Newsletters

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

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

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

All four bills passed unanimously.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

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

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

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

Rezoning

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

Land Value

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

Penalty Imposed

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notice 2025-18

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

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

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

Trust Not Property of the Estate

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

Claim Not an Estate Expense

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

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

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

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

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

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

One month after the presidential election, taxpayers are learning more about President-elect Donald Trump’s tax proposals for his administration. Although exact details, including legislative language, are likely months away, taxpayers have a snapshot of the president-elect’s tax proposals for individuals and businesses.

One month after the presidential election, taxpayers are learning more about President-elect Donald Trump’s tax proposals for his administration. Although exact details, including legislative language, are likely months away, taxpayers have a snapshot of the president-elect’s tax proposals for individuals and businesses.

Note. At the time this article was prepared, the primary descriptions of President-elect Trump’s tax proposals are on his campaign and transition websites. The materials on these websites are not the same as legislation, which would amend the Tax Code. Rather, they discuss the President-elect’s tax proposals in very general and broad language.

Tax reform

Tax reform has been a regular topic in recent years. While numerous tax reform proposals were unveiled during the Obama administration, an overhaul of the Tax Code remained elusive. President Obama released a tax reform framework that called for a reduction in the corporate tax rate in exchange for the elimination of some energy tax preferences and other unspecified business tax preferences. Former House Ways and Means Chair Dave Camp, R-Mich., made a detailed tax reform proposal several years ago. Many members of Congress have also introduced tax reform bills. The election of Trump, along with GOP majorities in the House and Senate, is expected to give momentum to tax reform in 2017.

Proposals

During the campaign, President-elect Trump described a number of tax reform proposals, including (not an exhaustive list):

• Reduce the number of individual income tax rates from seven to three with rates at 12, 25 and 33 percent
• Eliminate the alternative minimum tax (AMT) for individuals and businesses
• Create new Dependent CARE Savings accounts
• Provide “spending rebates” for lower-income taxpayers for childcare expenses through the earned income tax credit (EITC)
• Increase standard deduction to $15,000 for single individuals and $30,000 for married couples filing a joint return
• Enhance Code Sec. 179 small business expensing
• Reduce the top corporate tax rate to 15 percent
• Tax carried interest as ordinary income
• Eliminate head of household filing status
• Cap itemized deductions for higher-income taxpayers

Affordable Care Act

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) includes a number of taxes, such as the excise tax on medical devices and the excise tax on high-dollar health insurance plans (often called the “Cadillac plan” tax), the net investment income (NII) tax, and the additional Medicare tax. The ACA also created new health-related tax incentives, including the Code Sec. 36B premium assistance tax credit and the Code Sec. 45R small employer health insurance tax credit.

During the campaign, President-elect Trump proposed to repeal the ACA. Post-election, it appears that the president-elect is open to retaining some of the ACA. The president-elect has mentioned coverage for children under age 26 as one provision of the ACA that he views favorably.

Congress

The 115^th Congress will convene in January. Republicans have majorities in the House and Senate. Being the majority means that Republicans will chair the tax writing committees in the 115^th Congress: the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee.

Looking to 2017, tax reform legislation will likely have its start in the House Ways and Means Committee. In the House, Republicans have already unveiled a tax reform blueprint. There are similarities between the House GOP blueprint and President-elect Trump’s tax proposals. For example, both call for reducing the federal income tax rates for individuals along with lowering the corporate tax rate.

Please contact our office if you have any questions about these or any other tax proposals. Our office will keep you posted of developments.

The Tax Code is among the most complex of all federal statutes. To explain the Code, the IRS issues guidance. Recently, the IRS has used the “Frequently Asked Question (FAQ)” format to explain some of the tax laws. At the same time, questions have arisen about the FAQs. May taxpayers rely on them like other types of IRS guidance? 

The Tax Code is among the most complex of all federal statutes. To explain the Code, the IRS issues guidance. Recently, the IRS has used the “Frequently Asked Question (FAQ)” format to explain some of the tax laws. At the same time, questions have arisen about the FAQs. May taxpayers rely on them like other types of IRS guidance? 

Guidance

Congress has authorized the IRS to “prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of” the Tax Code. Traditionally, the IRS has communicated its interpretation of the tax laws through published guidance, including regulations, revenue rulings, revenue procedures, notices, and announcements. These items are published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin (IRB). Taxpayers may rely on guidance published in the IRB.

The IRS has explained that its policy is to publish in the IRB all substantive issues and answers necessary to promote a uniform application of the tax laws. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), each annual volume of the IRB contains about 2,000 pages of tax regulations and other guidance items. The GAO reviewed the IRS’s guidance process in September in a special report.

FAQs

A quick search of the IRS website reveals FAQs on a host of subjects. The IRS has posted extensive FAQs about the Affordable Care Act. These FAQs cover topics such as the employer mandate, the premium assistance tax credit, minimum essential health coverage and more. Many FAQs also discuss reporting and disclosure requirements under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FACTA). Many topics in the tax law have a set of FAQs posted on the IRS website.

Sometimes, FAQs are published by the IRS in the IRB. These FAQs are authoritative because guidance published in the IRB is binding on IRS and can be relied upon by taxpayers as authoritative. One example, the GAO noted, was guidance issued by the IRS on virtual currency several years ago.

However, many FAQs are not published in the IRB. They may only appear on the IRS website. The GAO discovered that limitations on using these FAQs are not always explained to taxpayers. Sometimes, the IRS has posted a disclaimer alerting taxpayers that a particular set of FAQs are not authoritative. GAO found, however, that the IRS does not always post a disclaimer with every set of FAQs.

GAO recommended that the IRS provide more clarity about FAQs. The IRS could, for example, post some explanatory language to help taxpayers understand what type of IRS information is considered authoritative and reliable as precedent for a taxpayer’s facts and circumstances. The IRS generally agreed with the GAO’s recommendations and indicated that it will consider ways to communicate any limitations on information provided to the public.