Charitable Remainder Trust

Charitable remainder trust can be divided into separate trusts without adverse tax consequences

Rev Rul 2008-41, 2008-30 IRB

Mike Habib, EA

In the context of two fairly detailed factual situations, a new revenue ruling makes it clear that a charitable remainder trust (CRT) can be divided into two or more separate CRTs without adverse tax consequences. If properly effected, the separate trusts will continue to qualify as CRTs, the division won't be a sale, and no excise taxes will arise under Code Sec. 507(c), Code Sec. 4941 or Code Sec. 4945.

Background. In general, a charitable remainder trust (CRT) provides for a specified periodic distribution to one or more noncharitable beneficiaries for life or for a term of years with an irrevocable remainder interest held for the benefit of charity. A CRUT pays a unitrust amount at least annually to the beneficiaries as opposed to a charitable remainder annuity trust or CRAT, which pays a sum certain at least annually to the beneficiaries. (Code Sec. 664)

A CRT is exempt from income tax but is subject to tax on unrelated business taxable income. (Code Sec. 664(c))
Income, gift and estate tax deductions are allowed for the value of the charity's remainder interest in a CRT. (Code Sec. 170(f)(2), Code Sec. 2522(c)(2)(A), Code Sec. 2055(e)(2)(A)) To qualify as a CRT, numerous requirements must be met. They are spelled out in Code Sec. 664(d).

Situation 1 facts. A summary of the key facts in Situation 1 follows:
Trust qualifies as either a CRAT or CRUT. Under its terms, two or more individuals (recipients) are each entitled to an equal share of the annuity or unitrust amount, payable annually, during the recipient's lifetime, and upon the death of one recipient, each surviving recipient becomes entitled for life to an equal share of the deceased recipient's annuity or unitrust amount. Thus, the last surviving recipient becomes entitled to the entire annuity or unitrust amount for his or her life. Upon the death of the last surviving recipient, Trust's assets are to be distributed to one or more Code Sec. 170(c) charitable organizations (remainder beneficiaries).

The state court having jurisdiction over Trust has approved a pro rata division of Trust into as many separate and equal trusts as are necessary to provide one such separate trust for each recipient living at the time of the division, with each separate trust being intended to qualify as the same type of CRT.

The separate trusts may have different trustees. To carry out the division of Trust into separate trusts, each asset of Trust is divided equally among and transferred to the separate trusts. The recipients pay all the costs associated with the division of Trust into separate trusts.

Each of the separate trusts has the same governing provisions as Trust, except that: (i) immediately after the division of Trust, each separate trust has only one recipient, and each recipient is the annuity or unitrust recipient of only one of the separate trusts (that recipient's separate trust); (ii) each separate trust is administered and invested independently by its trustee(s); (iii) upon the death of the recipient, each asset of that recipient's separate trust is to be divided on a pro rata basis and transferred to the separate trusts of the surviving recipient(s), and the annuity amount payable to the recipient of each such separate CRAT is thereby increased by an equal share of the deceased recipient's annuity amount (the unitrust amount of each separate CRUT is similarly increased as a result of the augmentation of the CRUT's corpus, and each separate CRUT incorporates the requirements of Reg. § 1.664-3(b) with respect to the subsequent computation of the unitrust amount from that trust); and (iv) upon the death of the last surviving recipient, that recipient's separate trust (being the only separate trust remaining) terminates, and the assets are distributed to the remainder beneficiaries.

The remainder beneficiaries of Trust are the remainder beneficiaries of each of the separate trusts and are entitled to the same (total) remainder interest after the division of Trust as before.

Situation 2 facts. The facts are similar in Situation 2 except that the recipients are a married couple in the process of divorcing and on the death of the first recipient to die, the remainder of that separate trust goes to the charities. The trust assets do not first go to the survivor recipient as was the case before the division. Thus, the charity can wind up with more than under the original scenario but no increased charitable deduction is allowed.

Favorable rulings. IRS issued these favorable rulings with respect to both Situations 1 and 2:

(1) The pro rata division of a trust that qualifies as a CRT under Code Sec. 664(d) into two or more separate trusts does not cause the trust or any of the separate trusts to fail to qualify as a CRT under Code Sec. 664(d).

(2) The division is not a sale, exchange, or other disposition producing gain or loss, the basis under Code Sec. 1015 of each separate trust's share of each asset is the same share of the basis of that asset in the hands of the trust immediately before the division of the trust, and, under Code Sec. 1223, each separate trust's holding period for an asset transferred to it by the original trust includes the holding period of the asset as held by the original trust immediately before the division.

(3) The division does not terminate under Code Sec. 507(a)(1) the trust's status as a trust described in, and subject to, the private foundation provisions of Code Sec. 4947(a)(2) and does not result in the imposition of an excise tax under Code Sec. 507(c).

(4) The division does not constitute an act of self-dealing under Code Sec. 4941.

(5) The division does not constitute a taxable expenditure under Code Sec. 4945.

Cell Phone Deductibility

IRS discusses easing of cell phone recordkeeping requirements [Information Letter 2008-0012]:

The IRS has issued an information letter in response to a question regarding the noted difficultly that states and localities are having drafting cell phone policies that comply with IRS recordkeeping requirements.

Under IRC §162(a), individuals may take deductions for all ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in carrying on a trade or business. The expenses are considered tax-free working condition fringe benefits, not subject to FITW, FICA, and FUTA, if they are incurred by an employee on behalf of an employer. Cell phones are currently included in the definition of “listed property,” as defined in IRC §280F(d)(4).

Expenses related to listed property may not be deducted under IRC §274(d), unless the employee substantiates by adequate records, or by sufficient evidence corroborating the employee's own statement: (1) the amount of the expenses; (2) the time and place of the expenses; (3) the business purpose of the expenses; and (4) the business relationship to the employee of the persons involved in the expenses. In addition, employees must document their personal use of the property, and the employer must include such use in the employee's income.

In the information letter, the IRS acknowledges the difficulty in documenting business cell phone use. The IRS is considering various changes to the cell phone substantiation requirements. There is currently legislation in Congress that would remove cell phones from the definition of listed property and allow employers to utilize a de minimus personal use policy.

The IRS is also considering possible regulatory changes that would provide a more streamlined substantiation process for cell phones.

LP Limited Partner Deductions

Limited partner's investment interest from trader partnership deductible above-the-line

Rev Rul 2008-38, 2008-31 IRB; Ann. 2008-65, 2008-31 IRB

Mike Habib, EA

Earlier this year, IRS issued Rev Rul 2008-12, 2008-10 IRB 520 concluding that where a non-corporate limited partner doesn't materially participate in the partnership's activity, his distributive share of the interest expense on debt allocable to the entity's trade or business of trading securities is investment interest, subject to the Code Sec. 163(d)(1) deduction limitation. Because it received a number of queries as to where to report such interest, IRS has issued a new revenue ruling amplifying the earlier one and a new announcement clarifying where to report such interest.

Specifically, new Rev Rul 2008-38 provides that, in the case of an individual, interest paid or accrued on debt allocable to property held for investment described in Code Sec. 163(d)(5)(A)(ii) is (to the extent allowable after the application of the Code Sec. 163(d) limitation) a deduction described in Code Sec. 62(a)(1) and is therefore taken into account in determining the individual's adjusted gross income (AGI). New Ann. 2008-65, 2008-31 IRB clarifies that the limited partner described in Rev Rul 2008-12 properly includes the allowable amount of his distributive share of the trading partnership's interest expense in computing the limited partner's ordinary business income or loss on Schedule E of the partner's Form 1040.

Background. Deductions attributable to a trade or business carried on other than as an employee are deductible in arriving at AGI. (Code Sec. 62(a)(1))

The amount of investment interest that may be deducted in any tax year by a noncorporate taxpayer generally is limited to his net investment income for the year. (Code Sec. 163(d)(1)) Investment interest is any interest allowable as a deduction that is paid or accrued on debt properly allocable to property held for investment. (Code Sec. 163(d)(3)(A)) Property held for investment includes any interest held by a taxpayer in an activity involving the conduct of a trade or business that is not a passive activity and in which the taxpayer doesn't materially participate (as those terms are used in the Code Sec. 469 passive activity loss rules). (Code Sec. 163(d)(5)(A)(ii))

A taxpayer's activity includes an activity conducted through a partnership. (Reg. § 1.469-4(a)) An interest in an activity includes both an interest in property used in an activity and an interest in an activity held through a partnership. (Reg. § 1.469-2T(c)) Under Reg. § 1.469-1T(e)(6), an activity of trading personal property for the account of owners of interests in the activity isn't a passive activity (without regard to whether the activity is a trade or business activity).

Under Code Sec. 702(b), the character of any item of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit included in a partner's distributive share is determined as if such item were realized directly from the source from which realized by the partnership, or incurred in the same manner as incurred by the partnership.

Facts in Situation 1 of new ruling. PRS is a partnership that is engaged solely in the trade or business of trading securities for its own account and not for customers. LP, an individual, owns an interest in PRS as a limited partner. He does not materially participate in the activity in which PRS is engaged. The tax year for PRS and LP is the calendar year. PRS incurs debt in its trade or business. In Year 1, LP's distributive share of PRS' tax items includes $200,000 of interest expense incurred by PRS on its debt. LP's net investment income for Year 1 is $150,000. During Year 1, his distributive share of PRS' interest expense is the only investment interest he paid or accrued. LP' distributive share of PRS' interest expense is not subject to any limitation under Code Sec. 465.

Result in Situation 1. LP may deduct $150,000 of his $200,000 distributive share of PRS's interest expense. Under Code Sec. 163(d)(2), the $50,000 of interest expense not allowed as a deduction for Year 1 is treated as investment interest paid or accrued in Year 2. His distributive share of PRS' Year 1 interest expense that is allowed under Code Sec. 163(d)(1) is deductible in arriving at his AGI under Code Sec. 62(a)(1). The investment interest limitation does not affect the character of LP's interest expense for other purposes. Thus, except for purposes of applying the investment interest limitation, LP's distributive share of PRS' interest expense deductions are characterized under Code Sec. 702(b). Accordingly, $150,000 of LP's distributive share of the Year 1 interest expense of PRS is deductible in arriving at LP's adjusted gross income.

Situation 2 facts and result. The facts are the same as in Situation 1 except that during Year 1 LP also pays $100,000 of interest expense on debt properly allocable to stocks and bonds held by LP for investment (within the meaning of Code Sec. 163(d)(5)(A)(i)). Under Code Sec. 163(d)(1), LP is allowed to deduct only $150,000 of his $300,000 of investment interest expense in Year 1. To the extent that this amount is attributable to debt incurred in PRS' trade or business, the deduction is taken into account in arriving at LP's AGI; to the extent it is attributable to the debt allocable to the stock and bonds held for investment, the deduction is reported as an itemized deduction. When an individual, such as LP, has both investment interest expense attributable to property described in Code Sec. 163(d)(5)(A)(i) and investment interest expense attributable to property described in Code Sec. 163(d)(5)(A)(ii) and his aggregate investment interest expense is greater than his net investment income, he must allocate his net investment income to the two categories of investment interest expenses using a reasonable method of allocation. One reasonable method is to allocate the net investment income to the two categories of investment interest in the same proportion that the amount of investment interest in each category bears to the total amount of investment interest (the pro rata method). As shown in Rev Rul 2008-38 this method would allow LP to deduction $100,000 above-the-line and $50,000 below the line.

Opportunity Letter - Offshore Account

Judge: IRS can seek tax information from Swiss banking giant UBS in expanding investigation

Associated Press WorldStream via NewsEdge :

MIAMI_A federal judge agreed Tuesday to allow the IRS to serve legal papers on Swiss banking giant UBS AG in an expanding investigation into U.S. taxpayers who may have used overseas accounts to hide assets and avoid taxes.

The order from U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard came one day after the Justice Department requested authority for the IRS to issue "John Doe" summons to UBS. The summons are used in IRS tax fraud investigations when the identity of the people involved is not known.

Lenard said in a two-paragraph order that based on the government court filings, "there is a reasonable basis for believing such a group or class of persons may fail or may have failed to comply" with U.S. tax laws.

The summons will allow the IRS to obtain information about American taxpayers who have UBS accounts but did not file required forms detailing their taxable income.

"The order clears the way for the IRS to take the next steps against wealthy individuals who don't pay their taxes," said IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman in a written statement. "People with hidden foreign accounts can no long rest easy."

UBS has said it is cooperating with Swiss and U.S. investigations and will disclose records involving U.S. clients who might have broken tax laws.

U.S. taxpayers are required to report all foreign financial accounts if their total value exceeds $10,000 at any point during a given year, prosecutors said. Failure to report the accounts can result in a penalty of up to 50 percent of the amount in the accounts.

The Justice Department requested the summons after former UBS private banker Bradley Birkenfeld, 43, pleaded guilty in a Florida federal court to defrauding the IRS. Birkenfeld, who is cooperating with investigators, said in court that UBS has about $20 billion in assets in undeclared accounts for U.S. taxpayers.

Prosecutors said Birkenfeld and others helped California billionaire Igor Olenicoff hide $200 million in assets overseas. Olenicoff, who controls a real estate empire, pleaded guilty last year to tax charges and agreed to pay the IRS more than $52 million.

--

Do you have an IRS offshore tax problem? Did you receive an "opportunity letter" from the IRS? CONTACT US Today to get tax resolution, we can represent you before the IRS.

Rules for claiming a dependent child

Final regs on dependent child of divorced or separated parents or parents who live apart T.D. 9408, 07/01/2008; Reg. § 1.152-4

Mike Habib, EA

IRS has issued final regs on the rules for claiming a child as a dependent by parents who are divorced, legally separated under a decree of separate maintenance or a written separation agreement, or who live apart at all times during the last 6 months of the calendar year. They are effective for tax years beginning after July 2, 2008, and reflect amendments under the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004 (WFTRA) and the Gulf Opportunity Zone Act of 2005 (GOZA).

Background. A taxpayer may deduct an exemption amount for a dependent, defined generally as a qualifying child or a qualifying relative. Code Sec. 152(e), as amended by § 404 of GOZA, carries rules for parents who (1) are divorced or legally separated under a decree of divorce or separate maintenance, (2) are separated under a written separation agreement, or (3) live apart at all times during the last 6 months of the calendar year. A child of parents described in (1), (2), or (3), is treated as the qualifying child or qualifying relative of the noncustodial parent if the child receives over one-half of his support during the calendar year from the child's parents, the child is in the custody of one or both of the child's parents for more than half of the calendar year, and:

• the custodial parent signs a written declaration that the custodial parent will not claim a child as a dependent for a tax year and the noncustodial parent attaches the declaration to the noncustodial parent's tax return (Code Sec. 152(e)(2); or
• a qualified pre-'85 instrument allocates the dependency exemption to the noncustodial parent and the noncustodial parent provides at least $600 for the support of the child during the calendar year. (Code Sec. 152(e)(3))

A custodial parent is the parent having custody for the greater portion of the calendar year and the noncustodial parent is the parent who is not the custodial parent. (Code Sec. 152(e)(4)) If a child is treated as the qualifying child or qualifying relative of the noncustodial parent under Code Sec. 152(e), then that parent may claim the child for purposes of the dependency deduction under Code Sec. 151 and the child tax credit under Code Sec. 24, if the other requirements of those provisions are met.

In May of 2007, IRS issued proposed regs on the rules for a dependent child of divorced or separated parents or parents who live apart. IRS has now adopted the proposed regs as final regs, with some modifications.

Final regs. The final regs update the prior final regs, deleting obsolete provisions, revising language to improve clarity, and incorporating provisions in Reg. § 1.152-4T, which is removed. They also provide guidance on issues that have arisen in the administration of Code Sec. 152(e).

Custodial parent. Like the proposed regs, the final regs define the custodial parent as the parent with whom the child resides for the greater number of nights during the calendar year (the counting nights rule). In response to commentators' concern that this rule doesn't address how the child's residence for a night is determined (e.g., by the child's physical location at a given time such as midnight, or by where the child sleeps) and for which year the night of Dec. 31 to Jan. 1 is counted, the final regs clarify that, for purposes of Code Sec. 152(e), a child resides for a night with a parent if the child sleeps (1) at the parent's residence (whether or not the parent is present); or (2) in the company of the parent when the child does not sleep at a parent's residence (for example, if the parent and child are on vacation). The time that a child goes to sleep is irrelevant. A night that extends over two tax years is allocated to the tax year when the night begins: for example, the night that begins on Dec. 31, 2008, is counted for tax year 2008. (Reg. § 1.152-4(d))

To remedy any ambiguity caused by the proposed regs' failure to define custody, the final regs provide that a child is in the custody of one or both parents for more than one-half of the calendar year if one or both parents have the right under state law to physical custody of the child for more than one-half of the calendar year. But, a child isn't in the custody of either parent for purposes of Code Sec. 152(e) when the child reaches the age of majority under state law. (Reg. § 1.152-4(c))

Release of the right to claim a child. Under Code Sec. 152(e)(2), a custodial parent may release a claim to an exemption for a child by signing a written declaration that he will not claim the child as a dependent. The final regs retain the rule in the proposed regs that a written declaration not on Form 8332, Release/Revocation of Release of Claim to Exemption for Child by Custodial Parent, (or successor form) must conform to the substance of Form 8332. The final regs further provide that a release not on a Form 8332 must be a document executed for the sole purpose of releasing the claim. A court order or decree or a separation agreement cannot serve as the written declaration. If a release of a claim to a child is for more than one year, the noncustodial parent must attach a copy of the written declaration (rather than the original, as required in the proposed regs) to the parent's return for the first tax year for which the release is effective. Copies must also be attached to returns for later years. (Reg. § 1.152-4(e))

Revocation of release of claim. Under both the final and proposed regs, a custodial parent who released the right to claim a child could revoke the release for future tax years by providing written notice of the revocation to the other parent. The final regs require that the parent revoking the release notify, or make reasonable attempts to notify, in writing, the other parent of the revocation. What is a reasonable attempt is determined under the facts and circumstances, but mailing a copy of the written revocation to the noncustodial parent at the last known address or at an address reasonably calculated to ensure receipt satisfies this requirement. A revocation can be made on Form 8332, or successor form designated by IRS. A revocation not on the designated form must conform to the substance of the form and be in a document executed for the sole purpose of revoking a release. A taxpayer revoking a release may attach a copy rather than an original to the taxpayer's return for the first tax year the revocation is effective, as well as for later years. (T.D. 9408, 07/01/2008, Reg. § 1.152-4(e)(3))

The final regs also clarify that a multiple year written declaration executed in a tax year beginning on or before July 2, 2008, that satisfies the requirements for the form of a written declaration in effect at the time the written declaration was executed is treated as satisfying the requirements for the form of a release under the final regs. However, the rules for revoking a release of a claim to an exemption apply without regard to whether a custodial parent executed the release in a tax year beginning on or before July 2, 2008; such a release executed may be revoked. (Reg. § 1.152-4(e)(5))

Property Seizure Compliance

TIGTA results of 2008 review IRS compliance with legal guidelines when conducting property seizures [Audit Report No. 2008-30-126]:

IRS has usually followed the numerous legal and internal guidelines that apply to seizures of taxpayers' property, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) said in a recent audit. TIGTA based its opinion on a review of a random sample of 50 of the 683 seizures conducted from July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007.

Auditors identified 25 instances in which IRS did not comply with a particular Code requirement but, according to TIGTA, this represented an error rate of only about 1%. The problems identified in the audit included the following—10 instances in which expenses and proceeds resulting from the seizure weren't properly applied to the taxpayers' accounts; five instances in which the sales of seized properties weren't properly advertised; five instances in which the correct amounts of the liabilities for which the seizures were made weren't provided on the notices of seizures sent to the taxpayers; and five instances that were redacted from the publicly released version of the audit.

The audit is located at http://treas.gov/tigta/auditreports/2008reports/200830126fr.pdf .

Unemployment Benefits Extended

New bill extends unemployment benefits for 13 weeks

The President has signed into law H.R. 2642, “The Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008.”

Title IV of the bill authorizes an extension of unemployment insurance (UI) benefits. Individuals may be eligible for 13 weeks of extended benefits if they: (1) are fully or partially unemployed after July 5, 2008, (2) have exhausted their benefits in their regular UI claim, and (3) are ineligible to file a new claim.

The extension will be available to workers in all states, and can be used on top of the 26 weeks of benefits that typically are available. The maximum benefit is equal to the lesser of: (a) 50% of the maximum benefit that individuals received on their regular UI claim, or (b) 13 times the weekly benefit amount on their regular claim.

Extended benefits will be available through the week that begins June 29, 2009. The provision was included as part of an emergency war spending bill.

House passes AMT relief

House passes AMT relief with bipartisan majority - President threatens veto

On June 25, the House by a vote of 233 to 189 approved H.R.6275, the “Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008.” The bill will be sent to the Senate for consideration.

The bill would patch the alternative minimum tax (AMT) problem for 2008 by extending for one year AMT relief for nonrefundable personal credits and increasing AMT exemption amounts to $69,950 for joint filers and $46,200 for individuals. The one-year AMT patch would be fully offset with a variety of revenue raising measures, including taxing certain carried interests as ordinary income, barring large integrated oil companies from claiming the Code Sec. 199 domestic production activity deduction, freezing the Code Sec. 199 deduction at the 6% level for other producers of oil and natural gas, and requiring information returns for merchant payment card reimbursements.

On June 24, in a Statement of Administration Policy, President Bush indicated that he would veto the bill because of his strong opposition to provisions raising taxes on certain partners in partnerships and taxes on payments by U.S. subsidiaries to foreign affiliates and limiting the availability of the domestic production deduction for certain oil companies.

Shareholder Constructive Distribution

Loan repayment to shareholder's spouse wasn't constructive distribution Beckley, 130 TC No. 18 (2008)

Mike Habib, EA

The Tax Court has ruled that payments made by a corporation to the wife of one of its shareholders represented repayment of money she advanced to a predecessor corporation. Despite the absence of a written loan agreement, the repayment wasn't a constructive distribution to the shareholder.

Facts in brief. In '88, Alan Beckley and Robert Ebert incorporated CT Inc., a software development company and each owned 50% of the company. CT often ran short of funds and in '88 through '99, it borrowed at least $106,834 from Alan's wife, Virginia. The corporation used the borrowed funds to develop a working model of Web-based video conferencing software. CT had financial problems and was dissolved in '98. In 2000, VDN, Inc., was incorporated to succeed to CT's business and to continued to develop business products. Alan was a shareholder in VDN. The working model of the video conferencing software developed by CT was transferred to VDN in 2000, but the latter did not execute a written loan assumption agreement with regard to CT's loan repayment obligation to Virginia. She did not make a claim against CT for repayment of the funds she lent to it, did not treat her loan to CT as a worthless loan, and did not claim an ownership interest in the working model.

In 2001, VDN paid Virginia $95,434. It treated $58,600 of that amount as interest which it reported on Form 1099–INT and the balance as repayment of principal. Virginia reported the interest portion of the payment on her return as interest. In 2002, VDN paid Virginia $70,000. Virginia treated the $70,000 as repayment of principal. On its returns for 2001 and 2002, VDN deducted the payments to Virginia as nonemployee compensation.

In 2003 Alan Beckley and Robert Ebert were terminated by VDN, and it made no further payments to Virginia.
When it audited the Beckleys' returns for 2001 and 2002, IRS didn't challenge their characterization of the amounts received from VDN, but asserted that one half of the amounts received by Virginia also were corporate distributions taxable as capital gain to Alan. IRS's theory was that VDN's payments to Virginia on her loan to CT were made without any legal obligation to do so and only on the basis of a personal moral obligation of Alan and Ebert to repay Virginia. Thus, it argued that VDN's payments represented constructive corporation distributions.

Amounts represented loan repayment. The Tax Court ruled that the facts didn't support IRS's theory that VDN's payments to Virginia were made to satisfy only personal moral obligations of Alan and of Ebert. Although VDN did not execute a written loan assumption agreement, it effectively purchased the working model from CT, assumed at least part of CT's obligation to repay Virginia's loan to CT, and thus, its payments to Virginia related to that original loan. Although there was no written agreement reflecting VDN's obligation to repay Virginia, its conduct in actually making payments to Virginia, which related to her loan to CT and to CT's transfer of the working model to VDN, established the loan repayment character of the payments. In addition, the Form 1099-INT that VDN mailed to Virginia and to IRS for 2001 reflected that $58,600 represented interest on a loan.

For tax problem resolution CLICK HERE.

Employment / Payroll Tax Adjustments

Final regs include new process for reporting employment tax adjustments and refund claims
T.D. 9405, 06/30/2008, Reg. § 31.6011(a)-1, Reg. § 31.6011(a)-4, Reg. § 31.6011(a)-5, Reg. § 31.6205-1, Reg. § 31.6302-1, Reg. § 31.6402(a)-1, Reg. § 31.6413(a)-1, Reg. § 31.6403(a)-2

Mike Habib, EA

IRS has issued final regs on employment tax adjustments and refund claims, effective Jan. 1, 2009. The final regs modify the process for making interest-free adjustments for both underpayments and overpayments of Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) and Railroad Retirement Tax Act (RRTA) taxes and Federal income tax withholding (ITW).

Background on interest-free adjustments and refunds. While generally interest must be paid to IRS on any tax underpayment and to a taxpayer on any tax overpayment, an exception applies to employment taxes. Where an incorrect amount of tax under Code Sec. 3101 (employee FICA tax), Code Sec. 3111 (employer FICA tax), Code Sec. 3201 (employee RRTA tax), Code Sec. 3221 (employer RRTA tax), or Code Sec. 3402 (ITW) is reported to IRS for any payment of wages or compensation, Code Sec. 6205(a) and Code Sec. 6413(a) allow employers to make interest-free adjustments for underpayments and overpayments, respectively.

Under the prior Code Sec. 6205(a) regs, if a return is filed and less than the correct amount of employee or employer portions of FICA or RRTA tax is reported and paid, the employer adjusts the underpayment (a) by reporting the additional amount due as an adjustment on a current return, or (b) by reporting such additional amount on a supplemental return. For overpayments of employment taxes, Code Sec. 6413(b) allows a refund claim to be filed when an interest-free adjustment cannot be made. Under the prior Code Sec. 6413 regs, IRS allows taxpayers to choose between filing a claim for refund and making an interest-free adjustment to correct an overpayment of employment taxes.

Late in 2007, IRS issued proposed regs on employment tax adjustments and refund claims (see Federal Taxes Weekly Alert 01/03/2008). The proposed regs have now been adopted with only minor changes.

Revised adjusted return process. The final regs are issued in connection with IRS's development of new forms to report adjustments to employment taxes which will replace the existing process of reporting adjustments on regularly filed employment tax returns. The regs are part of IRS's effort to reduce taxpayer burdens by allowing employers to make employment tax adjustments on a separately filed form as soon as an error is ascertained, rather than as a line adjustment on the regularly filed employment tax return. The new adjusted return will not affect the liability reported on the current return. Under the regs, the forms used to accept an assessment of employment taxes after an examination (Form 2504, Agreement and Collection of Additional Tax and Acceptance of Overassessment (Excise or Employment Tax), and Form 2504-WC, Agreement to Assessment and Collection of Additional Tax and Acceptance of Overassessment in Worker Classification Cases (Employment Tax)) constitute adjusted returns. (Reg. § 31.6205-1)

Interest-free adjustments. The final Code Sec. 6205 regs set out the procedures for making interest-free adjustments for underpayments of employment taxes. If a return is filed and less than the correct amount of employee or employer FICA or RRTA tax is reported, and the employer discovers the error after filing the return, the employer adjusts the resulting underpayment of tax by reporting the additional amount due on an adjusted return for the return period in which the wages or compensation was paid. The adjustment must be made by the due date of the return for the return period in which the error is ascertained, and the amount of the underpayment must be paid by the time the adjustment is made, or interest will begin to accrue from that date. An underpayment adjustment can only be made within the period of limitations for assessment. For underpayments of ITW where the incorrect amount was withheld, subject to limited exceptions, an adjustment can only be made for errors ascertained during the calendar year in which the wages were paid. (Reg. § 31.6205-1(b)(2))

The final regs also provide for interest-free adjustments of underpayments of FICA tax, RRTA tax, and ITW under certain circumstances where the underpayment arises because the employer failed to file an original return or failed to report and pay the correct type of tax. (Reg. § 31.6205-1(b)(3), Reg. § 31.6205-1(c)(3))

The final Code Sec. 6413(a) regs set out the procedures for making interest-free adjustments for overpayments of employment taxes. If an employer ascertains an overpayment error within the applicable period of limitations on credit or refund, it's required to repay or reimburse its employees the amount of overcollected employee FICA or RRTA tax before the expiration of that period. However, the requirement to repay or reimburse doesn't apply to the extent that taxes weren't withheld from the employee or if, after reasonable efforts, the employer cannot locate the employee. In such a case, the employer can make an adjustment for only the employer share of FICA or RRTA tax. An interest-free adjustment for an overpayment cannot be made once a claim for refund has been filed. (Reg. § 31.6413(a)-1)

Once an employer repays or reimburses an employee to the extent required, the employer may report both the employee and employer portions of FICA or RRTA tax as an overpayment on an adjusted return. The employer must certify on the adjusted return that it has repaid or reimbursed its employees to the extent required.

Under the final regs, the reporting of the overpayment constitutes an interest-free adjustment if the overpayment is reported on an adjusted return filed before the 90th day prior to expiration of the period of limitations on credit or refund. Similar rules apply for making interest-free adjustments for ITW overpayments, except that an interest-free adjustment can only be made if the employer ascertains the error and repays or reimburses its employees within the same calendar year that the wages were paid and reports the adjustment on an adjusted return. (Reg. § 31.6413(a)-2)

No repayment or reimbursement for interest-free adjustments of overpayments. Unlike in the proposed reg, in the final regs the employer isn't required to repay or reimburse the employee or to adjust the overpayment by the due date of the return for the return period following the return period in which the error is ascertained. (Reg. § 31.6402-2(a)(1)) After reconsideration, IRS determined there was insufficient reason to impose a timing restriction other than the period of limitations on credit or refund of taxes. (T.D. 9405, 06/30/2008)

Deposits, payments, and credits. An employer making an interest-free adjustment must pay the amount of the adjustment by the time it files an adjusted return. The timely payment satisfies the employer's deposit obligations for the adjustment. (Reg. § 31.6302-1(c)(7)) In determining the amount of accumulated taxes in an agricultural employer's lookback period (which determines the employer's deposit schedule), adjustments to tax liability made under the filing of adjusted returns or refund claims aren't taken into account; new agricultural employers are treated as having employment tax liabilities of zero for any lookback period before the date the employer started or acquired its business. (Reg. § 31.6302-1(g)(4))

If the underpayment amount isn't paid when the adjusted return is filed, interest begins to accrue as of the date the adjusted return is filed. (Reg. § 31.6205-1(b)(2))

The adjusted overpayment amount will be applied as a credit toward payment of the employer's liability for the calendar quarter (or calendar year for annual returns being adjusted) in which the adjusted return is filed, unless IRS notifies the employer that the credit will be applied to a different return period or that the employer isn't entitled to the adjustment under applicable laws or procedures. (Reg. § 31.6413(a)-2(b)(2))

Refunds for overpayments. As in the prior regs, instead of making an interest-free adjustment for an overpayment, employers can file a claim for refund for the amount of the overpayment. Furthermore, if an employer can't make an interest-free adjustment for an overpayment because the period of limitations for claiming a credit or refund for the overpayment will expire within 90 days or because IRS has otherwise notified the employer that it's not entitled to the adjustment, the employer can recover the overpayment only by filing a claim for refund. (Reg. § 31.6413(a)-2(d))

An employer can file a claim for refund of an overpayment of FICA or RRTA tax, but must certify that it has repaid or reimbursed the employee's share of FICA or RRTA tax to the employee or has secured the employee's written consent to allowance of the refund or credit. However, the employer isn't required to repay or reimburse the employee or obtain the written consent of the employee to the extent that the overpayment doesn't include taxes withheld from the employee or, after reasonable efforts, the employer cannot locate the employee or the employee, once contacted, will not provide the requested consent. (Reg. § 31.6402(a)-2(a)) The final regs under Code Sec. 6414 set out similar procedures for filing a claim for refund of overpaid ITW, except that an employer can't file a claim for refund of an overpayment of ITW for an amount the employer deducted or withheld from an employee. (Reg. § 31.6414-1(a))

IRS intends to issue guidance to provide examples of how the final regs apply in different factual scenarios. (T.D. 9405, 06/30/2008)

Sales Tax BOE Announcement

Judy Chu Announces No More Paper Returns for Most BOE Taxpayers

Sales Tax Audit? Sales Tax Problem? BOE or SBE Issues? Get Sales Tax Resolution TODAY!

Business Editors/Government Writers

SACRAMENTO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--June 27, 2008--Judy Chu, Ph.D., Chair of the State Board of Equalization (BOE), today announced that the BOE will begin transitioning existing sales and use taxpayers to electronic filing and eliminate the use of paper tax returns.

This month, more than 90 thousand taxpayers will be notified they will no longer be receiving paper returns from BOE, but rather be expected to file on-line. This first group of existing taxpayers transitioning to e-filing includes single location quarterly prepayment accounts that are comprised of medium to large size businesses that file and make prepayments twelve times a year. These taxpayers will be expected to e-file rather than use a paper return with the reporting of third quarter 2008 returns, due October 31.

In addition to existing accounts, beginning July 1 all new businesses that apply for a seller’s permit will be set up for e-filing. There are an estimated 165,000 new seller’s permits issued each year.

The BOE-file program offers taxpayers a fast and convenient method of reporting, enhances the ease of filing, improves government efficiencies in tax administration and helps the environment by using less paper. The BOE currently prints, mails, and processes over 3.5 million sales and use tax returns annually. The taxpayers transitioning to e-filing in this phase account for approximately 1.4 million of these returns. The BOE estimates savings of up to $1.8 million in 2008-2009 with a participation rate of 25 percent to 50 percent of those eligible for e-filing.

Over the next two years, the majority of existing sales and use tax accounts will be transitioned from paper to e-filing, phased in based on account type and reporting basis.

All businesses will receive BOE-file notices in their next quarterly tax returns, expected around July 1, 2008. Taxpayers may request a one-year exemption from on-line filing.

There are several e-filing options available on the BOE website at www.boe.ca.gov. The BOE offers a free option, BOE-file. In addition, taxpayers may also choose from two fee-based electronic service providers. Accountants, bookkeepers, and other third-party return preparers can e-file on behalf of the taxpayer as well.

BOE-file has options to make payments via credit card or by check for all taxes and fees it collects. Taxpayers may use Discover, MasterCard, American Express and Visa. A convenience fee is charged and retained by the credit card processor. Besides sales tax, the BOE also administers levies on alcohol, fuel, tobacco, tires, lumber, and a number of other environmental fees. Motor Vehicle Fuel taxes, the International Fuel Taxes Agreement program and the Underground Storage Tank Maintenance Fee returns can also be filed electronically. For information regarding e-filing options available for other programs administered by BOE, visit the BOE website at www.boe.ca.gov and click on the E-services icon.

The BOE launched its first free e-file system in 2005. More than 830,000 businesses are currently eligible to use BOE-file. There are currently 879,000 active sales and use tax accounts registered with the BOE.

For more information on the BOE-file program, visit:

BOE-file Program (http://www.boe.ca.gov/elecsrv/esrvcont.htm)

Frequently Asked Questions (http://www.boe.ca.gov/elecsrv/efiling/boefilefaqtaxp.htm)

Chair Judy Chu represents the Fourth Board of Equalization District, which includes Los Angeles County. She won election to the BOE in November 2006 and was elected Chair of the Board of Equalization in January 2008. Chair Judy Chu is also a voting member of the Franchise Tax Board.

The five-member California State Board of Equalization is a publicly elected tax board. The BOE collects more than $53 billion annually in taxes and fees supporting state and local government services. It hears business tax appeals, acts as the appellate body for franchise and personal income tax appeals, and serves a significant role in the assessment and administration of property taxes.

California State Board of Equalization

Anita Gore, 916-327-8988

State Keywords: California

Industry Keywords: Public Policy/Government; Government Agencies; Public Policy; State/Local; Professional Services; Accounting

Source: California State Board of Equalization

Sales Tax Audit? Sales Tax Problem? BOE or SBE Issues? Get Sales Tax Resolution TODAY!

Carbon Dioxide and the IRS?

Gain from selling carbon dioxide allowances didn't generate foreign personal holding company income PLR 200825009

Mike Habib, EA

IRS has privately ruled that gain from the sale of surplus carbon dioxide allowances didn't constitute foreign personal holding company income (FPHCI) under Code Sec. 954(c). It concluded that the emissions allowances were excepted because they were intangible property used in the controlled foreign corporations' trade or business.

Facts. Taxpayer indirectly owns through a chain of foreign subsidiaries an unspecified percentage of the vote and value of Corporation A. The remaining interest is owned by unrelated parties. Corporation A engages in Industry M in Country A, where it is organized.

Taxpayer also indirectly owns 100% of the vote and value of Partnership B, a Country B entity that is treated as a controlled foreign partnership under Code Sec. 6038(e) . An unspecified percentage of Partnership B is directly owned by Corporation C, a controlled foreign corporation (CFC) of Taxpayer, organized in Country A. The remaining interest of Partnership B is directly owned by a domestic subsidiary corporation of Taxpayer. Partnership B engages in Industry M and other industries in Country B.

Countries A and B are members of the European Union (EU), which has developed the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide or its equivalent within certain industries, including Industry M. Beginning on Jan. 1, 2008, the ETS was expanded to include regulation of 5 other greenhouse gases. Corporation A and Partnership B are subject to the ETS.

Under the ETS, member states may emit specified amounts, measured in units, of the regulated greenhouse gases. The emissions capacity of each member state is represented by an allocation of allowances to it. Corporation A and Partnership B received carbon dioxide allowances from Country A and Country B, respectively, in Year 1 and Year 2. A business must surrender its allocated allowances for any year to the relevant authority in amounts equal to its emissions for the year. To the extent the measured emissions of a business exceed its allowances, a fine is imposed. However, to the extent a business has excess allowances, it may sell any surplus to another person. Corporation A and Partnership B had surplus allowances in Year 1 and Year 2, which were sold to unrelated purchasers.

Carbon dioxide allowances are traded over the counter and on exchanges such as the European Climate Exchange, the European Energy Exchange and Nordpool.

Background. Under Code Sec. 951(a), a U.S. shareholder of a CFC must include in gross income its pro-rata share of the CFC's subpart F income for the tax year.

A U.S. shareholder is any U.S. person (as defined in Code Sec. 957(c)) who owns (under Code Sec. 958) 10% or more of the total combined voting power of all classes of stock entitled to vote of such foreign corporation. (Code Sec. 951(b))

A CFC is any foreign corporation if more than 50% of the total combined voting power of all classes of its stock or more than 50% of the total value of its stock is owned by U.S. shareholders on any day during the tax year of such foreign corporation. (Code Sec. 957(a))

Subpart F income includes foreign base company income. (Code Sec. 952(a))
Under Reg. § 1.952-1(g)(1), a CFC's distributive share of any item of income of a partnership is income that falls within a category of subpart F income, as defined in Code Sec. 952(a), to the extent the item of income would have been income in such category if received by the CFC directly.

Code Sec. 954(a) defines four categories of foreign base company income, including FPHCI.
Code Sec. 954(c)(1)(C) provides, in part, that FPHCI includes the excess of gains over losses from transactions in any commodity. Commodity, for this purpose, includes tangible personal property of a kind that is actively traded or with respect to which contractual interests are actively traded. (Reg. § 1.954-2(f)(2)(i)) There are, however, exceptions. For example, net commodities gain that is included in FPHC income for subpart F purposes does not include active business gains or losses from the sale of commodities, if substantially all of the CFC's commodities are property described in Code Sec. 1221(a)(1) (inventory), Code Sec. 1221(a)(2) (property used in a trade or business subject to depreciation), or Code Sec. 1221(a)(8) (supplies used or consumed by the CFC in its trade or business). (Code Sec. 954(c)(1)(C)(ii))

Code Sec. 954(c)(1)(B)(iii) provides that FPHCI includes the excess of gains over losses from the sale of property which does not give rise to any income. However, under Reg. § 1.954-2(e)(3)(iii), property that does not give rise to income excludes intangible property (under Code Sec. 936(h)(3)(B)) to the extent used or held for use in the CFC's trade or business.

Reg. § 1.954-2(a)(5) provides special rules for calculating FPHCI applicable to distributive shares of partnership income. Under Reg. § 1.954-2(a)(5)(ii)(A), the exclusion provided by Reg. § 1.954-2(e)(3) applies only if such exception would have applied to exclude the income from FPHCI if the CFC had earned the income directly, determined by taking into account only the activities of, and property owned by, the partnership and not the separate activities or property of the CFC or any other person.

Code Sec. 936(h)(3)(B)(iv) and Code Sec. 936(h)(3)(B)(vi) include in the definition of intangible property any franchise, license, or contract, or any similar item, which has substantial value independent of the services of any individual.

Reg. § 1.954-2(a)(2) provides coordination rules for overlapping categories under the FPHCI provisions. Under those rules, gain or loss from commodities transactions under Code Sec. 954(c)(1)(C) take priority over gain under Code Sec. 954(c)(1)(B).

Analysis. IRS said it was currently studying the question of whether carbon dioxide allowances should be viewed as commodities for purposes of Code Sec. 954(c)(1)(C). However, it stated that, solely for purposes of PLR 200825009, IRS believes it is appropriate at this point to analyze carbon dioxide allowances as property that does not give rise to income under Code Sec. 954(c)(1)(B)(iii). No inference is intended as to whether the allowances are properly considered commodities for purposes of Code Sec. 954 or any other Code section.

The ruling noted that Reg. § 1.954-2(e)(3)(iv) provides that intangible property is excluded from FPHCI to the extent used or held for use in the CFC's trade or business. But this is applied to CFC partners by taking into account only the activities of the partnership.

In this case, possession of carbon dioxide allowances is necessary to operate in Industry M. Because each allowance permits the holder to engage in a business activity otherwise unlawful, without penalty, the allocation of an allowance by a member state is the granting of an intangible property right to each business to emit carbon dioxide to a set limit. The value of the allowance is independent of the performance of services by any individual. Thus, for purposes of Code Sec. 954(c)(1)(B), the allowances are intangible property under Code Sec. 936(h)(3)(B). However, to qualify for the exclusion of Reg. § 1.954-2(e)(3)(iv), the intangible property of Corporation A and Partnership B must be used or held for use in Corporation A and Partnership B's trade or business.

Based on the facts presented, IRS concluded that Corporation A and Partnership B held the carbon dioxide allowances to offset emissions resulting from the operation of their businesses in Industry M. Thus, Corporation A and Partnership B held the emissions allowances for use in their trade or business. Therefore, the allowances are intangible property held for use in a trade or business within the meaning of Reg. § 1.954-2(e)(3)(iv) and gain from their sale is properly excluded from the definition of FPHCI found in Code Sec. 954(c)(1)(B)(iii) by Corporation A and Corporation C.

Bottom line. Gain from the sale of surplus carbon dioxide allowances by Corporation A and Partnership B does not constitute FPHCI within the meaning of Code Sec. 954(c) to Corporation A or Corporation C.

Tax man is coming soon

House Subcommittee Passes IRS Funding Bill

The House Appropriations Financial Services Subcommittee this week passed a bill that would appropriate $11.4 billion to IRS for FY 2009.

The bill would grant IRS budget authority to spend $5.1 billion on enforcement, $2.2 on taxpayer services, and $3.8 billion on operations.

The total is about $40 million more than the president's request for the agency. The bill will next be considered by the full House Appropriations Committee before it goes to the House floor.

Closing the Tax Gap: An estimated $290 billion in taxes owed go unpaid every year. The IRS Oversight Board noted in a recent report that “the tax gap is an injustice to compliant taxpayers who ultimately are bearing the financial burden of those who do not pay what they owe, whether intentionally or not.”
• Enforcement: $5.1 billion, $337 million above 2008 and matching the President’s request, to catch tax cheats through audits, collection efforts, and technology improvements.

----
As you can see from the above, over $5,000,000,000 (Five Billion), allocated for IRS enforcement. Enforcement will encompass aggressive collection efforts for collecting back taxes, and additional tax audits to ensure compliance and catch tax cheats.

So, if you owe the IRS, contact us today to resolve your tax matter. Don't let the IRS punish you, you could settle your tax debt for less than you owe.

Business Economic Stimulus

Business Provisions of the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008

Mike Habib, EA

The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 contains two provisions that provide tax benefits for businesses. The first provision increases the limit up to which a business can expense property purchased and placed in service during its 2008 tax year. The second provision provides an additional 50 percent special depreciation allowance for property acquired and placed in service during calendar year 2008.

Unlike the economic stimulus payments that millions of individuals have already received, the tax benefits for businesses are not automatic; businesses must act to take advantage of the new provisions by purchasing qualifying property.

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that businesses stand to lower their 2008 tax bills by roughly $45 billion as a result of the two business provisions in the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008; these provisions accelerate into 2008 the tax benefits that otherwise would not have been available until future years.

The following are some details about these two key tax benefits:

Section 179 Expensing

• In general, section 179 provides that, instead of depreciating property, a business with a sufficiently small amount of annual property purchases may choose to expense the cost of the property. For taxable years beginning in 2008, the Economic Stimulus Act increased the section 179 expensing limit allowing more property to be currently expensed.
• The Economic Stimulus Act increased the maximum section 179 expense deduction to $250,000 for qualified section 179 property that is placed in service in tax years that begin in 2008. This is a 95 percent increase from the previous limitation of $128,000.
• The Economic Stimulus Act also increased the total amount of qualifying property a taxpayer may purchase before the section 179 expensing limit begins to be reduced. Under the new law, the $250,000 deduction amount is reduced only when a business acquires more than $800,000 of qualifying property. Prior to changes made by the Economic Stimulus Act, the reduction began when a business acquired more than $510,000 of qualifying property.
• The new law does not alter the section 179 expense limit for sport utility vehicles, which remains at $25,000.
• More than 4.5 million small businesses claimed the section 179 expense deduction for tax year 2005, the most recent year for which this information is available. These businesses placed almost $44 billion of section 179 property in service in 2005 and claimed related deductions of approximately $41 billion (data derived from Depreciation and Amortization forms filed with Forms 1040).

Special Depreciation Allowance

• The Economic Stimulus Act also provided a 50 percent special depreciation allowance for property acquired and placed in service during 2008. Depreciation is an income tax deduction that allows a taxpayer to recover the cost or other basis of certain property over several years. It is an annual allowance for the wear and tear, deterioration or obsolescence of the property.
• Under the new law, a taxpayer is entitled to depreciate 50 percent of the adjusted basis (after subtracting any section 179 deduction taken on that property) of qualified property during the year the property is placed in service. For example, if the taxpayer purchased and placed in service in 2008 a single piece of property at a cost of $450,000 that qualified for section 179 expensing and the 50 percent special depreciation allowance, $250,000 of the cost could be immediately expensed (under section 179 ) and the remaining $200,000 of adjusted basis would be available for the 50 percent special depreciation allowance. The taxpayer would also be permitted to take regular depreciation on the remaining $100,000 of adjusted basis during that year. This is similar to the special depreciation allowance that was previously available for certain property placed in service generally before Jan. 1, 2005, often referred to as “bonus depreciation.”
• The types of property that qualify for the 50 percent special depreciation allowance are section 168 property with a recovery period of 20 years or less, off-the-shelf computer software, water utility property and qualified leasehold improvement property.
• To qualify for the 50 percent special depreciation allowance, a taxpayer must meet all of the following tests:
• The taxpayer must have acquired the property after December 31, 2007, and before Jan. 1, 2009. If a binding contract to acquire the property existed before Jan. 1, 2008, the property does not qualify for the special depreciation allowance.
• The property must be placed in service before Jan. 1, 2009 (before Jan. 1, 2010, for certain transportation property and certain property with a long productions period).
• The original use of the property must begin with the taxpayer after Dec. 31, 2007. In other words, the property must be “new” property.
• Prior to the enactment of the Economic Stimulus Act the total depreciation amount (including the section 179 deduction) a business could deduct for a passenger automobile was $2,960. The Economic Stimulus Act increased this limitation by $8,000. Therefore, the maximum limit is increased to $10,960 for automobiles for which the special bonus depreciation allowance is claimed.
• Prior to the enactment of the Economic Stimulus Act, the total depreciation amount (including the section 179 deduction) a business could deduct for a truck or van used in a business and first placed in service in 2008 was $3,160. The Economic Stimulus Act increased this limitation by $8,000. The new maximum limit is increased to $11,160 for trucks and vans for which the special bonus depreciation is claimed.

The Economic Stimulus Act is the most recent legislation that provides depreciation tax benefits. Previously, the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002 allowed an additional first-year depreciation deduction equal to 30 percent of the adjusted basis of qualified property for property acquired on or after Sept. 11, 2001, and generally placed in service before Jan. 1, 2005. The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 provided an additional first-year depreciation deduction equal to 50 percent of the adjusted basis of qualified property for property acquired after May 5, 2003, and generally placed in service before Jan. 1, 2005.

For professional tax advice contact us today.

Disaster Victims Tax Relief

More disaster victims in Indiana, Iowa and Wisconsin qualify for tax relief IRS website [http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=108362,00.html]

Mike Habib, EA

IRS has announced on its website that additional counties in Indiana, Iowa and Wisconsin have been declared disaster areas on account of recent severe storms, tornadoes and flooding. As a result, more victims of the disaster have additional time to make tax payments and file returns. Certain other time-sensitive acts also are postponed.

Who gets relief. Only taxpayers considered to be affected taxpayers are eligible for the postponement of time to file returns, pay taxes and perform other time-sensitive acts. Affected taxpayers are those listed in Reg. § 301.7508A-1(d)(1) and thus include:

• any individual whose principal residence, and any business entity whose principal place of business, is located in the counties designated as disaster areas;
• any individual who is a relief worker assisting in a covered disaster area, regardless of whether he is affiliated with recognized government or philanthropic organizations;
• any individual whose principal residence, and any business entity whose principal place of business, is not located in a covered disaster area, but whose records necessary to meet a filing or payment deadline are maintained in a covered disaster area, or whose tax professional/practitioner is located in a covered disaster area;
• any estate or trust that has tax records necessary to meet a filing or payment deadline in a covered disaster area; and
• any spouse of an affected taxpayer, solely with regard to a joint return of the husband and wife.

What may be postponed. Under Code Sec. 7508A, IRS gives affected taxpayers until the extended date (specified by county, below) to file most tax returns (including individual, estate, trust, partnership, C corporation, and S corporation income tax returns; estate, gift, and generation-skipping transfer tax returns; and employment and certain excise tax returns), or to make tax payments, including estimated tax payments, that have either an original or extended due date falling on or after the onset date of the disaster (specified by county, below), and on or before the extended date.

IRS also gives affected taxpayers until the extended date to perform other time-sensitive actions described in Reg. § 301.7508A-1(c)(1) and Rev Proc 2007-56, 2007-34 IRB 388, that are due to be performed on or after the onset date of the disaster, and on or before the extended date. This relief also includes the filing of Form 5500 series returns, in the way described in Rev Proc 2007-56, Sec. 8. Additionally, the relief described in Rev Proc 2007-56, Sec. 17, relating to like-kind exchanges of property, also applies to certain taxpayers who are not otherwise affected taxpayers and may include acts required to be performed before or after the period above.

The postponement of time to file and pay does not apply to information returns in the W-2, 1098, 1099 or 5498 series, or to Forms 1042-S or 8027. Penalties for failure to timely file information returns can be waived under existing procedures for reasonable cause. Likewise, the postponement does not apply to employment and excise tax deposits. IRS, however, will abate penalties for failure to make timely employment and excise deposits, due on or after the onset date of the disaster, and on or before the information return delayed date (specified by county, below), provided the taxpayer made these deposits by the information return delayed date.

IRS will waive the failure to deposit penalties for employment and excise deposits due on or after the onset date of the disaster, and on or before the deposit delayed date (specified by county, below , as long as the deposits were made by the deposit delayed date.

Affected counties and dates for storms, floods and other disasters in 2008 are as follows:
Arkansas: The following are presidential disaster areas qualifying for individual assistance: Arkansas, Benton, Cleburne, Conway, Crittenden, Grant, Lonoke, Mississippi, Phillips, Pulaski, Saline and Van Buren counties.

For these Arkansas counties, the onset date of the disaster was May 2, 2008, the extended date is July 21, 2008, the information return delayed date was May 19, 2008, and the deposit delayed date was May 19, 2008.

Colorado: The following are presidential disaster areas qualifying for individual assistance: Larimer and Weld counties.

For these Colorado counties, the onset date of the disaster was May 22, 2008, the extended date is July 25, 2008, the information return delayed date was June 6, 2008, and the deposit delayed date was June 6, 2008.

Georgia: The following are presidential disaster areas qualifying for individual assistance: Bibb, Carroll, Douglas, Emanuel, Jefferson, Jenkins, Johnson, Laurens, McIntosh and Twiggs counties.

For these Georgia counties, the onset date of the disaster was May 11, 2008, the extended date is July 22, 2008, the information return delayed date was May 27, 2008, and the deposit delayed date was May 27, 2008.

Iowa: The following are presidential disaster areas qualifying for individual assistance: Adams, Allamakee, Benton, Black Hawk, Bremer, Buchanan, Butler, Cedar, Cerro Gordo, Chicksaw, Clayton, Crawford, Delaware, Des Moines, Fayette, Floyd, Freemont, Hardin, Harrison, Jasper, Johnson, Jones, Linn, Louisa, Mahaska, Marion, Mills, Monona, Muscatine, Page, Polk, Story, Tama, Union, Warren and Winneshiek counties.

For these Iowa counties, the onset date of the disaster is May 25, 2008, the extended date is July 28, 2008, the information return delayed date was June 9, 2008, and the deposit delayed date was June 9, 2008.

Indiana: The following are presidential disaster areas qualifying for individual assistance: Adams, Bartholomew, Brown, Clay, Daviess, Dearborn, Decaturm Greene, Hamilton, Hancock, Henry, Jackson, Jennings, Johnson, Knox, Marion, Monroe, Morgan, Owen, Parke, Putnam, Randolph, Rush, Shelby, Sullivan, Vermillion, Vigo and Wayne counties.

For these Indiana counties, the onset date of the disaster was May 30, 2008, the extended date is Aug. 7, 2008, the information return delayed date was June 16, 2008, and the deposit delayed date was June 16, 2008.

Maine: The following are presidential disaster areas qualifying for individual assistance: Aroostook and Penobscot counties.

For these Maine counties, the onset date of the disaster was April 28, the extended date is July 8, the information return delayed date was May 13, 2008, and the deposit delayed date was May 13, 2008.

Missouri: The following are presidential disaster areas qualifying for individual assistance: Barry, Jasper and Newton counties.

For these Missouri counties, the onset date of the disaster was May 10, 2008, the extended date is July 22, 2008, the information return delayed date was May 27, 2008, and the deposit delayed date was May 27, 2008.

Mississippi: The following are presidential disaster areas qualifying for individual assistance: Bolivar, Warren, Washington and Wilkinson counties.

For these Mississippi counties, the onset date of the disaster was March 20, 2008, the extended date is July 7, 2008, the information return delayed date was April 4, 2008, and the deposit delayed date was April 4, 2008.

Oklahoma: The following are presidential disaster areas qualifying for individual assistance: Craig, Latimer, Ottawa and Pittsburg counties.

For these Oklahoma counties, the onset date of the disaster was May 10, 2008, the extended date is July 14, 2008, the information return delayed date was May 27, 2008, and the deposit delayed date was May 27, 2008.

Wisconsin: The following are presidential disaster areas qualifying for individual assistance: Crawford, Columbia, Dodge, Green, Sauk, Milwaukee, Racine, Richland, Vernon, Washington, Waukesha and Winnebago counties.

For these Wisconsin counties, the onset date of the disaster was June 5, 2008, the extended date is Aug. 13, 2008, the information return delayed date is June 20, 2008, and the deposit delayed date is June 20, 2008.

Claiming disaster loss on previous year's return. A taxpayer that sustains a loss attributable to a disaster occurring in a Presidential disaster area may elect to deduct that loss on his return for the tax year immediately preceding the tax year in which the disaster occurred. (Code Sec. 165(i)) Generally, a taxpayer must make this election by filing a return, an amended return, or a refund claim on or before the later of (i) the due date of his income tax return (determined without regard to any filing extension) for the tax year in which the disaster actually occurred, or (ii) the due date of his tax return (determined with regard to any filing extension) for the immediately preceding tax year. The election is irrevocable 90 days after it is made. (Reg. § 1.165-11(e)) Because of the new disaster area designation, taxpayers in affected counties designated as disaster areas in 2008 can elect to claim a 2008 disaster loss on their 2007 returns, instead of on their 2008 returns.

Observation: Claiming the disaster loss for the year before the loss occurred saves taxes immediately, without having to wait until the end of the year in which the loss was sustained. In some cases, the deduction may result in a net operating loss, which could result in a refund from an earlier year to which it is carried. On the other hand, deducting the loss in the year the loss actually occurred may result in bigger tax savings if the taxpayer is in a higher bracket in that year.

CFC Controlled Foreign Corporation Tax Problem?

Regs crack down on tax avoidance repatriations of CFC earnings
Preamble to TD 9402, 06/23/2008; Reg. § 1.956-1T; Preamble to Prop Reg 06/23/2008; Prop Reg § 1.956-1

Mike Habib, EA

IRS has issued temporary and proposed regs to determine the basis of certain U.S. property acquired by a controlled foreign corporation (CFC) in certain nonrecognition transactions that are intended to repatriate earnings and profits of the CFC without income inclusion by the U.S. shareholders of the CFC under Code Sec. 951(a)(1)(B).

Background. IRS is aware that certain taxpayers are engaging in certain nonrecognition transactions in which a CFC acquires certain U.S. property (within the meaning of Code Sec. 956(c)) without resulting in an income inclusion to the U.S. shareholders of the CFC under Code Sec. 951(a)(1)(B).

Illustration: USP, a domestic corporation and the common parent of an affiliated group that files a consolidated tax return, owns 100% of the outstanding stock of US1 and US2, both domestic corporations that join USP in the filing of a consolidated tax return. US1 owns 100% of the stock of CFC, a controlled foreign corporation. US2 issues $100 million of its stock to CFC in exchange for $10 million of CFC stock and $90 million cash. USP takes the position that: (i) US2's transfer of its stock to CFC in exchange for $10 million of CFC stock and $90 million cash is an exchange to which Code Sec. 351 applies; (ii) US2 recognizes no gain on the receipt of $10 million of CFC stock and $90 million cash in exchange for its stock under Code Sec. 1032(a) ; (iii) CFC recognizes no gain on the issuance of its stock to US2 under Code Sec. 1032(a) ; (iv) CFC's basis in the US2 stock is zero under Code Sec. 362(a) ; and (v) US1 and US2 do not and will not have an income inclusion under Code Sec. 951(a)(1)(B) as a result of CFC holding the US2 stock (which constitutes U.S. property under Code Sec. 956(c) ). (Preamble to TD 9402, 06/23/2008)

IRS believes these transactions raise significant policy concerns because the transactions may have the effect of repatriating earnings and profits of a CFC without a corresponding dividend inclusion, or an income inclusion under Code Sec. 951(a)(1)(B) by reason of the CFC's investment in U.S. property.

Code Sec. 956 was enacted to require an income inclusion by U.S. shareholders of a CFC that invests certain earnings and profits in U.S. property on the ground that the investment is substantially the equivalent of a dividend being paid to them.

Under Code Sec. 951(a)(1)(B), each U.S. shareholder (as defined in Code Sec. 951(b)) of a CFC (as defined in Code Sec. 957(a)) must include in its gross income for its tax year in which or with which the tax year of the CFC ends, the amount determined under Code Sec. 956 with respect to such shareholder for such year (but only to the extent not excluded from gross income under Code Sec. 959(a)(2)).

Regs under Code Sec. 367(b) prevent the repatriation of a U.S. person's share of earnings and profits of a foreign corporation through what would otherwise be a nonrecognition transaction.

Under Code Sec. 362(a), for property acquired by a corporation in connection with a Code Sec. 351 transaction (relating to transfer of property to corporation controlled by transferor), the basis is the same as it would be in the hands of the transferor, increased by the amount of any gain recognized to the transferor on the transfer.

No gain or loss is recognized to a corporation on the receipt of money or other property in exchange for stock of that corporation. (Code Sec. 1032)

Temporary regs. When a CFC acquires stock or obligations of a domestic issuing corporation, that constitute U.S. property under Code Sec. 956(c), from such corporation pursuant to an exchange in which the CFC's basis in the property is determined under Code Sec. 362(a), the temporary regs apply. As a result, solely for Code Sec. 956 purposes, the temporary regs cause the CFC's basis in the property to be no less than the fair market value of the property transferred by the CFC in exchange for the property. For this purpose, “property” has the meaning set forth in Code Sec. 317(a), but includes any liability assumed by the CFC in connection with the exchange notwithstanding Code Sec. 357(a). (Reg. § 1.956-1T(e)(6))

The temporary regs also apply when property whose basis is determined under the regs is transferred to a related person (related person transferee), or by a related person transferee to another related person, pursuant to an exchange in which the related person transferee's basis in the property is determined, in whole or in part, by reference to the transferor's basis in the property. This rule is intended to prevent taxpayers from attempting to avoid the general rule of the temporary regs by subsequently transferring the property to a related person in another nonrecognition transaction. (Reg. § 1.956-1T(e)(6))

Basis determined under the temporary regs applies only for purposes of determining the amount of U.S. property acquired or held by a CFC under Code Sec. 956 , and accordingly the amount of a U.S. shareholder's income inclusion under Code Sec. 951(a)(1)(B) with respect to the CFC. (Reg. § 1.956-1T(e)(6))

The temporary regs apply only to determine the basis of U.S. property acquired by a CFC pursuant to an exchange that is within their scope. All other basis determinations are made under the rules in Reg. § 1.956-1(e)(1)(4). (Preamble to Prop Reg 06/23/2008)

Illustration: Applying the facts from Illustration (1), the results are as follow under the temporary regs. The US2 stock acquired by CFC in the exchange constitutes U.S. property under Reg. § 1.956-1T(e)(6)(ii) because CFC acquires the US2 stock from US2, the issuing corporation. Therefore, because CFC's basis in the US2 stock is determined under Code Sec. 362(a), then for purposes of Code Sec. 956, CFC's basis in the US2 stock is, under Reg. § 1.956-1T(e)(6)(iii) no less than $90 million, the fair market value of the property exchanged by CFC for the US2 stock (the $10 million of CFC stock issued in the exchange does not constitute property for purposes of Reg. § 1.956-1T(e)(6)(iii)). Under Reg. § 1.956-1T(e)(6)(iv), for purposes of Reg. § 1.956-2(d)(1)(i)(a), CFC is treated as acquiring its basis of no less than $90 million in the US2 stock at the time of its transfer of property to US2 in exchange for the US2 stock. The result would be the same if, instead of CFC transferring $90 million of cash to US2 in the exchange, CFC assumes a $90 million liability of US2. Reg. § 1.956-1T(e)(6)(vi), Example 1.

Effective date. The temporary regs apply to U.S. property acquired in exchanges occurring on or after June 24, 2008. No inference is intended as to the basis of U.S. property acquired by a CFC pursuant to a comparable transaction occurring before that date. IRS may, where appropriate, challenge such pre-June 24 transactions under applicable provisions or judicial doctrines. (Reg. § 1.956-1T(f), Preamble to TD 9402, 06/23/2008)