Newsletters

The IRS has announced a significant increase in enforcement actions for syndicated conservation easement transactions. This is a "priority compliance area" for the agency.

The IRS has announced a significant increase in enforcement actions for syndicated conservation easement transactions. This is a "priority compliance area" for the agency.

Throughout the IRS, coordinated examinations are being conducted in the Small Business and Self-Employed (SB/SE) Division, Large Business and International (LB&I) Division, and Tax Exempt and Government Entities (TE/GE) Division. The IRS Criminal Investigation (CI) Division has also been initiating investigations. The audits and investigations cover billions of dollars of potentially inflated deductions, as well as hundreds of partnerships and thousands of investors.

"We will not stop in our pursuit of everyone involved in the creation, marketing, promotion and wrongful acquisition of artificial, highly inflated deductions based on these aggressive transactions. Every available enforcement option will be considered, including civil penalties and, where appropriate, criminal investigations that could lead to a criminal prosecution," said IRS Commissioner Charles "Chuck" Rettig. "Our innovation labs are continually developing new, more extensive enforcement tools that employ advanced techniques. If you engaged in any questionable syndicated conservation easement transaction, you should immediately consult an independent, competent tax advisor to consider your best available options. It is always worthwhile to take advantage of various methods of getting back into compliance by correcting your tax returns before you hear from the IRS. Our continued use of ever-changing technologies would suggest that waiting is not a viable option for most taxpayers," he added.

Syndicated Conservation Easements

The IRS issued Notice 2017-10, I.R.B. 2017-4, 544, in 2016, which designated certain syndicated conservation easements as listed transactions. In these types of transactions, investors in pass-through entities receive promotional material which offer the possibility of a charitable contribution deduction worth at least two-and-a-half times their investment. The deduction taken in many transactions has been significantly higher than 250 percent of the investment.

Syndicated conservation easements were included on the IRS’s 2019 "Dirty Dozen" list of tax scams to avoid.

Not only do these transactions grossly overstate the value of the easement that was purportedly donated to charity, they often also fail to comply with the basic requirements for claiming a charitable deduction for a donated easement.

Taxpayers may avoid the imposition of penalties for improper contribution deductions if they fully remove the improper contribution and related tax benefits from their returns by timely filing a qualified amended return or timely administrative adjustment request.

Enforcement Actions

The IRS has prevailed in many cases involving the charitable deduction basic requirements, and has established a body of law that it believes supports disallowance of the deduction in a significant number of pending conservation easement cases. The IRS will soon be moving the Tax Court to invalidate the claimed deductions in all cases where the transactions fail to comply with the basic requirements, leaving only the final penalty amount to be determined.

In addition to auditing participants in syndicated conservation easement transactions, the IRS is pursuing investigations of promoters, appraisers, tax return preparers and others, and is evaluating numerous referrals of practitioners to the IRS Office of Professional Responsibility. The IRS will develop and assert all appropriate penalties, including:

• penalties for participants (40 percent accuracy-related penalty);
• penalties for appraisers (penalty for substantial and gross valuation misstatements attributable to incorrect appraisals);
• penalties for promoters, material advisors, and accommodating entities (penalty for promoting abusive tax shelters, and penalty for aiding and abetting understatement of tax liability); and
• penalties for return preparers (penalty for understatement of taxpayer’s liability by a tax return preparer).

Rettig, Desmond Highlight Heightened Focus

Rettig and IRS Chief Counsel Michael J. Desmond have each highlighted the IRS’s heightened, agency-wide focus on syndicated conservations easements.

While speaking at the American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) 2019 National Tax Conference in Washington, D.C., Rettig and Desmond both separately underscored the IRS’s increased enforcement efforts toward abuses of certain tax-advantaged land transactions under Code Sec. 170(h).

"We appreciate the value of conservation easements," Rettig said. "We do not appreciate the activities that have gone on with respect to the syndicated conservation easements—there are some artificial appraisals there… some fatal flaws."

Reiterating the IRS’s tough stance on the matter, Rettig said that the IRS is not going to "stand down." The information in IR-2019-182 issued on November 12 was "fair warning," Rettig said.

Likewise, Desmond stressed that the challenges surrounding syndicated conservation easements are an "institutional concern" for the IRS, "one that we will be responding to," he emphasized.

Treasury and the IRS are expected to release proposed rules in "early 2020" that would clarify certain limitations on the carried interest tax break, according to David Kautter, Treasury’s assistant secretary for tax policy. Kautter briefly addressed the proposed regulations’ timeline while speaking at the American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) 2019 National Tax Conference in Washington, D.C.

Treasury and the IRS are expected to release proposed rules in "early 2020" that would clarify certain limitations on the carried interest tax break, according to David Kautter, Treasury’s assistant secretary for tax policy. Kautter briefly addressed the proposed regulations’ timeline while speaking at the American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) 2019 National Tax Conference in Washington, D.C.

Carried Interest Limitation

The forthcoming regulations are expected to restrict S corporations from taking advantage of a carried interest exemption provision under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97). The TCJA requires certain money managers to hold investments for at least three years before becoming eligible for the lower, 20 percent capital gains rate. However, it exempted corporations from this holding period, which Treasury and many lawmakers on Capitol Hill say resulted in an unintended "loophole."

The proposed regulations are expected to clarify the law’s intent that S corporations are subject to the three-year holding period for carried interest, according to Treasury’s last press release on the matter issued in March 2018 (see "Treasury, IRS Issue Guidance On Carried Interest," at https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm0302).

Legal Questions May Arise

Most notably, however, the TCJA does not expressly contain this limitation on S-corporations, which has left some on Capitol Hill questioning Treasury and the IRS’s authority to implement such a restriction via regulations. The IRS on November 15 directed Wolters Kluwer to Treasury for confirmation on this anticipated rule and projected timeline. As of press time, Treasury had not responded to Wolters Kluwer’s request for comment.

Hopes for a year-end tax extenders package appear to be dwindling on Capitol Hill.

Hopes for a year-end tax extenders package appear to be dwindling on Capitol Hill.

Tax Extenders Need a Legislative Vehicle

Over 30 expired or soon-to-be expired tax breaks known as tax extenders were originally considered a top contender for hitching a ride on a larger, must-pass government funding bill. Considering the lack of time left on the legislative calendar this year, a stand-alone tax bill has been considered an unlikely initiative. Thus, a must-pass appropriations bill was seen by several lawmakers as the likely legislative vehicle for tax extenders and other tax items such as technical corrections to Republicans’ 2017 tax reform law.

However, a spokesperson for Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, confirmed to Wolters Kluwer on October 28 that Grassley believes there is "no hope" for action this year on a tax extenders package if lawmakers do not move quickly with respect to its legislative driver. Many within the practitioner community following these developments have said that the chances of providing taxpayers with certain tax breaks retroactively significantly decrease if Congress moves into next year leaving them expired.

Another Stopgap Spending Bill Appears Likely

Currently, the federal government is operating on a stopgap spending bill temporarily extending fiscal year (FY) 2019 funding levels through November 21. Previously, several lawmakers, in particular Grassley, had hoped that a tax extenders package would be attached to a larger, more comprehensive appropriations bill next month. However, Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Richard Shelby, R-Ala., told reporters that another short-term stopgap spending bill is the more likely option to keep the government open after November 21. "Unless a miracle happens around here with the House and Senate, we will have to put forth another [continuing resolution] CR," Shelby told reporters.

Notably, another short-term government funding bill is considered unlikely to have any policy riders. Generally, stop gap spending bills are usually considered "clean," for the most part. Also playing a role in tax extenders’ fate is whether President Trump would sign a more comprehensive appropriations bill. At this time, his support for a larger FY 2020 funding bill, apart from tax policy reasons, remains unclear.

Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and other top Senate tax writers are calling for Senate action on the bipartisan Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Secure bill (HR 1994) (SECURE Act). The House-approved, bipartisan retirement savings bill has remained stalled in the Senate since May.

Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and other top Senate tax writers are calling for Senate action on the bipartisan Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Secure bill (HR 1994) (SECURE Act). The House-approved, bipartisan retirement savings bill has remained stalled in the Senate since May.

SECURE Act’s Route to Senate Floor Remains Unclear

Grassley’s communications director Michael Zona told Wolters Kluwer on October 21 that it remains "unclear at this point" whether the SECURE Act will move through committee, reach the Senate floor by unanimous consent, or be attached to a larger, year-end tax package. "Grassley supports the House-passed SECURE Act. There are several holds on the bill, and he is working to get them lifted," Zona said.

The SECURE Act cleared the House on May 23 by a 417-to-3 vote. The bipartisan measure, which proposes sweeping changes to retirement savings tax policy, was originally expected to quickly clear the Senate after its approval in the House. However, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex., blocked the bill from reaching the Senate floor. Cruz blocked the bill in protest of House Democrats’ 11th hour-removal of a provision from the original bill that would have expanded tax-advantaged Section 529 education savings plans to include homeschooling and certain elementary and secondary expenses. Cruz and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., are reportedly still holding up the measure from reaching the Senate floor.

Catch-All Tax Package

However, the SECURE Act, among other bipartisan tax-related items including tax extenders, could be attached to a catch-all tax package that is expected on Capitol Hill to hitch a ride on a year-end government funding bill. A "must-pass" appropriations bill, like the one currently being negotiated to keep the government open after funding expires on November 21, could serve as the tax package’s legislative vehicle, thus fast tracking its approval.

"As the economy continues to change, the way we approach retirement savings must change as well. Otherwise, too many Americans will be left behind," Grassley said on October 21, noting that the SECURE Act is under "active consideration."

Similar to Grassley’s push, Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., led a letter sent to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., urging immediate Senate consideration of the SECURE Act. "This bipartisan legislation would expand access to retirement plans for millions of Americans, allow older workers and retirees to contribute more to their retirement accounts, increase 401(k) coverage to part-time employees, prevent as many as 4 million people in private-sector pension plans from losing future benefits, protect 1,400 religiously affiliated organizations whose access to their defined contribution retirement plans is in jeopardy, and do the right thing for Gold Star families," according to Scott.

The Senate blocked a Democratic resolution on October 23 to overturn Treasury rules preventing certain workarounds to the $10,000 state and local tax (SALT) federal deduction cap.

The Senate blocked a Democratic resolution on October 23 to overturn Treasury rules preventing certain workarounds to the $10,000 state and local tax (SALT) federal deduction cap.

SALT Cap Workaround

Senate Democrats’ resolution, S.J. Res. 50, forced a vote on Wednesday to nullify Treasury regulations that block taxpayers from circumventing the SALT cap through certain states’ programs that convert state and local taxes into fully deductible charitable contributions. The resolution failed by a largely party-line vote of 43-to-52.

Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., voted against the Democratic measure while Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., supported it. While the resolution would not repeal the SALT cap itself, House Democrats are reportedly crafting legislation to do so. Democrats and some Republicans, particularly from high-tax states, have criticized the SALT cap since its enactment in 2017 under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97).

Debate on SALT Cap, Treasury Rules

"Without any clear authority to do so, the Treasury Department reversed a long-standing IRS position that had allowed taxpayers a full deduction for charitable contributions to state tax credit programs," Senate Finance Committee (SFC) ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said on the Senate floor before the vote. "My view is the Treasury Department should not be putting its thumb on the scale on behalf of Republican interests, and it shouldn’t be using phony regulatory justifications to fix Republicans’ extraordinarily poorly drafted law."

However, several Republicans cited to a recent report from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), which estimated that repealing the SALT cap beginning in 2019 would result in over $40 billion of the associated tax cut going to taxpayers with incomes of at least $1 million ( JCX-35-19).

"It’s bad enough that my Democratic colleagues want to unwind tax reform, but it’s downright comical that their top priority is helping wealthy people in blue states find loopholes to pay even less," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said from the Senate floor on October 23. "Repealing the SALT cap would give millionaires an average tax cut of $60,000. Meanwhile, the average tax cut for taxpayers earning between $50,000 and $100,000 would be less than ten dollars."

Vaping Tax

In other news, the House Ways and Means Committee approved a bipartisan vaping tax bill, ( HR 4742), on October 23 by a 24-to-15 vote. The bill would establish a $27.81 tax per gram of nicotine used in vaping devices.

Treasury and the IRS on October 31 announced the release of a new, draft form implementing certain reporting requirements under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Opportunity Zone program.

Treasury and the IRS on October 31 announced the release of a new, draft form implementing certain reporting requirements under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Opportunity Zone program.

The proposed Form 8996 for Qualified Opportunity Funds (QOFs) comes after numerous calls on Capitol Hill for more transparency within the Opportunity Zone program. "The form is designed to collect information on the amount of investment by opportunity funds in business property by census tract," according to a Treasury press release.

Opportunity Zones’ Architect Applauds Treasury’s Steps Toward Reporting Requirements

Ken Farnaso, press secretary for Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., chief architect of the TCJA’s bipartisan Opportunity Zone program, told Wolters Kluwer on October 31 that reporting requirements, "an important piece of the puzzle," were, in fact, originally in the bill. "Unfortunately, during the tax reform process, Senate Democrats blocked these requirements from being included in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Since then, Senator Scott has continued working to restore those reporting requirements," Farnaso said.

Additionally, Farnaso told Wolters Kluwer that Scott applauds Treasury’s steps to ensure a clearer picture of the impact the Opportunity Zones initiative can have on the country. "Senator Scott will also continue to push for his current bill restoring robust reporting requirements to create a holistic picture of how the initiative is functioning," Farnaso said. "Overall, today is a good day for Opportunity Zones. We look forward to the more than $44 billion in currently anticipated investment being deployed in distressed communities across the nation, and that number growing even larger in the future."

Opportunity Zones Tax Incentive

The Opportunity Zone Program enacted under TCJA ( P.L. 115-97) is considered on Capitol Hill as one of the most generous and ambitious tax incentives for investors in distressed communities. Under Code Sec. 1400Z-2, investors may defer taxation of capital gains that are invested in a QOF.

Generally, the following investor tax benefits were created under the Opportunity Zone program:

• a temporary tax deferral for capital gains realized on the sale of appreciated assets and reinvested within 180 days in a QOF;
• the elimination of up to 10 or 15 percent of the tax on the capital gain that is invested in the QOF and held between five and seven years; and
• the permanent exclusion of tax when exiting a qualified opportunity fund investment held for at least 10 years.

Draft IRS Form 8996

Specifically, the new, draft Form 8996 for the 2019 tax year requires QOFs to report the following information:

• the Employer Identification Number (EIN) of each business in which the QOF has an ownership interest;
• the census tract location of the tangible property of the business;
  the value of the QOF’s investment; and
• the value and census tract location of qualified business property directly owned or leased.

"This is an important step towards a thorough evaluation of the Opportunity Zone tax incentive," Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said. "We want to understand where Opportunity Zone investments are going and strengthening the economy so that investors and communities can learn from the successes of this bipartisan, pro-growth policy."

Generally, the collection of this information will play a role in allowing lawmakers and the public to evaluate the effects of the tax incentive and to understand why some locations may be more successful than others at attracting investment, according to Treasury.

Opportunity Zones Criticism

The Opportunity Zone program has not come to fruition without its share of criticism, however. Although lawmakers have called for reporting requirements related to QOFs since the TCJA’s enactment, the program has recently come under increased scrutiny and criticism. Senate Finance Committee (SFC) ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., has said that the lack of reporting requirements are "inexcusable."

"Requiring taxpayers to prove they’re actually following the rules of the Opportunity Zone program is a positive first step, but it’s one that should have been taken two years ago…," Wyden said in an October 31 statement. "The Opportunity Zone program has been operating without any effort to ensure compliance and that’s inexcusable."

A California-based medical marijuana dispensary corporation’s motion for summary judgment challenging the constitutionality of Code Sec. 280E was denied. The Tax Court also addressed whether Code Sec. 280E applies to marijuana businesses legally operating under state (California) law, and whether the prohibition on deductions is limited to ordinary and necessary business expenses.

A California-based medical marijuana dispensary corporation’s motion for summary judgment challenging the constitutionality of Code Sec. 280E was denied. The Tax Court also addressed whether Code Sec. 280E applies to marijuana businesses legally operating under state (California) law, and whether the prohibition on deductions is limited to ordinary and necessary business expenses.

Section 280E

Congress enacted Code Sec. 280E after the court had allowed certain deductions for expenses incurred in connection with an illegal drug trade. Generally, Code Sec. 280E disallows any deductions attributable to a taxpayer’s illegal drug related trade or business. Taxpayers may reduce their income by the cost of goods sold (COGS), and Code Sec. 280E does not generally disallow deductions attributable to a taxpayer’s non-drug-related business.

Constitutionality

The Eighth Amendment of the Constitution prohibits excessive fines or penalties. The dispensary in this case claimed that Code Sec. 280E is a punitive provision that violates the Eighth Amendment. However, because Congress generally has the power to levy taxes under the Sixteenth Amendment, the Tax Court found that the law’s denial of certain deductions cannot be construed as a penalty.

Legality Under State Law

The dispensary also argued that its actions could not be considered "trafficking" for purposes of Code Sec. 280E because its activities were not illegal under California law. The court noted that because marijuana is still considered a Schedule I controlled substance and is banned under federal law, the application of Code Sec. 280E does not depend on the legality of marijuana sales under California law.

Additional Deductions

Finally, the dispensary argued that Code Sec. 280E only applies to deductions under Code Sec. 162, and that other deductions such as those under Code Secs. 164 and 167 should be permitted. However, the text of Code Sec. 280E broadly states that "no deduction or credit shall be allowed." It does not limit the deductions to those claimed under Code Sec. 162.

Dissenting Opinions

The Tax Court decision included several concurring and dissenting opinions, which primarily addressed the issue as to whether Code Sec. 280E is in fact a penalty provision that would violate the Eighth Amendment.

The dissenting opinions found that Code Sec. 280E is punitive in nature. One dissenter noted that rather than specify a narrow range of disallowed expenses, Code Sec. 280E attacks the entire marijuana industry with a broad denial of otherwise allowable deductions. The opinion stated that Congress passed Code Sec. 280E order to deter the sale of controlled substances and to penalize the drug trade. That intent was found to be "clearly in the nature of a penalty." Both dissents concluded with two additional questions, which the dissenters felt need to be addressed:

• Is the punitive nature of Code Sec. 280E excessive to the point where it violates the Eighth Amendment?, and
• Does the Eighth Amendment apply to corporation taxpayers?

The IRS has proposed regulations that define an eligible terminated S corporation (ETSC), and provide rules relating to distributions of money by an ETSC after the post-termination transition period (PTTP). The proposed regulations also extend the treatment of distributions of money during the PTTP to all shareholders of the corporation, and update and clarify the allocation of current earnings and profits to distributions of money and other property.

The IRS has proposed regulations that define an eligible terminated S corporation (ETSC), and provide rules relating to distributions of money by an ETSC after the post-termination transition period (PTTP). The proposed regulations also extend the treatment of distributions of money during the PTTP to all shareholders of the corporation, and update and clarify the allocation of current earnings and profits to distributions of money and other property.

Code Sec. 1371(f), as added by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97) extends the period during which C corporation shareholders can benefit from the corporation’s accumulated adjustment account (AAA) generated during its former status as an S corporation. Specifically, the provision allows the C corporation to source qualified distributions of money to which Code Sec. 301 would otherwise apply to in whole or part to AAA. The provision only applies if the corporation is an ETSC as defined in Code Sec. 481(d).

Under the proposed regulations, the revocation of S corporation status may be made during the two-year period beginning on December 22, 2017, even if the effective date for the revocation occurs after the conclusion of the two-year period.

Shareholder Identity Requirement

A former S corporation is not an ETSC unless the owners of its stock are the same owners (and in identical proportions) on December 22, 2017, and on the date of the S corporation revocation. The proposed regulations identify various categories of stock transfers that are not considered an ownership change for purposes of this rule.

ETSC Proration

A distributing ETSC’s AAA is allocated to qualified distributions and the distributions are chargeable to the ETSC’s accumulated earnings and profits (AE&P) based on the ETSC proration. The ETSC proration is implemented in a manner that facilitates the prompt distribution of AAA and full transition to C corporation status. Specifically, the proposed regulations:

• specify the time at which amounts of AAA and AE&P are determined for purposes of the ETSC proration;

• provide AAA and AE&P ratios used to the implement the proration; and

• describe in detail the method of characterizing qualified distributions.

The proposed regulations adopt a "snapshot" approach under which amounts of AAA and AE&P are determined on a specified date. As a result, the same ETSC proration is applied to all qualified distributions. Under the proposed regulations, the determination date is the date when the S corporation revocation election is effective. A "dynamic" approach that recalculated the amounts before each qualified distribution was rejected as administratively cumbersome.

The proposed regulations provide two ratios for determining the part of a qualified distribution that is sourced from AAA and from AE&P. The AAA ratio is the ratio of historical AAA to the sum of historical AAA and historical AE&P. The AE&P ratio is the ratio of historical AE&P and the sum of historical AAA and historical AE&P. The qualified distribution is multiplied by these ratios to determine the amount sourced from AAA and AE&P.

The proposed regulations provide a priority rule under which ETSC proration first applies to qualified distributions during the tax year. The rules of Code Sec. 301 and allocation rules of Code Sec. 316 then apply to any nonqualified distributions that are not fully accounted for by the ETSC proration because the corporation’s AAA or AE&P are exhausted.

Effective Date

The proposed regulations will be effective in tax years beginning after the date they are published as final regulations. A taxpayer may apply the regulations in their entirely to tax years that begin on or before the date of publication as final regulations.

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.