Chuchian and Chuchian, CPAs

Running a business is easy as long as it's not yours.-John Jennings

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

Close

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

Close

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

Close

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

Close

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)

Close

The IRS has released the 2020-2021 special per diem rates. Taxpayers use the per diem rates to substantiate the amount of ordinary and necessary business expenses incurred while traveling away from home. These special per diem rates include the special transportation industry meal and incidental expenses (M&IEs) rates, the rate for the incidental expenses only deduction, and the rates and list of high-cost localities for purposes of the high-low substantiation method. Taxpayers using the rates and list of high-cost localities provided in the guidance must comply with Rev. Proc. 2019-48, I.R.B. 2019-51, 1390.

The guidance is effective for per diem allowances for lodging, meal and incidental expenses, or for meal and incidental expenses only, that are paid to any employee on or after October 1, 2020, for travel away from home on or after October 1, 2020. For computing the amount allowable as a deduction for travel away from home, the guidance is effective for M&IEs or for incidental expenses only paid or incurred on or after October 1, 2020.

Transportation Industry Rates
The special M&IE rates for taxpayers in the transportation industry are:

$66 for any locality of travel in the continental United States (CONUS), and
$71 for any locality of travel outside the continental United States (OCONUS).

Incidental Expenses Only Rate
The rate is $5 per day for any CONUS or OCONUS travel for the incidental expenses only deduction.

High-Low Substantiation Method
For purposes of the high-low substantiation method, the per diem rates in lieu of the rates described in Notice 2019-55 (the per diem substantiation method) are:

$292 for travel to any high-cost locality, and
$198 for travel to any other locality within CONUS.

The amount of these rates that is treated as paid for meals, and the per diem rates in lieu of the rates described in Notice 2019-55 (the M&IE only substantiation method), are:

$71 for travel to any high-cost locality, and
$60 for travel to any other locality within CONUS

The guidance provides a list of localities that have a federal per diem rate of $245 or more, and are high-cost localities for a specified portion of the calendar year. The list differs from the high-cost locality list in Notice 2019-55:

Added to the list: Los Angeles, California; San Diego, California; Gulf Breeze, Florida; Kennebunk/Kittery/Sanford, Maine; Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Localities that have changed the portion of the year in which they are high-cost localities: Sedona, Arizona; Monterey, California; Santa Barbara, California; District of Columbia; Naples, Florida; Jekyll Island/Brunswick, Georgia; Boston/Cambridge, Massachusetts; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Jamestown/Middletown/Newport, Rhode Island; Charleston, South Carolina.
Removed from the list: Midland/Odessa, Texas; Pecos, Texas.

Close

The IRS has reminded taxpayers that the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136) can provide favorable tax treatment for withdrawals from retirement plans and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs). Under the CARES Act, individuals eligible for coronavirus-related relief may be able to withdraw up to $100,000 from IRAs or workplace retirement plans before December 31, 2020, if their plans allow. In addition to IRAs, this relief applies to 401(k) plans, 403(b) plans, profit-sharing plans and others.

Also, until September 22, 2020, individuals eligible to take coronavirus-related withdrawals may be able to borrow as much as $100,000 (up from $50,000) from a workplace retirement plan, if their plan allows. Loans are not available from an IRA. For eligible individuals, plan administrators can suspend, for up to one year, plan loan repayments due on or after March 27, 2020, and before January 1, 2021. A suspended loan is subject to interest during the suspension period, and the term of the loan may be extended to account for the suspension period.

To be eligible for COVID-19 relief, coronavirus-related withdrawals or loans can only be made to an individual if:

the individual is diagnosed with COVID-19 by a test approved by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (including a test authorized under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act);
the individual’s spouse or dependent is diagnosed with COVID-19 by such a test; or
the individual, their spouse, or a member of the individual’s household experiences adverse financial consequences from: (1) being quarantined, furloughed or laid off, having work hours reduced, being unable to work due to lack of childcare, having a reduction in pay (or self-employment income), or having a job offer rescinded or start date for a job delayed, due to COVID-19; or (2) closing or reducing hours of a business owned or operated by the individual, the individual’s spouse, or a member of the individual’s household, due to COVID-19.

Taxpayers can learn more about these provisions in IRS Notice 2020-50, I.R.B. 2020-28, 35. The IRS has also posted FAQs that provide additional information.

Close

The much-anticipated regulations (REG-136118-15) implementing the new centralized partnership audit regime under the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA) have finally been released. The BBA regime replaces the current TEFRA (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982) procedures beginning for 2018 tax year audits, with an earlier "opt-in" for electing partnerships. Originally issued on January 19, 2017 but delayed by a January 20, 2017 White House regulatory freeze, these re-proposed regulations carry with them much of the same criticism leveled against them back in January, as well as several modifications. Most importantly, their reach will impact virtually all partnerships.

Scope

Under the proposed regulations, to which Congress left many details to be filled in, the new audit regime covers any adjustment to items of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit of a partnership and any partner’s distributive share of those adjusted items. Further, any income tax resulting from an adjustment to items under the centralized partnership audit regime is assessed and collected at the partnership level. The applicability of any penalty, addition to tax, or additional amount that relates to an adjustment to any such item or share is also determined at the partnership level.

Immediate Impact

Although perhaps streamlined and eventually destined to simplify partnership audits for the IRS, the new centralized audit regime may prove more complicated in several respects for many partnerships. Of immediate concern for most partnerships, whether benefiting or not, is how to reflect this new centralized audit regime within partnership agreements, especially when some of the procedural issues within the new regime are yet to be ironed out.

Issues for many partnerships that have either been generated or heightened by the new regulations include:

Selecting a method of satisfying an imputed underpayment;
Designation of a partnership representative;
Allocating economic responsibility for an imputed underpayment among partners including situations in which partners’ interests change between a reviewed year and the adjustment year; and
Indemnifications between partnerships and partnership representatives, as well as among current partners and those who were partners during the tax year under audit.

Election out

Starting for tax year 2018, virtually all partnerships will be subject to the new partnership audit regime …unless an “election out” option is affirmatively elected. Only an eligible partnership may elect out of the centralized partnership audit regime. A partnership is an eligible partnership if it has 100 or fewer partners during the year and, if at all times during the tax year, all partners are eligible partners. A special rule applies to partnerships that have S corporation partners.

Consistent returns

A partner’s treatment of each item of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit attributable to a partnership must be consistent with the treatment of those items on the partnership return, including treatment with respect to the amount, timing, and characterization of those items. Under the new rules, the IRS may assess and collect any underpayment of tax that results from adjusting a partner’s inconsistently reported item to conform that item with the treatment on the partnership return as if the resulting underpayment of tax were on account of a mathematical or clerical error appearing on the partner’s return. A partner may not request an abatement of that assessment.

Partnership representative

The new regulations require a partnership to designate a partnership representative, as well as provide rules describing the eligibility requirements for a partnership representative, the designation of the partnership representative, and the representative’s authority. Actions by the partnership representative bind all the partners as far as the IRS is concerned. Indemnification agreements among partners may ameliorate some, but not all, of the liability triggered by this rule.

Imputed underpayment, alternatives and "push-outs"

Generally, if a partnership adjustment results in an imputed underpayment, the partnership must pay the imputed underpayment in the adjustment year. The partnership may request modification with respect to an imputed underpayment only under the procedures described in the new rules.

In multi-tiered partnership arrangements, the new rules provide that a partnership may elect to "push out" adjustments to its reviewed year partners. If a partnership makes a valid election, the partnership is no longer liable for the imputed underpayment. Rather, the reviewed year partners of the partnership are liable for tax, penalties, additions to tax, and additional amounts plus interest, after taking into account their share of the partnership adjustments determined in the final partnership adjustment (FPA). The new regulations provide rules for making the election, the requirements for partners to file statements with the IRS and furnish statements to reviewed year partners, and the computation of tax resulting from taking adjustments into account.

Retiring, disappearing partners

Partnership agreements that reflect the new partnership audit regime must especially consider the problems that may be created by partners that have withdrawn, and partnerships that have since dissolved, between the tax year being audited and the year in which a deficiency involving that tax year is to be resolved. Collection of prior-year taxes due from a former partner, especially as time lapses, becomes more difficult as a practical matter unless specific remedies are set forth in the partnership agreement. The partnership agreement might specify that if any partner withdraws and disposes of their interest, they must keep the partnership advised of their contact information until released by the partnership in writing.

If you have any questions about how your partnership may be impacted by these new rules, please feel free to call our office.

Close

Taxpayers that plan to operate a business have a variety of choices. A single individual can operate as a C corporation, an S corporation, a limited liability company (LLC), or a sole proprietorship. Two or more individuals can form a partnership, a corporation (C or S), or an LLC.

Nontax considerations

State law and nontax considerations are an important consideration in choosing the form of the business and may play a decisive role. A general partner of a partnership has unlimited liability for the debts of the business. This can be modified by using a limited partnership (LP), which must have at least one general partner and at least one limited partner. The general partner still have unlimited liability, but a limited partner's liability is limited to its contribution to the partnership. A corporation has limited liability; shareholders generally are not responsible for the liabilities of the corporation beyond their contributions to the entity.

Federal tax considerations

At the same time, it is crucial to consider federal tax requirements and consequences when choosing the form of business entity. A primary federal tax consideration is avoiding a double layer of tax on business income. This can be accomplished by operating as a passthrough entity, such as a partnership or S corporation. Income is not taxed at the entity level. It passes through to partners and shareholders and is taxed at their rates.

In contrast, C corporations are taxable entities. Furthermore, when a C corporation pays a dividend to its shareholders, this generally is taxable to the shareholder. It must be noted that income of a passthrough entity is allocable and taxable to its owners, whether or not the income is actually distributed to the partner or shareholder. Dividends are not taxed unless there is an actual distribution.

While a partnership is organized under state law, an S corporation is a creature of the federal tax system. The S corporation is a regular corporation for state law purposes.

Advantages of partnerships

Unlike an S corporation shareholder, anyone or any entity can be a partner. S corporations are limited to 100 shareholders; only certain individuals, estates and trusts are eligible to be shareholders. C corporations and nonresident aliens cannot be shareholders of an S corporation.

S corporations are limited to a single class of stock; income and losses must be allocated on the same basis to each shareholder. Having only one class of stock may affect the corporation's ability to raise capital. A partnership can have different classes of partners and has more flexibility for allocating income and losses to different types of partners.

Partnership liabilities can increase a partner's basis in the partnership, offsetting distributions of cash and reducing their taxation. The increased basis allowed partners to use losses generated by the partnership. Liabilities of an S corporation do not create stock basis; separate bases in stock and debt must be calculated. This lack of basis may limit the use of losses generated by the S corporation.

Contributions of appreciated property by a partner to the partnership generally are not taxable, even if the partner is not part of a group controlling the partnership. Contributions by a shareholder to a corporation are tax-free only if the shareholders are part of a group controlling 80 percent of the corporation after the contribution. However, a partnership must follow special allocation rules for handling built-in gain on contributed property, whereas S corporations do not have special allocation rules in this circumstance.

Conclusion

In general, a partnership offers more flexibility than an S corporation in the treatment of taxes. However, S corporation shareholders do have limited legal liability, while general partners are not insulated from the partnership's debts and liabilities.

Close

Newsletters

Rezoning

Land Value

Penalty Imposed

Trust Not Property of the Estate

Claim Not an Estate Expense