A "phase two" tax reform outline could be unveiled by House GOP tax writers by August. Republicans have started to increase their tax meetings related to the effort, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Tex., told reporters on June 13.

A "phase two" tax reform outline could be unveiled by House GOP tax writers by August. Republicans have started to increase their tax meetings related to the effort, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Tex., told reporters on June 13.

Tax Reform "2.0" Timeline

The precise timing of a "phase two" tax reform bill or discussion draft release remains "to-be-determined," a House Ways and Means Committee spokesperson told Wolters Kluwer on June 14. However, Brady told reporters he expects to see a legislative package outlined before the House’s August recess.

Previously, White House Legislative Affairs Director Marc Short predicted a late-summer release of the House’s tax bill. Further, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., has predicted that the House will approve the measure before midterm elections in November.

Individual Tax Cuts

Brady reiterated to reporters that "phase two" will focus on the individual side of the tax code. Moreover, making permanent the individual tax cuts enacted under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) will be the "centerpiece" of a " phase two" bill, Brady reportedly said. Additionally, Republican tax writers are considering proposals that would streamline the retirement savings process, a Ways and Means spokesperson previously told Wolters Kluwer.

Phase Two Fate Uncertain

The next major tax bill’s fate in the Senate remains uncertain. At least nine Democratic votes will be needed to reach the Senate’s 60-vote threshold. Brady has said he is hopeful for Democratic support.

However, Democratic lawmakers in the House and Senate remain largely opposed to the TCJA. Democrats have criticized the TCJA for primarily benefiting corporations. However, House Republicans are hopeful for bipartisan support on a new measure that focuses primarily on individual tax cuts.

A bipartisan group of House and Senate lawmakers have introduced companion Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit (HTC) bills. The measure aims to strengthen the HTC by encouraging investment and minimizing administrative burdens, according to the lawmakers.

A bipartisan group of House and Senate lawmakers have introduced companion Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit (HTC) bills. The measure aims to strengthen the HTC by encouraging investment and minimizing administrative burdens, according to the lawmakers.

Rehabilitation Credit

As amended by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), the rehabilitation credit under Code Sec. 47 is limited to 20 percent of qualified rehabilitation expenditures (QREs) of the taxpayer for qualified rehabilitated buildings. The credit is claimed ratably over a five-year period beginning in the tax year in which the rehabilitated building is placed in service. A "qualified rehabilitated building" (QRB) is a building and its structural components for which depreciation is allowable, and that has been substantially rehabilitated and placed in service before the beginning of the rehabilitation. The building must be a certified historic structure, but any expenditure attributable to rehabilitation of the structure is not a QRE unless it is a certified rehabilitation.

Property is considered substantially rehabilitated only if the expenditures during an elected 24-month measurement period (60-month period for phased rehabilitations) ending with or within the tax year are greater than the adjusted basis of the property or $5,000.

Basis-Adjustment Requirement

The bipartisan Historic Tax Credit Enhancement Bill, introduced June 13, would eliminate the existing basis-adjustment requirement. Eliminating this requirement would "bring the HTC in line with other tax credits claimed over multiple years," according to a joint press release by the bill’s sponsors.

The measure was introduced by Sens. Bill Cassidy, R-La., Ben Cardin, D-Md., and Susan Collins, R-Me., and Reps. Darin LaHood, R-Ill., and Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore. "Protecting this credit was one of my top priorities in tax reform, and I’m glad there is bipartisan support for making it even better," Cassidy said in the joint press release. Cardin praised the measure for helping to create economic growth.

Improved HTC

Likewise, Collins said the bill would make the HTC easier to use as well as create economic development across the country. Additionally, an improved HTC would create jobs, according to Blumenauer. "Strengthening the Historic Tax Credit will further revitalize American cities while creating local jobs and spurring economic development in communities large and small," Blumenauer said.

House tax writers have moved two bills through committee. The bills focus on IRS hiring and the tax treatment of mutual ditch irrigation companies. The House Ways and Means Committee approved the measures in a June 21 markup.

House tax writers have moved two bills through committee. The bills focus on IRS hiring and the tax treatment of mutual ditch irrigation companies. The House Ways and Means Committee approved the measures in a June 21 markup.

IRS Hiring

The Ensuring Integrity in the IRS Workforce bill (HR 3500) would set certain restrictions on the IRS’s hiring policy. The bipartisan bill would amend Code Sec. 7804 to prohibit the rehiring of any employee previously dismissed for certain misconduct issues.

The bill comes after two Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) reports noted that the IRS rehired hundreds of former employees with conduct violations. Over 200 of the more than 2,000 former employees rehired between January 2015 and March 2016 were previously terminated from the IRS for a substantiated conduct or performance issue, according to a July 2017 TIGTA report. Inspector General J. Russell George previously told lawmakers that the particular IRS hiring process is "bad decision making."

The bill, sponsored by Reps. Kristi Noem, R-S.D., and Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., originally passed the House with bipartisan support in the 114th Congress. However, the Senate never took up the measure. Also, Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., introduced a related bill in the Senate.

"If a person is fired for falsifying information or mishandling sensitive taxpayer data, it’s common sense that individuals should not be rehired," Noem said in a June 21 press release. "Nonetheless, the IRS has done this repeatedly."

Agriculture Tax Reform

Additionally, the Ways and Means Committee approved the Water and Agriculture Tax Reform bill (HR 519). The bill aims to facilitate water leasing and transfers to promote conservation and efficiency. HR 519 would amend the "tax treatment of mutual water storage and delivery companies so that they can maintain their nonprofit status even if more than 15 percent of their revenue comes from nonmembers," according to a June 21 press release by the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo.

HR 519 and HR 3500 are now headed to the House floor.

The American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Taxation has expressed concerns to top Senate tax writers about certain congressional IRS reform efforts. The ABA Section of Taxation sent a June 6 letter to Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Chairman Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah and ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., regarding the House-approved bipartisan Taxpayer First Act (HR 5444).

The American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Taxation has expressed concerns to top Senate tax writers about certain congressional IRS reform efforts. The ABA Section of Taxation sent a June 6 letter to Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Chairman Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah and ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., regarding the House-approved bipartisan Taxpayer First Act (HR 5444).

IRS Reform

"The administrative reforms included in the House bills are a welcome step forward," Hatch previously told Wolters Kluwer. The House passed a package of bills in April, which aims to restructure the IRS for the first time in 20 years. Hatch told Wolters Kluwer that he is looking forward to working with his colleagues to find a path forward that reflects both House and Senate views on IRS reform.

While the SFC considers the House’s IRS reform package, the ABA Section of Taxation has asked Senate tax writers to consider certain suggestions to enhance IRS restructuring efforts. "We appreciate that Congress has turned its attention to the relationship between taxpayers and the agency charged with the assessment and collection of taxes," the letter said. The ABA Section of Taxation agrees with most of the House-proposed changes but has concerns with certain aspects of the bill, the letter noted.

Appeals

The House bill, HR 5444, proposes the establishment of an independent Office of Appeals along with a "generally available" right to appeal for taxpayers. While the letter to Hatch and Wyden supports a statutory right to appeals, among other things, it expresses concern that the IRS could limit certain taxpayer’s access to an appeal. "To the extent that the Service wishes to deny appeal rights to taxpayers, it should be required to articulate objective standards for when appeals will not be available, so that any Service determination to deny appeal rights can be measured against those standards," the letter said.

Additionally, the letter proposes that Congress remove certain limiting words from the bill’s provisions that discuss taxpayers’ rights to access case files. Currently, the bill states that only "specified taxpayers" will automatically be provided access to their case files. The ABA Section of Taxation urges Congress to allow all taxpayers access to information in their case file, regardless of income thresholds.

Senate Timeline

As for when the SFC will release its anticipated amendments to the House-approved IRS reform package remains unclear. The Senate’s legislative efforts toward restructuring the IRS are expected among lawmakers to be bipartisan.

The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that nonqualified employee stock options are not taxable compensation under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act (RRTA). The term "money remuneration" in the Act unambiguously excludes "stock."

The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that nonqualified employee stock options are not taxable compensation under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act (RRTA). The term "money remuneration" in the Act unambiguously excludes "stock."

Background

Several railroads filed a refund claim for overpaid Railroad Retirement taxes. The railroads claimed they overpaid their taxes because they included the value of employee stock options when calculating the tax.

The IRS denied the refund request. The IRS argued that stock options were taxable "money remuneration" under the RRTA because stock can be easily converted into money.

The railroads replied that stock options are not money. Moreover, they argued that when Congress passed the RRTA, it sought to mimic existing industry pension practices. Generally, those practices ignored in-kind benefits like food, lodging, and railroad tickets.

Stock Options Not Money

When Congress adopted the RRTA in 1937, it understood "money" as "currency issued by a recognized authority as a medium of exchange." Stock options do not fall within this definition.

Further, while stock can be bought or sold for money, it is not usually considered a medium of exchange. Few people value goods and services using stock, or buy groceries or pay rent with stock.

Also, adding the word remuneration did not alter the meaning of the word money. Thus, "any form of money remuneration" indicated that Congress wanted to tax money compensation. It did not indicate that Congress wanted to tax things, like stock, that are not money.

Statutory Context

Moreover, the broader statutory context pointed to the same conclusion. For example, the 1939 Internal Revenue Code treated money and stock differently. However, the Federal Insurance Contribution Act taxes all remuneration, including benefits paid in a medium other than cash.

Further, a contemporaneous IRS rule explained that the RRTA taxed all money compensation. The rule lists examples like salaries, wages, commissions and bonuses. It also included things that could be used as money, like scrip. However, the rule did not suggest that stock was taxable compensation.

Thus, Congress knew the difference between money and other forms of compensation. The choice of Congress to use the narrower term for railroad pensions had to be respected.

Reversing and remanding CA-7, 2017-2 ustc ¶50,295.

A member of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida had to pay federal income tax on distributions of gaming income that she and her family received from the tribe. The payments were taxable income under the Indian Gaming Revenue Act, rather than Indian general welfare benefits that were excluded from tax under Code Sec. 139E. Both the taxpayer and the tribe were bound by the decision.

A member of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida had to pay federal income tax on distributions of gaming income that she and her family received from the tribe. The payments were taxable income under the Indian Gaming Revenue Act, rather than Indian general welfare benefits that were excluded from tax under Code Sec. 139E. Both the taxpayer and the tribe were bound by the decision.

Tribal Distributions

The Miccosukee Tribe distributed income to its members in quarterly payments. Historically, these payments were in the $20 to $25 range. In 1990, however, the tribe opened a gaming center that offered high-stakes bingo, poker, and video pull-tab machines. The tribe’s income, and its distributions to its members, increased substantially.

Each quarter, the tribe used the revenue of the gaming activities to fund per capita distributions to its members. But the tribe disregarded its federal tax obligations on these distributions. It neither reported the distributions nor withheld taxes on them. The tribe also told its members not to discuss the payments with outsiders, not to report them to credit card agencies, and not to cash the distribution checks in places that would report them to the IRS.

For the tax year at issue, the taxpayer received a total of $272,000, which represented payments for herself, her husband, and her two children. She did not file a tax return or pay any income tax for that year.

After the IRS assessed tax, interest and penalties against her, the taxpayer attempted to file a late return that reported the $272,000 as nontaxable income. She did not pay any of her assessment. The tribe intervened in her case as a matter of right.

District Court Decision

The District Court agreed with the IRS that the payments were distributions of gaming income that were fully taxable to the taxpayer. Most of the funds came from the gaming operation. The taxpayer and the tribe did not show what portion may have come from other, nontaxable sources.

Although the $272,000 included payments on behalf of the taxpayer’s husband and children, the taxpayer was responsible for tax on the entire amount. The tribe was structured as a matriarchy. Thus, the taxpayer was the head of her household, and the payments were all made available to her. She also spent all of the payments on household expenses, and she had reported all of the payments as her income when she tried to file a late return.

IGRA vs GWEA

The main issue on appeal was whether the tribe’s distributions were covered by the Indian Gaming Revenue Act or the Tribal General Welfare Exclusion Act.

The Indian Gaming Revenue Act (IGRA) was passed in 1988. It allows an Indian tribe to engage in gaming and distribute the revenue to members on a per capita basis. It also explicitly includes those distributions in a tribe member’s taxable income.

Code Sec. 139E was enacted in 2014 as part of the Tribal General Welfare Exclusion Act (GWEA). It excludes from federal taxation any payment made or services provided to or on behalf of an Indian tribe member under an Indian tribal government program. To be excludible, benefits provided under the program must be for the promotion of general welfare.

The court held that the exemption for Indian general welfare benefits under Code Sec. 139Edoes not apply to the per capita payments an Indian tribe makes from gaming revenue.

The taxpayer and the tribe claimed that GWEA effectively amended IGRA because it was more recent. The court disagreed, clarifying that IGRA applied only to gaming income, while GWEA was a law of general application. Thus, under the rules of statutory construction, IGRA continued to apply to distributions of gaming income because it was more specific than GWEA.

The court also rejected the characterization of the payments as distributions of the tribe’s tax revenues rather than its gaming income. The tax did not affect the nature of the gaming income. Instead, it was merely a mechanism to collect the income and distribute it to members.

The distributions also were not nontaxable income from Indian land, because they did not come directly from the use of the reservation land or its resources. Instead, the distributions came from improvements and related business activities–that is, gambling in the casino.

Effect on the Tribe

The tribe argued that it should not be included in the District Court’s judgment. However, the tribe had intervened as a matter of right because, if the court determined the payments were taxable, the tribe would have to report them and withhold income tax from them.

As an intervenor, the tribe had the same status as an original party. It also fully participated in the trial by arguing motions, attending depositions, presenting evidence, and examining witnesses. Thus, it was bound by the District Court’s judgment.

Affirming a DC Fla. decision, 2016-2 ustc ¶50,474.

An individual shareholder of an S corporation restaurant operator was not allowed to claim FICA tip credits under Code Sec. 45B that the S corporation did not claim. The shareholder could not unilaterally and retroactively nullify the S corporation’s election to deduct FICA tip taxes.

An individual shareholder of an S corporation restaurant operator was not allowed to claim FICA tip credits under Code Sec. 45B that the S corporation did not claim. The shareholder could not unilaterally and retroactively nullify the S corporation’s election to deduct FICA tip taxes.

Background

The restaurants owned by the S corporation had hired “tipped employees” whose earnings came partly from customer tips. The S corporation was required to pay taxes on these tips as part of its FICA tax payments. For the two tax years at issue, the S corporation did not claim any FICA tip credits. Instead, the S corporation deducted its payments of the FICA tip taxes on its Forms 1120S, and did not later amend those returns.

On his amended Forms 1040 for those tax years, the shareholder claimed he was entitled to flowthrough FICA tip credits with respect to his interest in the S corporation.

FICA Tip Credit

Code Sec. 45B allows an employer working in the food and beverage industry to claim business tax credits for the portion of the FICA taxes—i.e., social security and Medicare taxes—that it paid on employee tips in excess of the minimum wage. The employer must have employees who receive tips from customers for providing food or beverages for consumption, and must be deemed to have paid FICA taxes on the tips in excess of the minimum wage. The employer must not have already claimed a deduction for the FICA tax payment. An employer claims its FICA tip credits on Form 8846.

Here, when the S corporation chose to deduct its FICA tax payments, it had made an election not to claim any FICA tip credits. The S corporation never claimed or intended to claim FICA tip credits. Based on this reporting position, the shareholder was not entitled to any flowthrough FICA tip credits for either tax year.

S Corporation Elections

Under Code Sec. 1363(c) and its regulations, elections that affect the computation of items derived from an S corporation generally must be made by the S corporation, not separately by its shareholders. There are two exceptions: the shareholder claims any elections (1) for the deduction and recapture of certain mining exploration expenditures, and (2) for foreign tax credits.

In this case, the shareholder argued in effect that the S corporation’s election to deduct FICA tax payments could be changed unilaterally by his request, made in his capacity as a shareholder, that the S corporation amend its returns to claim the FICA tip credit. The shareholder’s position was rejected based on the plain text of Code Sec. 1363(c), and of Code Sec. 45B(d), which states that the credit does not apply to a taxpayer if the taxpayer elects to have the credit provision not apply.

Further, the Tax Court stated that it refused to create a new precedent that would give each individual shareholder the power to change an S corporation’s tax election unilaterally. Such a change, stated the court, would not only affect the tax liabilities of the requesting shareholder, but could also affect the tax liabilities of the shareholders who have not consented to the change.

The Treasury Department and the IRS have issued final regulations that:

• prevent a corporate partner from avoiding corporate-level gain through transactions with a partnership involving equity interests of the partner or certain related entities;
• allow consolidated group members that are partners in the same partnership to aggregate their bases in stock distributed by the partnership for purposes of limiting the application of rules that might otherwise cause basis reduction or gain recognition; and
• require certain corporations that engage in gain elimination transactions to reduce the basis of corporate assets or to recognize gain.

The Treasury Department and the IRS have issued final regulations that:

• prevent a corporate partner from avoiding corporate-level gain through transactions with a partnership involving equity interests of the partner or certain related entities;
• allow consolidated group members that are partners in the same partnership to aggregate their bases in stock distributed by the partnership for purposes of limiting the application of rules that might otherwise cause basis reduction or gain recognition; and
• require certain corporations that engage in gain elimination transactions to reduce the basis of corporate assets or to recognize gain.

The Treasury Decision adopts as final certain rules set forth in proposed regulations issued in 2015, under Code Sec. 337(d) (with only minor, nonsubstantive clarifications) ( NPRM REG-149518-03), and Code Sec. 732(f) ( NPRM REG-138759-14).

The final regulations affect partnerships and their partners, and apply to transactions occurring on or after June 12, 2015. The regulations are effective on June 8, 2018.

Acquisition of Interest in Stock to Avoid Gain on Appreciated Property

A corporation that distributes appreciated property to its shareholders has to recognize gain under Code Secs. 311(b) and 336(a) as if the property were sold to the shareholders for its fair market value. However, taxpayers have tried to postpone or avoiding the recognition of that gain.

For example, if a corporation exchanges appreciated property for its own stock, the corporation would recognize gain on the exchange. But corporations have tried to avoid recognizing that gain by, for example, taking these steps:

• the corporation enters into a partnership and contributes appreciated property;
• the partnership acquires stock of that corporate partner; then
• the partnership makes a liquidating distribution of the stock to the corporate partner.

The final regulations under Code Sec. 337(d) aim to prevent a corporate partner from avoiding gain recognition when it acquires or increases its interest in stock held by a partnership in exchange for appreciated property. Under the final regulations, a corporate partner may recognize gain when it is treated as acquiring or increasing its interest in stock of the corporate partner held by a partnership in exchange for appreciated property in a manner that avoids gain recognition under Code Sec. 311(b) or Code Sec. 336(a). The final regulations also provide exceptions under which a corporate partner is not required to recognize gain.

Limit on Basis Reduction or Gain Recognition for Consolidated Group Members

The final regulations limit rules that cause basis reduction or gain recognition for consolidated group members that are partners in the same partnership. Code Sec. 732(f)limits the basis of a distributed corporation’s property if—

• a corporate partner receives a distribution from a partnership of stock in another corporation (distributed corporation);
• the corporate partner has control of the distributed corporation, defined as ownership of stock meeting the requirements of Code Sec. 1504(a)(2), immediately after the distribution or at any time thereafter (control requirement); and
• the partnership’s basis in the stock immediately before the distribution exceeded the corporate partner’s basis in the stock immediately after the distribution.

Under these circumstances, the basis of the distributed corporation’s property must be reduced by this excess. Further, the corporate partner must recognize gain to the extent that the basis of the distributed corporation’s property cannot be reduced.

In applying this rule, the final regulations allow the bases of consolidated group members to be aggregated if when two conditions are met: (1) two or more of the corporate partners receive a distribution of stock in a distributed corporation from the partnership; and (2) the distributed corporation is or becomes a member of the distributee partners’ consolidated group after the distribution.

Elimination Transactions

Final regulations restrict corporate partners from entering into gain elimination transactions. They focus on attempts to eliminate gain in the stock of a distributed corporation while avoiding the effects of a basis step-down in transactions. Under the regulations, in the event of a gain elimination transaction, Code Sec. 732(f) will apply as though the corporate partner acquired control of the distributed corporation immediately before the gain elimination transaction.

Future Proposed Regs?

The Treasury and IRS are considering publishing a new notice of proposed rulemaking to propose more substantive amendments to the final 337(d) regulations, and to allow for additional public comment with respect to proposals in response to certain comments received, further reflection by the Treasury IRS, and concerns raised by practitioners.

Participants in the Son of BOSS tax shelter have maintained their perfect losing record in the Tax Court. Thus, another Son-of-Boss deal has failed to produce its promised loss deductions.

Participants in the Son of BOSS tax shelter have maintained their perfect losing record in the Tax Court. Thus, another Son-of-Boss deal has failed to produce its promised loss deductions.

Son-of-BOSS Arrangements

Son-of-BOSS is a variation of a slightly older tax shelter known as the "bond and options sales strategy," or BOSS. Son-of-BOSS transactions take many forms, but they all have one thing in common: Assets that are encumbered by significant liabilities must always be transferred to a partnership. The goal is to increase basis in that partnership or in the assets themselves.

The liabilities are usually obligations to buy securities. However, they are typically not completely fixed when they are transferred to the partnership.

This contingency is supposed to let the partnership treat the liabilities as uncertain. This, in turn, is supposed to let the partnership ignore the liabilities in computing basis. The result is supposed to give the partners basis in the partnership or in the assets themselves. This increased basis is supposed to translate into large loss deductions for the partners, all with no actual economic losses.

The Tax Court has yet to fall for the scheme.

Invalid Partnerships

The court has used several theories to reject Son-of-Boss losses. In this case, the court once again relied on the fact that the two partnerships involved in the transactions did not actually exist.

The partnerships were invalid because they were created only to carry out tax avoidance schemes. Thus, their members never intended to run any business through them.

The partnerships also failed the “prongified” test for determining whether the parties intended to, and did in fact, join together for the present conduct of an undertaking or enterprise. One managed to scrupulously adhere to the formal requirements for looking like a partnership. However, it did not display any objective indication of a mutual combination for the conduct of an ongoing enterprise.

The second partnership barely even went through the motions. It filed partnership returns and issued K-1s to its purported partners. However:

• There was no evidence the purported partners made any contributions to the partnership;
• The partnership did not have a formal operating agreement;
• The partnership did not conduct any business in its own name;
• There was no real profit for the partners to control or withdraw; and
• The partnership did not keep any books or records.

Since the partnerships were invalid, they were simply disregarded. Thus, the purported partners were treated as directly engaging in the partnerships’ activities and directly owning the partnerships’ property. This meant that the supposedly separate long and short options that were the heart of the transaction were actually a single-option spread. Thus the options were part of one contract, and they could not be separated to produce artificial losses.

As gasoline prices have climbed in 2011, many taxpayers who use a vehicle for business purposes are looking for the IRS to make a mid-year adjustment to the standard mileage rate. In the meantime, taxpayers should review the benefits of using the actual expense method to calculate their deduction. The actual expense method, while requiring careful recordkeeping, may help offset the cost of high gas prices if the IRS does not make a mid-year change to the standard mileage rate. Even if it does, you might still find yourself better off using the actual expense method, especially if your vehicle also qualifies for bonus depreciation.

Two methods

Taxpayers can calculate the amount of a deductible vehicle expense using one of two methods:

• Standard mileage rate
• Actual expense method

Under the standard mileage rate, taxpayers calculate the amount of the allowable deduction by multiplying all business miles driven during the year by the standard mileage rate. One of the chief attractions of the standard mileage rate is its ease of use. Taxpayers do not have to substantiate expense amounts; however, they must substantiate business purpose and other items. There are also limitations on use of the business standard mileage rate.

The standard mileage rate for 2011 for business use of a car (van, pickup or panel truck) is 51 cents-per-mile. The IRS calculates the standard mileage rate on an annual study of the fixed and variable costs of operating an automobile. The IRS set the standard mileage rate for 2011 in late 2010 when gasoline prices were lower than today. It is a flat amount, whether or not your vehicle is fuel efficient, operates on premium grade fuel, is brand new or ten years old, or is subject to high repair bills.

During past spikes in gasoline prices, the IRS has made a mid-year change to the standard mileage rate for business use of a vehicle. In 2008, the IRS increased the business standard mileage rate from 50.5 cents-per-mile to 58.5 cents-per-mile for last six months of 2008 because of high gasoline prices. The IRS made a similar mid-year adjustment in 2005 when it increased the business standard mileage rate after Hurricane Katrina.

At this time, it is unclear if the IRS will make a similar mid-year adjustment in 2011. IRS officials generally have declined to make any predictions. If the IRS does make a mid-year change, it will likely do so in late June, so the higher rate can apply to the last six months of 2011.

Actual expense method

Rather than rely on a mid-year adjustment from the IRS, which might not come, it's a good idea to compare the actual vehicle costs versus the business standard mileage rate. Taxpayers who use the actual expense method must keep track of all costs related to the vehicle during the year. The cost of operating a vehicle includes these expenses:

• Gasoline
• Repair and maintenance costs
• Cleaning
• Tires
• Depreciation
• Lease payments (if the taxpayer leases the vehicle)
• Interest on a vehicle loan
• Insurance
• Personal property taxes on the vehicle

"Doing the math" this year in weighing whether to take the actual expense method not only should factor in the cost of gasoline but also what depreciation or expensing deductions you will be gaining by using the actual expense method. Enhanced bonus depreciation and enhanced "section 179" expensing for 2011 can increase your deduction for a newly-purchased vehicle in its first year tremendously if the actual expense method is elected.

Certain other costs are deductible whether you take the actual expense method or the standard mileage rate. This group includes parking charges, garage fees and tolls. Expenses incurred for the personal use of your vehicle are generally not deductible. An allocation must be made when the vehicle is used partly for personal purposes

Switching methods

Once actual depreciation in excess of straight-line has been claimed on a vehicle, the standard mileage rate cannot be used for the vehicle in any future year. Absent that prohibition (which usually is triggered if depreciation is taken), a business can switch between the standard mileage rate and actual expense methods from year to year. Businesses that switch methods now cannot make change methods effective in mid-year; you must apply one method retroactively from January 1.

Recordkeeping

The actual expense method requires taxpayers to substantiate every expense. This recordkeeping requirement can be challenging. For example, taxpayers who fill-up often at the gas pump need to keep a record of every purchase. The same is true for tune-ups and other maintenance and repair activity. One way to simplify recordkeeping is to charge all vehicle related expenses to one credit card.

The IRS's streamlined offer-in-compromise (OIC) program is intended to speed up the processing of OICs for qualified taxpayers. Having started in 2010, the streamlined OIC program is relatively new. The IRS recently issued instructions to its examiners, urging them to process streamlined OICs as expeditiously as possible. One recent survey estimates that one in 15 taxpayers is now in arrears on tax payments to the IRS to at least some degree.  Because of continuing fallout from the economic downturn, however, the IRS has tried to speed up its compromise process to the advantage of both hard-pressed taxpayers and its collection numbers.

OIC program

The IRS OIC program on its face can appear very attractive to taxpayers with unpaid liabilities. An OIC is an agreement between a taxpayer and the IRS that settles the taxpayer's tax liabilities for less than the full amount owed. Keep in mind that taxpayers do not automatically qualify for an OIC. The IRS has cautioned that, absent special circumstances, if you have the ability to fully pay your tax liability in a lump sum or via an installment agreement, an OIC will not be accepted.

The IRS may accept an offer in compromise based on three grounds:

• Doubt as to collectibility
• Doubt as to liability
• Effective tax administration

The decision whether to accept or reject an OIC is entirely within the discretion of the IRS. Sometimes, but very rarely, an OIC will be deemed accepted because the IRS failed to reject it within 24 months of receiving the offer.

Streamlined OICs

The low acceptance rate of OICs has some lawmakers in Congress and taxpayer groups upset. One of the most vocal critics has been National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson who has urged the IRS to bring more taxpayers into the OIC program. Partly in response to this criticism, the IRS launched the streamlined OIC in 2010. The streamlined OIC program is intended to cut through much of the red tape that surrounds OICs. The IRS promised, among other things, to process streamlined OICs more quickly.

In February 2011, the IRS announced some changes to streamlined OICs. Streamlined OICs may be offered to taxpayers with total household incomes of $100,000 or less and who have a total tax liability of less than $50,000. Taxpayers who do not meet these requirements may apply for a traditional OIC.

Procedures

The streamlined procedures do not necessarily mean that the IRS will accept more OICs; merely that it will process the offers it receives more quickly. Since the streamlined OIC program is relatively new, the IRS has not yet reported how many streamlined offers it has accepted.

Before accepting or rejecting a streamlined OIC, IRS examiners must verify that the information provided by the taxpayer is correct. The IRS instructed examiners reviewing streamlined OICs to verify taxpayer information through internal research. Examiners will verify ownership of items such as real estate, motor vehicles and other property.

Examiners also will be able to communicate directly with taxpayers or their representatives. The IRS instructed examiners to contact taxpayers or their representatives by telephone whenever possible; rather than sending written notices. Three phone attempts should be made over two business days to contact the taxpayer or his/her representative. If the examiner reaches the taxpayer's voicemail, the examiners should request a call-back within two business days.

The streamlined OIC program is not for everyone. Indeed, the acceptance rate for all OICs (just about 13,000 in fiscal year (FY) 2010) means that relatively few taxpayers will make an offer that the IRS will accept. Nonetheless, the OIC program is one tool that may be used by taxpayers with unpaid liabilities. If you have any questions about the IRS's streamlined OIC or traditional OIC, please contact our office.

As the 2015 tax filing season comes to an end, now is a good time to begin thinking about next year's returns. While it may seem early to be preparing for 2016, taking some time now to review your recordkeeping will pay off when it comes time to file next year.

As the 2015 tax filing season comes to an end, now is a good time to begin thinking about next year's returns. While it may seem early to be preparing for 2016, taking some time now to review your recordkeeping will pay off when it comes time to file next year.

Taxpayers are required to keep accurate, permanent books and records so as to be able to determine the various types of income, gains, losses, costs, expenses and other amounts that affect their income tax liability for the year. The IRS generally does not require taxpayers to keep records in a particular way, and recordkeeping does not have to be complicated. However, there are some specific recordkeeping requirements that taxpayers should keep in mind throughout the year.

Business Expense Deductions

A business can choose any recordkeeping system suited to their business that clearly shows income and expenses. The type of business generally affects the type of records a business needs to keep for federal tax purposes. Purchases, sales, payroll, and other transactions that incur in a business generate supporting documents. Supporting documents include sales slips, paid bills, invoices, receipts, deposit slips, and canceled checks. Supporting documents for business expenses should show the amount paid and that the amount was for a business expense. Documents for expenses include canceled checks; cash register tapes; account statements; credit card sales slips; invoices; and petty cash slips for small cash payments.

The Cohan rule. A taxpayer generally has the burden of proving that he is entitled to deduct an amount as a business expense or for any other reason. However, a taxpayer whose records or other proof is not adequate to substantiate a claimed deduction may be allowed to deduct an estimated amount under the so-called Cohan rule. Under this rule, if a taxpayer has no records to provide the amount of a business expense deduction, but a court is satisfied that the taxpayer actually incurred some expenses, the court may make an allowance based on an estimate, if there is some rational basis for doing so.

However, there are special recordkeeping requirements for travel, transportation, entertainment, gifts and listed property, which includes passenger automobiles, entertainment, recreational and amusement property, computers and peripheral equipment, and any other property specified by regulation. The Cohan rule does not apply to those expenses. For those items, taxpayers must substantiate each element of an expenditure or use of property by adequate records or by sufficient evidence corroborating the taxpayer's own statement.

Individuals

• Record keeping is not just for businesses. The IRS recommends that individuals keep the following records:
• Copies of Tax Returns. Old tax returns are useful in preparing current returns and are necessary when filing an amended return.
• Adoption Credit and Adoption Exclusion. Taxpayers should maintain records to support any adoption credit or adoption assistance program exclusion.
• Employee Expenses. Travel, entertainment and gift expenses must be substantiated through appropriate proof. Receipts should be retained and a log may be kept for items for which there is no receipt. Similarly, written records should be maintained for business mileage driven, business purpose of the trip and car expenses for business use of a car.
• Business Use of Home. Records must show the part of the taxpayer's home used for business and that such use is exclusive. Records are also needed to show the depreciation and expenses for the business part of the home.
• Capital Gains and Losses. Records must be kept showing the cost of acquiring a capital asset, when the asset was acquired, how the asset was used, and, if sold, the date of sale, the selling price and the expenses of the sale.
• Basis of Property. Homeowners must keep records of the purchase price, any purchase expenses, the cost of home improvements and any basis adjustments, such as depreciation and deductible casualty losses.
• Basis of Property Received as a Gift. A donee must have a record of the donor's adjusted basis in the property and the property's fair market value when it is given as a gift. The donee must also have a record of any gift tax the donor paid.
• Service Performed for Charitable Organizations. The taxpayer should keep records of out-of-pocket expenses in performing work for charitable organizations to claim a deduction for such expenses.
• Pay Statements. Taxpayers with deductible expenses withheld from their paychecks should keep their pay statements for a record of the expenses.
• Divorce Decree. Taxpayers deducting alimony payments should keep canceled checks or financial account statements and a copy of the written separation agreement or the divorce, separate maintenance or support decree.

Don't forget receipts. In addition, the IRS recommends that the following receipts be kept:

• Proof of medical and dental expenses;
• Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, and canceled checks showing the amount of estimated tax payments;
• Statements, notes, canceled checks and, if applicable, Form 1098, Mortgage Interest Statement, showing interest paid on a mortgage;
• Canceled checks or receipts showing charitable contributions, and for contributions of $250 or more, an acknowledgment of the contribution from the charity or a pay stub or other acknowledgment from the employer if the contribution was made by deducting $250 or more from a single paycheck;
• Receipts, canceled checks and other documentary evidence that evidence miscellaneous itemized deductions; and
• Pay statements that show the amount of union dues paid.

Electronic Records/Electronic Storage Systems

Records maintained in an electronic storage system, if compliant with IRS specifications, constitute records as required by the Code. These rules apply to taxpayers that maintain books and records by using an electronic storage system that either images their hard-copy books and records or transfers their computerized books and records to an electronic storage media, such as an optical disk.

The electronic storage rules apply to all matters under the jurisdiction of the IRS including, but not limited to, income, excise, employment and estate and gift taxes, as well as employee plans and exempt organizations. A taxpayer's use of a third party, such as a service bureau or time-sharing service, to provide an electronic storage system for its books and records does not relieve the taxpayer of the responsibilities described in these rules. Unless otherwise provided under IRS rules and regulations, all the requirements that apply to hard-copy books and records apply as well to books and records that are stored electronically under these rules.

A limited liability company (LLC) is a business entity created under state law. Every state and the District of Columbia have LLC statutes that govern the formation and operation of LLCs.

The main advantage of an LLC is that in general its members are not personally liable for the debts of the business. Members of LLCs enjoy similar protections from personal liability for business obligations as shareholders in a corporation or limited partners in a limited partnership. Unlike the limited partnership form, which requires that there must be at least one general partner who is personally liable for all the debts of the business, no such requirement exists in an LLC.

A second significant advantage is the flexibility of an LLC to choose its federal tax treatment. Under IRS's "check-the-box rules, an LLC can be taxed as a partnership, C corporation or S corporation for federal income tax purposes. A single-member LLC may elect to be disregarded for federal income tax purposes or taxed as an association (corporation).

LLCs are typically used for entrepreneurial enterprises with small numbers of active participants, family and other closely held businesses, real estate investments, joint ventures, and investment partnerships. However, almost any business that is not contemplating an initial public offering (IPO) in the near future might consider using an LLC as its entity of choice.

Deciding to convert an LLC to a corporation later generally has no federal tax consequences. This is rarely the case when converting a corporation to an LLC. Therefore, when in doubt between forming an LLC or a corporation at the time a business in starting up, it is often wise to opt to form an LLC. As always, exceptions apply. Another alternative from the tax side of planning is electing "S Corporation" tax status under the Internal Revenue Code.

A business with a significant amount of receivables should evaluate whether some of them may be written off as business bad debts. A business taxpayer may deduct business bad debts if the receivable becomes partially or completely worthless during the tax year.

In general, most business taxpayers must use the specific charge-off method to account for bad debts. The deduction in any case is limited to the taxpayer's adjusted basis in the receivable.

The deduction allowed for bad debts is an ordinary deduction, which can serve to offset regular business income dollar for dollar. If the taxpayer holds a security, which is a capital asset, and the security becomes worthless during the tax year, the tax law only allows a deduction for a capital loss. However, notes receivable obtained in the ordinary course of business are not capital assets. Therefore, if such notes become partially or completely worthless during the tax year, the taxpayer may claim an ordinary deduction for bad debts.

For a taxpayer to sustain a bad debt deduction, the debt must be bona fide. The IRS looks carefully at a bad debt of a family member.

To be entitled to a business debt write off, the taxpayer must also make a reasonable attempt to collect the debt. However, in a nod to reality, the IRS does not request the taxpayer to turn the debt over to a collection agency or file a lawsuit in an attempt to collect the debt if doing so has little probability of success.

Deadlines for claiming a write off for any past business bad debt must be watched. Taxpayers have until the later of (1) seven years from the date they timely filed their tax return or (2) two years from the time they paid the tax, to claim a refund for a deduction for a wholly worthless debt not deducted on the original return.

Estimated tax is used to pay tax on income that is not subject to withholding or if not enough tax is being withheld from a person's salary, pension or other income. Income not subject to withholding can include dividends, capital gains, prizes, awards, interest, self-employment income, and alimony, among other income items. Generally, individuals who do not pay at least 90 percent of their tax through withholding must estimate their income tax liability and make equal quarterly payments of the "required annual payment" liability during the year.

Estimated tax is used to pay tax on income that is not subject to withholding or if not enough tax is being withheld from a person's salary, pension or other income. Income not subject to withholding can include dividends, capital gains, prizes, awards, interest, self-employment income, and alimony, among other income items. Generally, individuals who do not pay at least 90 percent of their tax through withholding must estimate their income tax liability and make equal quarterly payments of the "required annual payment" liability during the year.

Basic rules

The "basic" rules governing estimated tax payments are not always synonymous with "straightforward" rules. The following addresses some basic rules regarding estimated tax payments by corporations and individuals:

Corporations. For calendar-year corporations, estimated tax installments are due on April 15, June 15, September 15, and December 15. If any due date falls on a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, the payment is due on the first following business day. To avoid a penalty, each installment must equal at least 25 percent of the lesser of:

• 100 percent of the tax shown on the corporation's current year's tax return (or of the actual tax, if no return is filed); or
• 100 percent of the tax shown on the corporation's return for the preceding tax year, provided a positive tax liability was shown and the preceding tax year consisted of 12 months.

A lower installment amount may be paid if it is shown that use of an annualized income method, or for corporations with seasonal incomes, an adjusted seasonal method, would result in a lower required installment.

Individuals. For individuals (including sole proprietors, partners, self-employeds, and/or S corporation shareholders who expect to owe tax of more than $1,000), quarterly estimated tax payments are due on April 15, June 15, September 15, and January 15. Individuals who do not pay at least 90 percent of their tax through withholding generally are required to estimate their income tax liability and make equal quarterly payments of the "required annual payment" liability during the year. The required annual payment is generally the lesser of:

• 90 percent of the tax ultimately shown on your return for the 2015 tax year, or 90 percent of the tax due for the year if no return is filed;
• 100 percent of the tax shown on your return for the preceding (2014) tax year if that year was not for a short period of less than 12 months; or
• The annualized income installment.

For higher-income taxpayers whose adjusted gross income (AGI) shown on your 2014 tax return exceeds $150,000 (or $75,000 for a married individual filing separately in 2015), the required annual payment is the lesser of 90 percent of the tax for the current year, or 110 percent of the tax shown on the return for the preceding tax year.

Adjusting estimated tax payments

If you expect an uneven income stream for 2015, your required estimated tax payments may not necessarily be the same for each remaining period, requiring adjustment. The need for, and the extent of, adjustments to your estimated tax payments should be assessed at the end of each installment payment period.

For example, a change in your or your business's income, deductions, credits, and exemptions may make it necessary to refigure estimated tax payments for the remainder of the year. Likewise for individuals, changes in your exemptions, deductions, and credits may require a change in estimated tax payments. To avoid either a penalty from the IRS or overpaying the IRS interest-free, you may want to increase or decrease the amount of your remaining estimated tax payments.

Refiguring tax payments due

There are some general steps you can take to reconfigure your estimated tax payments. To change your estimated tax payments, refigure your total estimated tax payments due. Then, figure the payment due for each remaining payment period. However, be careful: if an estimated tax payment for a previous period is less than one-fourth of your amended estimated tax, you may be subject to a penalty when you file your return.

If you would like further information about changing your estimated tax payments, please contact our office.

In-plan Roth IRA rollovers are a relatively new creation, and as a result many individuals are not aware of the rules. The Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 made it possible for participants in 401(k) plans and 403(b) plans to roll over eligible distributions made after September 27, 2010 from such accounts, or other non-Roth accounts, into a designated Roth IRA in the same plan. Beginning in 2011, this option became available to 457(b) governmental plans as well. These "in-plan" rollovers and the rules for making them, which may be tricky, are discussed below.

In-plan Roth IRA rollovers are a relatively new creation, and as a result many individuals are not aware of the rules. The Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 made it possible for participants in 401(k) plans and 403(b) plans to roll over eligible distributions made after September 27, 2010 from such accounts, or other non-Roth accounts, into a designated Roth IRA in the same plan. Beginning in 2011, this option became available to 457(b) governmental plans as well. These "in-plan" rollovers and the rules for making them, which may be tricky, are discussed below.

Designated Roth account

401(k) plans and 403(b) plans that have designated Roth accounts may offer in-plan Roth rollovers for eligible rollover distributions. Beginning in 2011, the option became available to 457(b) governmental plans, allowing the plan to adopt an amendment to include designated Roth accounts to then offer in-plan Roth rollovers.

In order to make an in-plan Roth IRA rollover from a non-Roth account to the plan, the plan must have a designated Roth account option. Thus, if a 401(k) plan does not have a Roth 401(k) contribution program in place at the time the rollover contribution is made, the rollover generally cannot be made (however, a plan can be amended to allow new in-service distributions from the plan's non-Roth accounts conditioned on the participant rolling over the distribution in an in-plan Roth direct rollover). Not only may plan participants make an in-plan rollover, but a participant's surviving spouse, beneficiaries and alternate payees who are current or former spouses are also eligible.

Eligible amounts

To be eligible for an in-plan rollover, the amount to be rolled over must be eligible for distribution to you under the terms of the plan and must be otherwise eligible for rollover (i.e. an eligible rollover distribution). Generally, any vested amount that is held in 401(k) plans or 403(b) plans (or 457(b) plans) is eligible for an in-plan Roth rollover. Moreover, the distribution must satisfy the general distribution requirements that otherwise apply.

Direct rollover or 60-day rollover

An in-plan Roth rollover may be accomplished two ways: either through a direct rollover (wherein the plan's administrator directly transfers funds from the non-Roth account to the participant's designated Roth account) or through a 60-day rollover. With an in-plan Roth direct rollover, the plan trustee transfers an eligible rollover distribution from a participant's non-Roth account to the participant's designated Roth account in the same plan. With an-plan Roth 60-day rollover, the participant deposits an eligible rollover distribution within 60 days of receiving it from a non-Roth account into a designated Roth account in the same plan.

If you opt for the 60-day rollover option, the amounts rolled over are subject to 20 percent mandatory withholding.

Taxation

Taxpayers generally include the taxable amount (fair market value minus your basis in the distribution) of an in-plan Roth rollover in gross income for the tax year in which the rollover is received.

If you have questions about making an in-plan Roth IRA rollover, please contact our office.