Newsletters

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

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

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

All four bills passed unanimously.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

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

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

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

Rezoning

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

Land Value

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

Penalty Imposed

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notice 2025-18

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

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

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

Trust Not Property of the Estate

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

Claim Not an Estate Expense

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

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

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

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

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

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

Passage of the “Tax Extenders” undeniably provided one of the major headlines – and tax benefits – to come out of the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act), signed into law on December 18, 2015. Although these tax extenders (over 50 of them in all) were largely made retroactive to January 1, 2015, valuable enhancements to some of these tax benefits were not made retroactive. Rather, these enhancements were made effective only starting January 1, 2016. As a result, individuals and businesses alike should treat these enhancements as brand-new tax breaks, taking a close look at whether one or several of them may apply. Here’s a list to consider as 2016 tax planning gets underway now that tax filing-season has ended.

Passage of the “Tax Extenders” undeniably provided one of the major headlines – and tax benefits – to come out of the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act), signed into law on December 18, 2015. Although these tax extenders (over 50 of them in all) were largely made retroactive to January 1, 2015, valuable enhancements to some of these tax benefits were not made retroactive. Rather, these enhancements were made effective only starting January 1, 2016. As a result, individuals and businesses alike should treat these enhancements as brand-new tax breaks, taking a close look at whether one or several of them may apply. Here’s a list to consider as 2016 tax planning gets underway now that tax filing-season has ended:

Section 179 expensing. The PATH Act permanently extended the Code Section 179 dollar of investment limitations at the higher $500,000 and $2 million, levels, which are adjusted for inflation for tax years beginning after 2015 (it is $500,000 and $2,010,000 for 2016). In addition, starting only in 2016, the $250,000 limitation on the amount of section 179 property that can be attributable to qualified real property has been eliminated. Further, for tax years beginning after 2015, the Code Section 179 expense deduction is now allowed for air conditioning and heating units.

Bonus depreciation. In addition to the big news that the PATH Act extended Code Section 168(k) bonus depreciation to apply to most qualifying property placed in service before January 1, 2020, it made a number of modifications, including:

• replacement of the bonus allowance for qualified leasehold improvement property with a bonus allowance for additions and improvements to the interior of any nonresidential real property, effective for property placed in service after 2015; and
• allowance to farmers of a 50 percent deduction in place of bonus depreciation on certain trees, vines, and plants in the year of planting or grafting rather than the placed-in-service year, effective for planting and grafting after 2015.

Section 181 expensing. Special Section 181 expensing for qualified film and television productions is extended for two years to apply to qualified film and television productions commencing before January 1, 2017. However, the expensing rule is also expanded to apply to qualified live theatrical productions commencing after December 31, 2015.

WOTC. The Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) has been extended five years through December 31, 2019. In addition, the credit has been expanded and made available to employers who hire individuals who are qualified long-term unemployment recipients who begin work for the employer after December 31, 2015.

Research credit. The PATH Act permanently extended the research credit that applies to amounts paid or incurred after December 31, 2014. However, a new allowance of the research credit against alternative minimum tax liability applies to credits determined for tax years beginning after December 31, 2015. In addition, a new payroll tax credit associated with the research credit applies only to tax years beginning after December 31, 2015 (Act Sec. 121(d) (3) of the PATH Act).

Military differential pay. The PATH Act extended the employer tax credit for differential wage payments made to qualified employees on active military duty has been made permanent and applies to payments made after December 31, 2014. Effective only for tax years beginning after December 31, 2015, however, the credit may be claimed by all employers regardless of the average number of individuals employed during the tax year. The credit is also no longer limited to eligible small business employers with less than 50 employees.

Teachers' classroom expense deduction. The PATH Act permanently extended the above-the-line deduction for elementary and secondary school teachers' classroom expenses. Additionally, for tax years after 2015, the Act includes "professional development expenses" within the scope of the deduction. These expenses include courses related to the curriculum in which the educator provides instruction.

Nonbusiness energy property credit. The PATH Act extended the nonrefundable nonbusiness energy property credit allowed to individuals under Code Sec. 25C for two years, making it available for qualified energy improvements and property placed in service before January 1, 2017. For property placed in service after December 31, 2015, the standards for energy efficient building envelope components are modified to meet new conservation criteria. 

If you have any questions about these new “extenders,” please contact our office.

Tax reform continues to be highly touted in Congress as lawmakers from both parties call for simplification of countless complex rules, overhaul of tax rates, and more. At times this year, President Obama and Congressional Republicans seem far apart on a way forward, but at similar times in the past, agreements have quickly and often surprisingly emerged, most recently in the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act). As the November elections approach more closely every passing day, lawmakers from both parties and the President have a short window to agree on tax legislation. The weeks leading up to Congress’ summer recess may be decisive.

Tax reform continues to be highly touted in Congress as lawmakers from both parties call for simplification of countless complex rules, overhaul of tax rates, and more. At times this year, President Obama and Congressional Republicans seem far apart on a way forward, but at similar times in the past, agreements have quickly and often surprisingly emerged, most recently in the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act). As the November elections approach more closely every passing day, lawmakers from both parties and the President have a short window to agree on tax legislation. The weeks leading up to Congress’ summer recess may be decisive.

PATH Act as path forward

The scope of the PATH Act surprised many Hill observers. Instead of merely extending the so-called tax extenders (including the state and local sales tax deduction, research tax credit, teachers’ classroom expense deduction), Congress voted to make permanent many of the incentives. Although there had been hearings and discussions about permanently extending some of the incentives, the prospect of getting a bill through Congress and to the President’s desk seemed remote right up to December. Behind the scenes negotiations between the White House and Congressional Republicans resulted in the largest tax bill since the American Tax Relief Act of 2012. The PATH Act went far beyond the extenders. It made changes to the rules for IRS administration, real estate investment trusts (REITs), how the Tax Court works, and more.

Passage of the PATH Act shows that another tax bill, possibly an even larger tax reform package, could make it out of Congress before year-end. Speaking in Washington, D.C. earlier this year, Senate Finance Committee (SFC) ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, suggested such an outcome. “Against all odds, Democrats and Republicans reached a bipartisan agreement on the PATH Act," Wyden said. "The December agreement (leading to passage of the PATH Act worked out because of the approach members took to the negotiations." Wyden predicted that lawmakers would use the PATH Act as a "blueprint for broader reform."

Everything on the table

Almost everything in the Tax Code appears to be on the table at this time. House Ways and Means Chair Kevin Brady, R-Texas, who is a leading proponent of tax reform, in the House has said as much. "Not all deductions and exclusions will stay; not all will go. The question to ask is: how will these policies drive economic growth?" Among the provisions/ideas being discussed by legislators are:

• Consolidation of the individual income tax rates
• Enhancing incentives for lower and middle income taxpayers
• Revising/repealing some of the tax measures under the Affordable Care Act
• Lowering the U.S. corporate tax rate
• Consolidating education tax incentives
• Eliminating/consolidating some energy tax breaks
• Repealing the alternative minimum tax (AMT)
• Tweaking the child tax credit, earned income tax credit, child and dependent care credit

International tax reform

Reforming the rules for international taxation, such as the complex rules for corporate inversions, transfer pricing, and more, has been of special interest this year to the House Ways and Means Committee. One unanswered question is whether international tax reform can move forward by itself or if proponents need to add “sweeteners” such as expanded tax breaks for lower and middle income taxpayers to win support in Congress. Some lawmakers want to link international tax reform to a cut in the U.S. corporate tax rate. How to pay for any rate cuts also is generating questions and few answers. President Obama has proposed to tighten the international tax rules and use the expected revenue to pay for infrastructure projects, along with reducing the corporate tax rate.

Energy tax measures

Before Congress’ summer recess, a package of energy tax breaks could be approved by the House and Senate. Many of these are temporary incentives that were not included in the PATH Act, such as the special credits for fuel cell vehicles. There appears to be bipartisan support to make permanent some, if not all, of these tax breaks. SFC ranking member Wyden is spearheading the movement to win passage of these energy tax incentives, seeking to attach them to a bipartisan aviation bill.

Please contact our office if you have any questions about tax reform and what measures might be taken now in anticipation of various changes.