OR - IRC conformity bill advances The Oregon House passed a bill that would update the state's income tax Internal Revenue Code conformity date to December 31, 2024. The bill now goes to the Oregon Senate. H.B. 2092, as passed by the...
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. 1152would 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. 517would 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. 1491would 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 passedH.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 foundhere.
AICPA’s tax policy and advocacy comment letters for 2025 can be foundhere.
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 underCode Sec. 6662(h).
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 underCode Sec. 42(h)(3)(C)(ii);
calendar-year private activity bond volume cap underCode Sec. 146; and
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.
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.
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.
The IRS has provided guidance regarding whether taxpayers receiving loans under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) may deduct otherwise deductible expenses. Act Sec. 1106(i) of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136) did not address whether generally allowable deductions such as those under Code Secs. 162 and 163 would still be permitted if the loan was later forgiven pursuant to Act Sec. 1106(b). The IRS has found that such deductions are not permissible.
The IRS has provided guidance regarding whether taxpayers receiving loans under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) may deduct otherwise deductible expenses. Act Sec. 1106(i) of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136) did not address whether generally allowable deductions such as those under Code Secs. 162 and 163 would still be permitted if the loan was later forgiven pursuant to Act Sec. 1106(b). The IRS has found that such deductions are not permissible.
PPP Loans The CARES Act expanded the Small Business Administration’s (SBA’s) existing Section 7(a) loan program to include certain PPP loans. The PPP is made available from the SBA to provide small businesses with loans to help pay payroll costs, mortgages, rent, and utilities during the COVID-19 (coronavirus) crisis. All payments of principal, interest, and fees under the loans are deferred for at least 6 months. The loans are also forgiven for amounts payroll costs, mortgage or rent obligations, and certain utility payments incurred between February 15 and June 30. The loans are 100 percent guaranteed by the SBA.
Deductions Prohibited If the SBA forgives a taxpayer’s PPP loan pursuant to Act. Sec. 1106(b) of the CARES Act, the amount of the loan is excluded from gross income. Under Reg. §1.265-1 taxpayers cannot deduct expenses that are allocable to income that is either wholly excluded from gross income or wholly exempt from the taxes. This rule exists in order to prevent double tax benefits. Thus, the IRS has determined that taxpayers who have their PPP loans forgiven may not deduct any business or interest expenses related to the income associated with the loan.
Treasury and the Small Business Administration (SBA) have worked together to release the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Loan Forgiveness Application. According to Treasury’s May 15 press release, the application and correlating instructions inform borrowers how to apply for forgiveness of PPP loans under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136). The PPP was enacted under the CARES Act to provide eligible small businesses with loans during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Treasury and the Small Business Administration (SBA) have worked together to release the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Loan Forgiveness Application. According to Treasury’s May 15 press release, the application and correlating instructions inform borrowers how to apply for forgiveness of PPP loans under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136). The PPP was enacted under the CARES Act to provide eligible small businesses with loans during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Additionally, SBA is expected to issue regulations and guidance to assist borrowers as they complete their applications, and to provide lenders with guidance on their responsibilities, according to Treasury.
Measures included in the application and instructions intended to reduce compliance burdens and simplify the process for borrowers include:
options to calculate payroll costs using an "alternative payroll covered period" that aligns with borrowers’ regular payroll cycles;
flexibility to include eligible payroll and non-payroll expenses paid or incurred during the eight-week period after receiving their PPP loan;
step-by-step instructions on how to perform the calculations required by the CARES Act to confirm eligibility for loan forgiveness;
borrower-friendly implementation of statutory exemptions from loan forgiveness reduction based on rehiring by June 30; and
the addition of a new exemption from the loan forgiveness reduction for borrowers who have made a good-faith, written offer to rehire workers that was declined.
Although you may want your traditional individual retirement accounts (IRAs) to keep accumulating tax-free well into your old age, the IRS sets certain deadlines. The price for getting an upfront deduction when contributing to a traditional IRA (or having a rollover IRA) is that Uncle Sam eventually starts taxing it once you reach 70½. The required minimum distribution (RMD) rules under the Internal Revenue Code accomplish that.
Although you may want your traditional individual retirement accounts (IRAs) to keep accumulating tax-free well into your old age, the IRS sets certain deadlines. The price for getting an upfront deduction when contributing to a traditional IRA (or having a rollover IRA) is that Uncle Sam eventually starts taxing it once you reach 70½. The required minimum distribution (RMD) rules under the Internal Revenue Code accomplish that.
If distributions do not meet the strict minimum requirements for any one year once you reach 70½, you must pay an excise tax equal to 50 percent, even if you kept the money in the account by mistake.
Required minimum distribution
The traditional IRA owner must begin receiving a minimum amount of distributions (the RMD) from his or her IRA by April 1 of the year following the year in which he or she reaches age 70½. That first deadline is referred to as the required beginning date.
If, in any year, you as a traditional IRA owner receive more than the RMD for that year, you will not receive credit for the additional amount when determining the RMD for future years. However, any amount distributed in your 70½ year will be credited toward the amount that must be distributed by April 1 of the following year. The RMD for any year after the year you turn 70½ must be made by December 31 of that year.
Distribution period
The distribution periodis the maximum number of years over which you are allowed to take distributions from the IRA. You calculate your RMD for each year by dividing the amount in the IRA as of the close of business on December 31 of the preceding year by your life expectancy at that time as set by special IRS tables. Those tables are found in IRS Publication 590, "IRAs Appendix C."
Example: Say you were born on November 1, 1936, are unmarried, and have a traditional IRA. Since you have reached age 70½ in 2007 (on May 1 to be exact), your required beginning date is April 1, 2008. Assume further that as of December 31, 2006, your account balance was $26,500. Using Table III, the applicable distribution period for someone your age as of December 31, 2007 (when you will be age 71) is 26.5 years. Your RMD for 2007 is $1,000 ($26,500 ÷ 26.5). That amount must be distributed to you by April 1, 2008.
The RMD rules do not apply to Roth IRAs; they only apply to traditional IRAs. That is one of the principal estate planning reasons for setting up a Roth IRA or rolling over a traditional IRA into a Roth IRA. The downside of a Roth IRA, of course, is not getting an upfront deduction for contributions, or having to pay tax on the balance when rolled over from a traditional IRA into a Roth IRA.
Please contact this office if you need any help in determining a RMD or in deciding whether a rollover to a Roth IRA now to avoid RMD issues later might make sense for you.
Q. I use my computer for both business and pleasure and I am confused about how much I can deduct. Also, how are PDAs such as Palm Pilots, etc. deducted for tax purposes?
Q. I use my computer for both business and pleasure and I am confused about how much I can deduct. Also, how are PDAs such as Palm Pilots, etc. deducted for tax purposes?
A. Because computers and peripheral equipment are viewed as more susceptible than other business property to unwarranted deductions for personal use, they are subject to special scrutiny under the tax law. This scrutiny comes from their classification as "listed property," which limits the amount that may be deducted each year.
A computer as listed property only becomes an issue if it is not used exclusively in business. If a computer is used exclusively at the taxpayer's regular business establishment or in the taxpayer's principal trade or business, the listed property limitations don't apply at all.
Any computer that you use predominately for pleasure may not be written-off over its life nearly as quickly as exclusive-use computers. If your business usage does not meet the predominant use test, you are relegated to using a much slower depreciation method (the ADS, straight-line method) over the longer-ADS recovery period.
Your computer will meet the predominant use test for any tax year if its qualified business use is more than 50% of its total use. You must review your computer's usage and determine the percentage usage for each of its various uses (business, investment, and personal). When computing the predominant use test, any investment use of your computer cannot be considered as part of the percentage of qualified business use. However, you do use the combined total of business and investment use to figure your depreciation deduction for the property. It's up to you to prove business use to the IRS; the IRS does not need to prove personal use to reject your deductions.
In order to claim your computer expenses, you must meet the adequate records requirements by maintaining a "log" or other documentary evidence that sufficiently establishes the business/investment percentage claimed. The log should be similar to a log you would keep to track your auto expenses, indicating date, time of usage, business or nonbusiness, and business reason. Good documentation is always the key to success if your return is ever audited.
Finally, what about application of these rules to PDA's? The shorter the designated "life" of the property, the faster you can write-off its cost. Cell phones are generally considered 7-year property (the cost is depreciated over seven years). Computers are generally considered 5-year property, and computer-software normally is 3-year property. PDA's are generally classified as 5-year property, being considered wireless computers. If a PDA includes a cell phone feature, as long as that feature is not predominant and removable, it continues to fall under the 5-year property rule. Software that you may download to your PDA is 3-year property. Software that you buy already loaded into the PDA, however, is 5-year property. Monthly charges for a wireless service provider are deductible as paid each month, just as your business would deduct any phone or internet service bill.
Most homeowners have found that over the past five to ten years, real estate -especially the home in which they live-- has proven to be a great investment. When the 1997 Tax Law passed, most homeowners assumed that the eventual sale of their home would be tax free. At that time, Congress exempted from tax at least $250,000 of gain on the sale of a principal residence; $500,000 if a joint return was filed. Now, those exemption amounts, which are not adjusted for inflation, don't seem too generous for many homeowners.
Most homeowners have found that over the past five to ten years, real estate -especially the home in which they live-- has proven to be a great investment. When the 1997 Tax Law passed, most homeowners assumed that the eventual sale of their home would be tax free. At that time, Congress exempted from tax at least $250,000 of gain on the sale of a principal residence; $500,000 if a joint return was filed. Now, those exemption amounts, which are not adjusted for inflation, don't seem too generous for many homeowners.
What can be done?
Keeping lots of receipts is one answer! Remember, it will be the gain on your home that is potentially taxable, not full sale price. Gain is equal to net sales price minus an amount equal to the price you paid for your house (including mortgage debt) plus the cost of any improvements made over the years. Bottom line: If your residence has gain that will otherwise be taxed, you will get around 30 percent back on the cost of the improvements (assume your tax bracket is about 30 percent when you sell), simply by keeping good records of those improvements.
The basis of your personal residence is generally made up of three basic components: original cost, improvements, and certain other basis adjustments
Original cost
How your home was acquired will need to be considered when determining its original cost basis.
Purchase or Construction. If you bought your home, your original cost basis will generally include the purchase price of the property and most settlement or closing costs you paid. If you or someone else constructed your home, your basis in the home would be your basis in the land plus the amount you paid to have the home built, including any settlement and closing costs incurred to acquire the land or secure a loan.
Gift. If you acquired your home as a gift, your basis will be the same as it would be in the hands of the donor at the time it was given to you.
Inheritance. If you inherited your home, your basis is the fair market value on the date of the deceased's death or on the "alternate valuation" date, as indicated on the federal estate tax return filed for the deceased.
Divorce. If your home was transferred to you from your ex-spouse incident to your divorce, your basis is the same as the ex-spouse's adjusted basis just before the transfer took place.
Improvements
If you've been in your home any length of time, you most likely have made some home improvements. These improvements will generally increase your home's basis and therefore decrease any potential gain on the sale of your residence. Before you increase your basis for any home improvements, though, you will need to determine which expenditures can actually be considered improvements versus repairs.
An improvement materially adds to the value of your home, considerably prolongs its useful life, or adapts it to new uses. The cost of any improvements cannot be deducted and must be added to the basis of your home. Examples of improvements include putting room additions, putting up a fence, putting in new plumbing or wiring, installing a new roof, and resurfacing your patio. It doesn't need to be a big project, however, just relatively permanent. For example, putting in a skylight or a new kitchen sink qualifies.
Repairs, on the other hand, are expenses that are incurred to keep the property in a generally efficient operating condition and do not add value or extend the life of the property. For a personal residence, these costs do not add to the basis of the home. Examples of repairs are painting, mending drywall, and fixing a minor plumbing problem.
Other basis adjustments
Additional items that will increase your basis include expenditures for restoring damaged property and assessing local improvements. Some common decreases to your home's basis are:
Insurance reimbursements for casualty losses.
Deductible casualty losses that aren't covered by insurance.
Payments received for easement or right-of-way granted.
Deferred gain(s) on previous home sales before 1998.
Depreciation claimed after May 6, 1997 if you used your home for business or rental purposes.
Recordkeeping
In order to document your home's basis, it is wise to keep the records that substantiate the basis of your residence such as settlement statements, receipts, canceled checks, and other records for all improvements you made. Good records can make your life a lot easier if the IRS ever questions your gain calculation. You should keep these records for as long as you own the home. Once you sell the home, keep the records until the statute of limitations expires (generally three years after the date on which the return was filed reporting the sale).
