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)

You have just been notified that your tax return is going to be audited ... what now? While the best defense is always a good offense (translation: take steps to avoid an audit in the first place), in the event the IRS does come knocking on your door, here are some basic guidelines you can follow to increase the chances that you will come out of your audit unscathed.

You have just been notified that your tax return is going to be audited ... what now? While the best defense is always a good offense (translation: take steps to avoid an audit in the first place), in the event the IRS does come knocking on your door, here are some basic guidelines you can follow to increase the chances that you will come out of your audit unscathed.

Relax. It is a normal reaction upon receiving notice of an audit to panic and feel particularly singled out, however, as in most situations, panic can be counterproductive. A better course of action is to contact an experienced professional to get additional guidance as to how best to proceed to prepare for the audit as well as to get reassurance that everything will be fine.

Be professional. In the event that you have any type of communication with the IRS prior to your audit -- written or verbal, it's important that you act in a professional, business-like manner. Verbally abusing the auditor or becoming defensive is not a good way to start off your relationship with him or her.

Organization is very important. Before the audit, take the time to gather all of your documents together and consider how they will be presented. While throwing them all into a box in a haphazard fashion is certainly one way to present your documents to your auditor, this method will also be sure to raise at least one eyebrow ... and encourage him or her to dig deeper.

As you gather your data, you may need to re-create records if no longer available. This may involve calls to charities, medical offices, the DMV, etc., to obtain the written documentation required for verification of deductions claimed. Once you are confident that you have all of the necessary documentation, organize it in a binder, separated by category as shown on your return. This will allow quick and easy access to these records during the actual audit, something that the auditor will appreciate and will give him/her the impression that you are organized and thorough.

Leave the face to face to a professional. Make sure that you retain the services of a tax professional, most likely the person who prepared your return. Having a tax professional appear on your behalf for your audit is beneficial in a number of ways.

• A tax professional is emotionally detached from the return and less likely to become angry or defensive if questioned.
• A tax professional can serve as a "buffer" between you and the IRS -- indicating that he/she will need to get back to the auditor on certain issues, can buy you extra time to prepare for an issue raised you didn't consider.
• A tax professional can keep an auditor on track, making sure all inquiries are relevant to the return areas being audited.

If you disagree, appeal. If you disagree with the outcome of the audit, you still have the right to send your case to the IRS Appeals division for review. Appeals officers are usually more experienced than auditors and are more likely to negotiate with you, if necessary.

As for the "best defense is a good offense" comment? In this case, this old adage applies to how you approach the tax return preparation process throughout the year, year-in and year-out.

• Good recordkeeping is key. Maintaining complete and accurate records throughout the year reduces the chance that you will forget to provide important information to your tax preparer, which can increase your chances of audit. Good recordkeeping will also result in a more relaxed reaction to notification of an audit as most of your upfront audit work will be complete -- this is especially true if you audit pertains to a tax year several years in the past! Tax records should be retained for at least 3 years after the filing date.
• Provide ALL relevant information to your tax preparer. When your tax preparer is fully informed of all tax-related events that occurring during the year, the chances for errors or omissions on your return dramatically decrease.
• Keep a low profile. Error-free, complete tax returns that are filed in a timely manner don't have the tendency to raise any of those infamous "red flags" with the IRS. During the year, if the IRS does send you correspondence, it should be responded to immediately and fully. Don't hesitate to retain professional assistance to help you "fly under the radar".

While the odds of your tax return being audited remain very low, it does happen to even the most diligent taxpayers. If you are contacted about an examination by the IRS, take a deep breath, relax and contact the office as soon as possible for additional assistance and guidance.

Employers are required by the Internal Revenue Code to calculate, withhold, and deposit with the IRS all federal employment taxes related to wages paid to employees. Failure to comply with these requirements can find certain "responsible persons" held personally liable. Who is a responsible person for purposes of employment tax obligations? The broad interpretation defined by the courts and the IRS may surprise you.

Employers are required by the Internal Revenue Code to calculate, withhold, and deposit with the IRS all federal employment taxes related to wages paid to employees. Failure to comply with these requirements can find certain "responsible persons" held personally liable. Who is a responsible person for purposes of employment tax obligations? The broad interpretation defined by the courts and the IRS may surprise you.

Employer's responsibility regarding employment taxes

Employment taxes such as federal income tax, social security (FICA) tax, unemployment (FUTA) tax and various state taxes (note that state issues are not addressed in this article) are all required to be withheld from an employee's wages. Wages are defined in the Code and the accompanying IRS regulations as all remuneration for services performed by an employee for an employer, including the value of remuneration, such as benefits, paid in any form other than cash. The employer is responsible for depositing withheld taxes (along with related employer taxes) with the IRS in a timely manner.

100% penalty for non-compliance

Although the employer entity is required by law to withhold and pay over employment taxes, the penalty provisions of the Code are enforceable against any responsible person who willfully fails to withhold, account for, or pay over withholding tax to the government. The trust fund recovery penalty -- equal to 100% of the tax not withheld and/or paid over -- is a collection device that is normally assessed only if the tax can't be collected from the employer entity itself. Once assessed, however, this steep penalty becomes a personal liability of the responsible person(s) that can wreak havoc on their personal financial situation -- even personal bankruptcy is not an "out" as this penalty is not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

A corporation, partnership, limited liability or other form of doing business won't insulate a "responsible person" from this obligation. But who is a responsible person for purposes of withholding and paying over employment taxes, and ultimately the possible resulting penalty for noncompliance? Also, what constitutes "willful failure to pay and/or withhold"? To give you a better understanding of your potential liability as an employer or employee, these questions are addressed below.

Who are "responsible persons"?

Typically, the types of individuals who are deemed "responsible persons" for purposes of the employment tax withholding and payment are corporate officers or employees whose job description includes managing and paying employment taxes on behalf of the employer entity.

However, the type of responsibility targeted by the Code and regulations includes familiarity with and/or control over functions that are involved in the collection and deposit of employment taxes. Unfortunately for potential targets, Internal Revenue Code Section 6672 doesn't define the term, and the courts and the IRS have not formulated a specific rule that can be applied to determine who is or is not a "responsible person." Recent cases have found the courts ruling both ways, with the IRS generally applying a broad, comprehensive standard.

A Texas district court, for example, looked at the duties performed by an executive -- and rejected her argument that responsibility should only be assigned to the person with the greatest control over the taxes. Responsibility was not limited to the person with the most authority -- it could be assigned to any number of people so long as they all had sufficient knowledge and capability.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has delineated six nonexclusive factors to determine responsibility for purposes of the penalty: whether the person: (1) is an officer or member of the board of directors; (2) owns a substantial amount of stock in the company; (3) manages the day-to-day operations of the business; (4) has the authority to hire or fire employees; (5) makes decisions as to the disbursement of funds and payment of creditors; and (6) possesses the authority to sign company checks. No one factor is dispositive, according to the court, but it is clear that the court looks to the individual's authority; what he or she could do, not what he or she actually did -- or knew.

The Ninth Circuit recently cited similar factors, holding that whether an individual had knowledge that the taxes were unpaid was irrelevant; instead, said the court, responsibility is a matter of status, duty, and authority, not knowledge. Agreeing with the Texas district court, above, the court held that the penalty provision of Code section 6672 doesn't confine liability for unpaid taxes to the single officer with the greatest control or authority over corporate affairs.

Suffice it to say that, under the various courts' interpretations -- or that of the IRS -- many corporate managers and officers who are neither assigned nor assume any actual responsibility for the regular withholding, collection or deposit of federal employment taxes would be surprised to find that they could be responsible for taxes that should have been paid over by the employer entity but weren't.

What constitutes "willful failure" to comply?

Once it has been established that an individual qualifies as a responsible person, he must also be found to have acted willfully in failing to withhold and pay the taxes. Although it may be easier to establish the ingredients for "responsibility," some courts have focused on the requirement that the individual's failure be willful, relying on various means to divine his or her intent.

An Arizona district court, for example, found that a retired company owner who had turned over the operation of his business to his children while maintaining only consultant status was indeed a responsible person -- but concluded that his past actions indicated that he did not willfully cause the nonpayment of the company's employment taxes. Since he had loaned money to the company in the past when necessary, his inaction with respect to the taxes suggested that he believed the company was meeting its obligations and the taxes were being paid.

A Texas district court found willfulness where an officer of a bankrupt company knew that the taxes were due but paid other creditors instead.

The Fifth Circuit has determined that the willfulness inquiry is the critical factor in most penalty cases, and that it requires only a voluntary, conscious, and intentional act, not a bad motive or evil intent. "A responsible person acts willfully if [s]he knows the taxes are due but uses corporate funds to pay other creditors, or if [s]he recklessly disregards the risk that the taxes may not be remitted to the government, or if, learning of the underpayment of taxes fails to use later-acquired available funds to pay the obligation.

Planning ahead

Is there any way for those with access to the inner workings of an employer's finances or tax responsibilities -- but without actual responsibility or knowledge of employment tax matters -- to protect themselves from the "responsible person" penalty? It may depend on which jurisdiction you're in -- although a survey of the courts suggests most are more willing than not to find liability. Otherwise, the wisest course may be to enter into an employment contract that carefully delineates and separates the duties and responsibilities -- and the expected scope of knowledge -- of an individual who might find himself with the dubious distinction of being responsible for a distinctly unexpected and undesirable drain on his finances.

The laws and requirements related to employment taxes can be complex and confusing with steep penalties for non-compliance. For additional assistance with your employment related tax issues, please contact the office for additional guidance.

Q. I have a professional services firm and am considering hiring my wife to help out with some of the administrative tasks in the office. I don't think we'll have a problem working together but I would like to have more information about the tax aspects of such an arrangement before I make the leap. What are some of the tax advantages of hiring my spouse?

Q. I have a professional services firm and am considering hiring my wife to help out with some of the administrative tasks in the office. I don't think we'll have a problem working together but I would like to have more information about the tax aspects of such an arrangement before I make the leap. What are some of the tax advantages of hiring my spouse?

A. Small business owners have long adhered to the practice of hiring family members to help them run their businesses -- results have ranged from very rewarding to absolutely disastrous. From a purely financial aspect, however, it is very important for you as a business owner to consider the tax advantages and potential pitfalls of hiring -- or continuing to employ -- family members in your small business.

Keeping it all in the family

Pay your family -- not Uncle Sam. Hiring family members can be a way of keeping more of your business income available for you and your family. The business gets a deduction for the wages paid -- as long as the family members are performing actual services in exchange for the compensation that they are receiving. This is true even though the family member will have to include the compensation received in income.

Some of the major tax advantages that often can be achieved through hiring a family member -- in this case, your spouse -- include:

Health insurance deduction. If you are self-employed and hire your spouse as a bona fide employee, your spouse -- as one of your employees -- can be given full health insurance coverage for all family members, including you as the business owner. This will convert the family health insurance premiums into a 100% deductible expense.

Company retirement plan participation. You may be able to deduct contributions made on behalf of your spouse to a company sponsored retirement plan if they are employees. The tax rules involved to put family members into your businesses retirement plan are quite complex, however, and generally require you to give equal treatment to all employees, whether or not related.

Travel expenses. If your spouse is an employee, you may be able to deduct the costs attributable to her or him accompanying you on business travel if both of you perform a legitimate business function while travelling.

IRA contributions. Paying your spouse a salary may enable them to make deductible IRA contributions based on the earned income that they receive, or Roth contributions that will accumulate tax-free for eventual tax-free distribution.

"Reasonable compensation"

In order for a business owner to realize any of the advantages connected with the hiring family members as discussed above, it is imperative for the family member to have engaged in bona fide work that merits the compensation being paid. Because this area has such a high potential for abuse, it's definitely a hot issue with the IRS. If compensation paid to a family member is deemed excessive, payments may be reclassified as gifts or as a means of equalizing payments to shareholders.

As you decide on how much to pay your spouse working in your business, keep in mind the reasonable compensation issue. Consider the going market rate for the work that is being done and pay accordingly. This conservative approach could save you money and headaches in the event of an audit by the IRS.

Hiring your spouse can be a rewarding and cost effective solution for your small business. However, in order to get the maximum benefit from such an arrangement, proper planning should be done. For additional guidance, please feel free to contact the office.

Q. Each year when it comes time to prepare my return, I realize how little I think about my tax situation during the rest of the year. I seem to lack any sort of common sense when it comes to dealing with my taxes. Do you have any general advice for people like me trying to "do the right thing" in any tax situation that may arise during the year?

Q. Each year when it comes time to prepare my return, I realize how little I think about my tax situation during the rest of the year. I seem to lack any sort of common sense when it comes to dealing with my taxes. Do you have any general advice for people like me trying to "do the right thing" in any tax situation that may arise during the year?

A. Unfortunately, you're not alone in your "seasonal" approach to considering your tax situation. Many people have a once-a-year relationship with their tax professional, which can result in the improper handling of important tax documents and sometimes-costly financial decisions. When it comes to handling your tax situation during the year, you will find that a little common sense will go a long way.

Here are some general common sense tips to handling all things tax-related pre- tax season and during the "off-season":

Don't assume all your tax paperwork is correct. Check Forms W-2s and 1099s for accuracy. Many W-2s and 1099s are prepared by data processing companies that merely process your tax information as raw data. Mistakes have been known to occur. Although your employer or financial institution should be checking these forms for accuracy, it's a good idea to double-check these forms against payroll stubs and monthly statements from the payer. If you find a discrepancy, notify your employer as soon as possible to the error corrected and reported to the appropriate taxing authorities.

Gather possible ALL relevant tax documents for your tax preparation. Don't avoid taking legitimate deductions out of fear of "raising red flags" that may cause your return to be audited. Filing a complete and accurate return is required and is your best defense against an audit.

Don't make decisions solely on potential "tax breaks". All good investment or business decisions should be able to stand on their own before tax breaks are considered. A change in the tax law can be disastrous (and costly) when you are stuck in an affected investment (can you say "abusive tax shelter"?).

Seek planning advice from a tax professional. Probably the best investment decision you can make is to seek out the services of your tax professional. In most cases, the amount you are charged for good tax advice is a fraction of the resulting tax savings.

Consult with a tax professional before responding to IRS notices. If you receive a notice from the IRS (or any taxing authority) do not automatically assume that it is accurate and mail them a check. Many notices are inaccurate or merely require additional explanation. Tax professionals have the knowledge and experience to recognize areas where additional explanation or documentation may reduce or eliminate the assessment stated on the notice.

If audited, consider your appeal rights. Although the IRS auditor may not bring it to your attention, the end of an audit is be no means the end of the road for your tax case. Appealing an audit decision can many times put your case in front of a more experienced agent who may better understand the issues and your position on them.

Taking a little time during the year to consider your tax situation and invoke a little common sense can pay off with substantial tax savings and the avoidance of unnecessary expenditures. If you need any additional assistance throughout the year, please do not hesitate to contact the office for guidance.

All of us will, at one time or another, incur financial losses - whether insubstantial or quite significant -- in our business and personal lives. When business fortunes head South -- either temporarily or in a more prolonged slide, it is important to be aware of how the tax law can limit the actual amount of your losses and your ability to deduct them. Here are some of the types of losses your business may experience and the related tax considerations to keep in mind in the event of a business downturn.

All of us will, at one time or another, incur financial losses - whether insubstantial or quite significant -- in our business and personal lives. When business fortunes head South -- either temporarily or in a more prolonged slide, it is important to be aware of how the tax law can limit the actual amount of your losses and your ability to deduct them. Here are some of the types of losses your business may experience and the related tax considerations to keep in mind in the event of a business downturn.

Bad debts

One loss that occurs frequently when business slows down is bad debt. A bad debt is simply a technical term used to describe a debt that has become totally or partially worthless. Different strategies apply depending upon whether you are the borrower or the lender.

As borrower. If you are the borrower, the "forgiveness" of all or part of the debt by the lender will generally trigger taxable income on that amount, unless the business is insolvent (debts exceed liabilities).

Note. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (2009 Recovery Act) allows some business to elect to recognize cancellation of indebtedness income over five years, beginning in 2014. The temporary benefit applies to specific types of business debt repurchased by the business after December 31, 2008 and before January 1, 2011. Under this provision, an applicable debt instrument includes a bond, note, certificate, debenture, or other instrument that constitutes indebtedness issued by a C corporation or any other "person" in connection with the conduct of trade or business by that person. This election is irrevocable. Moreover, the liquidation or sale of substantially all the taxpayer's assets can result in acceleration of deferred items.

Although recognizing income may not be an immediate problem for a business that has plenty of losses to net against current income, additional income may wash out a net operating loss carryover that can either provide an immediate refund for a past tax year or shelter from income in the future. As a result, some businesses re-define debt "forgiveness" into a non-taxable event, such as a refinancing or a business-generated settlement.

As lender. If you are the lender, your major tax concern will be proving that a real debt exists, and then determining how fast you can deduct the bad debt and whether the deduction can offset ordinary income, as opposed to just capital gains.

Loans between corporations and their shareholders are scrutinized to make sure that they are really debts rather than disguised dividends or contributions to the corporation's capital. You can protect yourself by taking the steps that an arm's-length lender would take, such as putting it in writing and charging a reasonable rate of interest.

The IRS sometimes requires taxpayers to play a guessing game about which tax year a debt becomes sufficiently worthless to support the deduction. Because of potential statute of limitations problems, tax experts generally recommend that you claim the loss in the earliest possible year that it can reasonably be argued to be worthless.

Finally, you must determine whether a business or nonbusiness bad debt exists. A business bad debt must be created or acquired, or become worthless, in the course of your trade or business. If you conduct a business in the form of a corporation, generally any debt held by the corporation is a business debt. Any debt not falling into the business category is a nonbusiness debt.

As guarantor. If you take out a loan on behalf of your corporation or you personally guarantee the loan and then must make good on it, you are usually considered to have either made a contribution to capital or created a nonbusiness bad debt to protect your position as an investor. A nonbusiness debt must be completely worthless before a loss can be taken. Furthermore, nonbusiness bad debts are subject to limits on capital losses. Business bad debts, on the other hand, are deductible as ordinary losses in full against your other income.

Net operating losses

If you show a net operating loss for the year, it normally may be carried back two years or carried forward up to 20 years until it can be netted against current taxable income. A net operating loss (NOL) for this purpose has some complexity built in to strip it of most personal tax characteristics. An individual's NOL, for example, does not include any offset for personal or dependency exemptions, for net nonbusiness capital losses, or for nonbusiness itemized deductions that exceed nonbusiness income. Another choice in dealing with an NOL is to elect to immediately carryforward the loss. This can be advantageous when high rate-bracket income is anticipated in the following year.

Note. The 2009 Recovery Act provides a five-year carryback of 2008 NOLs for qualified small businesses only. These are small businesses with average gross receipts of $15 million or less. Businesses can choose to carryback NOLs three, four or five years. This treatment applies only to NOLs for any tax year beginning or ending in 2008. The normal NOL carryback period returns in for NOLs incurred in 2009.

Pass-through losses

One of the advantages of investing in a business as a partner or a subchapter S shareholder is that losses on the business level get passed-through to your individual tax return. Regular corporations, on the other hand, file separate returns and the shareholder cannot "realize" a tax loss until he or she actually sells stock.

For both partners and S shareholders, however, the ability to deduct pass-through losses is determined by the amount of tax basis the partner has in his partnership interest or the S shareholder has in his shares. This, in turn, depends upon a variety of factors, including the original price paid, the amount of losses already passed through, cash or property distributed, and any later contributions.

If you have such a stake in a business, a tax strategy for both adding to basis and preventing its diminution is critical to your ability to be able to deduct business losses as a partner or S shareholder.

Section 1244 Stock

If you sell stock at a loss and that stock had been designated on its issuance to be "Section 1244 stock," you are more fortunate than most investors who bail out during a business downturn. Reason: you are entitled to an ordinary loss deduction rather than a capital loss. This special loss treatment is limited to $50,000 for any one year ($100,000 for joint returns). Other requirements are that the stock was issued for no more than $1 million, less than 50% of corporate receipts were from passive sources for the first five years of operation, and the shareholder claiming the treatment must be an individual.

Dealing with and making the most of losses related to a business downturn can get complicated. Because the preceding discussion is meant to be general, is limited in nature and does not cover all the tax rules involved, you are encourage to contact the office for additional guidance with this issue.

Fringe benefits to employees often provide the "sizzle" to keep them aboard during times of high employment. One increasingly popular benefit -- from the perspective of both employees and employers alike -- comes in the form of "qualified transportation fringe benefits." Set up properly, this fringe benefit arrangement can fund a substantial portion of an employee's commuting expenses with either pre-tax dollars or tax-free employer-provided benefits.

The recently enacted American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009 (2009 Recovery Act) increases certain qualified transportation fringe benefits. Fringe benefits to employees often provide the "sizzle" to keep them aboard during times of high employment. One increasingly popular benefit -- from the perspective of both employees and employers alike -- comes in the form of "qualified transportation fringe benefits." Set up properly, this fringe benefit arrangement can fund a substantial portion of an employee's commuting expenses with either pre-tax dollars or tax-free employer-provided benefits.

How can personal commuting expenses result in a tax benefit?

Commuting expenses to and from a place of business and home are generally considered nondeductible, personal expenses. The magic of "transportation fringe benefits," however, is that they can turn some commuting expenses into tax-favored benefits. They do so by defraying some of an employee's commuting expenses with either pre-tax dollars that reduce otherwise taxable compensation, or with direct, employer-subsidized amounts that are considered tax free.

What are "qualified transportation fringe benefits"?

Qualified transportation fringe benefits include transit passes, van pooling and qualified parking. These benefits are not included in an employee's gross income up to an inflation-adjusted monthly cap. The 2009 Recovery Act increases for March 2009 through 2010 the current $120 per month income exclusion amount for transit passes and van pooling to $230 per month. For qualified parking expenses, the limit is $230 per month. Additionally, employees can exclude $20 per month for qualified bicycle commuting. Benefits that exceed the limitation are included in an employee's income.

Transit passes. A transit pass --which is now tax-free up to $230 per month-- includes a pass, token, fare card, voucher or similar item entitling a person to ride at a reduced price on mass transit facilities or in a highway vehicle with a seating capacity of at least six adult passengers. Transit passes also include cash reimbursements only if a voucher is not readily available for direct distribution by the employer to employees.

Van pooling. Transportation in a vanpool may be valued at its fair market value, or under the automobile lease valuation rule, the vehicle cents-per-mile rule, or the commuting valuation rule. Cash reimbursement for this transportation is allowed. Car pooling arrangements can obtain pre-tax benefits only if organized and administered by the employer. Private arrangements among employees won't work.

The van that is used must carry a seating capacity of at least six adults, not including the driver. At least 80 percent of its mileage use must be reasonably expected to be for purposes of transporting employees.

Parking. Some employers assume -- incorrectly -- that transportation fringe benefits are available only in circumstances that are "environmentally correct." Parking subsidies, which may persuade some employees not to use mass transportation, nevertheless can amount to a tax-free fringe benefit.

The exclusion is available only for the value of parking provided to an employee at the business premises of the employer or at a staging area from which the employee commutes to work by car pool, commuter highway vehicle, or mass transit facilities. Parking provided by an employer includes parking for which the employer pays, either directly to a parking lot operator or by reimbursement to the employee, or provides on premises it owns or leases.

How is this fringe benefit administered?

In compensation-reduction arrangements (where the employee foots the bill "pre-tax"), the employee's election must be in writing or in another form, such as electronic, that includes, in a permanent and verifiable form, the required information. The election must contain the date of the election, the amount of the compensation to be reduced, and the period for which the benefit will be provided. The employer may provide as a default that employees will be provided with the fringe unless they elect to receive cash, provided that employees receive adequate notice that a reduction will be made and are given adequate opportunity to make a contrary election.

The portion of a qualified transportation fringe benefit that is included in income is subject to withholding and reporting rules. Such amount is treated as wages for federal income and employment tax withholding purposes, and must be reported on an employee's Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement. Qualified transportation fringes not exceeding the applicable monthly limit are not wages for purposes of withholding and employment taxes.

Is this fringe benefit available to self-employed individuals?

If you are self-employed, qualified transportation fringe benefits are not available to you. For this purpose, self-employed persons include independent contractors, partners and 2-percent shareholders of S corporations. However, a de minimis fringe rule for transit passes continues to apply: tokens or farecards worth $21 a month or less, provided by a partnership to a partner that enable the partner to commute on a public transit system, are excludable from the partner's gross income. In addition, if a partner performing services for a partnership or a director of a corporation would be able to deduct the cost of parking as a trade or business expense, the value of free or reduced-cost parking is entirely excludable as a working condition fringe.

Providing some assistance to your employees to offset their commuting costs in the form of transportation fringe benefits can prove to be an effective employee recruitment and retention tool. If you are interested in finding out more about this type of fringe and how it could benefit your business, please contact the office for a consultation.