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)

Gross income is taxed to the person who earns it by performing services, or who owns the property that generates the income. Under the assignment of income doctrine, a taxpayer cannot avoid tax liability by assigning a right to income to someone else. The doctrine is invoked, for example, for assignments to creditors, family members, charities, and controlled entities. Thus, the income is taxable to the person who earned it, even if the person assigns the income to another and never personally receives the income. The doctrine can apply to both individuals and corporations.

Gross income is taxed to the person who earns it by performing services, or who owns the property that generates the income. Under the assignment of income doctrine, a taxpayer cannot avoid tax liability by assigning a right to income to someone else. The doctrine is invoked, for example, for assignments to creditors, family members, charities, and controlled entities. Thus, the income is taxable to the person who earned it, even if the person assigns the income to another and never personally receives the income. The doctrine can apply to both individuals and corporations.

A taxpayer cannot assign income that has already accrued from the property the taxpayer owns, and cannot avoid liability for tax on that income by assigning it to another person or entity. This result often applies to interest, dividends, rent, royalties, and trust income. The doctrine applies when the taxpayer's right to income has ripened so that the receipt of income is practically certain to occur. Once a right to receive income has ripened, the taxpayer who earned it or otherwise created that right will be taxed on the income.

Similarly, under the anticipatory assignment of income doctrine, a taxpayer cannot shift tax liability by transferring property that is a fixed right to income. However, a taxpayer can assign future income by making an assignment of property for value or a bona fide gift of the underlying property.

The doctrine does not apply if a right to income is sold or exchanged for value. If a gift of income-producing property is made, income earned after the date of the gift is taxed to the donee of the gift. If a taxpayer assigns a claim to income that is contingent or uncertain, the assignee of the right is taxable on income that the assignee collects on the claim. If a taxpayer transfers appreciated property prior to a sale or exchange, the appreciation is income to the person owning the property at the time of the sale or exchange.

The mortgage interest deduction is widely used by the majority of individuals who itemize their deductions. In fact, the size of the average mortgage interest deduction alone persuades many taxpayers to itemize their deductions. It is not without cause, therefore, that two recent developments impacting the mortgage interest deserve being highlighted. These developments involve new reporting requirements designed to catch false or inflated deductions; and a case that effectively doubles the size of the mortgage interest deduction available to joint homeowners. But first, some basics.

The mortgage interest deduction is widely used by the majority of individuals who itemize their deductions. In fact, the size of the average mortgage interest deduction alone persuades many taxpayers to itemize their deductions. It is not without cause, therefore, that two recent developments impacting the mortgage interest deserve being highlighted. These developments involve new reporting requirements designed to catch false or inflated deductions; and a case that effectively doubles the size of the mortgage interest deduction available to joint homeowners. But first, some basics.

Mortgage Interest Deduction Ground Rules

Mortgage interest — or "qualified residence interest" — is deductible by individual homeowners. Qualified residence interest generally includes interest paid or accrued during the tax year on debt secured by either the taxpayer's principal residence or a second dwelling unit of the taxpayer to the extent it is considered to be used as a residence (a "qualified residence").

Qualified residence interest comprises amounts paid or incurred on acquisition indebtedness and home equity indebtedness. Acquisition indebtedness is debt that is both:

1. secured by a qualified residence, and
2. incurred in acquiring, constructing or substantially improving the residence.

Home equity indebtedness is any debt secured by a qualified residence that is not acquisition indebtedness to the extent of the difference between the amount of outstanding acquisition indebtedness and the fair market value of the qualified residence.

A qualified residence for purposes of the home mortgage interest deduction can be the principal residence of the taxpayer, and one other residence selected by the taxpayer. In other words, the deduction is limited to interest payments on two homes.

Qualified residence interest is subject to several dollar limitations:

• The total acquisition indebtedness (principal) on which qualified residence interest is deductible is limited to $1 million ($500,000 in the case of married individuals filing separately).
• The total amount of home equity indebtedness (principal) taken into account in calculating deductible qualified residence interest may not exceed $100,000 ($50,000 in the case of married individuals filing separately).

Information reporting. Mortgage service providers have been required to report only the following information to the IRS annually with respect to individual borrower:

• the name and address of the borrower;
• the amount of interest received for the calendar year of the report; and
• the amount of points received for the calendar year and whether the points were paid directly by the borrower.

The amount of interest received by a mortgage service provider is reported on Form 1098, Mortgage Interest Statement, to the IRS. Form 1098 must also be furnished by the mortgage service provider to the payor on or before January 31 of the year following the calendar year in which the mortgage interest is received.

More Detailed Form 1098 Coming

The 2015 Surface Transportation Act (aka the Highway bill), which was signed into law on July 31, 2015, will require that Form 1098, Mortgage Interest Statement, filed with the IRS and provided to homeowners, include information on:

1. the amount of outstanding principal of the mortgage as of the beginning of the calendar year,
2. the address of the property securing the mortgage, and
3. the loan origination date.

These items are in addition to the information that parties were already required to provide to the IRS and payors under existing law.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) had expressed concern that the information reported on Form 1098 is insufficient to allow the IRS to enforce compliance with the deductibility requirements for qualified residence interest. This criticism has included in particular, but not limited to, the dollar limitations imposed on acquisition indebtedness and home equity indebtedness.

While the modifications are intended to boost compliance with the deductibility requirements for qualified residence interest, they also impose a new burden on mortgage service providers. To give mortgage service providers time to reprogram their systems, the additional reporting requirements apply to returns and statements required to be furnished after December 31, 2016.

Joint Ownership

Another major development impacting on some homeowners’ mortgage interest deduction also took place this summer. Reversing the Tax Court, a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has found that when multiple unmarried taxpayers co-own a qualifying residence, the debt limit provisions apply per taxpayer and not per residence (Voss, CA-9, August 7, 2015). The question was one of first impression in the Ninth Circuit, the court observed.

Background. The taxpayers, registered domestic partners, obtained a mortgage to purchase a house (the Rancho Mirage property). In 2002, the taxpayer refinanced and obtained a new mortgage. That same year, the taxpayers purchased another house (the Beverly Hills property) with a mortgage, which they subsequently refinanced and obtained a home equity line of credit totaling $300,000. The total average balance of the two mortgages and the line of credit during the tax years at issue was approximately $2.7 million.

Both taxpayers filed separate income tax returns. Each individual claimed home mortgage interest deductions for interest paid on the two mortgages and the home equity line of credit. The IRS calculated each taxpayer’s mortgage interest deduction by applying a limitation ratio to the total amount of mortgage interest that each petitioner paid in each taxable year. The limitation ratio was the same for both: $1.1 million ($1 million of home acquisition debt plus $100,000 of home equity debt) over the entire average balance, for each tax year, on the Beverly Hills mortgage, the Beverly Hills home equity line of credit, and the Rancho Mirage mortgage. The taxpayers challenged the IRS’s calculations but the Tax Court ruled in favor of the agency.

Court’s analysis. Code Sec. 163(h)(3), the court found, provides that interest on a qualified residence, by a special carve-out, is not considered "personal interest," which would otherwise be nondeductible by taxpayers who are not corporations. A qualified residence is the taxpayer’s principal residence and one other residence of the taxpayer which is selected by the taxpayer for the tax year and which is used by the taxpayer as a residence.

The court further found the Tax Code limits the aggregate amount treated as acquisition indebtedness for any period to $1 million and the aggregate amount treated as home equity indebtedness for any period to $100,000. In the case of a married individual filing a separate return, the debt limits are reduced to $500,000 and $50,000.

Looking at the language of the Tax code, the court found that the debt limit provisions apply per taxpayer and not per residence. There was no reason not to extend this treatment to unmarried co-owners, the court concluded. Thus, each of the homeowners were entitled to the $1 million limit.

Whether this holding will hold up in jurisdictions other than the Ninth Circuit (California and other western states, including Hawaii), and whether it will apply to joint ownership situations for vacation homes, for example, remains to be tested.

If you have any questions regarding how best to maximize your mortgage interest deduction, please do not hesitate to contact this office.

Many federal income taxes are paid from amounts that are withheld from payments to the taxpayer. For instance, amounts roughly equal to an employee's estimated tax liability are generally withheld from the employee's wages and paid over to the government by the employer. In contrast, estimated taxes are taxes that are paid throughout the year on income that is not subject to withholding. Individuals must make estimated tax payments if they are self-employed or their income derives from interest, dividends, investment gains, rents, alimony, or other funds that are not subject to withholding.

Many federal income taxes are paid from amounts that are withheld from payments to the taxpayer. For instance, amounts roughly equal to an employee's estimated tax liability are generally withheld from the employee's wages and paid over to the government by the employer. In contrast, estimated taxes are taxes that are paid throughout the year on income that is not subject to withholding. Individuals must make estimated tax payments if they are self-employed or their income derives from interest, dividends, investment gains, rents, alimony, or other funds that are not subject to withholding.

Estimated income tax payments are required from taxpayers who:

1. expect to owe at least $1,000 in tax for the year, after subtracting taxes that were paid through withholding and tax credits; and
2. expect that the amount of taxes to be paid during the year through other means will be less than the smaller of—

• 90% of the tax shown on the current year's tax return, or
• 100% of the tax shown on the previous year's return (the previous year's return must cover all 12 months). This 100-percent test increases to 110 percent if the taxpayer's AGI for the previous year exceeds $150,000.

U.S. citizens who have no tax liability for the current year are not required to make estimated tax payments.

Form 1040-ES. Taxpayers use Form 1040-ES to calculate, report and pay their estimated tax. The annual liability may be paid in quarterly installments that are due based upon the taxpayer's tax year. However, no payments are required until the taxpayer has income upon which tax will be owed. Taxpayers may also credit their overpayments from one year against the next year's estimated tax liability, rather than having them refunded.

Generally, the required installment is 25 percent of the required annual payment. However, a taxpayer who receives taxable income unevenly throughout the year can elect to pay either the required installment or an annualized income installment. The use of the annualized income installment method, provided on a worksheet contained in the instructions to Form 2210, Underpayment of Estimated Tax by Individuals and Fiduciaries, may reduce or eliminate any penalty for underpaid taxes.

Due Dates. For most individual taxpayers, the quarterly due dates for estimated tax payments are:

Penalties. A penalty generally applies when a taxpayer fails to make estimated tax payments, pays less than the required installment amount, or makes late payments. However, the IRS may waive the penalty if the underpayment was due to casualty, disaster or other unusual circumstances.

A business operated by two or more owners can elect to be taxed as a partnership by filing Form 8832, the Entity Classification Election form. A business is eligible to elect partnership status if it has two or more members and:

A business operated by two or more owners can elect to be taxed as a partnership by filing Form 8832, the Entity Classification Election form. A business is eligible to elect partnership status if it has two or more members and:

• is not registered as anything under state law,
• is a partnership, limited partnership, or limited liability partnership, or
• is a limited liability company.

Publicly traded businesses cannot elect to be treated as partnerships. They are automatically taxed as corporations.

Form 8832 allows a business to select its classification for tax purposes by checking the box on the form: partnership, corporation, or disregarded. If no check-the-box form is filed, the IRS will assume that the entity should be taxed as a partnership or disregarded as a separate entity. An LLC that makes no federal election will be taxed as a partnership if it has more than one member and disregarded if it has only one member. An LLC must make an affirmative election to be taxed as a corporation. The IRS language on Form 8832 uses the term "association" to describe an LLC taxed as a corporation.

Form 8832 has no particular due date. There is a space on the form (line 4) for the entity to note what date the election should take effect. The date named can be no earlier than 75 days before the form is filed, and no later than 12 months after the form is filed. It is most important to file Form 8832 within the first few months of operations if the entity desires a tax treatment that differs from the tax status the IRS will apply by default if no election is made.

A few businesses do not qualify to be partnerships for federal tax purposes. These are:

1. a business that is a corporation under state law,
2. a joint stock company (a corporation without limited liability),
3. an insurance company,
4. most banks,
5. an organization owned by a state or local government,
6. a tax-exempt organization
7. a real estate investment trust, or
8. a trust.

Although these businesses cannot be partnerships, they can be partners in a partnership (they can join together to form a partnership).

Of course, whether your business is best operated as a partnership, as a corporation or as another type of entity should not only be driven by short-term tax considerations. How you envision your business will develop over time, whether your business is asset or service intensive, and what personal financial stake you plan to take, among other factors, are all additional factors that should be considered.

The IRS expects to receive more than 150 million individual income tax returns this year and issue billions of dollars in refunds. That huge pool of refunds drives scam artists and criminals to steal taxpayer identities and claim fraudulent refunds. The IRS has many protections in place to discover false returns and refund claims, but taxpayers still need to be proactive.

The IRS expects to receive more than 150 million individual income tax returns this year and issue billions of dollars in refunds. That huge pool of refunds drives scam artists and criminals to steal taxpayer identities and claim fraudulent refunds. The IRS has many protections in place to discover false returns and refund claims, but taxpayers still need to be proactive.

Tax-related identity theft

Tax-related identity theft most often occurs when a criminal uses a stolen Social Security number to file a tax return claiming a fraudulent refund. Often, criminals will claim bogus tax credits or deductions to generate large refunds. Fraud is particularly prevalent for the earned income tax credit, residential energy credits and others. In many cases, the victims of tax-related identity theft only discover the crime when they file their genuine return with the IRS. By this time, all the taxpayer can do is to take steps to prevent a recurrence.

Being proactive

However, there are steps taxpayers can take to reduce the likelihood of being a victim of tax-related identity theft. Personal information must be kept confidential. This includes not only an individual's Social Security number (SSN) but other identification materials, such as bank and other financial account numbers, credit and debit card numbers, and medical and insurance information. Paper documents, including old tax returns if they were filed on paper returns, should be kept in a secure location. Documents that are no longer needed should be shredded.

Online information is especially vulnerable and should be protected by using firewalls, anti-spam/virus software, updating security patches and changing passwords frequently. Identity thieves are very skilled at leveraging whatever information they can find online to create a false tax return.

Impersonators

Criminals do not only steal a taxpayer's identity from documents. Telephone tax scams soared during the 2015 filing season. Indeed, a government watchdog reported that this year was a record high for telephone tax scams. These criminals impersonate IRS officials and threaten legal action unless a taxpayer immediately pays a purported tax debt. These criminals sound convincing when they call and use fake names and bogus IRS identification badge numbers. One sure sign of a telephone tax scam is a demand for payment by prepaid debit card. The IRS never demands payment using a prepaid debit card, nor does the IRS ask for credit or debit card numbers over the phone.

The IRS, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) and the Federal Tax Commission (FTC) are investigating telephone tax fraud. Individuals who have received these types of calls should alert the IRS, TIGTA or the FTC, even if they have not been victimized.

Tax-related identity theft is a time consuming process for victims so the best defense is a good offense. Please contact our office if you have any questions about tax-related identity theft.

An employer must withhold income taxes from compensation paid to common-law employees (but not from compensation paid to independent contractors). The amount withheld from an employee's wages is determined in part by the number of withholding exemptions and allowances the employee claims. Note that although the Tax Code and regulations distinguish between withholding exemptions and withholding allowances, the terms are interchangeable. The amount of reduction attributable to one withholding allowance is the same as that attributable to one withholding exemption. Form W-4 and most informal IRS publications refer to both as withholding allowances, probably to avoid confusion with the complete exemption from withholding for employees with no tax liability.

An employer must withhold income taxes from compensation paid to common-law employees (but not from compensation paid to independent contractors). The amount withheld from an employee's wages is determined in part by the number of withholding exemptions and allowances the employee claims. Note that although the Tax Code and regulations distinguish between "withholding exemptions" and "withholding allowances," the terms are interchangeable. The amount of reduction attributable to one withholding allowance is the same as that attributable to one withholding exemption. Form W-4 and most informal IRS publications refer to both as withholding allowances, probably to avoid confusion with the complete exemption from withholding for employees with no tax liability.

An employee may change the number of withholding exemptions and/or allowances she claims on Form W-4, Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate. It is generally advisable for an employee to change his or her withholding so that it matches his or her projected federal tax liability as closely as possible. If an employer overwithholds through Form W-4 instructions, then the employee has essentially provided the IRS with an interest-free loan. If, on the other hand, the employer underwithholds, the employee could be liable for a large income tax bill at the end of the year, as well as interest and potential penalties.

How allowances affect withholding

For each exemption or allowance claimed, an amount equal to one personal exemption, prorated to the payroll period, is subtracted from the total amount of wages paid. This reduced amount, rather than the total wage amount, is subject to withholding. In other words, the personal exemption amount is $4,000 for 2015, meaning the prorated exemption amount for an employee receiving a biweekly paycheck is $153.85 ($4,000 divided by 26 paychecks per year) for 2015.

In addition, if an employee's expected income when offset by deductions and credits is low enough so that the employee will not have any income tax liability for the year, the employee may be able to claim a complete exemption from withholding.

Changing the amount withheld

Taxpayers may change the number of withholding allowances they claim based on their estimated and anticipated deductions, credits, and losses for the year.  For example, an employee who anticipates claiming a large number of itemized deductions and tax credits may wish to claim additional withholding allowances if the current number of withholding exemptions he is currently claiming for the year is too low and would result in overwithholding.

Withholding allowances are claimed on Form W-4, Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate, with the withholding exemptions. An employer should have a Form W-4 on file for each employee. New employees generally must complete Form W-4 for their employer. Existing employees may update that Form W-4 at any time during the year, and should be encouraged to do so as early as possible in 2015 if they either owed significant taxes or received a large refund when filing their 2014 tax return.

The IRS provides an IRS Withholding Calculator at www.irs.gov/individuals that can help individuals to determine how many withholding allowances to claim on their Forms-W-4. In the alternative, employees can use the worksheets and tables that accompany the Form W-4 to compute the appropriate number of allowances.

Employers should note that a Form W-4 remains in effect until an employee provides a new one. If an employee does update her Form W-4, the employer should not adjust withholding for pay periods before the effective date of the new form. If an employee provides the employer with a Form W-4 that replaces an existing Form W-4, the employer should begin to withhold in accordance with the new Form W-4 no later than the start of the first payroll period ending on or after the 30th day from the date on which the employer received the replacement Form W-4.