovi-sionoftheInternalRevenueCodeisexpressedintermsoftaxyearsbeginning,including,orend-ingwithreferencetoaspecifieddatethatisthefirstorlastdayofamonth,ataxyearshallbetreatedasbeginningwiththefirstdayofthecal-endarmonthbeginningnearesttothefirstdayofthetaxyear,orasendingwiththelastdayofthecalendarmonthendingnearesttothelastdayofthetaxyear.
Inthecaseatissue,thetaxpayercomputesitstaxableincomeonthebasisofa52-53-weektaxyearendingonthelastSaturdayinDecember.Thetaxpayer’s2015taxyearbeganDecember28,2014,andwillendonDecember26,2015.Thetaxpayer’s2016taxyearwillbeginDecem-ber27,2015,andendonDecember31,2016.Thetaxpayer’s2017taxyearwillbeginJanuary1,2017,andendonDecember30,2017.Thus,thetaxpayer’s2017taxyearliterallydoesnotincludeDecember31,andthereispotentiallynocalendaryearthatendsduringthe2017taxyear.
TheIRSruledthatthetaxpayer’s2017taxyearwillbedeemedtoendonDecember31,2017forpurposesofI.R.C.§199.
[Ltr.Rul.2014-47-027(August19,2014)]
Letter Ruling 2015-28-026I.R.C.§162
■☞ The taxpayer’s restitution payments for criminal acts committed while performing services for a company were deductible as ordinary and neces-sary business expenses .
FactsThetaxpayerwasapartnerinacompanythatwasapartnershipfortaxpurposes.Thetaxpayerwasconvictedunderfederallawforactivitiesrelatedtothesaleofaproductnotnamedintheruling.Thetaxpayerwassentencedtoatermofincarcerationandatermofprobation,andwasorderedtopayafineandaspecialassessment.Thetaxpayeralsoagreedtopayrestitutiontothefederalgovernmentforthelossesincurredbythegovernmentasaresultofthetaxpayer’scriminalactions.Thefederalcourtdeterminedtheamountofrestitution,andthetaxpayerpaiditin1taxyear.Thecompanydeniedthatithadanyliabilitytocompensatethetaxpayerfortherestitutionpayment.
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
632 BUSINESS ISSUES
Deductions and Exclusions
■■ Qualifyinglocallodgingexpensesaredeductiblebytheindividualifincurreddirectlywithoutreimbursement.
■■ Ifthequalifyingexpensesareincurredbyanemployeronbehalfofanemployee,thevalueisexcludablefromtheemployee’sincomeasaworkingconditionfringebenefitunderI.R.C.§132.
■■ Iftheemployerreimbursestheemployeeforqualifyingexpenses,thereimburse-mentisexcludablefromtheemployee’sgrossincomeiftheexpenseallowancearrangementsatisfiestherequirementsofanaccountableplanunderI.R.C.§62(c)andtheapplicableregulations.
■■ Qualifyingexpensesthatarepaidorreim-bursedbytheemployerarealsodeductiblebytheemployerasordinaryandnecessarybusinessexpenses.
Thefinalregulationscontainseveralexam-plestoillustratethenewrules.
[T.D.9696,2014-43I.R.B.727]
Central Motorplex, Inc. v. CommissionerI.R.C.§§61and6050P
■☞ The officers of a corporation are statutory employees .
FactsACcorporationwasengagedinthebusinessofbuying,repairing,reconditioning,andresellingusedautomobiles.Thecorporation’spresident,whowasitssoleshareholder,managedthebusi-ness,includinghiringandfiringemployees.Thecorporation’ssecretary-treasurerwasinchargeofrepairandmaintenanceofthecarsinitsinven-tory.Anotherworkerwasinchargeofpickingupanddeliveringautomobiles,includingobtaininganddeliveringlicenseplatesandtitlecertificates.
Thetaxpayertreatedall threepersonsasindependentcontractors,althoughnoneoftheemployeeshademploymentcontractswiththetaxpayer.Thetaxpayerdidnotwithholdanyincome,FICA,orFUTAtaxes,nordiditissueFormsW-2,WageandTaxStatement.
BackgroundLocallodgingexpensesforanindividualaregen-erallypersonal,living,orfamilyexpensesthatarenotdeductible[I.R.C.§262(a)].However,locallodgingexpensesmaybedeductibleunderI.R.C.§162asordinaryandnecessarybusinessexpenses[Treas.Reg.§1.162-32].Whetherlocallodgingexpensesarepaidorincurredincarryingonataxpayer’stradeorbusinessisdeterminedunderallthefactsandcircumstances.
Forexample,aprofessionalsportsteammayrequireitscoachesandplayerstostayatalocalhotelthenightbeforeahomegametoconductlast-minutetrainingandensurethephysicalpre-parednessoftheplayers.Thefactsandcircum-stancestestismetbecausetheovernightstaysareabonafideconditionorrequirementofemploy-ment,theemployerhasanoncompensatorybusi-nesspurposeforpayingthelodgingexpenses,theemployerisnotpayingthelodgingexpensesprimarilytoprovideasocialorpersonalbenefittotheemployees,andthelodgingisnotlavishorextravagantunderthecircumstances.
Safe HarborInadditiontothefactsandcircumstancestest,thenewfinalregulationsprovideasafeharborforlocallodgingexpensestoqualifyasordinaryandnecessarybusinessexpenses.Anindividual’slocallodgingexpensesareordinaryandneces-sarybusinessexpensesifallfourofthefollowingcriteriaaremet:
1.Thelodgingisnecessaryfortheindividualtoparticipatefullyinorbeavailableforabonafidebusinessmeeting,conference,trainingactivity,orotherbusinessfunction.
2.Thelodging is foraperiodthatdoesnotexceed5calendardaysanddoesnotrecurmore frequently thanonceper calendarquarter.
3.Iftheindividualisanemployee,theindi-vidual’semployerrequirestheemployeetoremainattheactivityorfunctionovernight.
4.Thelodgingisnotlavishorextravagantunderthecircumstancesanddoesnotprovideanysignificantelementofpersonalpleasure,rec-reation,orbenefit.
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
Business Issues 633
16
Sickpayisanyamountpaidtoanemployeefor any period during which the employeeis temporarily absent fromworkbecauseofinjury,sickness,ordisability.Sickpaydoesnotincludedisabilityretirementpaymentsorpay-mentsformedicalandhospitalizationexpenses.Third-partysickpayissickpaythatispaidtoanemployeebysomeperson(thethirdparty)otherthantheemployerforwhomservicesarenor-mallyperformed.I.R.C.§§3121(a)and3306(b)providethatanythirdpartythatpayssickpaythatisincludedinwagesshallbetreatedastheemployer forpurposesof theFICAand theFUTAtaxeswithrespecttosuchwages,exceptasprovidedinregulations.Athird-partypayerofsickpaycanbeeitheranagentoftheemployerorathirdpartythatisnotanagentoftheemployer.
Form8922mustbeusedforfiling“third-partysickpayrecaps”toreconcilethereportingofsickpaypaidbyathirdpartyonbehalfofemployerstoemployeesinsituationsinwhichtheliabilityfortheFICAtaxesonthesickpayissplitbetweentheemployerandthethirdpartyunderapplica-bleregulations.Form8922mustbefiledinsteadoftheFormW-2,WageandTaxStatement,andFormW-3,TransmittalofWageandTaxState-ments,third-partysickpayrecaps,whichwerefiledwiththeSocialSecurityAdministration(SSA)forthird-partysickpaypaidbeforeJanu-ary1,2014.EmployersandthirdpartieswillfiletheForm8922withtheIRSratherthantheSSA,andwillnolongerfilethird-partysickpayrecapswiththeSSAforpaymentsmadeonorafterJanu-ary1,2014.Ifataxpayer(eitherathirdpartyoranemployer)wasformerlyobligatedtofilewiththeSSAthird-partysickpayrecapsonFormsW-2andW-3forsickpaypaidin2013andprioryears,andthesickpayispaidunderthesamefactualcircumstances,thatsametaxpayerinsteadwillberequiredtofileForm8922withtheIRSforsickpaypaidin2014andsubsequentyears.
[Notice2015-6,2015-5I.R.B.412]
Letter Ruling 2014-41-004I.R.C.§§104and3121
■☞ Disability payments under a county ordinance qualify as workers’ compensation payments that are excludable from gross income .
AnalysisAnofficerofacorporationwhoperformsmorethanminor servicesand receives remunera-tionforsuchservicesisastatutoryemployeeforemploymenttaxpurposes.Anofficercanescapestatutoryemployeestatusonlyifheorsheper-formsnoservices(oronlyminorservices)forthecorporationandneitherreceivesnorisentitledtoreceiveanyremuneration,directlyorindirectly,forservicesperformed[Treas.Reg.§§31.3121(d)-1(b),31.3306(i)-1(e),and31.3401(c)-1(f)].
Whetheranindividualisanemployeeoranindependentcontractorunderthecommonlawtestisaquestionoffact.TheTaxCourtconsid-eredthefollowingfactors:
■■ Thedegreeofcontroltheprincipalhadovertheworker
■■ Theworker’sopportunityforprofitorloss■■ Theworker’sinvestmentinfacilities■■ Thepermanenceoftherelationship■■ Theskillrequiredintheoperation
HoldingThepresidentandsecretary-treasurerbothper-formedmorethanminorservicesandwerestatu-toryemployeesforemploymenttaxpurposes.Thethirdworkerwasacommonlawemployeeinthat(1)thepresidentofthecorporationexercisedcontrolovertheworker’sactivities,(2)theworkerwasnotinapositiontoincreaseprofitsthroughhisownefforts,(3)theworkerdidnotemployhisowntools,(4)theworkerreceivedcompensationcategorizedaswageseverymonth,and(5)theworkperformedbytheworkerwasintegraltothecorporation’sregularbusiness.
[Central Motorplex, Inc. v. Commissioner,T.C.Memo.2014-207]
Notice 2015-6I.R.C.§§3402and6051
■☞ The IRS published a notice of procedures for reporting by employers of sick pay paid by third-party payers .
TheIRSannouncedthatForm8922,Third-PartySickPayRecap,mustbeusedbythirdpartiesandemployerstoreporttotalpaymentsofcertainsickpaypaidbythirdpartiesonorafterJanuary1,2014.
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
634 BUSINESS ISSUES
TheIRSarguedthatinthesixthyear,2009,the taxpayer did not have a going concernbecausethetaxpayer
1.didnotownorleaseahorsein2009,2.didnottrainanyhorsesin2009,3.didnotcompeteinanyhorseshows,and4.didnotbreedanyhorses.
Thetaxpayerclaimedtohavetrainedhorsesin2009butlostthetrainingrecordsinamove.
AnalysisI.R.C.§183(a)providesinpertinentpartthat,ifanactivity“isnotengagedinforprofit,nodeduc-tionattributabletosuchactivityshallbeallowed...exceptasprovidedinthissection.”I.R.C.§183(b)(1)providesthatthereshallbeallowed“thedeductionswhichwouldbeallowableunderthischapterforthetaxableyearwithoutregardtowhetherornotsuchactivityisengagedinforprofit.”Thetermactivity not engaged in for profit isdefinedbyI.R.C.§183(c)as“anyactivityotherthanonewithrespecttowhichdeductionsareallowableforthetaxableyearundersection162orunderparagraph(1)or(2)ofsection212.”
Treas.Reg.§1.183-2(b)givesninefactorstobeconsideredwhenascertainingataxpayer’sprofitintent:
1.Themannerinwhichthetaxpayercarriesontheactivity,
2.Theexpertiseofthetaxpayerorhisorheradvisers
3.Thetimeandeffortexpendedbythetax-payerincarryingontheactivity
4.Theexpectationthatassetsusedintheactiv-itymayappreciateinvalue
5.Thesuccessofthetaxpayerincarryingonothersimilarordissimilaractivities
6.Thetaxpayer’shistoryofincomeorlosseswithrespecttotheactivity
7.Theamountofoccasionalprofits, ifany,whichareearnedbythetaxpayer
8.Thefinancialstatusofthetaxpayer9.Elementsofpersonalpleasureorrecreation
ThecourtheldthattheIRShadtheburdenofproofonthesefactors.
Thecourtheldthatthelossesfromthetax-payer’shorse activitieswerenotdeductible
FactsAcountyordinanceprovidesdisabilityben-efitsforcountyemployeeswhosufferpersonalinjuryorsicknessinthelineofduty.Aneligibleemployee’sdisabilitybenefitsaredeterminedasapercentageoftheemployee’scompensationbeforetheemployeesufferedpersonalinjuryorsicknessinthelineofduty,definedasadisabil-ityordeathresulting(directlyorindirectly)fromanactoccurring,orathingdone,orarisktakenthatwasrequiredoftheemployeeintheperfor-manceofhisorherduty.Thecountycodethatwasamendedbytheordinancefurtherrequiresthecounty’sdisabilitybenefitstobereducedbytheamountsofsocialsecuritydisabilitybenefits,workers’compensationbenefits,andearnedincomeduringdisabilitythedisabledemployeereceives.
RulingTheprivateletterrulingconcludedthat
1.thecountycode,asamendedbytheordi-nance,isastatuteinthenatureofaworkers’compensationact;
2.thedisabilitybenefitsarenotconsideredtax-ableincometotheemployeeunderI.R.C.§104(a)(1);and
3.thedisabilitybenefitsareexcludedfromthe definition of “wages” under I.R.C.§3121(a)(2)(A).
[Ltr.Rul.2014-41-004(June10,2014)]
Hobby Losses
McMillan v. CommissionerI.R.C.§183
■☞ The taxpayer did not engage in horse breeding, training, and showing activities for profit .
FactsThetaxpayerwasengagedinthetraining,show-ing,andbreedingofdressagehorses.Inthe6taxyearsinvolved,thetaxpayerhadonly1yearofreceiptsof$588(butnonetincome)andover$154,000inexpenses.Duringthese6yearsthetaxpayerdidnotbreedanyhorses,andin2008and2009thetaxpayerdidnotownanyhorses.
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
Cancellation of Debt Income 635
16
The taxpayerargued that the loanwasanonrecourseloanbecausethetaxpayerwasnotpersonallyliableforrepayment;therefore,nodischargeofindebtednessoccurred.
AnalysisThetaxpayerpointedtotwoaspectsoftheagree-mentthatindicatedthatthetaxpayerwasnotpersonallyliableontheloan:thelackofanypromissorynoteandtherightofthehospitaltorequirecollateralfortheloan.Thecourtstatedthatapromissorynotewasnotneededbecausetherecruitingagreementgavethehospitaltherighttoenforcerepaymentoftheloan.Thecourtalsostatedthatifthehospitalhadrequiredcollat-eral,thatalonewouldnotprovethatthetaxpayerwasnotpersonallyliableontheloan.
HoldingThecourtheldthatthetaxpayerwaspersonallyliableforrepaymentoftheloansandreceivedtaxableincomewhentheloansweredischarged.
[Wyatt v. Commissioner,T.C.SummaryOpinion2015-31]
Chief Counsel Advice 2015-25-010I.R.C.§§704and752
■☞ Characterization of an LLC’s loan as recourse or nonrecourse was not determined under I .R .C . § 752 but was determined under I .R .C . § 1001 .
FactsThetaxpayerwasalimitedliabilitycompany(LLC)taxedasapartnership.TheLLCmem-bersweretwoindividualsandanScorporation.TheLLCwasformedandoperatedforthesolepurposeofconstructing,marketing,andsellinghomesonaparcelofrealproperty.Thetaxpayerobtainedtwoloans,aseniorloanfromabankandajuniorloanfromacorporation.Thejuniorloanwassecuredby
1.aseconddeedoftrustontheproperty,whichwassubordinatedonlytotheseniorloanfromthebank;
2.ageneralassignmentofthetaxpayer’srights,title,andinterestintheproperty;
3.a general assignment of the taxpayer’smembers’rights, title,andinterest in theproperty;
becausethetaxpayerdidnotoperatetheactiv-itywiththeintenttomakeaprofit.Therulingwasbasedonthesefactors:thetaxpayerspentverylittletimeontheactivityduringtheyearsinvolved;thetaxpayerhadinsufficientassetsinthehorseactivitytoexpectanyappreciationsuf-ficienttocoverthelosses;thetaxpayerdidnothaveothersuccessfulsimilarbusinessactivities,includingpasthorseactivities;thetaxpayerhadsubstantiallossesduringtheyearsinvolved;thetaxpayerhadnoyearsofprofit;thelossesoffsetincomefromotheractivities;andthetaxpayerreceivedpersonalpleasurefromridinghorses.
HoldingThecourtheldthatthetaxpayercouldnotdeductlossesfromahorsetraining,breeding,andshow-ingactivitybecausethetaxpayerdidnotoperatetheactivitieswiththeintenttomakeaprofit.
[McMillan v. Commissioner,T.C.Memo.2015-109]
Cancellation of Debt Income
Wyatt v. CommissionerI.R.C.§61
■☞ Forgiveness of loans in exchange for the tax-payer’s 3 years of medical practice was taxable cancellation of debt income because the taxpayer was personally liable for any repayment .
FactsThetaxpayerwasadoctorwhodecidedtoprac-ticeinaruralareainexchangeforadditionalcom-pensationfromalocalhospital.Theadditionalcompensationwasprovidedunderarecruitingagreementthatcharacterizedthepaymentstothetaxpayerasloans.Therecruitingagreementprovidedthatifthetaxpayerpracticedmedicineatthehospitalandcontinuedtopracticemedi-cinefor3yearsbeyonda“guaranteeperiod,”thehospitalwouldcanceltheentireprincipaloftheloansoverthose3years.Theagreementalsoincludedprovisionsforthetaxpayertorepaytheloansifthetaxpayerdidnotcompletethe3yearsatthehospital.Thetaxpayermetthe3-yearrequirement,andthehospitalforgavetheentireloan.Thetaxpayerdidnotincludetheloanpay-mentsintaxableincomeanddidnotincludethedischargedamountsintaxableincome.
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
636 CANCELLATION OF DEBT INCOME
RulingTheIRSruledthatcharacterizationofthetax-payer’sloanasrecourseornonrecoursewasnotdeterminedunderI.R.C.§752butwasdeter-minedunderI.R.C.§1001.
[C.C.A.2015-25-010(March6,2015)]
Domestic Production Activities Deduction
Large Business and International Directive I-04-0315-001I.R.C.§199
■☞ An IRS examiners’ directive lists products that are not manufactured, produced, grown, or extracted for purposes of the domestic produc-tion activities deduction (DPAD) .
TheIRSdirectiveprovidesdirectiontotheLargeBusiness&International(LB&I)examinersonwhatactivitiesmeetthedefinitionofmanufactured, produced, grown, or extractedunderTreas.Reg.§1.199-3(e)fortheDPADunderI.R.C.§199.
Authority of Directives
IRS directives to examiners are not an official pro-nouncement of law and cannot be used, cited, or relied on as such .
I.R.C.§199providesadeductionforcer-tainincomeattributabletodomesticproductionactivities.Tobeeligibleforthededuction,amongotherrequirements,ataxpayermusthavemanu-factured,produced,grown,orextracted(MPGE)thequalifiedpropertyinwholeorinsignificantpartwithintheUnitedStates.
Taxpayers may not claim I.R.C. § 199deductionswhentheiractivitiesfalloutsidethedefinitionofMPGEprovidedinTreas.Reg.§1.199-3(e).
ExamplesofactivitiesthataregenerallynotMPGEincludethefollowingactivitiesperformedataretaillevel:
1.Cutt ing blank keys to a customer’sspecification
2.Mixingbasepaintandapaintcoloringagent
4.pledges of the LLC membership inter-ests;and
5.unlimited,unconditional,andirrevocableguaranteesbyeachmemberoftheLLC.
Thebankforeclosedtheseniorloan,andtheLLCtransferredthelastunsoldportionofthepropertytothebankinfullsatisfactionoftheseniorloan.Thejuniorloanwascanceledforlackofanypropertytorecover.TheLLCrecognizedcancellationofdebt(COD)incomeandpassedtheincomethroughtothemembers.
AnIRSexaminingagentraisedtheissueofwhethertheCODincomeshouldbereclassifiedasincomefromthesaleordispositionofprop-ertyunderI.R.C.§61(a)(3).Thetaxpayerarguedthatthenatureoftheloanasrecourseornonre-coursewasdeterminedunderI.R.C.§752anditsregulations.
AnalysisInthelettertheIRSstatedthatI.R.C.§752anditsregulationspertainedonlytothedetermina-tionofamember’sbasisinthemember’sinterestintheLLCbasedontherecourseornonrecoursenatureofaloanguaranteedbythepartner.TheIRSfurtherstatedthatI.R.C.§752didnotaffectthecharacterizationoftheloanforpurposesofdetermininggainorlossonthesaleunderI.R.C.§1001attheLLClevel.
I.R.C.§1.1001-2(a)(1)and(4)(i)providethatifdebtthatisdischargedinconnectionwiththesaleorotherdispositionofpropertyisnonrecoursetotheborrower,thefullamountofthedischargeddebtisincludedintheamountrealized,andthusthetransactionresultsingainorloss.
OneresultofthisreclassificationasgainsfromdealingsinpropertyattheLLClevelisthattheLLC’smemberscannotexcludepartoftheincomeunderI.R.C.§108atthememberlevel.
TheIRSnotedthatthetaxpayer’sliabilityontheseniorloanwaslimitedtothepropertyownedbythetaxpayer;thus,thetaxpayerhadnopersonalliabilitybeyonditsassets.However,theIRSstatedthatsufficientfactsremainedastothelimitsonthetaxpayer’sliability;therefore,norulingcouldbemadeatthispointastowhethertheseniorloanwasrecourseornonrecoursetothetaxpayer.
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
Estate and Gift Taxes 637
16
Executorsofestatesthatarenototherwiserequiredtofileanestatetaxreturndonothavetoreportthevalueofpropertyqualifyingforthemaritalorcharitabledeductionsifspecifiedconditionsaremet.Inordertomakeuseofthisspecialrule,theexecutormustestimatethetotalvalueofthegrossestate,roundeduptothenear-est$250,000basedonadeterminationmadeingoodfaithandwithduediligence[Treas.Reg.§20.2010-2(a)(7)].Theexecutormustreportontheestatetaxreturn,underpenaltiesofperjury,theamountcorrespondingtotheparticularrangewithinwhichfallstheexecutor’sbestestimateofthetotalgrossestate,inaccordancewiththeinstructionsforForm706,UnitedStatesEstate(andGeneration-SkippingTransfer)TaxReturn.
Thisspecialruledoesnotapply,however,tomaritaldeductionpropertyorcharitablededuc-tionpropertyif(1)thevalueofthepropertyrelatesto,affects,orisneededtodeterminethevaluespassingfromthedecedenttoanotherrecipient;or(2)thevalueofthepropertyisneededtodeter-minetheestate’seligibilityfortheprovisionsofI.R.C.§§2032(alternatevaluation),2032A(spe-cialusevaluation),6166(installmentpaymentoffederalestatetax),oranotherprovisionoftheInternalRevenueCode[Treas.Reg.§20.2010-2(a)(7)(ii)].
TheexecutormustincludeacomputationoftheDSUEamountontheestatetaxreturnsothatthesurvivingspousecantakeintoaccountthe decedent’s DSUE amount [Treas. Reg.§20.2010-2(b)].
TheDSUEamountofadecedentisthelesserof(1)thebasicexclusionamountineffectfortheyearofdeathofthedecedent,or(2)theexcessofthedecedent’sapplicableexclusionamountoverthesumoftheamountofthetaxableestateandtheamountoftheadjustedtaxablegiftsofthedecedent.
Solelyforthepurposeofcomputingthedece-dent’sDSUEamount,theamountofadjustedtax-ablegiftsisreducedbytheamount,ifany,ofthegifttaxespaidforthecalendaryearofthegifts[Treas.Reg.§20.2010-2(c)].
Forpropertypassingforthebenefitofasurviv-ingspouseinaqualifieddomestictrust(QDOT),theDSUEamountofthedecedentmustberede-terminedonafinaldistributionorotherterminat-ingevent[Treas.Reg.§20.2010-2(c)].
TheDSUEamountofadecedentisincludedindeterminingasurvivingspouse’sapplicable
3.Applyinggarnishmentstocakethatisnotbakedwheresold
4.Applying gas to agricultural products tosloworexpeditefruitripening
5.Storing agricultural products in a con-trolledenvironmenttoextendshelflife
6.Maintainingplantsandseedlings
Othersimilaractivitiesmaybenon-MPGEactivities,dependingonthespecificfactsandcir-cumstancesofthetaxpayer‘sactivities,processesthroughwhichtheactivitiesareperformed,andthetaxpayer’sindustry.
[LB&I-04-0315-001(March16,2015)]
Estate and Gift Taxes
T.D. 9725I.R.C.§2010
■☞ Final regulations provide guidance under I .R .C . §§ 2010 and 2505 on the estate and gift tax appli-cable exclusion amount, the requirements for electing portability of a deceased spousal unused exclusion (DSUE) amount, and the rules for the surviving spouse’s use of the DSUE amount .
I.R.C.§2010(c)allowstheestateofadecedentwhoissurvivedbyaspousetomakeaportabil-ityelection,whichgenerallyallowsthesurvivingspousetoapplythedecedent’sdeceasedspousalunusedexclusion(DSUE)amounttothesurviv-ingspouse’sowntransfersduringlifeandatdeath.
The final regulations require an execu-torelectingportabilitytomaketheelectiononatimelyfiledfederalestatetaxreturn,within9monthsafterthedateofthedecedent’sdeathorthelastdayoftheperiodcoveredbyanextension[Treas.Reg.§20.2010-2(a)].
Anexecutormaysupersedeapreviouslyfiledportabilityelectiononasubsequenttimelyfiledestatetaxreturn[Treas.Reg.§20.2010-2(a)(3)(i)].Theportabilityelectionisirrevocableaftertheduedateoftheestatetaxreturn,includingexten-sionsactuallygranted[Treas.Reg.§20.2010-2(a)(4)].
Iftheexecutordoesnotwishtomaketheportabilityelection,theexecutormustmakeanaffirmativestatementontheestatetaxreturnsig-nifyingthedecisiontonothavetheportabilityelectionapply[Treas.Reg.§20.2010-2(a)(3)].
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
638 ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES
proportionsastheindependenttrustee,inthetrustee’sdiscretion,determinestobedesirablefortheirrespectivewelfareandbestinterests.Anyincomenotsopaidorusedisaddedtotrustprincipal.
Inthesametaxyear,thehusbandcreatedandfundedtwograntorretainedannuitytrusts(GRATs)(trust1andtrust2)forthebenefitofthehusbandduringtheannuityperiods.Whentheannuitytermsended,theremainingprincipalofthetrustsbecamepayabletothefamilytrust.Theendoftheannuitytermsrepresentedthecloseoftheestatetaxinclusionperiod(ETIP)forpurposesofchapter13oftheInternalRevenueCode.
Thehusbandandwifeeachfiledayear1Form709,UnitedStatesGift(andGeneration-SkippingTransfer)TaxReturn.Oneachformthehusbandandwifesignifiedtheirconsenttotreattheyear1giftstothefamilytrust,trust1,andtrust2ashavingbeenmadeone-halfbyeachspouseunderI.R.C.§2513.Eachtaxpayerattachedastatementtohisorheryear1Form709electingoutoftheautomaticallocationrulesofI.R.C.§2632(c)withrespecttothetransfertothefamilytrust.
Intaxyear2thehusbandfiledaForm709and,inanattachment,reportedthetransferofpropertyfromtrust1tothefamilytrust.
Intaxyear3thehusbandcreatedandfundedtrusts3and4,alsoGRATs,forthebenefitofthehusbandduringtheannuityperiods.Whentheannuitytermsended,theremainingprincipaloftrusts3and4becamepayabletothefamilytrust.Thetaxpayerseachfiledayear3Form709,andthehusbandandwifesignifiedtheirconsenttotreattheyear3giftstotrust3andtrust4ashavingbeenmadeone-halfbyeachspouseunderI.R.C.§2513.
ThetaxpayershadnotfiledaForm709fortaxyear4toreportthetransferfromtrust3tothefamilytrustorthetransferfromtrust4tothefamilytrust.
AllyearsatissuearesubsequenttoAugust5,1997,andDecember31,2000.Theperiodoflim-itationsunder§6501hasexpiredwithrespecttotheyear1and2Forms709.Theperiodoflimita-tionshasnotexpiredwithrespecttotheyear3and4Forms709.
exclusionamountifthedecedentisthelast deceased spouseofthesurvivingspouseonthedateofdeathofthesurvivingspouse,andtheexecutorofthedecedent’sestate(ofthefirstspousetodie)electedportability[Treas.Reg.§20.2010-3(a)].
Theidentityofthelastdeceasedspouseisnotaffectedbyasubsequentmarriageordivorceif the surviving spouse isorwasmarried toanotherindividualwhoisliving.Ifasurvivingspousemarriesagain,andthatmarriageendsindivorceorannulment,thesubsequentdeathofthedivorcedspousedoesnotendthestatusofthepriordeceasedspouseasthelastdeceasedspouseofthesurvivingspouse.Inthatcasethedivorcedspouseisnotthelastdeceasedspousebecausetheywerenotmarriedatthetimeofthedeathofthesurvivingspouse[Treas.Reg.§20.2010-3(a)].
ThefinalregulationswereeffectiveJune12,2015[Treas.Reg.§20.2010-3(f)].
[T.D.9725,2015-26I.R.B.1122,80F.R.34279(June16,2015)]
DSUE
See pages 244–249 in this book for a discussion of the effect of the DSUE election on basis .
Letter Ruling 2015-23-003I.R.C.§1022
■☞ An election to split gifts by a husband and wife was irrevocable where the time for determining whether split gift treatment was effective had expired .
FactsIntaxyear1thetaxpayerhusbandcreatedafamilytrustforthebenefitofhiswifeandtheirdescendants.Thetrustinstrumentprovidesthatthetrusteemaypaytooruseforthebenefitofanyoneormoreofthehusband’sdescendantsandthespousesofhisdescendantssomuchoralloftheincomeandprincipalofthetrustinsuchpro-portionsasthetrustee,inthetrustee’sdiscretion,determinestoberequiredfortheirrespectivesupport,health,andeducation.Theindependenttrusteecanpaytooruseforthebenefitofanyoneormoreofthewife,thehusband’sdescen-dants,andhisdescendant’sspousessomuchoralloftheincomeandprincipalofthetrustinsuch
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
Estate and Gift Taxes 639
16
fromtrusts1and2tothefamilytrustwasalsoirrevocable.
Theyear3electiontosplitthegiftswasinef-fectiveunderTreas.Reg.§25.2513-1(b)(4),andtheassessmentlimitationsperiodhadnotexpired;therefore,thetaxpayerscouldstillrevoketheirelection.
[Ltr.Rul.2015-23-003(January28,2015)]
Frequently Asked Questions on Estate TaxesI.R.C.§2010
■☞ The IRS will no longer issue estate tax closing let-ters unless requested by the estate .
TheIRShasannouncedonitswebsitethatitwillissueestatetaxclosinglettersonlyonrequestforestatetaxreturns[Form706,UnitedStatesEstate(andGeneration-SkippingTransfer)TaxReturn]filedonorafterJune1,2015.TheIRSindicatedthatanestateshouldwaitatleast4monthsafterfilingthereturntomaketherequest.ForestatetaxreturnsfiledbeforeJune1,2015,theIRSwillgenerallycontinueitspracticeofissuingclos-ingletters.Theletterwillbeissuedwithin4to6monthsafterthereturnisfiled,providedthereturnisacceptedasfiledandhasnoothererrorsorspecialcircumstances.Ifareturnisselectedforauditorisreviewedforstatisticalpurposes,itwilltakemoretimetoissuetheclosingletter.
InsomecasestheIRSwillnotissueaclosingletterforareturnfiledafterJanuary1,2015,andbeforeJune1,2015.Figure 16.6liststhosecases.
Torequestaclosingletter,orforquestionsaboutestatetaxclosingletterrequests,contacttheIRSat866.699.4083.
[“Frequently Asked Questions on EstateTaxes,” www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Frequently
-Asked-Questions-on-Estate-Taxes#1]
AnalysisTreas.Reg.§25.2504-2(b)providesthatifthetimehasexpiredunderI.R.C.§6501withinwhichagifttaxmaybeassessedunderchapter12onthetransferofpropertybygiftmadeduringapreced-ingcalendarperiod,andthegiftwasmadeafterAugust5,1997,theamountofthetaxablegiftortheamountoftheincreaseintaxablegifts,forpurposesofdeterminingthecorrectamountoftaxablegiftsfortheprecedingcalendarperiods,istheamountthatisfinallydeterminedforgifttaxpurposes,andsuchamountmaynotbethereaf-teradjusted.Theruleinthisparagraphappliestoadjustmentsinvolvingallissuesrelatingtothegiftincludingvaluationissuesandlegalissuesinvolv-ingtheinterpretationofthegifttaxlaw.
UnderRev.Rul.56-439,1956-2C.B.605,ifagiftismadetoatrust,andpursuanttothetermsofthetrust,thetrusteehasdiscretiontodistributeincomeamongthedonor’sspouseanddescen-dants,thevalueofthespouse’srighttoreceivetheincomeorprincipalcannotbedetermined.Ifthevalueofthespouse’srighttoincomeandprin-cipalcannotbedetermined,thespouse’sinterestisnotseverablefromtheinterestsoftheotherbeneficiaries,andthegiftcannotbeconsideredtohavebeenmadeone-halfbythespouse.
Treas.Reg.§25.2513-1(b)(4)providesthattheconsenttosplitgiftsiseffectiveonlyifbothspousessignifytheirconsenttotreatallgiftsmadetothirdpartiesduringthatcalendarperiodbybothspouseswhilemarriedtoeachotherashavingbeenmadeone-halfbyeachspouse.Suchconsent,ifsignifiedwithrespecttoanycalendarperiod,iseffectivewithrespecttoallgiftsmadetothirdpartiesduringsuchcalendarperiodexceptifonespousetransferredpropertyinparttohisorherspouseandinparttothirdparties,inwhichcasetheconsentiseffectivewithrespecttotheinteresttransferredtothirdpartiesonlyinsofarassuchinterestisascertainableatthetimeofthegiftandseverablefromtheinteresttransferredtothespouse.
RulingTheIRSruledthattheelectiontosplitthegiftsinyear1wasirrevocablebecausethelimita-tionsperiodontheelectionhadexpiredunderI.R.C.§§2504(c)and6501.Theelectiontosplitthegiftsrelatingtothetransfersinyears2and3
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
640 FOREIGN TAX ISSUES
countryifitisattributabletoservicesperformedbyanindividualinaforeigncountryorcountries.Theplaceofreceiptofearnedincomeisimma-terialindeterminingwhetherearnedincomeisattributabletoservicesperformedinaforeigncountryorcountries.
Treas.Reg.§1.911-2(h)definesthetermfor-eign countryasanyterritoryunderthesovereigntyofagovernmentotherthanthatoftheUnitedStates,including,amongotherthings,theterrito-rialwatersoftheforeigncountryandtheairspaceovertheforeigncountry.
HoldingThe court held that the taxpayer could notexcludefromtaxableincomewagesearnedwhileflyingoverUSterritorialwatersorlandorwhileflyinginUSairspace.
[Rogers v. Commissioner,783F.3d320(D.C.Cir.2015)]
Health Care
Letter Ruling 2015-28-004I.R.C.§§106,3121,3306,and3401
■☞ Employer contributions made to a retiree health reimbursement arrangement (HRA) on behalf of eligible retirees, spouses, and eligible dependents for eligible medical expenses are excludable from the gross income of eligible retirees, and such contributions are not wages and are not subject to FICA taxes, FUTA taxes, or withholding .
Foreign Tax Issues
Rogers v. CommissionerI.R.C.§911
■☞ A flight attendant who worked on interna-tional flights to and from the United States was required to report as taxable income all income earned while working on flights in international or US airspace .
FactsThetaxpayerwasaUScitizenlivinginHongKongandwasemployedasaflightattendantoninternationalflightstoandfromtheUnitedStates.Thetaxpayerexcludedallofherincomefrom taxable income.The IRSasserted thatincomeearnedininternationalandUSairspace,andwhileonthegroundintheUnitedStates,wastaxableincome.
Althoughtheairlineprovidedthetaxpayerwithanapportionmentofherestimateddutytimebetweenminutesspentinoroverforeigncountries,inorovertheUnitedStates,andoverinternationalwaters,thetaxpayerarguedthattheincomewasallsourcedfromherresidenceinHongKongandwasthereforeexcludableforeignincome.
AnalysisI.R.C.§911definesforeign earned incomeasearnedincomefromsourceswithinaforeigncountryorcountries.Treas.Reg.§1.911-3(a)providesthatearnedincomeisfromsourceswithinaforeign
FIGURE 16.6 Returns for Which No Closing Letter Will Be Issued
For estate tax returns filed after January 1, 2015, and before June 1, 2015
If And Then
The filing threshold was met
■■ No portability election was made, or■■ the portability election not denied, or■■ the portability election was denied due to a late filing
A closing letter will be issued
The filing threshold was not met
■■ No portability election was made, or■■ the portability election was not denied
A closing letter will be issued
■■ The portability election was denied due to a late filing No closing letter will be issued
The return was filed pursuant to Rev . Proc . 2014-18
■■ The portability election was not denied A closing letter will be issued
■■ The portability election was denied due to failure to meet the requirements
No closing letter will be issued
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
16
Foreign Tax Issues 641
expensesareforfeited.Iftheeligibleretireediesandhasnodependents,thesickleaveamountsareforfeited.Thereisnooptiontoreceivethevalueoftheunusedsickleaveinanyformotherthanasreimbursementofmedicalexpenses.
AnalysisUnderTreas.Reg.§1.61-21(a)(3)afringebenefitprovidedinconnectionwiththeperformanceofservicesisconsideredtohavebeenprovidedascompensationforsuchservices.Ifafringeben-efitisfurnishedtosomeoneotherthantheser-viceprovider,suchbenefitistreatedasifitwasfurnishedtotheserviceprovider,andingeneral,ataxablefringebenefitisincludedintheincomeofthepersonperformingtheservicesforwhichthefringebenefitisfurnished[Treas.Reg.§1.61-21(a)(4)].
Treas.Reg.§1.61-21(b)(1)providesthatanemployeemustincludethefairmarketvalue(FMV)ofthefringebenefitingrossincome.
I.R.C.§106(a)providesthatthegrossincomeofanemployeedoesnotincludeemployer-pro-videdcoverageunderanaccidentorhealthplan.Treas.Reg.§1.106-1statesthatthegrossincomeofanemployeedoesnotincludecontributionsthathisorheremployermakestoanaccidentorhealthplanforcompensation(throughinsur-anceorotherwise)totheemployeeforpersonalinjuriesorsicknessincurredbytheemployee,theemployee’sspouse,ortheemployee’sdepen-dentsasdefinedinI.R.C.§152.Theemployermaycontributetoanaccidentorhealthplaneitherbypayingthepremiumonapolicyofacci-dentorhealthinsurancecoveringoneormoreoftheemployees,orbycontributingtoaseparatetrustorfundthatprovidesaccidentorhealthben-efitsdirectlyorthroughinsurancetooneormoreemployees.However,iftheinsurancepolicy,trust,orfundprovidesotherbenefitsinadditiontoaccidentorhealth,I.R.C.§106appliesonlytotheportionofthecontributionsallocabletoacci-dentorhealthbenefits.
I.R.C.§§3121(a)(2)and3306(b)(2)providethatthetermwagesdoesnotincludeanypaymentmadetooronbehalfofanemployee,oranyofhisorherdependents,formedicalorhospitalizationexpenses.I.R.C.§3401(a)providesthatforpur-posesoffederalincometaxwithholding,wagesmeansallremunerationforservicesperformedbyanemployeeforhisorheremployer,includ-ingthecashvalueofanybenefits.However,
FactsThetaxpayerprovidedhealthcoveragetoeligibleretirees,theirspouses,theirregistereddomesticpartners,andtheirdependentsthroughachoiceofhealthplans.Uponretirement,eligibleretireesgenerallypaidpremiumsforthehealthcoveragewiththeirownafter-taxfunds.Someretireeswerealsoeligibletohaveaportionoftheiraccumu-latedunusedsickleaveatretirementconvertedtoacontributionfromtheemployertopayforthehealthinsurancepremiums.Contributionswereuniformandbasedonhoursofsickleaveavailableforconversionandtheclassofretireecoverage(e.g.,retiree-onlycoverage,retiree-plus-dependent,retiree-plus-family).
ThetaxpayerestablishedanHRAforthebenefitofeligibleretirees,theirspouses,theirregistereddomesticpartners,andtheirdepen-dents.Eligibleemployeeshiredbeforeacertaindatecouldmakeanelectionatretirementtopar-ticipateineither(1)theexistinghealthplanswithpremiumsfunded,inpart,bymandatorysickleaveconversion,or(2)aretireeHRAfundedbymandatoryconversionofaccumulatedunusedsickleaveatretirement.RetireeHRAamountsareuniformandbasedonhoursofsickleaveavailableforconversion,classofretireecoverage,andMedicareeligibility.Theelectiontowaivecoverageundertheexistinghealthplansgener-allymaynotbechanged.Noothercontributions,otherthanthesickleaveconversion,aremadetotheretireeHRA.
ThetaxpayerrepresentedthattheamountsintheretireeHRAmaybeusedonlytoreimbursehealthinsurancepremiumsandmedicalexpensesasdefinedinI.R.C.§213.TheretireeHRAwillnotpayclaimsforaregistereddomesticpart-ner’smedicalexpenses,norwilltheretireeHRAreimburseaspouse’sgrouphealthinsurancethatwaspaidwithpretaxdollars.Thetaxpayerrep-resentedthatundernocircumstancemaytheeligibleretireeoranybeneficiaryreceiveanycon-versionamountsatanytimeincashorotherben-efits.Followingaretiree’sdeath,unusedamountscontinueforthebenefitoftheretiree’sspouse,registereddomesticpartner,andeligibledepen-dents(childrenunder26).Thebenefitscontinueuntilalleligiblesickleavehasbeenconverted;thedeathofthesurvivingspouse,registereddomes-ticpartner,andeligibledependents;oranelec-tiontonotcontinuetheprogram,atwhichtimeanyamountsnotappliedtoreimbursemedical
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
642 INDIVIDUAL ISSUES
capitalizedintotheproperty’sbasis.Thetax-payerswereunabletodevelopthepropertyandusedaportionofthemedicalbuildingfortheirbusinessactivities.Beforethepropertycouldbedeveloped,thetaxpayerssoldthepropertytoanunrelatedthirdparty.
Thetaxpayersclaimedthegainfromthesaleascapitalgain,buttheIRScontendedthatthesaleproducedordinaryincome.
AnalysisUnderI.R.C.§1221(a)(1)propertyisnotacapi-talassetifitisheldbythetaxpayerprimarilyforsaletocustomersintheordinarycourseofhisorhertradeorbusiness.I.R.C.§1221(a)(2)providesthatacapitalassetdoesnotincluderealpropertyusedinthetaxpayer’stradeorbusiness.
TheTaxCourtlistedseveralfactorstodeter-minewhetherataxpayerheldpropertyprimar-ilyforsaletocustomersintheordinarycourseofbusiness,includingthefollowing:
1.Thepurposeforwhichthepropertywasini-tiallyacquired
2.Thepurposeforwhichthepropertywassub-sequentlyheld
3.Theextenttowhichimprovements,ifany,weremadetothepropertybythetaxpayer
4.The frequency, number, and continuityofsales
5.Theextentandnatureofthetransactionsinvolved
6.Theordinarybusinessofthetaxpayer7.Theextentofadvertising,promotion,or
otheractiveeffortsusedinsolicitingbuyersforthesaleoftheproperty
8.Thelistingofpropertywithbrokers9.Thepurposeforwhichthepropertywasheld
atthetimeofsale
TheTaxCourtdeterminedthatthetaxpayersheldthepropertyprimarilyforsaletocustom-ersintheordinarycourseofbusinessbasedonthefindingsthatthesaleofthepropertyoccurredinthenormalcourseofthetaxpayers’business,thetaxpayersheldthepropertyfordevelop-mentpurposesbasedontheirsubstantialinvest-mentindevelopmentcosts,thetaxpayersdidnotimprovethepropertybeforethesale,thetaxpayersexpectedtoreceivedevelopmentprof-its,andthetaxpayershadmadesubstantialand
Rev.Rul.56-632,1956-2C.B.101,holdsthatwhenpremiumspaidbyanemployerunderpoli-ciesprovidinghospitalandsurgicalservicesareexcludablefromemployees’grossincomeunderI.R.C.§106,theamountspaidbytheemployerarenotsubjecttofederalincometaxwithholding.
RulingTheIRSruledthatthetaxpayercontributionstotheretireeHRAonbehalfofeligibleretirees,spouses,andeligibledependents,whichareusedexclusivelytopayforeligiblemedicalexpenses,areexcludablefromthegrossincomeofeligibleretireesunderI.R.C.§106.Thetaxpayercon-tributionsmadetotheretireeHRAonbehalfofeligibleretirees,spouses,andeligibledependentsarenotwagesandarenotsubjecttoFICAtaxesunderI.R.C.§3121(a),FUTAtaxesunderI.R.C.§3306(b),orincometaxwithholdingunderI.R.C.§3401(a).ThetaxpayercontributionsmadetotheretireeHRAthatareusedtoprovidemedi-calcoverageforregistereddomesticpartnersofeligibleretirees(e.g.,healthinsurancepremiums)areincludedinthegrossincomeofeligibleretir-eesunderI.R.C.§61.
[Ltr.Rul.2015-28-004(April6,2015)]
Individual Issues
Capital Gains
Fargo v. CommissionerI.R.C.§1221
■☞ The gain from the sale of commercial property from one of the taxpayers’ entities to their other entity produced ordinary gain because the tax-payers held the property for sale in the ordinary course of business .
FactsThetaxpayers,husbandandwife,ownedseveralentitiesthatoperatedarealestatebusiness.Oneofthetaxpayers’corporationsacquiredalease-holdonabusinesspropertythatwaseventuallypurchasedbythetaxpayers’limitedpartnership.Thepropertyinitiallycontainedonlyamedicalbuilding,buttheleaseholdrequiredthetaxpayerstodevelopthepropertyforresidentialuse.Thetaxpayersincurreddevelopmentcoststhatwere
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
Individual Issues 643
16
removedthetaxpayerfromdesignationasaben-eficiaryoftheestate.
HoldingTheUSdistrictcourtrejectedthecharacteriza-tionofthesetoftransactionsasatransfertoanonbeneficiaryoftheestate.Itheldthatthesub-stanceofthetransactionswasatransferofapor-tionofthedecedent’sestatefromtheexecutortothetaxpayerwhowasabeneficiaryoftheestate.Therefore,thecourtheldthatthecreditwasprop-erlydisallowed.[Menges v. Commissioner,114A.F.T.R.2d(RIA)2014-6514(M.D.Penn.2014)]
Saenz v. Commissioner I.R.C.§§24,32,and152
■☞ The taxpayer’s adult child and minor grandchild were the taxpayer’s dependents .
FactsOnthe taxpayer’s2011return, the taxpayerclaimedanadultchildandthechild’sminordaughterasdependents,claimed theearnedincometaxcreditbasedonthedependencyoftheadultchildandgranddaughter,andclaimedtheadditional child tax creditbasedon thedependencyofthegranddaughter.ThechildandgranddaughterlivedwithandweresupportedbythetaxpayerfromJanuary2011throughAugust2011.Fortheremainderof2011,theadultchildandgranddaughter livedwithsomeonewhoclaimedtobeacommonlawspouseoftheadultchild.ThethirdpartytestifiedthathehadagreedtobemarriedtotheadultchildinApril2012whentheysignedtheirjointreturnfiledfor2011.
AnalysisOneissueinthecasewaswhethertheadultchildandthethirdpartyweremarriedin2011.UnderI.R.C.§152(c)(1)(E),adependentmustbeaqual-ifyingchildofthetaxpayer,andthedependentcannothavefiledajointreturnwiththedepen-dent’sspouseunderI.R.C.§ 6013forthesametaxyearforwhichthetaxpayerisclaimingthedependentasaqualifyingchild.Thus,iftheadultchildwasmarriedduringanypartof2011,theadultchildwasnotaqualifyingchildofthetax-payer,andthetaxpayercouldnotclaimtheadultchildasadependent,claimtheearnedincome
continuouseffortstodevelopthepropertyuptothetimeofsale.
HoldingThecourtheldthatthegainfromthesaleofcom-mercialpropertywasordinaryincomebecausethetaxpayersheldthepropertyforsaleandsoldthepropertyintheordinarycourseofbusiness.
[Fargo v. Commissioner,T.C.Memo.2015-96]
Credits
Estate of Menges v. CommissionerI.R.C.§36
■☞ The beneficiary of an estate could not claim the first-time homebuyer credit after disclaiming her interest and then acquiring the inherited home from the other beneficiaries .
FactsThetaxpayerwasabeneficiaryofhergrand-mother’sestatethatincludedaninterestinthegrandmother’sresidence.Thetaxpayer’sfatherwastheexecutoroftheestate.Priortoaccept-ingtheinheritance,thetaxpayerdisclaimedherinterestintheresidence,causingtheinterestsinthehometopasstoonlyherfatherandhertwobrothers.
Herbrothersandfatherthenexecuteddeedstotransferthehometothetaxpayerinexchangeforliensonthepropertytosecureloanstothetaxpayer.However,thetaxpayerdidnotactuallyborrowanymoney.
Sheclaimedthefirst-timehomebuyercreditforthe“purchase”ofthehome.Shesubsequentlydied,andtheIRSassessedherestateforincometaxesresultingfromdisallowanceofthecredit.
AnalysisForpurposesofthefirst-timehomebuyercredit,I.R.C.§36(c)(3)(A)definedthetermpurchaseas“anyacquisition,butonlyif...thepropertyisnotacquiredfromapersonrelatedtothepersonacquiringsuchproperty.”Thedefinitionofrelated personsincludesanexecutorofanestateandabeneficiaryofsuchestateexceptinthecaseofasaleorexchangeinsatisfactionofapecuniarybequest[I.R.C.§§36(c)(5)and267(b)(13)].
Theestatearguedthatthetaxpayer’sdis-claimingtheinterestinhergrandmother’shome
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
644 INDIVIDUAL ISSUES
Deductions: Charitable
Kunkel v. CommissionerI.R.C.§170A
■☞ Charitable deductions for noncash donations were disallowed for failure to substantiate the tax basis, description, and value of the donated property .
Facts Thetaxpayers,husbandandwife,claimed$42,455incharitabledeductions.Ofthatamount,$5,140wasincashcontributionsandtherestwerenon-cashcontributions.TheIRSdisallowedtheentiredeductionforthenoncashcontributionsforlackofsubstantiation.
The allegednoncash contributionswerevariousitemsofpersonalpropertydonatedtochurches,Goodwill,andtwoveteransupportorganizations.Thetaxpayersdidnotpresentanyreceiptsfromtheorganizationsitemizingthedonations,valuingtheitemsdonated,orstatingthatthetaxpayersdidnotreceiveanythinginconsiderationforthecontributions.Althoughthetaxpayersmaintainedlistsoftheitemsdonated,thevaluesassignedtotheitemsweredeterminedbythetaxpayersbutdidnotcontainanyinforma-tionastotheincometaxbasisofeachitem.
Analysis Forallcontributionsof$250ormore,thetax-payergenerallymustobtainacontemporaneouswrittenacknowledgmentfromthedonee[I.R.C.§170(f)(8)].Separatecontributionsoflessthan$250arenotsubjecttotherequirementsofI.R.C.§170(f)(8),regardlessofwhetherthesumofthecontributionsmadebyataxpayertoadoneeorganizationduringataxableyearequals$250ormore[Treas.Reg.§1.170A-13(f)(1)].
Additional substantiation requirementsare imposed for contributions of propertywithaclaimedvalueexceeding$500[I.R.C.§170(f)(11)(B)].Stillmorerigoroussubstan-tiationrequirements,includingtheneedforaqualifiedappraisal,areimposedoncontribu-tionsofpropertywithaclaimedvalueexceeding$5,000[I.R.C.§170(f)(11)(C)].“Similaritemsofproperty”donatedtooneormoredoneesmustbeaggregated indeterminingwhether giftsexceedthe$500and$5,000thresholds[I.R.C.§170(f)(11)(F)].Thetermsimilar items of property
taxcreditfortheadultchild,orclaimtheaddi-tionalchildtaxcreditforthegranddaughter.
Thesecondissuewaswhetherthegrand-daughterwasaqualifyingchildofthetaxpayerortheadultchild,thegranddaughter’smother.UnderI.R.C.§152(c)(1),thegranddaughterwasaqualifyingchildofthetaxpayerandtheadultchildbecause
1.thegranddaughterlivedwiththetaxpayerandtheadultchildformorethanone-halfofthetaxyear,
2.the granddaughter was the child of theadultchildandthelinealdescendantofthetaxpayer,
3.thegranddaughterwasaminorduring2011,4.shedidnotprovidemorethanone-halfofher
ownsupportin2011,and5.shewasnotmarriedanddidnotfileajoint
returnfor2011.
The t i e -b reaker ru le under I .R .C .§152(c)(4)(A)providesthatifanindividualmaybeclaimedasaqualifyingchildbytwoormoretaxpayersforataxyear,suchindividualshallbetreatedasthequalifyingchildofthetaxpayerwhoistheparentoftheindividual.However,I.R.C.§152(b)(1)providesthatifanindividualisadependentofataxpayerforanytaxyear,thatindividualshallbetreatedashavingnodepen-dentsforthatyear.Thus,theadultchildwasbarredfromclaimingthegranddaughterasadependentbecausetheadultchildwasadepen-dentofthetaxpayer.
HoldingThecourtheldthatthechildandgranddaughterwereeligibledependentsofthetaxpayerbecause
1.theadultchildandcommonlawspousedidnotbecomemarrieduntil2012,whenthetaxreturnwassigned;and
2.theadultchildcouldnotclaimthegrand-daughterasadependentbecausetheadultchildwasclaimedasadependentonthetax-payer’sreturn.
[Saenz v. Commissioner,T.C.SummaryOpinion2015-6]
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
Individual Issues 645
16
didnotknowthatthepropertywouldnotsupport25residencesduetowaterpercolationissues.
ThecountyrefusedtosignForm8283,Non-cashCharitableContributions,becausethetax-payersdidnotsubmitan opinionofaqualifiedtaxprofessionaladdressing“theabilitytotakeacharitablecontributiondeductionundersection170(h).”Thecountyalsorequiredaqualifiedappraisalandconfirmationthatifthegrantoftheeasementdidnotaffecttheproperty’svalue,nocharitabledeductionwouldbeallowed.
Thetaxpayersfiledatimely2006returnonOctober15,2007,andincludedanunsignedForm8283.Theyclaimedacharitabledeductionfor$5.54million.
InMarch2008theappraiserpreparedanaddendumtotheoriginalappraisalthatstatedthatthepostgrantvalueofthepropertywas$5.54millionminusthe$2.56millionreceivedfromthesaleofthedevelopmentrights.ThecountysignedForm8283inMarch2008afterreceivingthetaxprofessionalopinionandtheamendedappraisal.ThetaxpayerthenfiledanamendedreturnwiththeForm8283andamendedappraisal.
TheIRSdisallowedthetaxpayers’charitabledeductionbecause
1.theappraisalwasnota“qualifiedappraisal,”2.theForm8283accompanyingthepetitioners’
returnwasnotavalid“appraisalsummary,”and
3.thetaxpayerslackeddonativeintentbecausetheeasementtheygrantedtothecountywaspartofaquidproquoexchange.
Analysis
Issue 1Acharitabledeductionisallowedforaquali-fiedconservationeasementcontribution[I.R.C.§170(f)(3)(A)].Wherethevalueofcontributedpropertyexceeds$500,000,nodeduction isallowedunlessthetaxpayerobtainsa“qualifiedappraisal”andattachesittohisorherreturn[I.R.C.§170(f)(11)(D)].AqualifiedappraisalisanappraisalthatisconductedbyaqualifiedappraiserinaccordancewithgenerallyacceptedappraisalstandardsandanyregulationsorotherguidanceprescribedbythesecretaryoftheTrea-sury[I.R.C.§170(f)(11)(E)(i)(II)].
isdefinedaspropertyofthesamegenericcate-goryortype,suchasclothing,jewelry,furniture,electronicequipment,householdappliances,orkitchenware[Treas.Reg.§1.170A-13(c)(7)(iii)].
Thecourtaggregatedmanyoftheitemsthetaxpayersclaimedtobedonatedintogroupssuchasjewelry,toys,andhouseholditems.Eachgrouphadatotalvalueexceeding$500.Somegroups,suchasclothing,books,andhouseholdfurniture,hadanaggregatevalueexceeding$5,000.Thecourtfoundthatthetaxpayershadnotmetanyofthesubstantiationrequirementsbecausethetaxpayershadnorecordofthecostofeachitem,howeachitemwasacquired,adescriptionoftheitems,thefairmarketvalue(FMV)oftheprop-ertywhendonated,andthevaluationmethodusedtodetermineFMV.
Holding Thetaxpayerscouldnotclaimacharitablededuc-tionfornoncashdonationsofusedpersonalitemswherethetaxpayersfailedtomaintainsufficientrecordsofthedonatedproperty.
[Kunkel v. Commissioner,T.C.Memo.2015-71]
Costello v. CommissionerI.R.C.§170
■☞ A charitable deduction was disallowed for a grant of a conservation easement for failure to submit a qualified appraisal of the easement .
FactsThetaxpayers,husbandandwife,purchaseda74-acrefarminMarylandandmadeimprove-mentstothehomeandbuildings.Underlocalzoninglawsthetaxpayerswereabletograntaconservationeasementonthepropertyandsellthedevelopmentrightstoathirdpartyforuseonotherproperty.Thetaxpayers’farmpropertyhaddevelopmentrightsthatallowedupto25residencestobebuiltontheproperty.In2006thetaxpayersfoundathirdpartytopurchasethedevelopmentrightsandthengrantedthecon-servationeasementtothecounty.Thetaxpayersobtainedanappraisalofthepropertytodeter-mineitsvaluebeforeandafterthegrantoftheconservationeasement;however,theappraiserdidnotknowabouttheeasementgrant,didnotknowthattheeasementgrantwasaconditionforthetaxpayers’saleofthedevelopmentrights,and
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
646 INDIVIDUAL ISSUES
totransferalldevelopmentrightsdirectlytothecountybydonationorsale.
Thetaxpayersarguedthatthetwotransac-tionsshouldbecollapsedintoasingledonationoftheeasementandsaleofthedevelopmentrightstothecounty.Thecourtrejectedthisinterpreta-tionofthetransactionsbecausethetaxpayershadotherwaystostructurethetransactions,andtheychosetheeasementandsaleoption.
Holding
Issue 1Thecourtheldthattheappraisalwasnota“quali-fiedappraisal”becauseitfailedtocontainenoughinformationaboutthepropertyfortheIRStomakeadeterminationastothequalificationoftheeasementforacharitablededuction.
Issue 2Thecourtheldthatthe“appraisalsummary”onForm8283submittedwiththeincometaxreturnwasincompleteandnotsignedordatedbythedonee.
Issue 3Thecourtheldthatthetaxpayerwasnotallowedacharitabledeductionbecause the taxpayerreceivedconsiderationaspartofthegrantoftheeasement.
[Costello v. Commissioner,T.C.Memo.2015-87]
Mitchell v. CommissionerI.R.C.§170A
■☞ An easement was not a qualified conservation contribution because a deed of trust was not subordinate to the easement .
FactsIn1998thetaxpayers,husbandandwife,pur-chased456acresofranchland.Adeedoftrustsecuredaninstallmentagreementforthepur-chase.Thetaxpayersbuiltahomeontheland.In2002thetaxpayersformedafamilylimitedliabil-itylimitedpartnership(FLLLP)andtransferredtheentirepropertytoit,subjecttothedeedoftrust.In2003theFLLLPgrantedaconservationeasementon180acresofthepropertytoachari-tableorganization.Theeasementrestrictedthepropertyforuseasanopenspace;forwildlife;
TheIRSarguedthattheappraisalwasnotqualifiedbecauseitfailedtoincludethreeoftherequiredelements:
1.An accurate description of the propertycontributed
2.Thedateofthecontribution3.Thesalienttermsoftheagreementsamong
thecounty,thetaxpayer,andthepurchaserofthedevelopmentrights
Thecourtheldthattheamendedincometaxreturnappraisalandformscouldnotbecon-sideredbecausetheywerenotfileduntilmorethan5monthsaftertheextendedduedateoftheoriginalreturn.Thus,thecourtlookedonlyattheappraisalsubmittedwiththeoriginalincometaxreturn.
Onthefirstelementthecourtheldthattheappraisalfailedtodescribetheconservationease-mentorevenmentionaneasement;therefore,theappraisaldidnotprovideanaccuratedescrip-tionofthepropertyappraisedordonated.Onthesecondelementthecourtheldthattheappraisalmadenomentionofthecontributiondate.Onthethirdelementthecourtheldthattheappraisalmadenomentionofthesaleofthedevelopmentrightsorthegrantoftheeasementtothecounty.
Issue 2Anytaxpayerclaimingadeductionforacon-tributionofpropertywithavaluethatexceeds$5,000mustalsoattachtohisorherreturnafullycompletedappraisalsummary[Treas.Reg.§1.170A-13(c)(2)].AnappraisalsummaryonForm8283must(amongotherthings)besignedanddatedbythedonee,andmustsetforthspeci-fiedinformation,includingastatementexplain-ingtheamountofanyconsiderationreceivedfromthedoneeforthecontribution.
ThecourtfoundthattheoriginaltaxreturndidnotincludeForm8283signedanddatedbythedonee,anditdidnotincludeastatementidentifyinganyamountreceivedbythetaxpayerinconsiderationforthegrantoftheeasement.
Issue 3Underthecounty’srulesataxpayerwhomakesagrantofaconservationeasementmaysellthedevelopmentrightstoanotherpartyforuseonlandnotsubjecttoaconservationeasement.Thesamerulesalsoallowedthetaxpayertochoose
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
Individual Issues 647
16
deduction;therefore,thecharitabledeductionwasproperlydenied.
[Mitchell v. Commissioner,775F.3d1243(10thCir.2015)]
Bosque Canyon Ranch, L.P. v. CommissionerI.R.C.§170A
■☞ An easement was not a qualified conserva-tion contribution granted in perpetuity because the easement allowed the grantors the right to change the boundaries of the easement .
FactsThetaxpayersweretworelatedlimitedpartner-shipsthateachowned50%ofa3,744-acreranch.Eachtaxpayergrantedaconservationeasementoverits50%of theproperty.Eacheasementprovidedthatthegrantorretainedvariousrightsrelatingtotheproperty,includingrightstoraiselivestock;hunt;fish;trap;cutdowntrees;andconstructbuildings,recreationalfacilities,skeetshootingstations,deerhuntingstands,wildlifeviewingtowers,fences,ponds,roads,trails,andwells.Theeasementsalsoprovidedthatthelotownersandgranteecouldagreetomodifytheboundariesofthepropertynotsubjecttotheeasementsolongasthetotalamountofpropertysubjecttotheeasementwasnotdecreased.
TheIRSclaimedthatthegrantswerenoteffectiveinperpetuitybecausethelandsubjecttotheeasementcouldchangeovertime,andtheIRSdeniedadeductionforthevalueofthecon-servationeasements.
AnalysisAtaxpayermaydeductthevalueofacontributionofapartialinterestinpropertyifthecontributionconstitutesaqualifiedconservationcontribution[I.R.C.§170(f)(3)(B)(iii)].Ingeneral,aquali-fiedconservationcontributionisacontributionofaqualifiedrealpropertyinteresttoanI.R.C.§501(c)(3)organizationexclusivelyforconser-vationpurposes[I.R.C.§170(h)(1),(3)(B)].Aqualifiedrealpropertyinterestincludesarestric-tion(grantedinperpetuity)ontheusethatmaybemadeoftherealproperty[I.R.C.§170(h)(2)(C)].Sucharestrictionmayincludeaneasementrelatingtorealproperty[Treas.Reg.§1.170A-14(b)(2)].
andforagriculturalpurposes,includingagricul-turalbusinesses.Atthetimeofthegrantoftheeasementin2003,the180acresweresubjecttothedeedoftrust.Thedeedoftrustholderdidnotsignasubordinationagreementuntil2005.TheIRSdeniedacharitabledeductionfortheease-mentfor2003,arguingthattheeasementwasnotgrantedinperpetuityatthetimeofthegrantbecausethesubordinationagreementwasnotsignedbythedeedoftrustholderin2003,theyearofthegrantoftheeasement.
AnalysisInordertoqualifyforacharitablededuction,aqualifiedconservationeasementcontributionmustbemadeexclusivelyforconservationpur-poses.I.R.C.§170(h)(5)(A)statesthatacontribu-tionisnotexclusivelyforconservationpurposesunlesstheconservationpurposeisprotectedinperpetuity.Treas.Reg.§1.170A-14(g)(2)providesthatadeductionisnotpermittedforaninterestthatissubjecttoamortgageunlessthemortgageesubordinatesitsrightstotherightofthequalifiedorganizationtoenforcetheconservationpur-posesinperpetuity.Treas.Reg.§1.170A-14(g)(3)allowsacharitabledeductionifthepossibil-itythatacharitableinterestwillbedefeatedissoremoteastobenegligible.Theregulationincludesanexampleofastate’sstatutoryrequire-mentthatuserestrictionsmustbererecordedevery30yearstoremainenforceable.
TheIRSarguedthattheeasementwasnotaqualifiedconservationcontributionbecausethetaxpayersdidnotsatisfythesubordinationrequirementatthetimetheeasementwasgranted.Thetaxpayersarguedthat theprobabilityofdefaultonthepromissorynotewassoremoteastobenegligibleandshouldbedisregardedindeterminingwhethertheconservationeasementwasenforceableinperpetuityatthetimeitwasgranted.TheTaxCourtheldthattherequire-mentsofthesubordinationregulationarestrictrequirementsthatmaynotbeavoidedbyuseofthe“soremoteastobenegligible”standard.
HoldingTheTenthCircuitCourtofAppealsaffirmedtheTaxCourtholdingthatthetaxpayersmustsatisfybothrequirementsofTreas.Reg.§1.170A-14(g)(2) and (3) in order for the easement to begrantedinperpetuityandeligibleforacharitable
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
648 INDIVIDUAL ISSUES
thepenaltyisincreasedto40%oftheunderpay-ment[I.R.C.§6662(h)].Ifanyvalueisclaimedonareturnofpropertywithacorrectvalueofzero,themisstatementisconsideredtobe400%ormoreofthecorrectamount,andtheapplicablepenaltyis40%[Treas.Reg.§1.6662-5(g)].
I.R.C.§6664(c)providesrelieffromthepen-altyifthetaxpayercanshowthattherewasarea-sonablecausefortheunderpaymentoftaxandthatthetaxpayeractedingoodfaith.Thepen-altyalsodoesnotapplyiftheclaimedvalueofthepropertywasbasedonaqualifiedappraisalmadebyaqualifiedappraiser,andinadditiontoobtainingsuchappraisal,thetaxpayermadeagoodfaithinvestigationofthevalueofthecon-tributedproperty.
TheTaxCourtheldthatthe40%penaltyappliedbecause,althoughthetaxpayershadobtainedaqualifiedappraisalmadebyaqualifiedappraiser,thetaxpayersfailedtomakeagoodfaithinvestigationofthevalueoftheeasement.
TheTaxCourtfoundthatthedoneetoldthetaxpayersthatthegrantoftheeasementwouldhavenoeffectonthevalueoftheirresidence.Thetaxpayersdidnotinvestigatetheinconsistencybetweentheappraisalandthenewinformation,andthecourtheldthatthetaxpayersdidnotmakeagoodfaithinvestigationofthetruevalueoftheeasement.
TheappellatecourtaffirmedtheTaxCourt’sruling.
HoldingTheimpositionofapenaltyof40%oftheunder-paidtaxwasproperwherethetaxpayersdidnotmakeagoodfaithinvestigationastothevalueofadonatedeasement.
[Kaufman v. Commissioner,784F.3d56(1stCir.2015)]
Deductions: Home Mortgage Interest
Copeland v. CommissionerI.R.C.§163
■☞ Accrued interest that is added to a mortgage loan’s principal is not currently deductible .
Cashbasistaxpayerspurchasedaresidencein1991withamortgageloan.In2010theloanwasmodified,andunpaidbutdueinterestonthe
Thetaxpayersarguedthattheeasementsdidnotviolatetheperpetuityrequirementbecauseanymodificationstotheboundariesoftheparcelsweresubjecttothereasonablejudgmentofthecharitableorganization,theexteriorboundariesofthepropertysubjecttotheeasementscouldnotbemodified,andtheoverallamountofpropertysubjecttotheeasementscouldnotbedecreased.
Thecourtdisagreed,notingthatthepropertyinvolvedintheeasementwasnotfixedbecausetheboundariesofthepropertiessubjecttotheeasementcouldbechanged.Thepropertysub-jecttotheeasementononedaycouldbenotsub-jecttotheeasementonanotherday.
HoldingThecourtheldthatthegrantsoftheeasementswiththeretainedrighttochangetheboundariesofthelandsubjecttotheeasementswerenoteli-gibleforacharitabledeductionbecausetheease-mentswerenotgrantedinperpetuity.[Bosque Canyon Ranch, L.P. v. Commissioner,T.C.Memo.2015-130]
Kaufman v. Commissioner I.R.C.§6664
■☞ Underpayment of tax from disallowance of a charitable deduction gave rise to a 40% penalty where the taxpayer failed to make a good faith investigation into the true value of the easement donated .
FactsThetaxpayers,husbandandwife,claimedacharitabledeductionforthegrantofahistoricpreservationfacadeeasementontheirresidence.TheTaxCourtdeniedthecharitabledeductionbecausethecourtfoundthatthevalueoftheease-mentwaszero.Thecourtimposeda40%accu-racy-relatedpenaltyformakingagrossvaluationmisstatement.
AnalysisI.R.C.§6662imposesapenaltyequalto20%ofanyunderpaymentofincometaxdueto,amongotherthings,negligenceordisregardofrulesorregulations,anysubstantialunderstatementofincometax,oranysubstantialvaluationmisstate-ment.Inthecaseofagross valuation misstatement,definedasa400%ormoreoverstatementofthevalueofanypropertyclaimedonataxreturn,
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
Individual Issues 649
16
entitledtoclaimthemortgageinterestdeduc-tiontotheextentofthemortgageinterestpaidbyeithertaxpayer.Ifthemortgageinterestispaidfromseparatefunds,eachtaxpayermayclaimthemortgageinterestdeductionpaidfromeachone’sseparatefunds.Ifthemortgageinterestispaidfromajointbankaccountinwhicheachhasanequalinterest,Rev.Rul.59-66,1959-1C.B.60,providesthateachtaxpayerispresumedtohavepaidanequalamountabsentevidencetothecontrary,andeachisentitledtoadeductionforone-halfoftheinterest.
Inthethirdscenariovariouscombinationsoftworelativesco-ownahouse,withoneorbothliableonamortgage.AbankmayissueaForm1098underthenameofoneorbothoftheco-owners.TheIRSruledthataco-ownermaydeductashareoftheinterestpaymentseventhoughtheco-ownerwasnotdirectlyliableonthemortgage[Treas.Reg.§1.163-1(b)].
[C.C.A.2014-51-027(October1,2014)]
Voss v. CommissionerI.R.C.§163
■☞ Unmarried co-owners can each deduct interest on up to $1,000,000 of home acquisition debt and $100,000 of home equity debt .
FactsForthe2006and2007taxyears,twounmar-riedco-ownersofrealpropertyeachclaimedahomemortgageinterestdeductionunderI.R.C.§163(h)(3),whichallowstaxpayerstodeductinterestonupto$1,000,000ofhomeacquisitiondebtand$100,000ofhomeequitydebt.Afteranaudit,theIRSdeterminedthatthetaxpayerswerejointlysubjecttotheI.R.C.§163(h)(3)$1,000,000and$100,000debtlimitsandthusdisallowedasubstantialportionoftheirclaimeddeductions.ThetaxpayerschallengedtheIRS’sassessmentinTaxCourt,arguingthatthestatute’sdebtlimitsapplypertaxpayer,andthattheywereentitledtodeductinterestonupto$1,100,000ofhomedebteach.
AnalysisI.R.C.§163governsthedeductibilityofinterestonataxpayer’sindebtedness.I.R.C.§163(h)(3)providesthatinterestonaqualifiedresidenceisnotpersonalinterestand,accordingly,maybedeductedbytaxpayerswhoarenotcorporations.
originalloanwasaddedtotheprincipalofthenewloan.Thetaxpayersclaimedtheunpaidbutdueinterestaspartoftheirtotaldeductionforqualifiedmortgageinterest,buttheIRSdeniedthedeductionfortheinterestaddedtotheloanprincipal.
TheTaxCourtheldthattheaccruedinter-estwasnoteligibleforthedeductionbecausethetaxpayersdidnotactuallypaythatinterest.Thecourtnotedthattheinterestwillbedeductiblewhenthemortgageloanispaidoff.Thecourtalsodiscussedtherulethatiftheinteresthadbeenpaidbythetaxpayersafterobtainingaloanfromathirdparty,theinterestwouldbedeductible,butbecausetheinterestinthiscasewasaddedtothesameloan,itwasnotcurrentlydeductible.
[Copeland v. Commissioner,T.C.Memo.2014-226]
Chief Counsel Advice 2014-51-027I.R.C.§163
■☞ Co-owners of a residence and a joint bank account may deduct equal shares of the mort-gage interest payments made from the joint account if they file separately .
Achiefcounseladviceletterdiscussesthreesce-nariosinvolvingthedeductibilityofmortgageinterest.
Inthefirstscenariothetaxpayerswereamarriedcouplewhowerejointlyandseverallyliableonamortgage.Onespousediedduringthetaxyear,andthebankissuedaForm1098,MortgageInterestStatement,underthedeceasedspouse’ssocialsecuritynumber.Federaltaxlawdirectsthatifthesurvivingspousefiledasepa-ratereturnfortheyearofdeath,thedecedent’sreturnshouldincludeincomeanddeductionstothetimeofdeath.IRScounseladvisedthatifthedecedentpaidthemortgageinterestfromajointaccountbeforedeath,thedecedent’sreturnshouldreflectone-halfoftheinterestpaidfromthejointaccountbeforethetimeofdeathintheabsenceofevidencethatthepaymentwasmadewiththedecedent’sseparatefunds.
Inthesecondscenariothetaxpayerswereanunmarriedcouplewhowerejointlyandsev-erallyliableonamortgage.ThebankissuedaForm1098undereitheronlyonesocialsecuritynumberorboth.Oneorbothtaxpayersclaimthemortgageinterestdeductionontheirindividualreturns.IRScounseladvisedthatbecausebothtaxpayersareliableonthemortgage,bothare
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
650 INDIVIDUAL ISSUES
co-owntheirhomesandarejointlyandsever-allyliableonanymortgagedebt.HadCongresswantedtodrafttheparentheticalsinper-residenceterms,doingsowouldnothavebeenparticularlydifficult.YetCongressdidnotdraftthestatuteinthatway.Theper-taxpayerwordingoftheparen-theticals,consideredinlightoftheparentheticals’useofthephrase“inthecaseof,”thussuggeststhatthewordingofthemainclause—inparticular,thephrase“aggregateamounttreated”—shouldlikewisebeunderstoodinaper-taxpayermanner.
Second,theparentheticalsdon’tjustspeakinper-taxpayerterms;theyoperateinaper-taxpayermanner.Theparentheticalsgiveeachseparatelyfilingspouseaseparatedebtlimitof$550,000sothat,together,thetwospousesareeffectivelyentitledtoa$1,100,000debtlimit(thenormallimitforsingletaxpayers).Theydonotsubjectbothspousesjointlytothe$550,000debtlimitspecifiedinthestatute.Weretheparentheti-calstoworkinthatway,theresultwouldbequiteanomalous.Ratherthanensuringthatamarriedcouplefilingseparatereturnsistreatedthesameasacouplefilingajointreturn,theparentheticals,underaper-residencereading,wouldresultindisparatetreatmentofmarriedcouplesfilingsep-aratereturns.Theseparatelyfilingcouplewouldhavea$550,000debtlimit,whereasthejointlyfil-ingcouple,andeventhesingleindividual,wouldhavea$1,100,000debtlimit.
Thisissurelynotwhatthestatuteintended,andwhattheTaxCourtortheIRSaresaying.Quitetothecontrary,bothacknowledgethattheparentheticals’lowerlimitsapplyperspouse—whichisjustanotherwayofsayingpertaxpayer.Andifthedebtlimitsforspousesfilingseparatelyapplyperspouse,thereisnoreasoninthestat-utewhythedebtlimitsforunmarriedindividualsshouldnotapplyperunmarriedindividual.Theper-taxpayeroperationofthedebtlimitsformar-riedindividualsfilingseparatelythussuggeststhatthegeneraldebtlimitsalsooperatepertaxpayer.
Third,andfinally,theveryinclusionoftheparentheticalssuggeststhatthedebtlimitsapplypertaxpayer.Itisawell-establishedruleofstatu-toryconstructionthatcourtsshouldnotinterpretstatutesinawaythatrendersaprovisionsuperflu-ous.Ifthe$1,100,000debtlimittrulyappliedperresidence,astheTaxCourthelditdoes,thepar-entheticalswouldbesuperfluous,astherewouldbenoneedtoprovidethattwospousesfilingsep-aratelyget$550,000each.Ifthe$1,100,000debt
TheCodedefinesqualified residenceasthetaxpay-er’sprincipalresidenceandoneotherresidenceofthetaxpayerthatisselectedbythetaxpayerforpurposesoftheinterestdeduction.Thus,I.R.C.§163allowsataxpayertodeducttheinterestpaidonamortgageorhomeequitylineofcreditforaprincipalresidenceandasecondhome.
Fortaxpayersotherthanmarriedindividualsfilingaseparatereturn,thedeductionislimitedtointerestpaidon$1,000,000ofmortgagedebtand$100,000ofhomeequitydebt.Ifthetaxpayer’shomeindebtednessexceeds$1,100,000,thenheorsheisentitledtodeductaportionoftheinter-est,determinedbytheratioofthestatutorydebtlimitdividedbythetotalactualdebt.Ifthetax-payerismarriedfilingaseparatereturn,thedebtlimitis$550,000.
Althoughthestatuteisspecificwithrespecttoamarriedtaxpayerfilingaseparatereturn,theCodedoesnotspecifywhether,inthecaseofco-ownerswhoarenotmarried,thedebtlimitsapplyperresidenceorpertaxpayer.Thatis,isthe$1,100,000debtlimitthelimitonthequalifiedresidence,irrespectiveofthenumberofowners,orisitthelimitonthedebtthatcanbeclaimedbyanyindividualtaxpayer?
Thehalf-sizeddebtlimitsapply“inthecaseofamarriedindividualfilingaseparatereturn.”Congress’suseofthephrase“inthecaseof”isimportant.Itsuggests,first,thattheparentheticalscontainanexceptiontothegeneraldebtlimitsetoutinthemainclause,notanillustrationofhowthatgeneraldebtlimitshouldbeapplied.Atthesametime,thephrase“inthecaseof”alsosug-gestsacertainparallelismbetweentheparenthet-icalandthemainclauseofeachprovision:otherthanthedebtlimitamount,whichdiffers,wecanexpectthatinallrespectsthecaseofamar-riedindividualfilingaseparatereturnshouldbetreatedlikeanyothercase.Itisthusappropriatetolooktotheparentheticalswheninterpretingthemainclauses’generaldebtlimitprovisions.Theseparentheticalsofferusatleastthreeusefulinsights.
First,theparentheticalsclearlyspeakinper-taxpayerterms:thelimitonacquisitionindebt-edness is“$500,000 in thecaseofamarriedindividualfilingaseparatereturn,”andthelimitonhomeequityindebtednessis“$50,000inthecaseofaseparatereturnbyamarriedindividual,”andtheyspeakinsuchtermseventhoughmar-riedindividualscommonly(andperhapsusually)
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
Individual Issues 651
16
thecourtfoundthatthetaxpayerhadanagree-mentwiththefamilymembersthatthetaxpayer’spaymentsofthemortgage,propertytaxes,andinsurancegavethetaxpayeranequitableinterestinthehome.
HoldingThetaxpayerwaseligibleforthehomemortgageinterestdeduction.
[Phan v. Commissioner,T.C.SummaryOpinion2015-1]
Deductions: Vacation Home
Redisch v. CommissionerI.R.C.§165
■☞ The taxpayers could not claim deductions related to their condominium because they did not make a bona fide attempt to rent or sell the condominium .
FactsThetaxpayers,husbandandwife,purchasedavacationhomecondominiuminaprivateocean-frontcommunityin2004.In2008thetaxpayersdecidedtorentthepropertyinsteadofusingitthemselves.Thetaxpayerslistedthepropertyforrentwitharealestatecompanythatwasdevel-opingpropertiesinthecommunity.Afterunsuc-cessfullytryingtorentthepropertyfor1year,thetaxpayersplacedthepropertyforsalein2009withadifferentbroker.Theysoldthepropertyin2010.
Ontheir2009and2010jointreturns,thetax-payersfiledScheduleE(Form1040),Supplemen-talIncomeandLoss,andincludeddeductionsforexpensesrelatingtotheproperty.Thetaxpayersreportedthelosstheyrealizedonsaleoftheprop-ertyasordinary.TheIRSassertedthattheprop-ertywasnotheldfortheproductionofincome,theScheduleE(Form1040)deductionswerenotallowed,andthesaleshouldhavebeenreportedasacapitalloss.
AnalysisAtaxpayercandeductallordinaryandneces-saryexpensespaidorincurredduringthetax-ableyear“forthemanagement,conservation,ormaintenanceofpropertyheldfortheproductionofincome”[I.R.C.§212(2)].
limitappliespertaxpayer,bycontrast,thepar-entheticalsactuallydosomething:theygiveeachseparatelyfilingspousehalfthedebtlimitsothattheseparatelyfilingcoupleis,asaunit,subjecttothesamedebtlimitasajointlyfilingcouple.
HoldingThecourtheldthattheI.R.C.§163(h)(3)debtlimitprovisionsapplyonaper-taxpayerbasistounmarriedco-ownersofaqualifiedresidence.Unmarriedco-ownersfilingseparatereturnsareentitledtodeductinterestonupto$1,100,000ofhomedebteach.[Voss v. Commissioner,796F.3d1051(9thCir.2015)]
Phan v. Commissioner I.R.C.§163
■☞ A taxpayer without legal title to the residence could claim a residential mortgage interest deduction .
FactsIn2010thetaxpayerlivedinahouseownedbythetaxpayer’sparentsandbrother.Themortgageloanonthehousewasinthenameoftheparentsonly,andthetitletothehousewasinthenamesoftheparentsandthebrother.During2010,onlythetaxpayerandmotherlivedinthehouse,andthetaxpayerpaidallofthemortgagepaymentsunderanoralagreementwiththetaxpayer’smotherandsiblingsthatthepaymentswouldbecountedtowardthetaxpayer’sequityinthehome.In2013thetaxpayer’snamewasaddedtothetitleforthehome.Thetaxpayerclaimedthemortgageinterestdeductionfor2010,buttheIRSdeniedthededuction.
AnalysisUnder I.R.C. § 163(h)(3)(A), a deduction isallowedforqualifiedresidenceinterest.Treas.Reg.§1.163-1(b)providesthatevenifataxpayerisnotdirectlyliableonabondornotesecuredbyamortgage,thetaxpayermayneverthelessdeductthemortgageinterestpaidifthetaxpayeristhelegalorequitableownerofthepropertysubjecttothemortgage.ThehousewaslocatedinCalifornia,underwhoselawataxpayermayhaveanequitableinterestinrealestateifthereisanagreementwiththetitleownersthatgrantsthetaxpayeraninterestintheproperty.Inthiscase
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
652 INDIVIDUAL ISSUES
FactsThetaxpayersownedavacationcondominiumthattheyoccupiedfor81daysin2008,59daysin2009,and45daysin2010.Thetaxpayerssaidtheyusedthecondominiumforpersonalpurposesfor14daysineachoftheyears2008and2010andfor15daysin2009.Thehusband’sbrotherrentedthecondominiumfor7daysin2008,andthetaxpayersalsorentedthecondo-miniumtovacationersthrougharentalmanage-mentcompany.Theaveragerentalperiodofthecondominiumwasapproximately10daysin2008,8daysin2009,and7daysin2010.
Thetaxpayersmaintainedlogbooksdetailingthepersonalandbusinessuseofthecondomin-iumandthedaysspentperformingworkonthecondominium.Thehusbandmadeseveraltripstothecondominiumtomakerepairs,purchasefurniture,andperformmaintenance.
Thetaxpayersclaimedlossesfromthecon-dominiumforall3years.
AnalysisI.R.C. §280A(a) generallyprovides thatnodeductionisallowedforcostsassociatedwithapersonalresidence.UnderI.R.C.§280A(d)(1),adwellingunitistreatedasapersonalresidenceifthetaxpayerusesthedwellingforpersonalpurposesforthegreaterof14daysor10%ofthenumberofdaysduringtheyearforwhichtheunitisrentedatafairrentalvalue.Theissuewaswhetherthebrother’srentalofthecondominiumwasincludedinthetaxpayers’use.
RulingTheTaxCourtheldthatthebrother’suseofthecondominiumwasattributabletothetaxpayersbecausethetaxpayersfailedtoprovethatthebrotherpaidfullmarketrentalvalueandthe7-dayrentaldidnotmakethecondothebrother’smainhome.Inaddition,thecourtaddedseveraldaysaspersonalusedayswherethehusbandhadmorepersonaluseofthecondominiumthantimespentworkingonitduringvisits.Therefore,thelosseswerenotallowedunderI.R.C.§280A.
[Van Malssen v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.2014-236]
I.R.C.§165allowsadeductionforanylosssustainedduringthetaxyearthatisnotother-wisecompensatedifthelosswasincurredinatradeorbusiness,wasincurredinanytransactionenteredintoforprofit,orarosefromacasualtyortheft.AnindividualcanclaimalossunderI.R.C.§165(a)onpropertypurchasedorconstructedasaprimaryresidenceif,beforeitssale,itis“rentedorotherwiseappropriatedtoincome-producingpurposesandisusedforsuchpurposesuptothetimeofitssale”[Treas.Reg.§1.165-9(b)].
Thecourtlookedatfivefactorstodeterminewhetherataxpayerintendedtoconvertapersonalresidencetoanincome-producingproperty:
1.Thelengthoftimethehousewasoccupiedbytheindividualashisorherresidencebeforeplacingitonthemarketforsale
2.Whethertheindividualpermanentlyaban-donedallfurtherpersonaluseofthehouse
3.Thecharacteroftheproperty(recreationalorotherwise)
4.Thetaxpayer’sofferstorent5.Thetaxpayer’sofferstosell
Thecourtfoundthatthetaxpayershadnotmadeabonafideattempttorentoutthepropertybecausetheyfailedtoprovidefulldocumenta-tionoftheireffortstorentouttheproperty.Thelackofanyleasesorofferstoleasesupportedthecourt’sfindingthatthetaxpayersexpendedmini-malefforttorenttheproperty.
HoldingThetaxpayerswerenotentitledtodeductionsforexpensesrelatedtothecondominiumoranordi-narylossdeductiononthesaleofthecondomin-iumbecausethetaxpayersfailedtoprovethattheyhadconvertedthepropertyintoanincome-producingproperty.
[Redisch v. Commissioner,T.C.Memo.2015-95]
Van Malssen v. CommissionerI.R.C.§280A
■☞ Losses from renting a vacation condominium were not deductible because personal use of the property exceeded 14 days per year .
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
Individual Issues 653
16
3.in thecaseofan individual legallysepa-ratedfromhisorherspouseunderadecreeofdivorceorofseparatemaintenance,thepayeespouseandthepayerspousearenotmembersofthesamehouseholdatthetimesuchpaymentismade;and
4.thereisnoliabilitytomakeanysuchpaymentforanyperiodafterthedeathofthepayeespouse,andthereisnoliabilitytomakeanypayment(incashorproperty)asasubstituteforsuchpaymentsafterthedeathofthepayeespouse.
Inthiscasethetermsoftheoriginaldivorcedecreeweresupersededandmodifiedbythecourtjudgmentobtainedbytheformerspouseforpay-mentofspousalsupportpaymentsinarrears,andtheTaxCourtlookedatwhetherthepaymentofthejudgmentcouldbedeductedasalimony.TheTaxCourtruledthatifthecourtdecreedidnotcontainaprovisionconcerningtheeffectofthedeathoftheformerspouse,thecourtwouldlooktostate(Colorado)lawtodeterminewhetherthetaxpayerwasliableforthepaymentsonthejudg-mentafterthedeathoftheformerspouse.
The2008statecourtjudgmentdidnotcontainanyprovisiongoverningpaymentofthespousalsupportarrearspaymentsafterthedeathoftheformerspouse.TheTaxCourtruledthatbecausethe judgmentwas issuedtoassist the formerspouseincollectingpastduebutunpaidspousalsupport,itistreatedasafinalmoneyjudgmentagainstthepetitionerhusband.TheTaxCourtfoundthat,underColoradolaw,liabilityforpay-mentofafinalmoneyjudgmentisnotaffectedbythedeathofeitherthepayerorthepayee.
HoldingThecourtheldthatthespousalpaymentswerenoteligibleforthedeductionasalimonybecausethepaymentsweremadeunderafinalcourtorderthatwouldnotexpireiftheformerspousedied.
[Iglicki v. Commissioner,T.C.Memo.2015-80]
Cutler v. CommissionerI.R.C.§§62and164
■☞ Nonresident state income taxes were deductible by a partner in an LLC on Schedule A (Forn 1040) .
Deductions: Other
Iglicki v. CommissionerI.R.C.§170A
■☞ Payment of a judgment enforcing spousal sup-port arrears payments was not eligible for an ali-mony deduction .
FactsThetaxpayerwasdivorced,andthedivorcedecreerequired the taxpayer topay$735 inmonthlychildsupporttotheformerspouse.Thedivorcedecreealsoprovidedthatifthetaxpayerfailedtopaythechildsupport,thetaxpayerwasliableformonthlyspousalsupportpaymentsof$1,000.The taxpayer’sobligation topaythemonthly$1,000inspousalsupportwouldthencontinueuntil(1)theformerspousedied,(2)thetaxpayerdied,or(3)thetaxpayermade36monthlyspousalsupportpayments.Thetax-payerdefaultedonthechildsupportpaymentsandbecameobligated tomake themonthly$1,000spousalsupportpayments.Thetaxpayerthenfailedtomakethechildsupportpaymentsandthemonthlyspousalsupportpayments,andin2008theformerspouseobtainedacourtjudg-mentforthechildsupportandspousalsupportinarrears.InApril2009thetaxpayermadethechildsupportpaymentsinarrearsunderawagegarnishment.In2010thetaxpayermade$39,350inarrearspaymentstotheformerspouseforspousalsupportand$11,256inchildsupportpay-ments.Onthe2010returnthetaxpayerdeductedthe$39,350paymentstotheformerspouseasali-mony,buttheIRSdisallowedthededuction.
AnalysisUnderI.R.C.§215(a),adeductionisallowedforamountspaidforalimonyduringthetaxyear.I.R.C.§71(b)(1)definesalimonytoincludepay-mentstoaformerspouseif
1.suchpaymentisreceivedby(oronbehalfof)aspouseunderadivorceorseparationinstrument;
2.thedivorceorseparationinstrumentdoesnotdesignatesuchpaymentasapaymentthatisnotincludableingrossincomeunderI.R.C.§71andnotallowableasadeductionunderI.R.C.§215;
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
654 INDIVIDUAL ISSUES
andnottheLLC.Therefore,thestatenonresidentincometaxesweredeductiblebythetaxpayeronlyonScheduleA(Form1040).
[Cutler v. Commissioner,T.C.Memo.2015-73]
Filing Status
Obergefell v. HodgesI.R.C.§§7701and7703
■☞ The right of same-sex couples to marry is pro-tected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, and the states may not prohibit such marriages .
FactsThepetitionerswere14same-sexcoupleswhowerepreventedfrommarryingunderstatelawinMichigan,Kentucky,Ohio,andTennessee.Laws in thosestatesdefinedmarriageas theunionbetweenonemanandonewoman.Thepetitionersfiledsuitagainstofficialsinthosestatesclaimingthattheofficialsdeniedthepetitionerstherighttomarryortherighttohavemarriagesperformedinotherstatesrecognized.
AnalysisThecourt found that the fundamental liber-tiesprotectedbytheFourteenthAmendment’sDueProcessClauseextendtocertainpersonalchoicesthatdefinepersonalidentityandbeliefs.Thecourtreasonedthattheprinciplesandtra-ditionsthatmakemarriageafundamentalrightundertheConstitutionapplyequallytosame-sexcouples.ThecourtfurtherfoundthattheFour-teenthAmendment’sEqualProtectionClausegivessame-sexcouplestherighttomarry.
HoldingTheUSSupremeCourtheldthattheFourteenthAmendment to theUSConstitutionrequiresthestatestoissueamarriagelicensetosame-sexcouplesandtorecognizemarriageslicensedandperformedinotherstates.
Income Tax Law
See pages 165–172 of the 2013 National Income Tax Workbookfor a discussion of federal income tax law for same-sex couples .
FactsThetaxpayerwasamemberofaMichiganpro-fessionallimitedliabilitycompanythatelectedtobetaxedasapartnershipforfederalincometaxpurposes.TheLLChadofficesinMichigan,Missouri,andVirginia,andthetaxpayerworkedsolelyintheMissourioffice.Inthetaxyearsinvolvedinthiscase,theLLCearnedincomeinMissouri,Michigan,Virginia,Illinois,andOre-gon.Thetaxpayerpaidnonresidentincometaxinallfivestates,eventhoughthetaxpayerdidnotperformservicesorserviceclientsinMichi-gan,Illinois,Oregon,andVirginia.ThetaxpayerreportedhisshareofLLCincomefromSched-uleK-1(Form1065),Partner’sShareofIncome,Deductions,Credits,etc.,onScheduleE(Form1040), Supplemental IncomeandLoss, andclaimedadeductiononScheduleE(Form1040)forthestatenonresidentincometaxespaidasunreimbursedpartnershipexpenses.Thetax-payerarguedthatthestatenonresidentincometaxeswereconstructivelyoractuallyimposedontheLLCbecausethetaxpayerdidnotperformservices inthosestates.TheIRSarguedthatthenonresidenttaxesweredeductibleonlyonScheduleA(Form1040),ItemizedDeductions,becausetheywereassessedonthetaxpayer’sshareofgrossincomefromeachstate.DeductingthetaxesonScheduleA(Form1040)resultedinincreasesinself-employmenttaxandalternativeminimumtax.
AnalysisThe court looked at Virginia’s nonresidentincometaxandfoundthattheVirginiataxwasassessedon the individual’s shareof thenetincomefromVirginia.ThecourtalsofoundthattheVirginiataxwasnotassessedagainsttheLLCbutonlyrequiredtheLLCtowithholdanamountsufficienttocoverthenonresidenttaxonapart-ner’sshareofthenetVirginiaincome.Thus,thecourtheldthatthenonresidenttaxesinMichi-gan,Illinois,Oregon,andVirginiawerepersonaltothetaxpayerandwerebasedonthetaxpayer’snetnonresidentstateincome.
HoldingThecourtheldthatthetaxpayer,asamanagingpartner,hadasufficientnexuswitheachstateforthestatetoimposethenonresidentincometaxesandthatthetaxeswereimposedonthetaxpayer
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
Individual Issues 655
16
TheappellatecourtheldthatRev.Rul.83-183wascontrary to theplain languageofI.R.C.§6013(b)(2)inthatamarriedpersoncannotfileunderHoHasaseparatereturnapartfromthespouse;therefore,thestatutecannotapplytoamarriedpersonlivingwiththespouseunlessthemarriedpersonfilesundertheMFSstatus.
HoldingTheappellatecourtreversedtheTaxCourtrul-ing,holdingthattheseparatereturnprohibitionappliedonlytothestatusofMFS;therefore,thetaxpayerwasentitledtofileanamendedreturnusingtheMFJstatusafterthetaxpayerfiledapeti-tionappealinganoticeofdeficiency.
[Ibrahim v. Commissioner,788F.3d834(8thCir.2015)]
Income
Elbaz v. CommissionerI.R.C.§§111and164
■☞ State tax refunds were taxable income where the taxpayers’ pass-through entities claimed state taxes as a deduction .
FactsTheStateofNewYorkprovidedaQualifiedEmpireZoneEnterprise(QEZE)creditforbusi-nessesthatqualifyasaQEZEfortaxespaidonrealpropertyinanEmpireZone[N.Y.TaxLaw§15(2015)].Abusinessmaybecomeeligibletoclaimvarioustargetedtaxcreditsifitsapplica-tionisaccepted,itoperateswithinadesignatedarea,anditmeetscertainannualemploymentrequirements.
Thetaxpayersowned50%ofanScorpora-tionandtwolimitedliabilitycompanies(LLCs)taxedaspartnerships,allofwhichqualifiedasQEZEs.AllthreeentitiespaidNewYorkrealpropertytaxesin2007andclaimeddeductionsforthetaxesontheir2007federalreturns.Thedeductionsdecreasedthetaxableincomefromeachentitypassedthroughtothetaxpayers,asreportedonScheduleK-1(Form1065),Partner’sShareofIncome,Deductions,Credits,etc.,andScheduleK-1(Form1120S),Shareholder’sShareofIncome,Deductions,Credits,etc.,for2007.
On the taxpayers’ 2007 state incometax return, the taxpayersclaimeda$63,608
[Obergefell v. Hodges,135S.Ct.2071(2015)]
Ibrahim v. CommissionerI.R.C.§6013
■☞ A married taxpayer who mistakenly filed under head of household status may file an amended return using married filing jointly status .
FactsThetaxpayers,husbandandwife,wereSomaliimmigrants.Thewifehadfourchildrenbyapriormarriagetothedeceasedhalf-brotherofthehus-band.Thetaxpayersfiledtheir2011returnusingataxreturnservicethathademployeeswhospokeSomali.Thehusbandusedthefilingstatusofheadofhousehold(HoH),declaringtwoofthechildrenasdependents,andthewifeusedthesta-tusofsingle,declaringtheothertwochildrenasdependents.TheIRSsentanoticeofdeficiencytothehusbandthatdisallowedtheuseoftheHoHfilingstatusbecausethetaxpayerwasmarriedandlivingwithhiswife.ThetaxpayerfiledapetitionwiththeTaxCourttochallengethedeficiency.Beforereceiptofthenoticeofdeficiencyandthefilingofpetitioner’spetition,petitionerhadnotmadetheelectiontofileanamendedMFJreturnwithhiswifefortaxyear2011.
The taxpayer argued that he should beallowedtochangethefilingstatustoMFJaspartoftheappealofthenoticeofdeficiency.TheIRSarguedthatthetaxpayercouldfileusingonlytheMFSstatus;thus,thedeficiencywastobedeter-minedunderthatfilingstatus.
AnalysisI.R.C.§6013(b)(2)barsaMFJreturnforamar-riedtaxpayerwhoinitiallyfiledaseparatereturnifeitherspousereceivesanoticeofdeficiencyandfilesapetitionwiththeTaxCourt.TheTaxCourthadheldthatI.R.C.§6013(b)(2)(B)barredthehusbandfromfilinganamendedreturnusingtheMFJstatusbecausethehusbandoriginallyfileda“separatereturn”usingtheHoHstatus.
Theappellatecourtlookedatthevarioususesofthetermseparate returnthroughouttheCodeandfoundthatthetermreferredonlytothefilingofareturnusingtheMFSstatus.
TheIRSarguedthatRev.Rul.83-183,1983-2C.B.220,supportsitsargumentinthattherul-ingincludesallnon-MFJreturnsinitsdefini-tionofseparatereturnunderI.R.C.§6013(b)(2).
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
656 INDIVIDUAL ISSUES
Chief Counsel Advice Is Not Authority
The taxpayers attempted to cite C .C .A . 2008-42-002 (October 17, 2008) as authority for their posi-tion, but the court held that chief counsel advice letters are IRS “written determinations” that can-not be cited as precedent .
Thecourtappliedthetaxbenefitruletothestatetaxdeductionsreceivedbythethreepass-throughentities, holding that the taxpayersreceivedataxbenefitfromthestatetaxdeduc-tionsthatdecreasedtheentities’taxableincomethatwaspassedthroughtothetaxpayers.Becausethetaxpayersreceivedataxbenefitfromthestatetaxdeductionsclaimedbytheentitiesin2007,theresultingstatetaxrefundreceivedin2008wastaxableincometothetaxpayers.
HoldingStatetaxrefundsreceivedbymembersofpass-throughentitieswere taxable income to thememberswheretherefundswereattributabletostatetaxdeductionsclaimedbythepass-throughentities.
Maines v. Commissioner
The Tax Court reached the same conclusion in Maines v. Commissioner, 144 T .C . No . 8 (2015), dis-cussed in the next item .
[Elbaz v. Commissioner,T.C.Memo.2015-49]
Maines v. CommissionerI.R.C.§§111and164
■☞ State tax refunds were taxable income where the taxpayers’ pass-through entities claimed state taxes as a deduction .
FactsThetaxpayers,husbandandwife,ownedtwopass-throughentities,anScorporationandalimitedliabilitycompany(LLC)taxedasapart-nership.BothentitiesqualifiedfortheNewYorkEmpireZonesProgram(EZProgram),whichprovidestaxcreditincentivestostimulateprivateinvestmentandbusinessdevelopment,andtries
overpaymentoftaxes.Thisamountwasthedif-ferencebetween
1.thetaxpaymentstotaling$155,684,whichconsistedofa. thetaxpayers’proratashareoftheirQEZE
refundedcredits,b.theirNewYorkStatewithholdingtax,andc. theirestimatedpayments;and
2.thetaxpayers’NewYorkStatetaxowed,totaling$92,076.
Ontheir2007statetaxreturn,thetaxpayersappliedthisoverpaymenttotheir2008stateesti-matedtax.
Onthetaxpayers’2008federalincometaxreturn,thetaxpayersclaimedthe$63,608over-paymentofstatetaxesasadeductiononSched-uleA(Form1040),ItemizedDeductions.ThestateissuedaForm1099-G,CertainGovernmentPayments,listing$9,101asthestateincometaxrefund,whichthetaxpayerslistedastaxableincome.Thetaxpayersdidnotreporttheremain-ing$54,507astaxableincome.
AnalysisUnderI.R.C.§164,staterealpropertytaxesaredeductibleonScheduleA(Form1040)aspartofitemizeddeductions.Ifataxpayerreceivesastatetaxrefund,therefundisnottaxableincomeunlessthetaxpayerclaimedadeductionforstatetaxesonaprior-yearfederalreturn.
Under the taxbenefit rule, if a taxpayerdeductedastatetaxonaprioryear’sreturnthatresultedinataxbenefit,thetaxpayer’ssubsequentrecoveryofthetaxisincludedingrossincomefortheyearinwhichthetaxpayerreceivesit.
Thetaxpayersarguedthat,inthiscase,theydidnotclaimanydeductionforstatetaxesontheir2007individualreturns;therefore,theydidnothavetoincludeanystatetaxrefundin2008.Becausethe2007realpropertytaxesweredeductedbythethreeentities, thetaxpayersarguedthatthetaxpayersdidnotreceiveanyfed-eraltaxbenefitfromthestatetaxdeduction.
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
Individual Issues 657
16
income to themembers to theextentof therefunds.Thecourtalsoheldthatstatetaxcreditsforrealpropertytaxespaidbytwopass-throughentitiesthatresultedinrefundstothemembersoftheentitiesweretaxableincometothememberstotheextentoftherealpropertytaxdeductionsclaimedbytheentitiesinpriortaxyears.
[Maines v. Commissioner,144T.C.No.8(2015)]
Sewards v. Commissioner I.R.C.§104
■☞ Retirement benefits were taxable to the extent the amount was determined by the taxpayer’s length of service .
FactsThe taxpayer sufferedwork-related injurieswhileworkingforacountysheriff’sdepartmentandelectedtoretirewithregularserviceretire-mentpaymentsthatwerebasedsolelyonthetaxpayer’slengthofservice.Duringretirementthetaxpayerwasdeclaredpermanentlydisabled,andthetaxpayerappliedforadisabilitypensionthatwasgreaterthantheretirementpayments.Thedisabilityretirementpaymentswerebasedonaseparatecalculationbutprovidedthatiftheserviceretirementpaymentwasgreaterthanthedisabilityretirementpayment,thetaxpayercouldelecttousethehigheramount.Thetax-payerchosetheserviceretirementpaymentsbecausetheyexceededthedisabilityretirementpayments.Thus,thetaxpayerclaimedthatthedisabilityretirementpaymentswereequaltotheoriginalregularserviceretirementpayments,andthetaxpayerexcludedallofthepaymentsfromtaxableincomeasdisabilitypayments.TheIRSarguedthattheportionoftheretirementpay-mentsthatexceededtheamountofthedisabilitypaymentswastaxable.
AnalysisI.R.C.§104(a)(1)excludesfromgrossincomeamounts that are received by an employeeunderaworkers’compensationactorsimilarstatutethatprovidescompensationtoemploy-eesforpersonalinjuriesorsicknessincurredinthecourseofemployment.However, I.R.C.§104(a)(1)doesnotapplytoaretirementpensionorannuitytotheextentthatitisdeterminedbyreferencetotheemployee’sageorlengthofser-vice,ortheemployee’spriorcontributions,even
tocreatejobsinimpoverishedareasinNewYorkState.TheEZProgramcreditswereclaimedontheentities’statetaxreturnsandpassedthroughtothetaxpayersonNewYorkScheduleK-1.Thetaxpayersthenreportedthecreditsontheirpersonalstateincometaxreturnsandreceivedstateincometaxrefundstotheextentthecreditsexceededtheirstateincometaxes.
Theentitiespassedthroughtothetaxpay-ersthreeEZProgramcredits,arealpropertytaxcredit,awagetaxcredit,andaninvestmenttaxcredit.Thecreditsreducedthetaxpayers’stateincometaxestozeroin3taxyearsandpro-ducedrefundsoftheexcesscredits.Theissuewaswhethertherefundsweretaxableincometothetaxpayers.
Thetaxpayerstooknodeductionontheirfederalincometaxreturnsfortheyearsatissueforstateincometaxpaidintheprecedingyear.ThetaxpayersarguedthattheircreditsundertheEZProgramarejustlikeexcessstateincometaxwithholding,pointingoutthatthecreditsaredefinedbyNewYorklawtobe“overpayments”ofstateincometax.ThecourtheldthatthenamegiventhecreditsbyNewYorkdoesnotnecessar-ilycontrolthefederaltaxdefinitionofthecredits.
AnalysisThecourtnotedadifferenceinthethreecred-itsinthatonlytherealpropertytaxcreditwasarefundofrealpropertytaxespaidbytheentities;theothertwocreditsweregivenindependentofthetaxespaidbytheentitiesortaxpayersandwererefundable.
Becausethetworefundablecreditsresultedinpaymentstothetaxpayersaftertheoffsetofstatetaxes,therefundableportionoftheEZPro-gramcreditswastaxableincometothetaxpayersas“accessionstowealth”underI.R.C.§61(a).
Thetaxpayerswerealsoliableforfederaltaxontherealpropertytaxcredittotheextenttheentitiesclaimedrealpropertytaxdeductionsineachpriortaxyear.Althoughthetaxpayersdidnotclaimapersonaldeductionfortherealprop-ertytaxesinprioryears,thetaxpayersrealizedataxbenefitfromtheentities’deductionsoftherealpropertytaxesinthoseyears.
HoldingThecourtheldthatstatetaxcreditsacquiredbytwopass-throughentitiesthatresultedinrefundsto themembersof theentitieswere taxable
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
658 INDIVIDUAL ISSUES
entireretirementpaymentunderI.R.C.§104(a),buttheIRSallowedtheexclusionofonlythedisability-relatedportion,theone-halfofthefinalsalaryamount.
AnalysisI.R.C.§104(a)(1)excludesfromgrossincomeworkers’compensationactbenefitsorothercom-pensationpaidtoemployeesforpersonalinjuriesorsicknessincurredinthecourseofemployment.I.R.C.§104(a)(1)doesnotapplytotheextentthatcompensationisdeterminedbyreferencetotheemployee’sageorlengthofservice,ortheemployee’spriorcontributions[Treas.Reg.§1.104-1(b)].
HoldingThecourtheld that theregulationwasvalidandrequiredthetaxpayerstoincludeintaxableincometheportionoftheretirementpaymentsbasedsolelyonlengthofservice,theportionaboveone-halfofthetaxpayers’finalsalary.Cit-ingSewards v. Commissioner,discussedearlier,theappellatecourtaffirmedinadecisiondesignatedasnotforpublication.[Campbell v. United States,13-55607Fed.Appx.697442(9thCir.2015)]
Speer v. CommissionerI.R.C.§§651and104
■☞ Payments for unused vacation and sick leave received by a retired police officer upon retire-ment were not excludable from income as work-ers’ compensation benefits .
FactsIn2009thetaxpayerretiredasaLosAngelespoliceofficer.UnderMemorandumofUnder-standingNo.24(MOU24)betweenthecityandtheLosAngelesPoliceProtectiveLeague,thetaxpayerreceivedcompensationforunusedsickleaveandvacationdays.Someoftheunusedsickleaveandvacationdayswereaccruedduringperiodswhenthetaxpayerwasgranteddisabilityleaveonaccountofduty-relatedinjuriesorsick-ness.Thetaxpayerexcludedfromtaxableincometheretirementpaymentsfortheunusedsickleaveandvacationdaysaspaidunderaworkers’com-pensationlaw.
thoughtheemployee’sretirementisoccasionedbyanoccupationalinjuryorsickness[Treas.Reg.§1.104-1(b)].
TheIRSagreedthatthepaymentsattribut-abletothedisabilityretirementpaymentswereexcludedunderI.R.C.§104(a)(1)butarguedthattheremainingportionattributabletotheserviceretirementpaymentswasbasedonthetaxpay-er’slengthofserviceandwastaxable.Thecourtnotedover40yearsofrulingsbytheIRSthatwereconsistentwiththeIRSpositionandfoundthattheIRSrulingsweresupportedbythestatuteandregulations.
HoldingThecourtheldthattheretirementpaymentswereincludedintaxableincometotheextenttheyweredeterminedbythetaxpayer’slengthofservice;therefore,theamountequaltothedis-abilityretirementpaymentwasnottaxable,andtheremainderwasincludedintaxableincomeasretirementbenefits.
[Sewards v. Commissioner,785F.3d1331(9thCir.2015)]
Campbell v. United States
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reached the same conclusion in Campbell v. United States, which is discussed in the next item .
Campbell v. United StatesI.R.C.§104
■☞ Retirement benefits were taxable to the extent the amount was determined by the taxpayer’s length of service .
FactsThetaxpayerswereretiredfirefighterswhohadservice-connecteddisabilities.Theretirementpayforadisabilityretirementwasequaltoone-halfofthetaxpayers’finalsalary.However,iftheretireeswerealsoentitledtoaserviceretirementpensionandtheserviceretirementpaymentwashigherthanthedisabilityretirementpayment,thetaxpayersreceivedthehigheramount.Theserviceretirementpaymentwasbasedonyearsofservice.Thetaxpayerssoughttoexcludethe
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
Individual Issues 659
16
taxpayerstodetermineawageringgainorlossfromcertaingamblingslotmachineplay.
Gains from wagering transactions areincludedingrossincomeunderI.R.C.§61.Nei-therthestatutenortheregulationsdefinethetermtransactions.I.R.C.§165(d)providesthatlossesfromwageringtransactionsareallowedonlytotheextentofthegainsfromsuchtransactions.Gross incomefromaslotmachinewageringtransactionisdeterminedonasessionbasis.[SeeShollenberger v. Commissioner,T.C.Memo.2009-306;andLaPlante v. Commissioner,T.C.Memo.2009-226].
Theproposedrevenueprocedurewouldpro-videanoptionalsafeharbormethodfordeter-miningwhatconstitutesa“sessionofplay”forpurposesofcalculatingwageringgainsorlossesfromelectronicallytrackedslotmachineplayunderI.R.C.§61.Useofthesafeharbormethodwillnotrelievetaxpayersoftherequirementtomaintainrecords that substantiateany itemsreportedontheirincometaxreturns.SeeI.R.C.§6001;Rev.Proc.77-29,1977-2C.B.538.
Tousethisrevenueprocedure,ataxpayermustwrite“RevenueProcedure2015-X”online21oftheForm1040,U.S.IndividualTaxReturn.Anonresidentalienwhoisanonprofessionalgamblermustwrite“RevenueProcedure2015-X”online10,ifaresidentofCanada,oronline11,ifnotaresidentofCanada,onScheduleNECoftheForm1040NR,U.S.NonresidentAlienIncomeTaxReturn.Anonresidentalienwhoisaprofessionalgamblerandusesthisrevenuepro-ceduremustwrite“RevenueProcedure2015-X”online21oftheForm1040NR.[Notice2015-21,2015-12I.R.B.765]
Notice 2015-21
See pages 227–229 in this book for a detailed dis-cussion of Notice 2015-21 .
Letter Ruling 2015-21-009I.R.C.§104
■☞ Accidental disability benefits paid to former spouses of state employees pursuant to a domes-tic relations order were taxable income to the for-mer spouses .
AnalysisI.R.C.§104(a)(1)providesthatgrossincomedoesnotincludeamountsreceivedunderworkers’compensationactsascompensationforpersonalinjuriesorsickness.
Thetaxpayerarguedthatatleastthesickdaysandvacationdaysaccruedduringthedisabilityperiodswererelatedtoworkers’compensationbenefits.TheIRSarguedthatthepaymentswerenotmadepursuanttoaworkers’compensationlawor,inthealternative,thetaxpayerfailedtosubstantiatewhichunusedsickleaveandvaca-tiondayswereaccruedduringthetaxpayer’swork-relateddisabilityperiods.
ThecourtlookedatCaliforniaandLosAnge-leslawsthatgovernedpaymentofworkers’com-pensationandfoundthatbothlawswereworkers’compensationlaws.However,thepaymentofunusedsickleaveandvacationdaysuponretire-mentwasmadeunderMOU24,andthecourtfoundthatMOU24wasnotaworkers’compen-sationlawbutacollectivebargainingagreement.Thecourtnotedthat,althoughneitherthestateorcitylawspreventedtheaccrualofemploymentbenefitsduringadisabilityforwhichworkers’compensationbenefitswerereceived,neitherlawprovidedforpaymentforunusedsickleaveandvacationdaysuponretirement.SuchpaymentswereprovidedonlyunderMOU24.
ThecourtalsoagreedwiththeIRSthatthetaxpayerfailedtoprovideanyevidencethatthetaxpayeraccruedunusedsickleaveandvacationdaysduringthetaxpayer’swork-relateddisabilityperiods.
HoldingThecourtheldthatthepaymentsforunusedsickleaveandvacationdaysreceivedafterthetax-payerretiredwerenotexcludablefromincomeasworkers’compensationbenefits.
[Speer v. Commissioner,144T.C.No.14(2015)]
Notice 2015-21I.R.C.§61
■☞ A proposed revenue procedure provides a safe harbor method for reporting wagering gains and losses .
Theproposedrevenueprocedurewouldprovideanoptionalsafeharbormethodforindividual
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
660 INDIVIDUAL ISSUES
FactsThetaxpayeradministersdeath,disability,andretirementbenefitsthatareprovidedtoeligiblestateemployeesbystatelawunderretirementplansthataretax-qualifiedpensionplans.Thestatelawprovidesaccidentaldisabilityretirementbenefitstoeligibleparticipants.
Thetaxpayerpreviouslyreceivedaprivateletterruling(PLR)onthetaxtreatmentofacci-dentaldisabilityretirementbenefitspaidundertheplanstoparticipantswhoincurawork-relatedinjuryorsickness.ThePLRconcludedthattheaccidentaldisability retirementbenefits areexcludableunderI.R.C.§104(a)(1)totheextentthebenefitsdonotexceedaspecifiedpercent-ageoftheparticipant’saveragefinalcompensa-tion.ThePLRalsoheldthataccidentaldisabilityretirementbenefitspaidtoaparticipant’ssurvivoraretaxabletothesameextentasthebenefitspaidtotheparticipant.ThePLRdidnotaddresshowformerspousesshouldbetaxedwithrespecttoaccidentaldisabilityretirementbenefitsreceivedpursuanttoadomesticrelationsorder.
Thestateregulationswererecentlyamendedtoprovidethat,pursuanttoaneligibledomes-ticrelationsorder,allpaymentstothealternatepayeeareincludableinthetaxableincomeofandtaxabletothealternatepayeeinthesamepro-portionaspaymentstotheparticipantareinclud-ableinthetaxableincomeofandtaxabletotheparticipant.
AnalysisI.R.C.§104(a)(1)isstrictlyconstruedtoconformwithI.R.C.§61,whichstatesthatallincomeistaxableunlessexplicitlyexcluded.Theaccidentaldisabilityretirementbenefitsarespecificallypaidtostateemployeesfortheirwork-relatedinjuryorsickness,andnotthework-relatedinjuryorsick-nessoftheformerspouses.Treas.Reg.§1.104-1explicitlylimitstheexclusionfromincometoemployeesandtheirsurvivors.NeithertheCodenortheregulationsprovideanexclusionfromincomeforamountspaidtoformerspousespur-suanttoadomesticrelationsorder.
RulingTheIRSruledthataccidentaldisabilityretire-mentbenefitspaidundertheplanstoformerspousesofstateemployeespursuanttoeligibledomesticrelationsordersarenotexcludedunder
I.R.C.§104(a)(1)fromthetaxableincomeoftheformerspouses.Theentireamountpaidtotheformerspousesisincludedintaxableincome.
[Ltr.Rul.2015-21-009(February9,2015)]
Prop. Treas. Reg. § 1.529-1 et seq.I.R.C.§529A
■☞ Proposed regulations were issued to implement new Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) accounts .
TheIRShasissuedproposedregulationsimple-mentingtheAchievingaBetterLifeExperienceActof2014(ABLEAct),divisionBofPub.LNo.113-295,whichauthorizesstatestoofferspeciallydesignedtax-favoredAchievingaBetterLifeExperience(ABLE)accountstopeoplewithdis-abilitieswhobecamedisabledbeforeage26.ThenewlawauthorizesanystatetoofferitsresidentstheoptiontosetupanABLEaccount.Alterna-tively,astatemaycontractwithanotherstatethatofferssuchaccounts.Theaccountowneranddes-ignatedbeneficiaryoftheaccountisthedisabledindividual.Ingeneral,adesignatedbeneficiarycanhaveonlyoneABLEaccountatatime,andmusthavebeendisabledbeforehisorhertwenty-sixthbirthday.
Contributionsinatotalamountuptotheannual gift tax exclusion amount, currently$14,000,canbemadetoanABLEaccountonanannualbasis,anddistributionsaretaxfreeifusedtopayqualifieddisabilityexpenses.Theseareexpensesthatrelatetothedesignatedbenefi-ciary’sblindnessordisabilityandhelpthatper-sonmaintainorimprovehealth,independence,andqualityoflife.Forexample,theycanincludehousing,education,transportation,health,pre-ventionandwellness,employmenttrainingandsupport,assistivetechnologyandpersonalsup-portservices,andotherexpenses.
Ingeneral,anABLEaccountisnotcountedindeterminingthedesignatedbeneficiary’seligi-bilityforanyfederalmeans-testedprograms,orindeterminingtheamountofanybenefitorassis-tanceprovidedunderthoseprograms,althoughspecialrulesandlimitsapplyforsupplementalsecurityincomepurposes.
Theproposedregulationsprovideguidancetostateprograms,designatedbeneficiaries,andotherinterestedpartiesonanumberofissues.Forexample,theproposedregulationsexplaintheflexibilitytheprogramshaveinensuringan
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
Individual Issues 661
16
2.Inthecaseofadebtinstrumentwithatermover3yearsbutnotover9years,thefederalmidtermrate
3.Inthecaseofadebtinstrumentwithatermover9years,thefederallong-termrate
I.R.C.§§1274(d)(2)and(3)providespecialrulesforselectingtheappropriateAFRinspecifiedcircumstances.I.R.C.§1274(d)(2)providesthat,inthecaseofasaleorexchange,theAFRshallbethelowestAFRineffectforanymonthinthe3-calendar-monthperiodendingwiththefirstcalendarmonthinwhichthereisabindingcon-tractinwritingforthesaleorexchange.I.R.C.§1274(d)(3)requiresthatoptionstoreneworextendbetakenintoaccountindeterminingthetermofadebtinstrument.DuringeachmonththeTreasuryDepartmentdeterminestheAFRsthatwillapplyduringthefollowingcalendarmonthbasedontheaveragemarketyieldofoutstandingmarketableobligationsoftheUnitedStateswithappropriatematurities.SeeTreas.Reg.§1.1274-4(b).TheIRSpublishestheAFRsandadjustedAFRsforeachmonthintheInternalRevenueBulletin.
Applicable Federal Rates
The “Tax Rates and Useful Tables” chapter in this book reports the AFRs for October 2014–October 2015 .
Application of AFRs to Tax-Exempt ObligationsI.R.C.§1288(b)(1)providesthat,inapplyingI.R.C.§483or1274toatax-exemptobligation,underregulationsprescribedbythesecretary,appropriateadjustmentsshallbemadetotheAFRtotakeintoaccountthetaxexemptionforinterestontheobligation.
Net Operating Loss CarryforwardsInthecaseofacorporationthathasundergoneanownershipchangedescribedinI.R.C.§382(g),I.R.C.§382placesanannuallimit(theI.R.C.§382limitation)ontheamountofthecorpora-tion’staxableincomethatmaybeoffsetbycer-tainnetoperatinglosscarryforwardsandbuilt-inlosses,andI.R.C.§383placesalimit,determined
individual’seligibilityforanABLEaccount.TheIRSdevelopedtwonewformsthatABLEaccountprogramswillusetoreportrelevantaccountinformationannuallytodesignatedbeneficia-ries,Form1099-QA,DistributionsfromABLEAccounts,andForm5498-QA,ABLEAccountContributionInformation.
[REG-102837-15,2015-27I.R.B.43,80F.R.35602(June22,2015)]
ABLE Accounts
For more information on ABLE accounts, see the “New Legislation” chapter in this book .
REG-136018-13I.R.C.§§382,383,483,1273,and1288
■☞ Proposed regulations provide methods for adjust-ing applicable federal interest rates for tax-exempt obligations .
TheIRShasissuedproposedregulationsthatprovidethemethodtobeusedtoadjusttheappli-cablefederalrates(AFRs)underI.R.C.§1288fortax-exemptobligations,andthemethodtobeusedtodeterminethelong-termtax-exemptrateandtheadjustedfederallong-termrateunderI.R.C.§382.
Fortax-exemptobligationstheproposedreg-ulationsaffectthedeterminationoforiginalissuediscountunderI.R.C.§1273andoftotalunstatedinterestunderI.R.C.§483.
Inaddition,theproposedregulationsaffectthedeterminationofthelimitationsunderI.R.C.§§382and383ontheuseofcertainoperatinglosscarryforwards,taxcredits,andotherattributesofcorporationsfollowingownershipchanges.
Applicable Federal RatesI.R.C.§1274(d)directstheTreasurysecretarytodeterminetheAFRsthatareusedfordetermin-ingtheimputedprincipalamountofdebtinstru-mentstowhichI.R.C.§1274applies,computingtotalunstatedinterestonpayments towhichI.R.C.§483applies,andotherpurposes.UnderI.R.C.§1274(d)(1),theAFRisthefollowing:
1.Inthecaseofadebtinstrumentwithatermnotover3years,thefederalshort-termrate
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
662 INDIVIDUAL ISSUES
Farming,andshouldbeincludedinthetaxpay-er’snetearningsfromself-employment.
ThetaxpayerarguedthattheCRPpaymentswerenotself-employment(SE)incomebecausehedidnotderivetheCRPpaymentsfromtheoperationofatradeorbusiness.Alternatively,heclaimedtheCRPpaymentswerenotSEincomeundertherentalsfromrealestateexclusioninI.R.C.§1402(a)(1).
Tax Court AnalysisIntheTaxCourthearing,thetaxpayercontendedthathisworkcomplyingwiththeCRPcontractrequirementswasdeminimisanddidnotcon-stitutefarming.Hesaidallphysicallaborneces-sarytoplant,seed,weed,mow,andmaintainthepropertyinaccordancewiththeCRPcontractswasperformedbyaworkerhehiredandshouldnotbeattributedtohim.
TheTaxCourtruledthatwhethertheprop-ertymaintenanceactivitieswerecarriedoutbysomeoneelsewasimmaterial,becauseataxpayermayconducthistradeorbusinesspersonallyorthroughanagent.TheTaxCourtheldfur-therthatthetaxpayerwasanactiveparticipantbecausethetaxpayerregularlyandcontinuouslymaintainedhisstatusasaCRPparticipant,main-tainedtheeligibilitystatusofhisproperties,madedecisionsregardinghisobligationsundertheCRPcontracts,andengagedintheactivitiesforprofit.Furthermore,becausetheCRPpaymentsdependedoncontinuedmaintenanceofthelandinaccordancewiththeCRPcontracts,thetax-payer’sparticipationintheCRPwasnotmerelyapassiveinvestment.
TheTaxCourtalsosaiditdidnotmatterwhether the taxpayer’sactivitiesconstitutedfarmingorsimplycontinuousandregularpar-ticipationinanactivityforprofit;thetaxpayerwasengagedinatradeorbusinessasdefinedbyI.R.C.§162.
Rentalpaymentsconstituteconsiderationpaidfortheuseoroccupancyofproperty.TheTaxCourtsaidthatalthoughtheCRPrestrictedthetaxpayer’suseofhispropertiesandtheCRPrepeatedlyreferredtothepaymentsasrentals,thepaymentsdidnotqualifyforthe“rentalsfromrealestate”exclusionbecausethegovern-mentdidnottakepossessionofthepropertiesoracquiretherighttousethepropertiesforitsownpurposes.
byreferencetotheI.R.C.§382limitation,ontheamountofthecorporation’sincometaxliabilitythatmaybeoffsetbycertaintaxcreditsandothertaxattributes.UnderI.R.C.§382(b)(1),theI.R.C.§382limitationgenerallyequalstheproductofthevalueofthestockofthecorporationimmedi-atelypriortotheownershipchangemultipliedbythelong-termtax-exemptrate.I.R.C.§382(f)(1)definesthelong-termtax-exemptrateasthehigh-estoftheadjustedfederallong-termratesineffectforanymonthinthe3-calendar-monthperiodendingwiththecalendarmonthinwhichtheownershipchangeoccurs.I.R.C.§382(f)(2)pro-videsthatthetermadjustedfederallong-termratemeansthefederal long-term ratedeterminedunderI.R.C.§1274(d),exceptthatI.R.C.§1274(d)(2)and(3)shallnotapply,andsuchrateshallbeproperlyadjustedfordifferencesbetweenratesonlong-termtaxableandtax-exemptobligations.
[REG-136018-13,2015-11,I.R.B.759;80F.R.11141(March2,2015)]
Self-Employment Tax
Morehouse v. CommissionerI.R.C.§§1401and1402
■☞ The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that conservation reserve program payments are not self-employment income .
FactsThetaxpayerinheritedfarmlandin1994andrentedthetillableportionsofthelandtoindivid-ualswhofarmedtheirrentedportions.In1997thetaxpayerenrolledthetillablelandsinthefederalConservationReserveProgram(CRP),andhehiredalocalfarmertocarryouttheCRPcontractobligations.Theseobligationsgenerallyrequiredthetaxpayertoestablishandmaintainspecifictypesofgrassandlegumeorperennialvegetativecoveronthepropertiesandtoperiodi-callyengageinweedandpestcontrol.Thetax-payerperformedsomemanagementduties,suchasorderingseedandrequestingemergencyhay-ingandgrazingrightsontheCRPacres.
For2006and2007thetaxpayerreportedhisCRPpaymentsasfarmrentalincomeonScheduleE(Form1040),SupplementalIncomeandLoss.TheIRSissuednoticesofdeficiency,statingthattheCRPpaymentsshouldhavebeenreportedonScheduleF(Form1040),ProfitorLossFrom
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
IRS 663
16
TheIRShasissuedguidancefordeterminingthefilingdateforfederalreturnsandestimatedpay-mentsfortaxpayersinMassachusetts.TheDis-trictofColumbiaobservesEmancipationDayonFriday,April15,whenApril16isaSaturday.ThiswouldmakeMonday,April18,2016,theordinaryduedateforfiling2015incometaxreturns.However,Monday,April18,2016,isthethirdMondayinApril,thedatethatMassachu-settsandMaineobservePatriots’Day.BecauseresidentsofMassachusettsandMainemayelecttohand-carrytheirincometaxreturnstotheirlocalIRSoffices,thosetaxpayershaveuntilthenextsucceedingdaythatisnotaSaturday,Sun-day,orlegalholidaytofileincometaxreturns.Thus,MassachusettsandMainetaxpayershaveuntilTuesday,April19,2016,tofiletheirincometaxreturns.
Massachusetts taxpayers are required tomakeinstallmentpaymentsofestimatedincometaxtoadepositoryinHartford,Connecticut,astateinwhichthethirdMondayinAprilisnotastatewidelegalholiday.Accordingly,aMassa-chusettstaxpayersmustmakethefirstinstallmentpaymentofestimatedtaxonorbeforetheordi-naryduedateforincometaxreturnsforthefilingtobetimely.ThefactthatataxpayerisaresidentofMassachusetts,astateinwhichthethirdMon-dayinAprilisastatewidelegalholiday,hasnoeffectonaMassachusettstaxpayer’sduedateforpaymentofthefirstinstallmentofestimatedtax.Thus,MassachusettstaxpayersmustpaytheirfirstinstallmentofestimatedincometaxonorbeforeApril18,2016.
[Rev.Rul.2015-13,2015-22I.R.B.1011]
Notice 2015-57I.R.C.§6035
■☞ Due dates for I .R .C . § 6035 statements of value that are required to be filed with the IRS or fur-nished to beneficiaries are delayed until February 29, 2016 .
UnderI.R.C.§1014(f),thebasisofcertainprop-ertyacquiredfromadecedentmaynotexceedthevalueofthatpropertyasfinallydeterminedforfederalestatetaxpurposes,orifnotfinallydetermined,thevalueofthatpropertyasreportedonastatementmadeunderI.R.C.§6035.
I.R.C.§6035imposesnewreportingrequire-ments with regard to the value of propertyincludedinadecedent’sgrossestateforfederal
Appellate Court AnalysisOnappealtheEightCircuitCourtofAppealsreversedtheTaxCourtandheldthatRev.Rul.60-32,1960-1C.B.23,andRev.Rul.65-149,1965-1C.B.434,controlledasthelong-stand-ingrulethatlandconservationpaymentsmadetononfarmerswererentalpayments.ThecourtnotedthattheCRPcontractsprovidearightfortheUSDAtophysicallyinspecttheacresenrolledintheprogramandtocontroltheusesoftheland,providingarightofphysicalpossessionsimilartolandlords.
Thecourtsaidit“embrace[d]theagency’slongstandingpositionthat landconservationpaymentsmadetonon-farmersconstituterent-alsfromrealestateandareexcludedfromtheself-employmenttax.”Itnotedthat“whileCRPcontractsmayrequirefarmerstoconductasmallsubsetofactivitiessimilartothoseusedinapor-tionoftheirgeneralfarmingoperations,...thesamecannotbesaidfornon-farmers,”anditexplainedthat“theonlyreason[nonfarmers]evenindirectlyengageinorarrangeforany‘till-ing,seeding,fertilizing,andweedcontrol’activi-tiesontheirCRPlandisbecausetheagreementwiththegovernmentrequiresthemtodoso.”
HoldingThetaxpayerwasnotliableforSEtaxontheCRPpayments.
[Morehouse v. Commissioner,769F.3d616(8thCir.2014)]
IRS Non-Acquiescence
In Action on Decision 2015-02 (October 13, 2015) the IRS non-acquiesced to the Morehouse case .
IRS
Due Dates
Revenue Ruling 2015-13I.R.C.§7503
■☞ The IRS has provided the dates for filing 2015 tax returns, with special dates for Massachusetts and Maine taxpayers .
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
664 IRS
Form1099-C,CancellationofDebt,mustbefiledoccursattheendofa36-monthnonpaymenttest-ingperiod.
CurrentTreas.Reg.§1.6050P-1(b)(2)listseightidentifiableeventsthattriggerinformationreportingobligationsonthepartofanapplicablefinancialentity:
1.AdischargeofindebtednessundertheBank-ruptcyCode
2.A cancellation or extinguishment of anindebtedness thatrenders thedebtunen-forceableinareceivership,foreclosure,orsimilarproceedinginafederalorstatecourt,asdescribedinI.R.C.§368(a)(3)(A)(ii),otherthanadischargeundertheBankruptcyCode
3.A cancellation or extinguishment of anindebtednessupontheexpirationofthestat-uteoflimitationsforcollection(butonlyif,andonlywhen,thedebtor’sstatute-of-limi-tationsaffirmativedefensehasbeenupheldinafinaljudgmentordecisioninajudicialproceeding,andtheperiodforappealingithasexpired)orupontheexpirationofastatu-toryperiodforfilingaclaimorcommencingadeficiencyjudgmentproceeding
4.A cancellation or extinguishment of anindebtednesspursuanttoanelectionoffore-closureremediesbyacreditorthatstatutorilyextinguishesorbarsthecreditor’srighttopursuecollectionoftheindebtedness
5.Acancellationorextinguishmentofanindebt-ednessthatrendersadebtunenforceablepur-suanttoaprobateorsimilarproceeding
6.Adischargeofindebtednesspursuanttoanagreementbetweenanapplicableentityandadebtortodischargeindebtednessatlessthanfullconsideration
7.Adischargeofindebtednesspursuanttoadecisionbythecreditor,ortheapplicationofadefinedpolicyofthecreditor,todiscon-tinuecollectionactivityanddischargedebt
8.Theexpirationofa36-monthnonpaymenttestingperiod
Whenfinalized,theproposedregulationswillcompletelyremovethetestingperiodsothattheexpirationofthe36-monthnonpaymentperiodwillnolongertriggerthereportingrequirements.
[REG-136676-13,2014-45I.R.B.814]
estatetaxpurposes.Theexecutorofanestatethatisrequiredtofileanestatetaxreturnmustfurnish,bothtotheIRSandthepersonacquir-inganyinterestinpropertyincludedinthedece-dent’sgrossestateforfederalestatetaxpurposes,astatementidentifyingthevalueofeachinterestinthepropertyasreportedonthereturn.
I.R.C.§6035(a)(3)(A)requirestheexecutortofurnishthestatementnotlaterthantheearlierof
1.30daysaftertheestatetaxreturnwasdue(includingextensions,ifany)or
2.30daysafterthedatethereturnwasfiled.
3.I.R.C.§6081(a)allowstheSecretarytograntareasonableextensionoftimeforfilinganyreturn,declaration,statement,orotherdocu-mentrequiredbytheInternalRevenueCodeorTreasuryregulations.Exceptinthecaseoftaxpayerswhoareabroad,noextensioncanbeformorethan6months.
For statements required under I.R.C.§6035(a)tobefiledwiththeIRSorfurnishedtoabeneficiarybeforeFebruary29,2016,theduedateunderI.R.C.§6035(a)(3)isdelayedtoFeb-ruary29,2016.ThisdelayistoallowtheTreasuryDepartmentandtheIRStoissueguidanceimple-mentingthereportingrequirementsofI.R.C.§6035.ExecutorsandotherpersonsrequiredtofileorfurnishastatementunderI.R.C.§6035(a)(1)or(a)(2)shouldnotdosountiltheTreasuryDepartmentandtheIRSissueformsorfurtherguidanceaddressingtherequirementsofI.R.C.§6035.
ThisnoticeiseffectiveonAugust21,2015.[Notice 2015-57, 2015-36 I.R.B.]
Statement of Value
See the “New Legislation” chapter in this book for an explanation of the new requirement to fur-nish statements of value .
REG-136676-13I.R.C.§§61and6050P
■☞ Proposed regulations remove the 36-month test-ing period for information reporting of discharge-of-indebtedness income .
Proposedregulationswillremovearulethatadeemeddischargeofindebtednessforwhicha
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
IRS 665
16
paymentsmaybeattributabletootheritems(e.g.,interest,compensationforservicesotherthanhaulingfreight,referralbonuses,sign-onbonuses,etc.),thenthefreightexceptionmaynotapply,andaninformationreturnmayberequired.
Inaddition,theIRSconcludedthatthetax-payerwasnotabrokerasdefinedinI.R.C.§6045.TherearenoprovisionsorexamplesintheI.R.C.§6045regulationswhereapersonwhoactsasamiddlemanbetweenaserviceproviderandaservicerecipientisabroker.Theregulationspro-videthatthetermsalemeansanydispositionofsecurities,commodities,regulatedfuturescon-tracts,orforwardcontracts,butdoesnotincludeenteringintoacontractthatrequiresdeliveryofpersonalpropertyoraninteresttherein[Treas.Reg.§1.6045-1(a)(9)].TheexistenceofI.R.C.§6041A,whichrequiresinformationreturnswithrespecttoservicerecipients,indicatesthatabro-kerdoesnotincludeapersonwhomerelyfacili-tatesservices.
[F.A.A.2015-10-002F]
Penalties
Chief Counsel Advice 2015-19-029I.R.C.§§6694and6701
■☞ The IRS chief counsel ruled on four scenarios involving amended returns and the tax return pre-parer penalty for understatement of tax liability .
FactsScenario 1.The tax return preparer madeamendedreturnsfor3consecutiveyearsthatcontainedanunderstatementofliabilityduetowillfulorrecklessconduct.Thetaxpayerfiledthefirst-yearamendedreturnbutnotthesubse-quent-yearamendedreturns,waitingtoseeifthefirstamendedreturnwasaccepted.Therefundclaimedonthefirst-yearamendedreturnwasnotallowed.TheIRSreceivedamendedreturnsforall3yearsfromthetaxpayer.Eachreturnhadthereturnpreparer’ssignatureonthem.TheIRSalsohadcopiesoftheamendedreturnsforall3yearsfromthereturnpreparerthatdonothavehissignatureonthembuthaveawatermarkstat-ing“PreparerCopy.”
Scenario 2.Thetaxreturnpreparermadeanamendedreturnthatcontainedanunderstate-mentofliabilityduetowillfulorrecklessconduct.
FormsField Attorney Advice 2015-10-02FI.R.C.§§6402and6404
■☞ A motor freight carrier company that paid inde-pendent operators to haul freight on the com-pany’s trailers was not required to file information returns under I .R .C . § 6041 and was not a broker as defined in I .R .C . § 6045 .
FactsThetaxpayertruckingcompanycontractedwithalarge,nationalretailertohaultheretailer’sgoodsfromwarehousestotheretailer’sstoresforafeepertrailerload.Theretailerloadeditsgoodsontothetaxpayer’strailers.Thetaxpayeralsocontractedwithanindependentoperatororowner/operatortopickupatrailerandtransportittooneoftheretailer’sstores.Theindependentoperatorhauledtheretailer’sgoods,ontheinde-pendentoperator’strailer,totheretailer’sretailstoreandearnedapercentageofthefeetheinde-pendentoperatorchargedtheretailer.Theinde-pendentoperatorpaidanytollsandcertainotherexpensesoftheindependentoperatoroutoftheamountitretained.Affiliate,acompanyrelatedtotheindependentoperator,leasedtractorunits(trucks)toindependentoperators.Independentoperatorswhoownatractorunit(owner/opera-tors)maycontractwiththeindependentoperatorwithoutleasingatractorfromtheaffiliate.Theaffiliatepaidasign-onbonuswhenanindepen-dentoperatorleasedatractorunit.
Thetaxpayerhas,inthepast,issuedForms1099toindependentoperatorsbutnolongerdoesso.InaNovember9,2011,“StateLawsNewslet-ter,”theAmericanTruckingAssociationadviseditsmembersthat, in itsopinion,Forms1099generallyarenotrequiredfor“freightservices.”ThetaxpayerinterpretedthelawasnotrequiringForms1099forthefreighthaulingactivities.
ConclusionTheIRSdeterminedthatthetaxpayerisnotrequiredtofileinformationreturnsunderI.R.C.§6041totheextentthepaymentsatissueareforfreighthaulingservices.Paymentsfortransport-inggoods,whetherincidentalorintegraltoataxpayer’sbusiness,areexceptedfrominforma-tionreporting.Thefactthatthepaymentsmaybemadetoanindependentoperatordoesnotchangethisexception.However,totheextentthe
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
666 IRS
RulingsScenario 1.TheI.R.C.§6694(b)returnpreparerpenaltyforunderstatementofliabilityduetowillfulorrecklessconductmaybeassessedforall3yearsbecausethereturnpreparermadeanamendedreturnthathesignedthatcontainedanunderstatementduetowillfulorrecklessconduct.
Scenario 2.TheI.R.C.§6694(b)returnpreparerpenaltyforunderstatementduetowillfulorreck-lessconductmaybeassessedbecausethereturnpreparermadeanamendedreturnthatcontainedanunderstatementofliabilityduetowillfulorrecklessconduct,andthereturnwasfiled.
Scenario 3.TheI.R.C.§6694(b)returnpre-parerpenaltyforunderstatementduetowillfulorrecklessconductshouldnotbeassessedbecausealthoughthereturnpreparermadeanamendedreturnthathesignedthatcontainedanunder-statementduetowillfulorrecklessconduct,theamendedreturnwasnotfiled,andthereisnoevi-dencethereturnpreparersignedtheamendedreturn.
Scenario 4. ThepenaltiesunderI.R.C.§6694(a)(2),6694(b),or6701 shouldnotbeassessedmerelybecausethereturnpreparermadeandfiledanamendedreturnaftertheperiodoflimi-tationsforrefundshadexpired.
[C.C.A.2015-19-029(March25,2015)]
Chief Counsel Advice 2015-20-010I.R.C.§§6402and6404
■☞ The IRS chief counsel ruled that the IRS may abate penalties and interest where the taxpayer has shown on an amended return that the taxpayer owed less taxes than on the original return .
FactsThe IRSassessed taxpenalties and interestbasedonthetaxpayer’soriginalreturn.Thetax-payermademonthlypaymentsofthepenaltiesandinterest.Morethan3yearsaftertheorigi-nalreturnwasfiledandthetaxeswerepaid,thetaxpayerfiledanamendedreturnthatcorrectlyshowedlesstaxowedthantheoriginalreturn.Thelowertaxwouldhaveresultedinlesspenal-tiesandinterest.
AnalysisI.R.C.§6404(a)(1)authorizestheIRStoabatetheunpaidportionofanassessmentthatisexcessive
TherefundclaimedontheamendedreturnwasdisallowedbytheIRS,andtheIRShadonlyacopyoftheamendedreturnfromthereturnpre-parerthatwasnotsignedbyhim.
Scenario 3.Thetaxreturnpreparermadeanamendedreturnthatcontainedanunderstate-mentofliabilityduetowillfulorrecklessconduct.Theamendedreturnwasnotfiled,andtheIRShadonlycopiesofanunsignedcopyfromthereturnpreparer.
Scenario 4.Thetaxreturnpreparermadeanamendedreturnaftertheperiodoflimitationsforrefundshadexpiredandtheamendedreturnwasfiled.
AnalysisI.R.C.§6694(a)(1)providesthatifataxreturnpre-parer(1)preparesanyreturnorclaimofrefundwithrespecttowhichanypartofanunderstate-mentofliabilityisduetoanunreasonableposi-tion,and(2)knew(orreasonablyshouldhaveknown)oftheposition,suchtaxreturnpreparershallpayapenaltywithrespecttoeachsuchreturnorclaiminanamountequaltothegreaterof$1,000or50%oftheincomederived(ortobederived)bythetaxreturnpreparerwithrespecttothereturnorclaim.
ThepenaltymaybeincreasedunderI.R.C.§6694(b)ifanypartoftheunderstatementisduetoawillfulattemptinanymannertounder-statetheliabilityfortaxonthereturnorclaim,orarecklessorintentionaldisregardofrulesorregulations.
Treas.Reg.§1.6694-1(a)(2)providesthatforpurposesofthepenaltiesunderI.R.C.§6694,areturnorclaimforrefundisdeemedpreparedonthedateitissignedbythetaxreturnpreparer.IfasigningtaxreturnpreparerwithinthemeaningofTreas.Reg.§301.7701-15(b)(1)failstosignthereturn,thereturnorclaimforrefundisdeemedpreparedonthedatethereturnorclaimisfiled.
Thechiefcounselstatedthatifanamendedreturnmadebyareturnpreparercontainedanunderstatementofliabilityduetowillfulorreck-lessconduct,thepenaltyunderI.R.C.§6694(b)couldtechnicallyapplyiftheamendedreturniseithersignedbythereturnpreparer,orifitisnotsignedbythereturnpreparer,iftheamendedreturnisfiled.
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
IRS 667
16
thefailuretodepositelectronicallywasduetoreasonablecauseandnotduetowillfulneglect.
I.R.M.§20.1.4.26providesthatpenaltyreliefdeterminationsforthefailure-to-depositpenaltymustbemadeonacase-by-casebasisandthattheIRSwillnotimposeorwillabatethefailure-to-depositpenaltywhenthetaxpayerestablishesthatduetospecificpenaltyreliefprovisions,theassessedpenaltyshouldnotbeimposedorshouldbeabatedaftertakingintoaccountdocumenta-tionsupportingthetaxpayer’sposition.
Forunbankedtaxpayerswhoaretimelyinmeetingtheirtaxdepositobligations,theIRSwillnotimposeorwillabatethefailure-to-depositpenaltyifataxpayercanshowheorshemadereasonableeffortsbutwasunabletogetabankaccountduringtheperiodatissue.Torequestpenaltyreliefunderthisguidance,theunbankedtaxpayermustincludeasignedstatementthatexplainsthetaxpayer’sattempttogetabankaccountandmust includeanycorroboratingdocumentation(deniedaccountapplications,correspondencefrombanks,etc.).Thesignedstatementdoesnothavetobeinaparticularformat.
[SBSE-04-0615-0045(June9,2015)]
Musa v. CommissionerI.R.C.§6663
■☞ A civil fraud penalty was imposed for failing to maintain accurate sales and wage records, filing false tax forms, and underreporting income on 5 years of income tax returns .
FactsThetaxpayerownedandoperatedarestaurantthatemployedmanyofthetaxpayer’sfamilymembers.Althoughthetaxpayerhiredpayrollcompanies tohandlepaymentofwagesandpayrolltaxes,thetaxpayeroftenfailedtoreportaccurateinformationbyunderreportingthecashsales.Thetaxpayeralsousedacomputer-basedpoint-of-salessystemtorecordordersandsales,butdidnotretainrecordsofthecashsalesnotenteredintothissystem.
Thetaxpayerhiredanaccountanttopreparesalesandincometaxreturns;however,thetax-payeralsofailedtoprovidetheaccountantwithaccuratesalesrecords,andtheaccountantusedthetaxpayer’ssalestaxpaymentsasthemethodofdeterminingincome.
inamount.Whilethestatutespecifiesunpaid assessments, thechief counsel’sview is thatI.R.C.§6404(a)(1)ispermissiveandthattheIRSisnotprohibitedfromabatingthepaidportionofassessments.
ThetimingofaclaimforcreditorrefundhasnoeffectontheIRS’sauthoritytoabateanassessment.Thus,althoughtherefundoftaxreportedontheamendedreturnwastime-barredunderI.R.C.§6511(theamendedreturnwasnotfiledwithin3yearsfromthefilingoftheoriginalreturnandthetaxpayer’spaymentofthetaxes),theIRSmaystillabatethepenaltiesandinter-estthatexceedthetrueamountofpenaltiesandinterestthetaxpayerowes.Asaresultofthepay-mentsofpenaltiesandinterestthatthetaxpayerhasbeenmakingeachmonth,thetaxpayerover-paidthepenaltiesandinterest.Theamendedreturnshouldbetreatedasaclaimforarefundofthepenaltiesandinterestpaidinthe2yearspriortothedatetheamendedreturnwasfiled,totheextentthoseamountsexceedwhatthetaxpayeractuallyowed.
RulingTheIRShastheauthorityandshouldabatethepenaltiesandinterestbasedontheoriginalreturntoreflectthecorrectamountonthetaxpayer’samendedreturn.
[C.C.A.2015-20-010(April23,2015)]
SBSE-04-0615-0045I.R.C.§§6302and6656
■☞ Taxpayers who cannot obtain a bank account due to reasonable cause will not be assessed the failure-to-deposit penalty for not making tax pay-ments electronically .
SinceJanuary1,2011,almostallbusinesseshavebeenrequiredtomaketheirdepositsbyelec-tronicfundstransferusingtheElectronicFederalTaxPaymentSystem(EFTPS).IthascometotheIRS’sattentionthattherearetaxpayerswho,afterundertakingreasonableeffortstoobtainabankaccount,areunabletodoso,andareunabletomakeotherarrangementsfordepositingtheirtaxesthroughtheEFTPS.Thepenaltyfornotdepositingelectronically throughtheEFTPSis10%oftheamountdeposited(thefailure-to-deposit penalty).Thisfailure-to-depositpenaltyisnotapplicableifthetaxpayerdemonstratesthat
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
668 IRS
4. thetaxpayerconcealedassetsbydeposit-ingcashinseparatebankaccountsandnotinformingtheaccountantabouttheaccounts;
5. thetaxpayerdidnotcooperatewiththeIRSagentsauditingthetaxpayer’sreturns;
6. thetaxpayerfailedtofileFormsW-2,WageandTaxStatement,orForms1099-MISC,MiscellaneousIncome,forallemployees,especiallyfamilymemberemployees;
7. thetaxpayerfiledfalseincometaxreturnsandprovidedfalseinformationtotheaccountant;
8. thetaxpayerfailedtotimelypayestimatedtaxes;and
9. thetaxpayerdealtextensivelyincashanddepositedonlyaminimalamountinbankaccountstoavoidcreatingarecordofdeposits.
HoldingThetaxpayerwasproperlyassessedtheI.R.C.§6663civilfraudpenaltyforfailingtomaintainaccuratesalesandwagerecords,filingfalsetaxforms,andunderreportingincomeon5yearsofincometaxreturns.
[Musa v. Commissioner,T.C.Memo.2015-58]
Notice 2014-58I.R.C.§§6662and7701
■☞ Transaction and similar rule of law are defined for purposes of the economic substance doctrine .
I.R.C.§7701(o)providesthat,inthecaseofanytransactiontowhichtheeconomicsubstancedoc-trineisrelevant,thetransactionshallbetreatedashavingeconomicsubstanceonlyif
1.thetransactionchangesinameaningfulway(apartfromfederalincometaxeffects)thetaxpayer’seconomicposition,and
2.thetaxpayerhasasubstantialpurpose(apartfromfederalincometaxeffects)forenteringintothetransaction.
I.R.C.§7701(o)(5)(A)statesthatthetermeco-nomic substance doctrinemeansthecommonlawdoctrineunderwhichincometaxbenefitswithrespecttoatransactionarenotallowableifthetransactiondoesnothaveeconomicsubstanceorlacksabusinesspurpose.
I.R.C.§7701(o)(5)(C)statesthatthedetermi-nationofwhethertheeconomicsubstancedoc-trineisrelevanttoatransactionshallbemade
Thetaxpayeradmittedtheunderreportingofincomeandunderpaymentoftaxforseveraltaxyears,andtheIRSassessedacivilfraudpen-altyunderI.R.C.§6663.Thetaxpayerclaimedthattheunderreportingoftaxresultedfromtheactionsof theaccountantand the taxpayer’scarelessness.
AnalysisI.R.C.§6663(a)imposesapenaltyequalto75%oftheportionofanytaxunderpaymentthatisattributabletofraud.I.R.C.§6663(b)providesthatoncetheIRSestablishesthatanyportionoftheunderpaymentisduetofraud,theentireunderpaymentistobetreatedasattributabletofraudexceptwithrespecttoanyportionthatthetaxpayerestablishes,byapreponderanceoftheevidence,isnotattributabletofraud.
Thecourtrecognizedthatthebadgesoffraudinclude
1.understatementofincome;2.inadequatemaintenanceofrecords;3.implausibleor inconsistent explanations
ofbehavior;4.concealmentofassetsorincome;5.failuretocooperatewithtaxauthorities;6.engaginginillegalactivities;7.anintenttomisleadthatmaybeinferredfrom
apatternofconduct;8.lackofcredibilityofthetaxpayer’stestimony;9.failuretofiletaxreturns;
10.filingfalsedocuments;11.failuretomakeestimatedtaxpayments,12.dealingincash;and13.theintelligence,education,andtaxexpertise
ofthetaxpayer.Thecourtfoundthat
1. thetaxpayeradmittedtotheunderreportingofincome;
2. the taxpayer failed tomaintain accuraterecordsinthatthetaxpayerdestroyedthecashsalesreceipts;
3. thetaxpayermadeinconsistentstatementsastothereasonsforfailingtomaintainallrecords;
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
IRS 669
16
(apartfromfederalincometaxeffects)forenter-ingintothetransaction.
[Notice2014-58,2014-44I.R.B.746,amplifyingNotice2010-62,2010-40C.B.411]
Power of Attorney
Chief Counsel Advice 2015-22-005I.R.C.§§1502and6501
■☞ Form 2848 for an LLC should be signed by an officer of a parent corporation where the sub-sidiary of a parent corporation is the manager-partner of the LLC .
FactsACcorporationwasanindirectsubsidiaryofaparentcorporationandincludedintheconsoli-datedgroupreturn.TheCcorporationwasalsothemember-managerofanLLCpartnershipthathadoneotherpartner,alsoaCcorporation.TheLLCpartnershipwasanon-TEFRAentity(anentitythatisnotsubjecttotheunifiedpartnershipauditproceduresenactedundertheTaxEquityandFiscalResponsibilityActof1982,Pub.L.No.97-248).TheCcorporationsubsidiarywasidenti-fiedasthemember-manageroftheLLContheSchedulesK-1(Form1065),Partner’sShareofIncome,Deductions,Credits,etc.,attachedtotheLLC’sreturn,andthemember-managerCcor-porationwasalsodesignatedasthetaxmatterspartnerontheLLC’sForm1065,U.S.ReturnofPartnershipIncome.
AnalysisApowerofattorneyisrequiredfortherepresen-tationoftaxpayersbeforetheIRS.AtaxpayerusesForm2848,PowerofAttorneyandDeclara-tionofRepresentative,toauthorizeanindividualwhoisauthorizedtopracticebeforetheIRStorepresentthetaxpayerbeforetheIRS.Theindi-vidualwhomustexecuteaForm2848dependsonthetypeoftaxpayerinvolved[Treas.Reg.§601.503(c)].
Inthecaseofanaffiliatedgroupofcorpora-tionsthatfileaconsolidatedreturn,apowerofattorneyshouldbesignedbythegroup’sagentfortheconsolidatedreturnyeartowhichtherep-resentationapplies.Ingeneral,thecommonpar-entfortheconsolidatedreturnyearisthegroup’sagentforthatyear.
inthesamemannerasifI.R.C.§7701(o)hadneverbeenenacted.Withrespecttoindividu-als,however,I.R.C.§7701(o)(5)(B)statesthatthetwo-prongedanalysisinI.R.C.§7701(o)(1)shallapplyonlytoatransactionenteredintoinconnectionwithatradeorbusinessoranactivityengagedinfortheproductionofincome.
Inaddition,I.R.C.§7701(o)(5)(D)statesthattheterm transactionasusedinI.R.C.§7701(o)includesaseriesoftransactions.
I.R.C.§7701(o)(2)(A)providesthatatrans-action’spotentialforprofitshallbetakenintoaccountindeterminingwhethertherequirementsofI.R.C.§7701(o)(1)aremetonlyifthepresentvalueofthereasonablyexpectedpretaxprofitissubstantialinrelationtothepresentvalueoftheclaimednettaxbenefits.
I.R.C.§6662(b)(6)providesthattheaccuracy-relatedpenaltyimposedunderI.R.C.§6662(a)appliestoanyunderpaymentattributabletoanydisallowanceofaclaimedtaxbenefitbecauseofatransactionlackingeconomicsubstanceorfailingtomeetanysimilarruleoflaw[collectively,anI.R.C.§6662(b)(6)transaction].
I.R.C. § 6662(i) increases the accuracy-relatedpenaltyfrom20%to40%foranyportionofanunderpaymentattributabletooneormoreI.R.C.§6662(b)(6)transactionswithrespecttowhichtherelevantfactsaffectingthetaxtreat-mentarenotadequatelydisclosedinthereturnorinastatementattachedtothereturn.I.R.C.§ 6662(i)(3) provides that certain amendedreturnsoranysupplementtoareturnshallnotbetakenintoconsiderationforpurposesofI.R.C.§6662(i).
Forpurposesofdeterminingwhetherthecodifiedeconomicsubstancedoctrineapplies,transaction generallyincludesallthefactualele-mentsrelevanttotheexpectedtaxtreatmentofanyinvestment,entity,plan,orarrangement,andanyorallofthestepsthatarecarriedoutaspartofaplan.Factsandcircumstancesdeterminewhetheraplan’sstepsareaggregatedordisaggre-gatedwhendefiningatransaction.
ForpurposesofI.R.C.§6662(b)(6),similar rule of lawmeansaruleordoctrinethatdisal-lowsincometaxbenefitsrelatedtoatransactionbecausethetransactiondoesnotchangeatax-payer’seconomicpositioninameaningfulway(apartfromfederalincometaxeffects),orbecausethetaxpayerdidnothaveasubstantialpurpose
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
670 IRS
Signing Authority
See also Field Attorney Advice 2015-23-01F, which states that an officer of a successor corporation could extend the statute of limitations on assess-ments as to a corporation that was merged into the successor corporation; and Legal Advice Issued by Associate Chief Counsel 2015-004, which gives guidance on who is authorized to sign a power of attorney appointing a representative for a part-nership or LLC in various situations .
[C.C.A.2015-22-005(February18,2015)]
Procedure
Notice 2015-38I.R.C.§7502
■☞ The IRS has updated the list of designated private delivery services for delivery of tax returns .
TheIRShasupdatedthelistofdesignatedprivatedeliveryservices(designatedPDSs)originallysetforthinNotice2004-83,2004-2C.B.1030,forpurposesoftheruleofI.R.C.§7502fortreatingatimelymailedreturnorpaymentastimelyfiledortimelypaid.ThedesignatedPDSsareFedExFirst Overnight, FedEx Priority Overnight,FedExStandardOvernight,FedEx2Day,FedExInternationalNextFlightOut,FedExInterna-tionalPriority,FedExInternationalFirst,FedExInternationalEconomy,UPSNextDayAirEarlyA.M.,UPSNextDayAir,UPSNextDayAirSaver,UPS2ndDayAir,UPS2ndDayAirA.M.,UPSWorldwideExpressPlus,andUPSWorld-wideExpress.
Thenoticealsoprovidesrulesfordetermin-ingthepostmarkdatefortheseservicesandpro-videsanewaddressforsubmittingdocumentstotheIRSwithrespecttoanapplicationfordesig-nationasadesignatedPDS.ThechangeswereeffectiveMay6,2015.
[Notice2015-38,2015-21I.R.B.984]
UnderTreas.Reg.§1.1502-77(a),thecom-monparentisthesoleagentforeachmemberofthegroupforallmattersrelatingtotheincometaxliabilityfortheconsolidatedreturnyear,unlessitisamatterreservedtoasubsidiaryunderTreas.Reg.§1.1502-77(a)(3).
Inthecaseofacorporation,apowerofattor-neymustbesignedbyanofficerofthecorpo-rationwhohastheauthoritytolegallybindthecorporation;thisofficermustcertifythatheorshehasthatauthority[Treas.Reg.§601.503(c)(3)].
Inthecaseofapartnership,allofthepart-nersmustexecute thepowerofattorney,orifexecutedinthenameofthepartnership,thepartnerorpartnersdulyauthorizedtoactforthepartnershipmustsignandcertifythattheyhaveauthoritytoact.Apartnerisauthorizedtoactinthenameofapartnershipif,understatelaw,thepartnerhasauthoritytobindthepartnership[seeTreas.Reg.§601.503(c)(5),andInstructionsforForm2848(Rev.July2014)].
ThetaxpayerbeingrepresentedontheForm2848wasanLLCtaxedasapartnership,andthemember-manageroftheLLCwasaCcorpora-tion.Ordinarily,Form2848wouldbesignedbyacorporateofficerofthemember-managercorporation.Thecorporation,however,isalsoamemberofaconsolidatedgroup,andunderTreas.Reg.§1.1502-77(a),thecommonparentisthesoleagentforeachmemberofthegroupforallmattersrelatingtotheincometaxliabil-ityfortheconsolidatedreturnyear,unlessitisamatterreservedtoasubsidiaryunderTreas.Reg.§1.1502-77(a)(3).
RulingTheIRSruledthatanofficerofthecommonpar-entofthemember-managercorporationmustsignForm2848.Thecommonparentshouldbedescribedas“[JohnDoe],[CorporateOfficeTitle],Parent[EIN],asthecommonparentandagent forParentandSubsidiaries, includingMember1,asMemberManagerofLLCPartner-ship.SeeI.R.M.Exhibit4.31.2-7,‘FormatsforTMPSignaturesWhenSigningExtensions.’”
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
IRS 671
16
Thus,theburdenisonthetaxpayertopro-videtheIRSwithcurrentaddressinformation.Thetaxpayerargued,however,thatwhentheIRSreceivedthefirstnoticebackundeliveredandwithoutaforwardingaddress,theIRSwasrequiredtofindthetaxpayer’scurrentaddress.ThecourtdisagreedandheldthattheIRSwasrequiredonlytolooktothemostrecenttaxreturnortonotificationsfromthetaxpayer.ThecourtfoundthatthetaxpayerdidnotproperlyinformtheIRSofsubsequentaddresschangesuntil2009.
HoldingTheTaxCourtheldthattheIRSnoticeoftaxlienwasvalidbecausethenoticeofdeficiencywasmailedtothetaxpayer’saddressonthetaxpay-er’slastfiledtaxreturn,andthetaxpayerfailedtofileachangeofaddressnoticewiththeIRS.Theappellatecourtaffirmedinadecisiondesignatedasnotforpublication.
[Gyorgy v. Commissioner,779F.3d466(7thCir.2015)]
Heckman v. CommissionerI.R.C.§6501
■☞ The 6-year statute of limitations applied for a notice of deficiency where the taxpayer omitted taxable income on a return .
FactsThetaxpayerfiledthe2003taxreturninAugust2004.Thereturndidnotincludeincomeresult-ingfromthedistributionfromastockownershipplan(ESOP)establishedbyacompanythetax-payerowned.TheESOPhadacquireda100%interestinanLLCanddistributedtheinteresttothetaxpayer’sIRA.Thetaxpayeragreedthatthedistributionwastaxableincome.
TheIRSlearnedaboutthedistributionduringanauditofanotheryear’staxreturnthatoccurredmorethan3yearsandlessthan6yearsafterthefilingofthe2003return.TheIRSthenissuedanoticeofdeficiencyforthe2003taxyear.
Thetaxpayerarguedthatthenoticeofdefi-ciencywasbarredbythe3-yearstatuteoflimi-tationsofI.R.C.§6501(a).TheIRSarguedthatthenoticewastimelybecausethe6-yearstatuteoflimitationsofI.R.C.§6501(e)(1)(A)applied.
Gyorgy v. CommissionerI.R.C.§6212
■☞ An IRS notice of deficiency was valid where it was mailed to the taxpayer’s last known address that appeared on the taxpayer’s last filed tax return, and the taxpayer did not file a change of address with the IRS .
FactsThetaxpayerdidnotfilereturnsfor2001–2007.TheIRSpreparedsubstitutereturnsfor2001–2003basedonFormsW-2and1099andotherinformationfiledbythirdparties.InMarch2004theIRSsentanoticeofthedeficienciesforthe3yearstotheaddressshownonthetaxpayer’s2000taxreturn,butthetaxpayerhadmovedtoanotheraddressanddidnotreceivethenotice.Afterthefirstnoticewasreturnedundelivered,theIRSlearnedofotheraddressesfromsubse-quentFormsW-2and1099andsentan“R-U-There”lettertooneoftheaddresseswithoutsuccess.
ThetaxpayerdidnotfileachangeofaddressformwiththeIRS,althoughthetaxpayerclaimedtohavephonedandwrittentotheIRStogivenoticeofthechangeofaddress.
In2009theIRSfiledanoticeoffederaltaxlienonthetaxpayer’sresidenceinIllinoisandsentthenoticetotheIllinoisresidence.Thetax-payerreceivedthatnoticeandappealedthefilingofthelien.
ThetaxpayerarguedthatthenoticeofthelienwasinvalidbecausetheIRSfailedtofollowprocedurestolocatethetaxpayer.
AnalysisI.R.C.§6212(a)requirestheIRStosendanoticeofadeficiencytothetaxpayer.Thecourtstatedthatthisprovisiondidnotrequireactualnotice,but, under I.R.C. § 6212(b)(1), the IRSwasrequiredonlytomailthenoticetothetaxpayerathisorherlastknownaddress.
Treas.Reg.§301.6212-2providesthatthetaxpayer’slastknownaddressistheonethatappearsonthemostrecentlyfiledandprocessedfederaltaxreturn,unlesstheIRSisgivenclearandconcisenotificationofadifferentaddress.AddressinformationprovidedbythetaxpayertoathirdpartyoranothergovernmentagencydoesnotconstitutenotificationofanewaddresstotheIRS.
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
672 IRS
andtreatedthetaxpayerasanemployee.TheIRSagreedwiththestatedeterminationandnoti-fiedthetaxpayerthatamendedreturnsshouldbefiledbecausethechangeinstatuscouldresultinlowertaxliabilitiesforprioryears.
Thetaxpayerfiledanamendedreturnfor2008,treatingtheincomeaswagesandclaimingarefund.TheIRSacceptedtheamendedreturnandabatedtheincometaxesowedbytheamountofthereductioninemploymenttaxes.Thetax-payeralsosoughttooffsetthe2008incometaxliabilityby theoverpaymentofemploymenttaxesfor2002through2007,buttheIRSdeniedtheclaim.
AnalysisThetaxpayerinitiallyarguedthatthetaxpayerwasnotliablefortheemployer’sportionoftheemploymenttaxes.Thecourtheldthat,althoughtheemployerwasrequiredtowithholdandpayemploymenttaxesforthetaxpayer,thetaxpayerremainedliableforsuchtaxesifnotwithheldandpaidbytheemployer.TheIRScouldcollecttheunpaidtaxesfromtheemployerortheemployee.
Thetaxpayeralsoarguedthatthedoctrineofequitablerecoupmentallowedthecourttoordertheoffsetof theoverpaidemploymenttaxesagainstthetaxpayer’sincometaxes.Thecourtstatedthatthedoctrineofequitablerecoup-mentisajudiciallycreateddoctrinethat,undercertaincircumstances,allowsalitiganttoavoidthebarofanexpiredstatutorylimitationperiod. Thedoctrinepreventsaninequitablewindfalltoataxpayerortothegovernmentthatwouldoth-erwiseresultfromtheinconsistenttaxtreatmentofasingletransaction,item,oreventaffectingthesametaxpayerorasufficientlyrelatedtaxpayer.
Inordertoestablishthatequitablerecoup-mentapplies,apartymustprovethefollowingelements:
1.Theoverpaymentordeficiencyforwhichrecoupment is soughtbywayofoffset isbarredbyanexpiredperiodoflimitation.
2.Thetime-barredoverpaymentordeficiencyaroseoutofthesametransaction,item,ortax-ableeventastheoverpaymentordeficiencybeforethecourt.
3.Thetransaction,item,ortaxableeventhasbeeninconsistentlysubjectedtotwotaxes.
4.If the transaction, item,or taxableeventinvolves twoormore taxpayers, there is
AnalysisUnderI.R.C.§6501(a),theIRSmustassessataxdeficiencywithin3yearsaftertherelevanttaxreturnwasfiled.I.R.C.§6501(e)(1)(A)extendsthelimitationsperiodto6yearsifthetaxpayeromitsfromgrossincomeanamountinexcessof25%ofthegrossincomestatedonthereturn.Thepartiesstipulatedthattheplandistributionexceeded25%ofthetaxpayer’sgrossincomefor2003.Anamountisnotconsideredomittedfromgrossincome,however,ifitisdisclosedinthereturn,orinastatementattachedtothereturn,inamanneradequatetoapprisethesecretaryofthenatureandamountofsuchitem[I.R.C.§6501(e)(1)(A)(ii)].
ThetaxpayerarguedthattheIRSlearnedaboutthe2003distributionduringtheauditandthatsuchknowledgewassufficienttohavethe3-yearlimitationsperiodapply.Thecourtheldthatthelimitationsperiodappliedtothedateofthefilingofthereturn,notthedatethattheIRSlearnedabouttheomission.
ThetaxpayeralsoarguedthattheomissionwasdisclosedintheLLCpartnershipreturn.Thecourtalsorejectedthisargument,holdingthattheLLCreturndidnotdisclosethetaxpayer’srela-tionshiptotheESOPorthedistributionitself.
HoldingThe6-yearlimitationsperiodappliedtoanoticeofdeficiencywherethetaxpayerdidnotincludeanitemoftaxableincomeinthetaxreturn.
[Heckman v. Commissioner,788F.3d845(8thCir.2015)]
Karagozian v. CommissionerI.R.C.§§6214and6521
■☞ An employee may not apply the doctrine of equi-table recoupment to use overpaid employment taxes from prior years to offset income tax in a later year .
FactsThetaxpayerwasemployedasacomputertech-nicianfrom2002to2008,andwastreatedbytheemployerasanindependentcontractor.Thetaxpayerfiledreturnsandpaidself-employmenttaxes.Afteranauditbythestatedepartmentofrevenue,thetaxpayerlearnedthattheemployershouldhavewithheldandpaidemploymenttaxes
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
IRS 673
16
submittedMFJfederalincometaxreturnsfor2007and2008,claimingon their2007MFJreturnanoverpaymentof$3,335attributabletowithholdingfromthewife’s2007wages.TheIRSstipulatedthatpetitionershadanoverpaymentof$3,335forthe2007taxyear.
TheIRSdenied the refund,arguing thatthetimelimitationsofI.R.C.§§6511and6512precludearefundofanyportionofthe2007overpayment.
AnalysisI.R.C.§6512(b)(3)circumscribestheamountofataxpayer’screditorrefundtotheportionoftheoverpayment,ifany,paid“(A)afterthemailingofthenoticeofdeficiency,(B)withintheperiodwhichwouldbeapplicableundersection6511(b)(2),(c),or(d),ifonthedateofthemailingofthenoticeofdeficiencyaclaimhadbeenfiled(whetherornotfiled)statingthegroundsuponwhichtheTaxCourtfindsthatthereisanover-payment,or(C)withintheperiodwhichwouldbeapplicableundersection6511(b)(2),(c),or(d),inrespectofanyclaimforrefundfiledwithintheapplicableperiodspecifiedinsection6511andbeforethedateofthemailingofthenoticeofdeficiency.”
I.R.C.§6511(b)(2)providesfortwoalterna-tivelookbackperiods:a3-yearperiodanda2year-period.Todecidewhichoftheselookbackperiodstoapply,thecourtmustconsultthefilingprovisionsofI.R.C.§511(a)andaskwhethertheclaimdescribedbyI.R.C.§6512(b)(3)(B)(aclaimalreadyfiledonthedateofthemailingofthenoticeofdeficiency)wouldbefiledwithin3yearsfromthetimethereturnwasfiled.Ifaclaimfiledonthedateofthemailingofthenoticeofdefi-ciencywouldbefiledwithinthat3-yearperiod,thenthelookbackperiodisalso3years,andtheTaxCourthasjurisdictiontoawardarefundofanytaxespaidwithin3yearspriortothedateofthemailingofthenoticeofdeficiency.Iftheclaimwouldnotbefiledwithinthat3-yearperiod,thentheperiodforawardingarefundisonly2years[I.R.C.§§6511(b)(2)(B)and6512(b)(3)(B)].
Thecourtfoundthatthe2007taxeswerewithheldfromthewife’swagesandweredeemedpaidonApril15,2008.
Ahypothetical refundclaimwouldhavebeenfiledoneitherJune13,2011(thedateonwhichtheIRSmailedanoticeofdeficiencytothehusband)orOctober16,2012(thedateon
sufficientidentityofinterestbetweenthetax-payerssubjecttothetwotaxesthatthetax-payersshouldbetreatedasone.
Thecourtdeclinedtoapplythedoctrineofequitablerecoupmentinthiscasebecausethetaxesdidnotarisefromasingletransaction,item,ortaxableevent;therewasnoinconsistenttreat-mentofthesametaxes;andtherewasnonewproceedingthataroseoutofthesametransactioninvolvedinanearlierproceeding.
HoldingTheTaxCourtheldthataformeremployeewhowasincorrectlytreatedasanindependentcontrac-torcouldnotoffsettheemployee’soverpaymentofemploymenttaxesagainstpostemploymentincometaxes.Theappellatecourtaffirmedinadecisiondesignatedasnotforpublication.
[Karagozian v. Commissioner,595Fed.Appx.87(2dCir.2015)]
Refunds
Butts v. CommissionerI.R.C.§§6511and6512
■☞ The taxpayers were not allowed a refund of 2007 taxes where the taxes were due more than 2 years before the notices of tax deficiency were filed and their 2007 return was not filed until after the notices of deficiency were filed .
FactsThetaxpayers,husbandandwife,didnottimelyfiletheir2007and2008incometaxreturns.OnMay31,2011,theIRSissuedanoticeofdefi-ciencytothewifeforher2008taxyear.OnJune13,2011,theIRSissuednoticesofdeficiencytothehusbandforhis2007and2008taxyears.OnSeptember7,2011,thepetitionerstimelyfiledajointpetitionintheTaxCourtseekingredeter-minationofthedeficienciesandadditionstotaxdeterminedinthesethreenotices.OnOctober16,2012,theIRSissuedanoticeofdeficiencytothewifeforher2007taxyear.AsofOctober16,2012,neitherpetitionerhadfiledanincometaxreturnfor2007.OnJanuary22,2013,thewifefiledapetitionintheTaxCourtseekingrede-terminationofthedeficiencyandadditionstotaxdeterminedinthefourthandlatestnoticeofdeficiency.OnFebruary4,2013,thepetitioners
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
674 IRS
claimforrefundofanoverpaymentofindividualincometaxesmustbefiledonaForm1040Xatthelocationspecifiedintheinstructionsprovidedfortheform.
Iffilinginstructionsarenototherwisepro-vided,aclaimforcreditorrefundmustbefiledwiththeservicecenterwherethetaxpayerwouldberequiredtofileacurrenttaxreturnforthetypeoftaxtowhichtheclaimrelates.Thefinalregu-lationsreviseTreas.Reg.§301.6402-2(a)(2)toclarifythatclaimsshouldnotbefiledatadiffer-entlocationbaseduponwherethetaxeitherwaspaidorwasrequiredtohavebeenpaid.Itisnotrelevantifthetaxwasproperlypaidatadifferentlocationinaprioryearbecausethetaxpayerhadachangeinresidence.
Proper Form for Filing a Claim for Credit or RefundAnindividualtaxpayermustuseForm1040Xtofileaclaimforarefundofincometax.ThefinalregulationsreviseTreas.Reg.§301.6402-2(c)toprovidethattaxpayersmustusetheformpre-scribedforfilingaparticularclaimforcreditorrefund.Whenthereisnoalternativeformpre-scribed,aclaimforcreditorrefundmustbefiledonForm843,ClaimforRefundandRequestforAbatement.
Claims for Employment TaxesThe final regulations revise Treas. Reg.§301.6402-2(d)toprovidethatwhenfilingaclaimforemploymenttaxes,aseparateclaimmustbemadeforeachtaxperiod.Forexample,ifanemployeroverpaidsocialsecuritytaxesonForms941filedforthethirdandfourthquartersin2010,thentheemployermustfileaseparateForm941-X,AdjustedEmployer’sQUARTERLYFederalTaxReturnorClaimforRefund,foreachquarter.
[T.D.9727,2015-32I.R.B.154,80F.R.43949(July24,2015)]
Like-Kind Exchanges
North Central Rental & Leasing, LLC v. United StatesI.R.C.§1031
whichtheIRSmailedanoticeofdeficiencytothewife).BecausebothofthesedatesprecededthedateonwhichthetaxpayerssubmittedtheirMFJ2007taxreturn,theirhypotheticalrefundclaimwouldnothavebeenfiledwithin3yearsafterthedateonwhichtheyfiledtheirtaxreturn.Thus,the2-yearlookbackperiodappliesandismeasuredfromthedateofmailingofthenoticeofdeficiency.
Becausethe2007overpaymentwaspaid,initsentirety,onApril15,2008,wellbeforethedateofeithernoticeofdeficiency,theTaxCourtheldthatitlackedjurisdictiontoorderarefundofanyportionoftheoverpayment.
HoldingThetaxpayerscouldnotrecoverarefundof2007taxeswherethetaxesweredeemedpaidmorethan2yearsbeforethenoticeoftaxdeficiencywasissuedandthe2007taxreturnwasnotfileduntilafterthedeficiencynoticewasissued.
[Butts v. Commissioner,T.C.Memo.2015-74]
T.D. 9727I.R.C.§6402
■☞ The IRS has adopted final regulations amending the regulations governing the filing of refund claims .
TheIRShasadoptedfinalregulationsthatamendtheregulationsforfilingaclaimforcreditorrefund.Theregulationsprovideguidancetotax-payersgenerallyastotheproperplacetofileaclaimforcreditorrefund.Theexistingregulationsareupdatedtoreflectchangesmadebytheenact-mentoftheTaxReformActof1976,theInternalRevenueServiceRestructuringandReformActof1998,andtheCommunityRenewalTaxReliefActof2000.
Proper Place to File a Claim for Credit or RefundIfataxpayerisrequiredtofileaclaimforacreditorrefundonaparticularform,thentheclaimmustbefiledinamannerconsistentwiththatformandtherelatedinstructions.Forexample,tocorrectanamountreportedonaForm1040,U.S.IndividualIncomeTaxReturn,Treas.Reg.§301.6402-3(a)(2)requires that the taxpayerfiletheclaimonaForm1040X,AmendedU.S.IndividualIncomeTaxReturn.Accordingly,a
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
Net Operating Losses 675
16
intheexchangeswasunnecessarybecausethetaxpayercouldhavepurchasedthenewequip-mentdirectlyfromthemanufacturerasdidtheparentcorporation.
Inaddition,thecourtfoundthattheinterme-diarywasunnecessarybecausethetaxpayerandparentcorporationcouldhavecompletedthetransactionswithouttheintermediary.However,exchangesbetweentheparentcorporationandthetaxpayerwouldnothavebeeneligibleforlike-kindexchangetreatmentbecausethetwoentitieswererelatedthroughcommonownership.
HoldingThecourtheldthatthetaxpayer’ssaleofusedequipmenttoanintermediaryandpurchaseofreplacementequipmentfromaparentcorpo-rationwasnotentitledtolike-kindexchangetreatment.
[North Central Rental & Leasing, LLC v. United States,779F.3d738(8thCir.2015)]
Net Operating Losses
Marvel Enterprises, Inc. v. CommissionerI.R.C.§108
■☞ Cancellation of debt income of members of a consolidated group must be first used to reduce the consolidated NOL of the group .
FactsThetaxpayerwasanaffiliatedgroupthatfiledconsolidatedreturns.In1998thegroupmembersrealizedcancellationofdebt(COD)incomeinbankruptcyproceedings.Eachmemberreduceditsindividualnetoperatingloss(NOL),andthetaxpayerreducedeachmember’sshareoftheconsolidatednetoperatingloss(CNOL)bythesameamount.TheIRSarguedthatCODincomeinthebankruptcyproceedingsreducedonlytheCNOL.
AnalysisUnderUnited Dominion Indus., Inc. v. United States,532U.S.822(2001),aconsolidatedgroupmembercannothaveaseparateNOLforacon-solidatedreturnyearunlessaspecificconsoli-datedreturnTreasuryregulationallocatesand
■☞ Sale of used equipment and purchase of replace-ment equipment was not entitled to like-kind exchange treatment .
FactsThetaxpayerwasanLLCformedbyafamily-ownedcorporationtoconductequipmentleasingoperations.Thecorporationowned99%ofthetaxpayer,andtheremaining1%wasownedbyafamilymemberownerofthecorporation.
Thetaxpayerenteredintoaseriesof398like-kindexchangesofleasedequipment.Thetaxpayersoldtheusedequipmentthroughanintermediarytoanunrelatedparty.Theinter-mediarytransferredtheproceedstotheparentcorporation.Ataboutthesametime,thecorpo-rationsoldnewequipmenttothetaxpayeratthecorporation’scost.Anydifferencebetweenthesalepriceoftheusedequipmentandthecostofthenewequipmentbecameanobligationofthetaxpayertotheparentcorporation.Thetaxpayerdeferredrecognitionofgainonthesale.Thepar-entcorporationprofitedfromthisformoftrans-actionbecauseitspurchaseofthenewequipmentdidnotrequirepaymentfor6months,thusallow-ingtheparenttokeepandusetheproceedsofthesaleoftheusedequipmentfor6months.
AnalysisI.R.C.§1031allowsdeferredrecognitionoftaxforexchangesof“propertyheldforproductiveuseinatradeorbusinessorforinvestmentifsuchpropertyisexchangedsolelyforpropertyoflikekindwhichistobeheldeitherforproductiveuseinatradeorbusinessorforinvestment.”
However,I.R.C.§1031(f)(1)generallypro-hibitsnonrecognitiontreatmentforexchangesinwhichataxpayerexchangeslike-kindpropertywitha“relatedperson,”andeitherpartythendis-posesoftheexchangedpropertywithin2yearsoftheexchange. I.R.C.§1031(f)(4)broadlyprohib-itsnonrecognitiontreatmentforanyexchangethatispartofatransaction(oraseriesoftransac-tions)structuredtoavoidthepurposesofI.R.C.§1031(f).
Thecourtcitedcaselawthatheldthattrans-actionsarestructuredtoavoidthepurposesofI.R.C.§1031whenunnecessarypartiespartici-patedinthetransactionsandwhenarelatedpartyendedupreceivingcashproceeds.Thecourtfoundthattheparentcorporation’sinvolvement
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
676 PASSIVE ACTIVITIES
ScheduleE(Form1040),SupplementalIncomeandLoss.
AnalysisUndertheself-rental rule,Treas.Reg.§1.469-2(f)(6)generallyrecharacterizesasnonpassivethenetrentalactivityincomefrompropertythatisrentedforuseinatradeorbusinessactivityinwhichthepropertyownermateriallyparticipates.
Thetaxpayersarguedthattheself-rentalruledidnotapplyinthiscasefortworeasons.First,thetaxpayersarguedthattheI.R.C.§469pas-siveincomerulesdidnotapplytoScorporations.AlthoughthecourtagreedthatI.R.C.§469doesnotspecificallymentionScorporationsastax-payers,thecourtheldthatthecaselawwaswellsettledthatI.R.C.§469passivelossrulesapplytopass-throughentityincome.
Thetaxpayersalsoarguedthattheself-rentalrulewasinapplicablebecausetheScorporation,asthelessor,didnotparticipateinthetradeorbusinessoftheCcorporation(thelessee).Thecourtheldthat theapplicationof therule tothetaxpayerswasvalidbecausethetaxpayersreceivedtheincomefromtherentalactivityandtheapplicationoftheruleaffectedthecharacterofthatincome.
HoldingThecourtheldthatpass-throughincomefromtherentalofrealpropertyownedbythetaxpay-ers’whollyownedScorporationtothetaxpayers’whollyownedCcorporationforuseinabusinessinwhichonetaxpayermateriallyparticipatedwasproperlyrecharacterizedasnonpassiveincome.
[Williams v. Commissioner,T.C.Memo.2015-76]
Lamas v. CommissionerI.R.C.§469
■☞ Income from two family corporations was not passive where the shareholder performed signifi-cant services for over 500 hours per year .
FactsThetaxpayerownedaninterestintwofamily-ownedcorporations,bothofwhichwereinvolvedincommercialandresidentialrealestatedevel-opment.Thetaxpayer’sdutiesincludedman-agementoftheday-to-dayoperations,obtainingfinancing,findinginvestors,andpromotingthe
apportionspartoftheCNOLtothatmember.In1998,whenthegroupmembersexcludedCODincome,nosuchregulationexisted.
Hybrid Approach to Attribute Reduction
For COD income discharged after March 21, 2005, Treas . Reg . § 1 .1502-28(a) prescribes a hybrid approach that first reduces the tax attributes of the member entity, then applies a look-through rule to reduce attributes of the member entity’s subsidiaries, and lastly reduces attributes of the consolidated group .
HoldingThecourtheldthatbeforetheadoptionofthetemporaryregulationsonMarch15,2004,CODincomeincurredbymembersofaconsolidatedgroupthatwasexcludedfromincomeunderI.R.C.§108mustbeusedtoreduceCNOLofthegroupandnottheindividualmembers’NOL.
[Marvel Enterprises, Inc. v. Commissioner,145T.C.No.2(2015)]
Passive Activities
Williams v. CommissionerI.R.C.§469
■☞ Passive income from the rental of property by the taxpayers’ S corporation to the taxpayers’ C corporation was recharacterized as nonpassive income under the “self-rental” rule .
FactsThetaxpayers,husbandandwife,ownedanScorporationthatownedandoperatedarealestatecompanyandaCcorporationthatownedandoperatedamedicalclinic.Thehusbandworkedfull-timeforthemedicalclinicandmate-riallyparticipatedinitsoperation.Neithertax-payermateriallyparticipatedintherealestateactivity,andthetaxpayerswerenotengagedina“realpropertytradeorbusiness”asdescribedinI.R.C.§469(c)(7)(B)and(C).
Therealestatecompanyleasedrealprop-erty to theCcorporation,andthetaxpayersreportedtherentalincomeaspassiveincomeon
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
Records 677
16
Thecourt found that the taxpayer’s twobusinessessatisfiedallfivefactorsandthatthebusinessescouldbecombinedforpurposesofdeterminingwhetherthetaxpayermateriallypar-ticipatedintheactivities.
Taxpayersmaynotincludeinmaterialpar-ticipationanyhoursoftimespentonanactivityasaninvestor,unlessthetaxpayerwasinvolvedintheday-to-dayoperationsofthebusinesses[Temp.Treas.Reg.§1.469-5T(f)(2)(ii)].Thecourtfoundthattheinvestorexceptiondidnotapplybecausethetaxpayerparticipatedintheday-to-dayoperationofthebusinesses,andthetaxpay-er’sinvestmentactivityqualifiedasparticipation.
Thecourtheardtestimonyofothermembersofthetwobusinessesandfoundthatthetaxpayerperformedatleast691hoursinthebusinesses.Thecourtalsofoundthattheworkperformedbythetaxpayerqualifiedassignificantparticipationactivities.
HoldingThecourtheldthatthetaxpayercouldtreattheactivitiesofthetwocorporationsasoneactivitybecausethecorporationssharedmembersandbusinessactivities.ThecourtalsoheldthatthelossesfromtheactivitieswerenotpassiveactivitylossesunderI.R.C.§469becausethetaxpayerworkedmorethan500hoursonthecombinedbusiness activities, including theday-to-dayoperations.
[Lamas v. Commissioner,T.C.Memo.2015-59]
Records
Sabolic v. CommissionerI.R.C.§61
■☞ A bartender’s detailed contemporaneous records of tip income were sufficient to be more accurate than the IRS method of computing tip income .
FactsIn2009through2011thetaxpayerwasemployedasabartenderinacasino.Theemployermain-tainedcomputerrecordsofthetipsmadebycreditcardpurchasesorbyroomcharges.Thetaxpayerkeptdailyrecordsof thecash tips,reportingthemtotheemployerandmaintainingseparaterecordshimself.Alltheserecordswere
twobusinesses.Thecourtfoundthatthetaxpayerworkedatleast691hoursperyearforoneorbothofthecorporationsandmateriallyparticipatedinthecorporations’businessesformorethan500hoursperyear.
AnalysisUnderI.R.C.§469,lossesfrompassiveactivitiescannotbeusedtooffsetincomefromnonpassiveactivities.Apassiveactivityisanytradeorbusi-nessinwhichthetaxpayerdoesnotmateriallyparticipate.Theregulationsprovideseventeststodeterminewhetherataxpayermateriallypar-ticipated,andataxpayermustsatisfyonlyoneofthosetests[Temp.Treas.Reg.§1.469-5T(a)].Underoneofthosetests,taxpayerscansatisfythematerialparticipationrequirementiftheypar-ticipateinthetradeorbusinessactivityformorethan500hoursduringthetaxableyear[Temp.Treas.Reg.§1.469-5T(a)(1)].Underanothertesttaxpayerscansatisfythematerialparticipationrequirementiftheactivityisasignificantpartici-pationactivityforthetaxableyear,andthetax-payer’saggregateparticipationinallsignificantparticipationactivitiesduringsuchyearexceeds500hours[Temp.Treas.Reg.§1.469-5T(a)(4)]. Asignificantparticipationactivityisatradeorbusinessactivitythatthetaxpayerparticipatesinformorethan100hoursduringthetaxyear,andanactivitythatthetaxpayerwouldotherwisenotbetreatedasmateriallyparticipatinginundertheothertests[Temp.Treas.Reg.§1.469-5T(a)(4)].Tosatisfythismaterialparticipationtest,taxpay-ersmustaggregatealltheirsignificantparticipa-tionactivitiestogetherforthetaxyear,andthetotalmustexceed500hours.
Ataxpayermayaggregatethehoursspentonmorethanoneactivityiftheactivitiesmeetoneormoreofthefollowingfivefactorslistedintheregulationsthataregiventhegreatestweightindeterminingwhetheractivitiesconstituteanappropriateeconomicunitforthemeasurementofgainorlossforpurposesofsection469:
1.Similaritiesanddifferencesintypesoftradesorbusinesses
2.Theextentofcommoncontrol3.Theextentofcommonownership4.Geographicallocation5.Interdependenciesbetweenoramongthe
activities
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
678 RETIREMENT
Retirement
Ellis v. CommissionerI.R.C.§§408and4975
■☞ Payment of compensation to the taxpayer by an LLC owned by the taxpayer’s self-directed IRA was a prohibited transaction .
FactsThetaxpayerhada401(k)retirementplanwithhisformeremployer.Thetaxpayerreceiveddis-tributionsfromthe401(k)planthatwerecontrib-utedtoaself-directedIRA.Thetaxpayerdirectedtheself-directedIRAcustodiantopurchasea98%interestinanLLC(taxedasacorporation)thatthetaxpayerhadformed.Afterthepurchaseofthe98%interestbytheIRA,theremaining2%interestwassoldtoathirdparty,andthetaxpayerdidnotholdanyownershipinterestintheLLC.ThetaxpayerwasthegeneralmanageroftheLLC,whichoperatedausedcarbusiness,andthetaxpayerreceivedwagesfromtheLLC’sincome.
TheIRSarguedthattheIRAlostitsstatusasanindividualretirementaccountanditsentireFMVwastreatedastaxableincomebecausethetaxpayerengagedinaprohibitedtransactionunderI.R.C.§4975(c).Specifically,thetaxpayer(1)directedhisIRAtoacquireamembershipinterestintheLLCwiththeexpectationthatthecompanywouldemployhim,and(2)receivedwagesfromtheLLC.
AnalysisI.R.C.§4975limitstheallowabletransactionsforcertainretirementplans,includingindivid-ualretirementaccountsunderI.R.C.§408(a).Itimposesanexcisetaxonenumeratedprohibitedtransactionsbetweenaplanandadisqualifiedperson[I.R.C.§4975(a)].Prohibited transactions includeanydirectorindirecttransferto,orusebyorforthebenefitof,adisqualifiedpersonoftheincomeorassetsofaplan;oranactbyadis-qualifiedpersonwhoisafiduciarywherebyheorshedealswiththeincomeorassetsofaplaninhisorherowninterestorforhisorherownaccount[I.R.C.§4975(c)(1)(D),(E)].
Ifadisqualifiedpersonengagesinaprohib-itedtransactionwithanIRA,theplanlosesitsstatusasanIRAunderI.R.C.§408(a),andits
presentedasevidencetotheIRSandcourt.Therecordsweremaintainedinwholenumbers,andthetaxpayerexplainedthatanyleftoverchangewastippedouttootherworkers.Thetaxpayeralsosharedsomeofthetipswithcoworkers.
TheIRScalculatedanestimatedtipincomeamountusingthetippercentagefromthecreditcardtips,modifyingtheresultwitha“stiff”ratefornontippedsalesand10%forthetipssharedwithotherworkers.Usingthismethod,theIRSdeterminedthatthetaxpayerdidnotreportalltipincome.
AnalysisTaxpayerswhoreceivetipsintheirworkarerequiredtomaintainanaccurateandcontempo-raneousrecordofsuchincomesufficientfortheIRStodeterminetheircorrecttaxliability[Treas.Reg.§§1.60011(a),31.6053-4].
Whenataxpayerfailstokeeprecords,ormaintainsonlyincompleteorinadequaterecordsofincome,orwhenataxpayer’srecordsarenolongeravailable,theIRSmayrecomputetipsinanymannerthatclearlyreflectsincome.
TheIRSarguedthatthetaxpayer’srecordscontainedseveralerrorsandinconsistenciesthatmadethemunreliable.TheIRSpointedtotheuseofwholenumbersonlyinthecashtiprecords,theomissionofseveralworkperiods,andthelackofarecordofthetipssharedwithotheremployees.
Thecourtfoundthatthetaxpayerreasonablyexplainedtheseinconsistenciesinthatthechangewasgiventootherworkers,thecasinorecordswereoftenfaulty,andeventheIRSmethodofcomputingthesharedtipswassimilartothetax-payer’sestimate.
HoldingThecourtheldthatthetaxpayerkeptsufficientdailyrecordsofthecashtipsandsharedtipstoprovideamoreaccuratedeterminationoftheamountofcashtipsreceivedeachtaxyearthantheIRSmethodofcalculatingthetipsbasedonthetiprateforchargedpurchases.
[Sabolic v. Commissioner,T.C.Memo.2015-32]
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
Retirement 679
16
differentIRAthatneithermadenorreceivedthe2014distribution.TheBobrowaggregationrule,whichtakesintoaccountalldistributionsandrolloversamonganindividual’sIRAs,appliestodistributionsfromdifferentIRAsonlyifeachofthedistributionsoccursafter2014.Arolloverdis-tributionfrom2014to2015isnota2015rollover.
ArolloverfromatraditionalIRAtoaRothIRA(aconversion)isnotsubjecttotheone-roll-over-per-yearlimitation,andsucharolloverisdisregardedinapplyingtheone-rollover-per-yearlimitationtootherrollovers.However,arolloverbetweenanindividual’sRothIRAswouldpre-cludeaseparaterolloverwithinthe1-yearperiodbetweentheindividual’straditionalIRAs,andviceversa.
SimilarrulesapplytoasimplifiedemployeepensiondescribedinI.R.C.§408(k)andaSIM-PLEIRAdescribedinI.R.C.§408(p).
Theone-rollover-per-year limitationalsodoesnotapplytoarollovertoorfromaqualifiedplan(andsucharolloverisdisregardedinapply-ingtheone-rollover-per-yearlimitationtootherrollovers),nordoesitapplytotrustee-to-trusteetransfers.
IRAtrusteesareencouragedtoofferIRAownerswhorequestadistributionforrollovertheoptionofatrustee-to-trusteetransferfromoneIRAtoanotherIRA.IRAtrusteescanaccom-plishatrustee-to-trusteetransferbytransferringamountsdirectlyfromoneIRAtoanotherorbyprovidingtheIRAownerwithacheckmadepay-abletothereceivingIRAtrustee.[Announcement2014-32,2014-48I.R.B.907]
Bobrow Discussion
See Chapter 1, “Retirement,” in the 2014 National Income Tax Workbook for more discussion of Bobrow v. Commissioner and related topics .
Letter Ruling 2015-23-019I.R.C.§402
■☞ Distributions from a marital trust could be rolled over to the trustee’s IRA without income tax .
FactsAtthetimeofhisdeath,thedecedentwasretiredandaparticipantinthe401(k)planofdecedent’s
FMVasofthefirstdayofthetaxyearisdeemeddistributedandincludedinthedisqualifiedper-son’sgrossincome[I.R.C.§408(e)(2)].ThecourtfoundthatthetaxpayerwasadisqualifiedpersonunderI.R.C.§4975(e)(2)(A)becausehewasafiduciaryofhisIRA.I.R.C.§4975(e)(3)definesafiduciary asonewhoexercisesanydiscretion-aryauthorityordiscretionarycontrolrespectingthemanagementoftheplanorthemanagementordispositionofitsassets.ThecourtalsofoundthattheLLCwasadisqualified personbecausethetaxpayerwasabeneficialindirectowneroftheIRA’smembershipinthecompany.I.R.C.§4975(e)(2)(G)(i)includesasadisqualifiedpersonacorporationinwhich50%ormoreofthecom-binedvotingpowerofallclassesofstockentitledtovote,orofthetotalvalueofsharesofallclassesofstockofsuchcorporation,isownedbyafidu-ciary.I.R.C.§4975(e)(4)statesthatownershipincludesindirectownership.
HoldingThecourtheldthatthetaxpayerengagedinaprohibitedtransactionwhentheLLCthatwasownedbythetaxpayer’sself-directedIRA(ofwhichthetaxpayerwasafiduciary)paidcom-pensationtothetaxpayer.Becausethetaxpayerengagedinaprohibitedtransaction,theentiredistributionfromthepensionplanwasincludedinthetaxpayer’sincomeandwassubjecttothe10%additionaltaxforearlydistributions.
[Ellis v. Commissioner,787F.3d1213(8thCir.2015)]
Announcement 2014-32I.R.C.§408
■☞ IRA rollover distributions from 2014 to 2015 do not count as 2015 rollovers for the one-rollover-per-year rule .
TheIRShasannouncedfurtherguidanceunderBobrow v. Commissioner,T.C.Memo.2014-21,whichconcludedthatanindividualreceivinganIRAdistributioncannotrolloveranyportionofthedistributioniftheindividualhasreceivedandrolledoveradistributionfromanyIRAinthepreceding1-yearperiod.
Asatransitionrulefordistributionsin2015,adistributionoccurringin2014thatwasrolledoverisdisregardedforpurposesofdeterminingwhethera2015distributioncanberolledover,providedthatthe2015distributionisfroma
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
680 RETIREMENT
thesixtiethdayfollowingthedayonwhichthedistributeereceivedthepropertydistributed.I.R.C.§402(c)(4)definesaneligible rollover distri-butionasanydistributiontoanemployeeofalloranyportionofthebalancetothecreditofanemployeeinaqualifiedtrustexceptthefollowingdistributions:
1.Anydistributionthatisoneofaseriesofsub-stantiallyequalperiodicpayments(notlessfrequentlythanannually)madea. for the life (or life expectancy)of the
employeeorthejointlives(orjointlifeexpectancies)oftheemployeeandtheemployee’sdesignatedbeneficiary,or
b.foraspecifiedperiodof10yearsormore
2.Anydistributiontotheextentthedistributionisrequiredundersection401(a)(9)
3.Anydistributionthatismadeuponthehard-shipoftheemployee
I.R.C.§402(c)(8)(B)definesaneligible retire-ment planas
1.anindividualretirementaccountdescribedinI.R.C.§408(a),
2.anindividualretirementannuitydescribedinI.R.C.§408(b)(otherthananendowmentcontract),
3.an employees’ trust described in I.R.C.§401(a)thatisexemptfromtaxunderI.R.C.§501(a),
4.anannuityplandescribedinI.R.C.§403(a),5.an eligible deferred compensation plan
describedinI.R.C.§457(b)that ismain-tainedbyaneligibleemployerdescribedinI.R.C.§457(e)(1)(A),and
6.an annuity contract described in I.R.C.§403(b).
I.R.C.§402(c)(9)providesthatifanydis-tributionattributabletoanemployeeispaidtothespouseoftheemployeeaftertheemployee’sdeath,I.R.C.§402(c)shallapplytosuchdistribu-tioninthesamemannerasifthespouseweretheemployee.
Astrustee,thesurvivingspousehasthepowertodistributetoherself,foranypurpose,anypor-tionorallofthepropertyofthemaritaltrust.Thesurvivingspousedistributedtheproceedsoftheplantothetrustandallocatedtheproceedstothemaritaltrust.Thesurvivingspousethen
formeremployer.Theplanmetthequalifica-tionrequirementsofI.R.C.§401(a).Thedece-dentwastakingminimumrequireddistributionsunderI.R.C.§401(a)(9).Thedecedent’snamedbeneficiariesundertheplanwerethedecedent’ssurvivingspouse(50%)andatrust(50%).Thetrustwasajointlivingtrustwiththedecedentandthesurvivingspouseastrustorsandtrustees.Thetrustprovidedthat,uponthedeathofthedece-dent,thesurvivingspousebecamesoletrusteeandsoletrustor.
Thetrustprovidedthatuponthedeathofeithertrustor,thesurvivingtrusteewilldividethetrustestateintotwoseparatetrusts,amaritaltrustandaresiduarytrust.Thetrustfurtherprovidedthatthesurvivingtrustee,inmakingallocationsordistributions,didnothavetoconsiderthebasisofthevariousassetsthatarebeingdistributed,andthesurvivingspousedidnothavetoattempttoequalizetheaggregatebasisofassetsdistributedtothevariousdistributees.
Thetrustfurtherprovidedthatthesurvivingtrusteewillpayallofthenetincomeofthemari-taltrustinmonthlyinstallmentstothesurvivingtrustorduringhisorherlifetime.Thetrustfur-therprovidedthatthesurvivingtrustorwillhavetherighttodirectthetrusteeinwritingtopaytheprincipalofthemaritaltrustforthesurvivor’sbenefit.
Thesurvivingspouserepresentedthatshe,asthesoletrusteeofthetrust,willdirectthatthetrust’s50%interestinthe401(k)planbedistrib-utedtothetrustandallocatedtothemaritaltrust.Thesurvivingspouse,assurvivingtrustor,willdirectthetrusteetodistributetoherselfasbenefi-ciaryofthemaritaltrusttheproceedsoftheplan.ThesurvivingspousewillthenarrangearollovercontributiontoanIRAestablishedinhername.Suchrolloverwillnotincludeanyrequiredmini-mumdistributionsunderI.R.C.§401(a)(9).
AnalysisI.R.C.§402(c)(1)provides,generally,thatifanyportionofaneligiblerolloverdistributionfromanI.R.C.§401(a)qualifiedretirementplanistransferredtoaneligibleretirementplan,thepor-tionofthedistributionsotransferredshallnotbeincludedingrossincomeinthetaxyearinwhichitispaid.I.R.C.§402(c)(3)(A)provides,gener-ally,that,exceptasprovidedinsubparagraph(B)(hardshipexception),I.R.C.§402(c)(1)shallnotapplytoanytransferofadistributionmadeafter
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
Tax Practice 681
16
portionofthedistributionthatisincludedingrossincome.I.R.C.§72(t)(2)(A)(iv)providesthatI.R.C.§72(t)(1)shallnotapplytodistribu-tionsthatarepartofaseriesofsubstantiallyequalperiodicpayments(notlessfrequentlythanannu-ally)madeforthelife(orlifeexpectancy)oftheemployeeorthejointlives(orjointlifeexpectan-cies)ofsuchemployeeandhisorherdesignatedbeneficiary.
RulingTheIRSruledthattheextradistributionswerenotamodificationoftheperiodicpaymentsandwerenotsubjecttothe10%additionaltaxonearlydistributionsunderI.R.C.§72(t)(1).
[Ltr.Rul.2015-10-060(December9,2014)]
Tax Practice
Specht v. United StatesI.R.C.§6651
■☞ The executor of an estate failed to show reason-able cause for failing to timely file an estate tax return .
FactsThedecedentdiedinDecember2008,andthetaxpayerwasappointedasexecutoroftheestate.Thetaxpayerhiredanattorneytoassistwithadministrationoftheestate,buttheattorneyfailedtotellthetaxpayerthattheattorneywassufferingfrombraincanceratthetime.AlthoughthetaxpayerknewthatanestatetaxreturnwasduebySeptember30,2009,thereturnwasnotfiled,andnotaxeswerepaiduntilJanuary2011.TheIRSassessedalate-filingpenaltyunderI.R.C.§6651(a)(1)andapenaltyforlatepaymentofthetaxesunderI.R.C.§6651(a)(2).Thetaxpayerpre-sentedevidencethatthetaxpayerdidnotknowabouttheattorney’sdisablingmedicalconditionandthattheattorneywasdisbarredforfailingtoproperlyadvisethetaxpayerandtimelycarryouttheattorney’sduties.Thetaxpayerarguedthattheuseoftheattorneyconstitutedreason-ablecauseandlackofwillfulneglectinfailingtofileandpaythetaxesontime.Thus,thetaxpayerarguedthatthefailuretomeetthetaxfilingandpaymentdeadlinesresultedfromcircumstanceslargelybeyondthetaxpayer’scontrol.
distributedtheproceedsoftheplanfromthemar-italtrusttoherselfasbeneficiaryofthemaritaltrust,afterwhichsherolledoverthedistributiontoanIRAmaintainedinherownname.
Becausethedistributionwillbepaidtothesurvivingspouse,whoistheemployee’sspousewithrespecttothedecedent’sbenefitintheplan,I.R.C.§402(c)(9)applies,and the survivingspousewillbetreatedasifshewastheemployee.Accordingly,thesurvivingspousemaycontrib-utetheproceedsdistributedfromtheplanintoanIRAsetupandmaintainedinthesurvivingspouse’sname,providedthatthecontributiontotheIRAoccursnolaterthanthesixtiethdayafterthedatetheamountwasreceivedbythetrustfromtheplan.
RulingTheIRSruledthatthesurvivingspousecouldrolloverthedistributionsfromthemaritaltrusttothesurvivingspouse’sIRAwithoutsubjectingthedistributiontoincometax.
[Ltr.Rul.2015-23-020(March4,2015)]
Letter Ruling 2015-10-060I.R.C.§§408and4975
■☞ Extra distributions made erroneously by an IRA trustee were not a modification of periodic payments .
FactsThetaxpayerownedanIRAandwasreceiv-ingsubstantiallyequalmonthlypaymentsfromtheIRA.TheentitythatwastheIRAcustodianwasacquiredbyanothercompanyandtrans-ferredthetaxpayer’sIRAtotwonewaccounts.DuringthetransferthenewcompanyfailedtostopthedistributionsfromtheoldIRAaccountbeforebeginningdistributionsfromthenewIRAaccount,resultingintwodistributionsinexcessoftherequiredmonthlyamount.TheerrorwasnotdiscovereduntilthetaxpayerreceivedaForm1099-R,DistributionsFromPensions,Annuities,RetirementorProfit-SharingPlans,IRAs,Insur-anceContracts,etc.,forthetaxyear.
AnalysisI.R.C.§72(t)(1)imposesanadditional10%taxonearlydistributionsfromqualifiedplans,includ-ingIRAs.Theadditionaltaxisimposedonthat
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
682 TRADE OR BUSINESS
thecontinuingeducation(CE)requirementsforregisteredtaxreturnpreparers(RTRPs).Any-onewhopassedtheRTRPtestofferedbetweenNovember2011andJanuary2013needstomeetonlyhisorheroriginal15-hourCErequirementeachyeartoobtainanAFSPrecordofcomple-tion.ThosewhopassedtheRTRPtestandcer-tainotherrecognizednationalandstatetestsareexemptfromthe6-hourfederaltaxlawrefreshercourseandtest.
Anotherquestionaddressedistherepresen-tationrightsofAFSPparticipants.TheIRSstatedthatattorneys,CPAs,andenrolledagents(EAs)willcontinuetobetheonlytaxprofessionalswithunlimitedrepresentationrights,whichmeanstheycanrepresenttheirclientsonanymattersincludingaudits,payment/collectionissues,andappeals.
SuccessfulAFSPparticipantswillhavelim-itedrepresentationrights,whichmeanstheycanrepresentclientswhosereturnstheypreparedandsignedbutonlybeforerevenueagents,customerservicerepresentatives,andsimilarIRSemploy-ees,includingtheTaxpayerAdvocateService.
PTINholderswithoutanAFSPrecordofcompletionorotherprofessionalcredentialwillbepermittedtopreparetaxreturnsbutwillnotbeallowedtorepresentclientsbeforetheIRS.
[www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals/Annual-Filing -Season-Program]
Trade or Business
Boneparte v. Commissioner I.R.C.§§165and183
■☞ A gambler was not entitled to deduct gambling-related expenses because the taxpayer was not a professional gambler .
FactsThetaxpayerwasemployedfull-timeinagovern-mentjobfrom2p.m.to10p.m.,working4dayson,2daysoff,4dayson,2daysoff,5dayson,2daysoff.Thetaxpayerdidnothaveapermanentresidenceandstayedeachnightatacasinohotelwherehewouldgamble.Thetaxpayeralsogam-bledonhorseracesandatothercasinosinseveralstates.
AnalysisAtaxpayermayavoidthepenaltiesofI.R.C.§6651(a)ifthetaxpayercanestablishthatafail-uretofiletimelyreturnsorpaymentsis“duetoreasonablecauseandnotduetowillfulneglect.”UnderTreas.Reg.§301.6651(c)(1),theestateorexecutorcanshowreasonablecausebydemon-stratingthatithasexercised“ordinarybusinesscareandprudence.”Thecourtfoundthatreli-anceonanattorneyforlegalquestionsmetthestandardofcaretoavoidthepenalties.However,thecourtheldthattheexecutorinthiscasedidnotrelyontheattorneytodeterminewhetherthereweretaxreturnfilingandpaymentdead-linesbecausetheexecutorwasfullyawareoftheneedtofileandpaytaxesbyasetdate.Thecourtheldthatitwasnotreasonablefortheexecutortorelyontheattorneytofilethereturnandmakethepaymentoftaxes.
Thecourtdefinedwillfulneglectasacon-scious,intentionalfailureorrecklessindifference.However,thecourtalsoheldthatmerecareless-nessisenoughforanexecutortobesubjecttothelate-filingandtaxpaymentpenalties.
Theevidenceshowedthatthetaxpayerhadreceivedseveralnoticesfromthestateandfed-eralagenciesthatthetaxreturnsandotherpro-batefilingswereoverdue,noticesfromfamilymembersabouttheattorney’sincompetence,andwarningsfromotherlegalcounseloftheneedtofindnewrepresentation.Thus,thecourtheldthatthetaxpayerwaswellawareofthedeadlinesforreturnfilingsandtaxpayment,andthefailuretoactonthosedeadlinesconstitutedwillfulneglectandsubjectedtheestatetotheassessedpenalties.
HoldingTheestatewasheldliableforthelate-filingandlate-payingpenalties.
[Specht v. United States,115A.F.T.R.2d(RIA)2015-357(S.D.Ohio2015)]
Annual Filing Season ProgramI.R.C.§7701(a)(36)
■☞ The IRS posted information on the Annual Filing Season Program on its website .
Informationaboutthenew,voluntaryAnnualFilingSeasonProgram(AFSP)fortaxreturnpre-parersisaccessibleinquestion-and-answerformontheIRSwebsite.Onequestionaddressedis
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
Trusts and Estates 683
16
Trusts and Estates
Program Manager Technical Assistance Letter 2014-18I.R.C.§§6501and6038
■☞ The limitations period on assessments is extended by I .R .C . § 6501(c)(8) if the executor fails to include information about foreign assets held by a decedent on the decedent’s final Form 1040 or the estate’s Form 1041 or 706 .
FactsThedecedent,whowasaUSperson,ownedinterestsinforeignfinancialassetswithinthemeaningofI.R.C.§6038D.Thedecedent’sestateincludedgrossassetssufficienttorequireittofileForm706,UnitedStatesEstate(andGeneration-SkippingTransfer)TaxReturn.Theexecutorfiledthedecedent’sForm1040,U.S.IndividualIncomeTaxReturn,butdidnotfurnishtheinfor-mationrequiredtobeattachedtothatreturnunderI.R.C.§6038D.Theexecutoralsofiledtheestate’sForm1041,U.S.IncomeTaxReturnforEstatesandTrusts,andForm706,asrequired.TheexecutorfailedtoincludetheforeignassetsontheForm706asapartofthegrossestate.Theexecutoralsoomittedincomefromtheforeignassetsonthetaxpayer’sfinalForm1040andtheestate’sForm1041.Theordinary3-yearassess-mentperiodhadclosedoneachofthesereturns.
AnalysisUnderI.R.C.§6501(c)(8),inthecaseofanyinfor-mationthatisrequiredtobereportedtotheIRSpursuanttoanelectionunderI.R.C.§6038D,thetimeforassessmentoftaxwithrespecttoanytaxreturn,event,orperiodtowhichsuchinforma-tionrelatesshallnotexpirebeforethedatethatis3yearsafterthedateonwhichthetaxpayerfur-nishestheinformationrequiredtobereported.
UnderI.R.C.§6501(c)(8),ifthefailuretofur-nishtherequiredinformationisduetoreason-ablecause,andnottowillfulneglect,thentheextensionoftheperiodoflimitationsisrestrictedtotaxesresultingfromadjustmentstotheitem(s)towhichtheinformationrelates.
Thetaxpayerdidnotmaintainwrittenrecordsofthegamblingwinningsandlosses.Onthetax-payer’soriginal2010return,thetaxpayerdidnotlistanygamblinglossesorwinnings.Afterthereturnwasselectedforaudit,thetaxpayerfiledanamendedreturnthatlisted$25,000ingam-blinglossesandgambling-relatedexpensesasdeductionsonScheduleA(Form1040),ItemizedDeductions,and$25,000ingamblingincomeonScheduleC(Form1040),ProfitorLossFromBusiness(SoleProprietorship).Thetaxpayercon-tendedthathewasaprofessionalgambler.
AnalysisI.R.C.§183(a),(b),and(c)providethatapro-fessionalgamblermustbeengagedingamblingwiththeintenttomakeaprofit.Thetaxpayer’sintentisdeterminedusingtheninefactorslistedinTreas.Reg.§1.183-2(b).Thecourtfoundthatthefollowingfivefactorsdeterminedthatthetax-payerdidnotgamblewiththeintenttomakeaprofit:
1.Thetaxpayerdidnotcarryonthegamblinginabusinesslikemannerbecausethetaxpayerdidnotkeepcompleteandaccuratewrittenrecordsofthegamblingactivity,andthetax-payerdidnotusesuchrecordstoadjusttheactivitytomakeitprofitable.
2.Thetaxpayerdidnothaveanyexpertiseatgambling,andthetaxpayerdidnotconsultwithexpertstoimprovethetaxpayer’sefforts.
3.Thetaxpayerhadnohistoryofsuccessinothersimilarbusinessactivities.
4.Thetaxpayerprovidednoevidenceofahis-toryofprofitsorlossesfromthegamblingactivity.
5.Gamblinglosseswereusedtooffsetincomefromothersources.
6.The taxpayerreceivedpersonalpleasurefromthegamblingactivity.
HoldingThetaxpayerwasnotalloweddeductionsforgambling-relatedexpensesbecausethetaxpayerwasnotaprofessionalgambler.
[Boneparte v. Commissioner,T.C.Memo.2015-128]
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
684 TRUSTS AND ESTATES
RulingTheIRSruledthat thelimitationsperiodonassessmentsisextendedbyI.R.C.§6501(c)(8)iftheexecutorfailstoincludeinformationaboutforeignassetsheldbyadecedentonthedece-dent’sfinalForm1040ortheestate’sForm1041or706.
[P.M.T.A.2014-18(March18,2015)]
FINAL COPYRIGHT 2015 LGUTEF
top related