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

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

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

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

Syndicated Conservation Easements

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

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

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

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

Enforcement Actions

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

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

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

Rettig, Desmond Highlight Heightened Focus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carried Interest Limitation

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

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

Legal Questions May Arise

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

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

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

Tax Extenders Need a Legislative Vehicle

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

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

Another Stopgap Spending Bill Appears Likely

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

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

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

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

SECURE Act’s Route to Senate Floor Remains Unclear

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

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

Catch-All Tax Package

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

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

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

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

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

SALT Cap Workaround

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

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

Debate on SALT Cap, Treasury Rules

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

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

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

Vaping Tax

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opportunity Zones Tax Incentive

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

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

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

Draft IRS Form 8996

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

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

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

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

Opportunity Zones Criticism

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

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

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

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

Section 280E

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

Constitutionality

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

Legality Under State Law

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

Additional Deductions

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

Dissenting Opinions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shareholder Identity Requirement

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

ETSC Proration

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

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

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

• describe in detail the method of characterizing qualified distributions.

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

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

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

Effective Date

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

The 2016 filing season has closed with renewed emphasis on cybersecurity, tax-related identity theft and customer service. Despite nearly constant attack by cybercriminals, the IRS reported that taxpayer information remains secure. The agency also continued to intercept thousands of bogus returns and prevent the issuance of fraudulent refunds.

The 2016 filing season has closed with renewed emphasis on cybersecurity, tax-related identity theft and customer service. Despite nearly constant attack by cybercriminals, the IRS reported that taxpayer information remains secure. The agency also continued to intercept thousands of bogus returns and prevent the issuance of fraudulent refunds.

Cybersecurity

Concerns about cybersecurity and the confidentiality of taxpayer information were paramount during the filing season. According to the IRS, its basic systems are attacked “millions of times” every day by cybercriminals looking for weaknesses. In April, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen told Congress that the agency’s basic systems are secure. However, cybercriminals did breach its Get Transcript app in 2015 and other applications are under constant probing and attack by cybercriminals.

Koskinen assured Congress that the agency is beefing up its cybersecurity staffing. The IRS has hired 55 new cybersecurity experts. However, he acknowledged that the agency’s cybersecurity head has left and the position is open. This has drawn criticism from lawmakers who have questioned why such an important job is open. Koskinen said that the lengthy government hiring process is a deterrent to hiring cybersecurity professionals and urged Congress to reinstate the agency’s fast-track hiring process.

Identity theft

Closely related to cybersecurity is tax-related identity theft. The breach of the Get Transcript App in 2015 resulted in $50 million in fraudulent refunds paid to cybercriminals, according to a government watchdog.

Because the filing season has just ended, final statistics will not be released until later this year. However, interim statistics give a snapshot of the vastness of the problem of tax-related identity theft. As of March 5, 2016, the IRS had successfully prevented the issuance of some $180 million in fraudulent refunds.

To help prevent tax-related identity theft, the IRS has enhanced its return processing filters. Many of these enhancements, the IRS has explained, are invisible to taxpayers. Other enhancements have been made working with return preparers and tax software providers.

Customer service

The IRS’s level of customer service hit historic lows during the 2015 filings season. Almost two-thirds of all calls to the IRS went unanswered and the agency disconnected millions of callers (so-called “courtesy disconnects.”) There were also long lines for in-person assistance at IRS service centers nationwide. The IRS blamed the poor customer service on budget cuts and its inability to hire more employees to answer taxpayer questions.

In December 2015, Congress gave the IRS an additional $290 million and instructed the agency to use the money to improve customer service, along with boosting cybersecurity and combating identity theft. Koskinen told Congress in April that the agency spent more than $100 million of the $290 million on customer service. As a result, the agency’s level of customer service reached as high as 65 percent during the filing season. However, that level will fall to around 50 percent for all of 2016, Koskinen said. The additional employees hired during the filing season were merely temporary employees and their employment ended with the close of the filing season, Koskinen explained.

Return processing

The IRS expects to receive some 150.6 million returns this filing season. That number includes an estimated 13.5 million returns on extension. Taxpayers on extension have until October 17, 2016 to file.

If you have any questions about the 2016 filing season, please contact our office.

Passage of the “Tax Extenders” undeniably provided one of the major headlines – and tax benefits – to come out of the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act), signed into law on December 18, 2015. Although these tax extenders (over 50 of them in all) were largely made retroactive to January 1, 2015, valuable enhancements to some of these tax benefits were not made retroactive. Rather, these enhancements were made effective only starting January 1, 2016. As a result, individuals and businesses alike should treat these enhancements as brand-new tax breaks, taking a close look at whether one or several of them may apply. Here’s a list to consider as 2016 tax planning gets underway now that tax filing-season has ended.

Passage of the “Tax Extenders” undeniably provided one of the major headlines – and tax benefits – to come out of the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act), signed into law on December 18, 2015. Although these tax extenders (over 50 of them in all) were largely made retroactive to January 1, 2015, valuable enhancements to some of these tax benefits were not made retroactive. Rather, these enhancements were made effective only starting January 1, 2016. As a result, individuals and businesses alike should treat these enhancements as brand-new tax breaks, taking a close look at whether one or several of them may apply. Here’s a list to consider as 2016 tax planning gets underway now that tax filing-season has ended:

Section 179 expensing. The PATH Act permanently extended the Code Section 179 dollar of investment limitations at the higher $500,000 and $2 million, levels, which are adjusted for inflation for tax years beginning after 2015 (it is $500,000 and $2,010,000 for 2016). In addition, starting only in 2016, the $250,000 limitation on the amount of section 179 property that can be attributable to qualified real property has been eliminated. Further, for tax years beginning after 2015, the Code Section 179 expense deduction is now allowed for air conditioning and heating units.

Bonus depreciation. In addition to the big news that the PATH Act extended Code Section 168(k) bonus depreciation to apply to most qualifying property placed in service before January 1, 2020, it made a number of modifications, including:

• replacement of the bonus allowance for qualified leasehold improvement property with a bonus allowance for additions and improvements to the interior of any nonresidential real property, effective for property placed in service after 2015; and
• allowance to farmers of a 50 percent deduction in place of bonus depreciation on certain trees, vines, and plants in the year of planting or grafting rather than the placed-in-service year, effective for planting and grafting after 2015.

Section 181 expensing. Special Section 181 expensing for qualified film and television productions is extended for two years to apply to qualified film and television productions commencing before January 1, 2017. However, the expensing rule is also expanded to apply to qualified live theatrical productions commencing after December 31, 2015.

WOTC. The Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) has been extended five years through December 31, 2019. In addition, the credit has been expanded and made available to employers who hire individuals who are qualified long-term unemployment recipients who begin work for the employer after December 31, 2015.

Research credit. The PATH Act permanently extended the research credit that applies to amounts paid or incurred after December 31, 2014. However, a new allowance of the research credit against alternative minimum tax liability applies to credits determined for tax years beginning after December 31, 2015. In addition, a new payroll tax credit associated with the research credit applies only to tax years beginning after December 31, 2015 (Act Sec. 121(d) (3) of the PATH Act).

Military differential pay. The PATH Act extended the employer tax credit for differential wage payments made to qualified employees on active military duty has been made permanent and applies to payments made after December 31, 2014. Effective only for tax years beginning after December 31, 2015, however, the credit may be claimed by all employers regardless of the average number of individuals employed during the tax year. The credit is also no longer limited to eligible small business employers with less than 50 employees.

Teachers' classroom expense deduction. The PATH Act permanently extended the above-the-line deduction for elementary and secondary school teachers' classroom expenses. Additionally, for tax years after 2015, the Act includes "professional development expenses" within the scope of the deduction. These expenses include courses related to the curriculum in which the educator provides instruction.

Nonbusiness energy property credit. The PATH Act extended the nonrefundable nonbusiness energy property credit allowed to individuals under Code Sec. 25C for two years, making it available for qualified energy improvements and property placed in service before January 1, 2017. For property placed in service after December 31, 2015, the standards for energy efficient building envelope components are modified to meet new conservation criteria. 

If you have any questions about these new “extenders,” please contact our office.

The IRS always urges taxpayers to pay their current tax liabilities when due, to avoid interest and penalties. Taxpayers who can’t pay the full amount are urged to pay as much as they can, for the same reason. But some taxpayers cannot pay their full tax liability by the normal April 15 deadline (April 18^th in 2016 because of the intersection of a weekend and a District of Columbia holiday).

The IRS always urges taxpayers to pay their current tax liabilities when due, to avoid interest and penalties. Taxpayers who can’t pay the full amount are urged to pay as much as they can, for the same reason. But some taxpayers cannot pay their full tax liability by the normal April 15 deadline (April 18^th in 2016 because of the intersection of a weekend and a District of Columbia holiday). 

One alternative is to enter into an installment payment agreement with the IRS, where taxpayers agree in writing to make monthly payments to the IRS and to reduce their tax liability to zero over a reasonable period of time. The IRS may also agree to an installment payment arrangement for back taxes. Penalties and interest may continue to accrue, although the IRS may reduce the penalties. While the IRS is authorized to enter into a partial payment installment agreement for a portion of the taxpayer’s liability, the agency has been reluctant to do this.

Form 9465 

Taxpayers who cannot pay the tax liability reported on their current income tax return should submit Form 9465, Installment Agreement Request, to the IRS, to request a monthly installment plan. A taxpayer who owes more than $50,000 should provide Form 433-F, Collection Information Statement, along with the request. Taxpayers can enter into different types of agreements, including:

• A traditional agreement, where they agree to make their monthly payment by check, money order, or credit card;
• A direct debit installment agreement, to make automatic payments from a bank account; or
• A payroll deduction agreement, with payments made by the employer from a paycheck.

The IRS charges a user fee for entering into an agreement: $120 for a traditional agreement; or $52 for a direct debit agreement. Qualifying low-income taxpayers pay a fee of $43, regardless of the type of agreement. If the agreement is restructured (because of a change in the taxpayer’s financial condition, for example), or if the IRS terminates the agreement and then agrees to reinstate it, the IRS will charge a fee of $50.

Different agreements

The IRS’s procedures include different kinds of agreements, depending on the taxpayer’s circumstances:

• Taxpayers can use Form 9465 to apply for a streamlined agreement. The taxpayer must owe $50,000 or less and must pay all their taxes within 72 months or by the expiration of the collection statute of limitations (generally 10 years).
• Instead of using Form 9465, taxpayers can apply for an online payment agreement, provided the taxpayer owes $50,000 or less in taxes, interest and penalties, or provided the taxpayer owns a business and owes $25,000 or less in total. A taxpayer cannot apply online for this agreement if the taxpayer owes more than $50,000.
• Taxpayers who owe $10,000 or less (without interest or penalties) can enter into a guaranteed installment agreement if the taxpayer agrees to pay all taxes within three years. The taxpayer must have filed all returns and paid all taxes due for the past five years, and cannot have entered into an installment agreement in the same period.
• A taxpayer who can make full payment within 120 days should not use Form 9465 but should instead call the IRS phone line to make arrangements. There is no user fee.

Yes, the IRS can impose penalties if a tax return is not timely filed or if a tax liability is not timely paid. As with all IRS penalties, the rules are complex. However, a taxpayer may avoid a penalty if he or she shows reasonable cause.

Yes, the IRS can impose penalties if a tax return is not timely filed or if a tax liability is not timely paid. As with all IRS penalties, the rules are complex. However, a taxpayer may avoid a penalty if he or she shows reasonable cause.

Failure to file

The penalty for failure to file a timely return is five percent of the net amount of tax due for each month or partial month of the delinquency, up to a maximum of 25 percent. The penalty runs from the due date of the return until the date the IRS actually receives the late return. If the failure to file an income tax return extends for more than 60 days, the penalty may not be less than the lesser of $135 (subject to annual inflation adjustments) or 100 percent of the tax due on the return. The penalty applies to the net amount due, which is the tax shown on the return and any additional tax found to be due as reduced by any credits for withholding and estimated tax payments.

Failure to pay

The failure-to-pay tax penalty is generally one-half of one percent of the amount of the unpaid tax for each month of the delinquency, up to a maximum of 25 percent for 50 months. For failure to pay tax shown on the return, the penalty is imposed on the amount shown on the return, less amounts that have been withheld, estimated tax payments, partial payments and other applicable credits. For failure to pay a deficiency within the number of days allotted after the date of a notice and demand, the penalty is imposed on the tax stated in the notice, reduced by the amount of any partial payments.

Overlap

Complexity enters when a taxpayer is subject to both the failure-to-file and the failure-to-pay penalty. In this case, the failure-to-file penalty is generally reduced by the amount of the failure-to-pay penalty. Every taxpayer’s situation is unique, so please contact our office for more details.

Reasonable cause

The failure-to-pay penalty does not apply if the taxpayer shows that the failure-to-pay was due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect. Generally, the taxpayer must pay the tax due before the IRS will abate a failure-to-pay penalty for reasonable cause.

Certain entities

The Tax Code authorizes the IRS to impose specific penalties on certain entities that fail to file returns. These include a partnership that is required to file a partnership return but does not timely do so, or files a return that does not contain the required information; and an S corporation that is required to file its information return but does not timely do so, or files a return that does not contain the required information, and certain persons with certain interests or stock in a foreign partnership or corporation, among other entities.

Penalties are one of the most complex areas in the Tax Code. If you have any questions about penalties, do not hesitate to contact our office.

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

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

Tax-related identity theft

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

Being proactive

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

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

Impersonators

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

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

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

There are three main types of IRS audits: correspondence audits, office audits, and field audits (listed in order of increasing invasiveness). Correspondence audits are initiated (and generally conducted) by postal mail. Office audits require a taxpayer and/or its representative to appear in an IRS office; and a field audit involves IRS examiners paying a visit to the taxpayer's place of business.

There are three main types of IRS audits: correspondence audits, office audits, and field audits (listed in order of increasing invasiveness). Correspondence audits are initiated (and generally conducted) by postal mail. Office audits require a taxpayer and/or its representative to appear in an IRS office; and a field audit involves IRS examiners paying a visit to the taxpayer's place of business.

Correspondence audits

Correspondence audits, as the name suggests, are conducted entirely through the U.S. mail. (The IRS never uses e-mail to correspond with taxpayers.) Correspondence examinations require less involvement from IRS examiners and are therefore used more frequently by the budget-strapped IRS. Because correspondence examinations make up such a large percentage of the total examinations the IRS conducts, they are considered the "work horse" of the IRS audit tools.

The IRS routinely uses correspondence examinations for issues that it generally deems more efficient and less burdensome to handle by mail, for example questionable claims for earned income tax credits (EITCs) or inconsistent line items.

Office audits

Generally, office examinations involve small businesses or individual income tax returns that predominantly include sole proprietorships. They involve issues that are too complex for a correspondence audit, which involves only the exchange of mail and (sometimes) a few telephone calls. Issues subject to an office audit, however, are usually not complex enough to warrant a full-scale field audit examination. Common issues include the substantiation of a business purpose, travel and entertainment expenses, Schedule C items, or certain itemized deductions.

In addition, if a taxpayer previously selected for a correspondence audit requests an interview to discuss the IRS's proposed adjustments, the case may be moved to the taxpayer's district office. Conversely, an examiner may sometimes determine that a tax return selected for an office audit examination would be better handled through a correspondence audit.

Office examinations generally take place at the IRS office located nearest to where taxpayer maintains its financial books and records, which is generally its residence or place of business. However, on a case-by-case basis the IRS will consider written requests from taxpayers or their representatives to change the office examination location. A request by a taxpayer to transfer the place of an office examination will generally be granted if the current residence of the taxpayer or the location of the taxpayer's books, records, and source documents is closer to a different IRS office than the one originally designated for the examination. Additionally, Treasury Reg. 301.7605-1(e)(1) directs the IRS to consider several factors including whether the selected office audit location would cause undue inconvenience to the taxpayer.

Field audits

The IRS initiates a field exam audit usually by sending either a letter that lays out the issues to be examined and lists a specific IRS agent as the point of contact. Taxpayers must contact the revenue agent within 10 days of receiving the initial contact letter in order to schedule an interview. Generally an Information Document Request (IDR) also accompanies the initial contact letter and contains the IRS examiner's description of the audit-related documents it wants to review.

Conducting a field examination of a tax return requires the agent to have far greater knowledge of tax law and accounting principles than do correspondence or office audits, and therefore, field examiners are generally much more experienced than other examiners. Field audits almost always take place where the taxpayer's books, records, and other relevant data are maintained, which generally means the taxpayer's residence or place of business. However, if a business is so small that a field examination would essentially require the taxpayer to close the business or would unduly disrupt the operation of the business, the IRS examiner can conduct the field examination at the closest IRS office or at the office of the taxpayer's representative.

Employers and other organizations must obtain an employer identification number (EIN) to identify themselves for tax administration purposes, such as starting a new business, withholding taxes on wages, or creating a trust. Entities apply for an EIN by filing IRS Form SS-4. Page two of the form advises whether an applicant needs an EIN.

Employers and other organizations must obtain an employer identification number (EIN) to identify themselves for tax administration purposes, such as starting a new business, withholding taxes on wages, or creating a trust. Entities apply for an EIN by filing IRS Form SS-4. Page two of the form advises whether an applicant needs an EIN.

Other entities that need an EIN include corporations, partnerships, estates, trusts, state or local governments, and churches and other nonprofit organizations. Unincorporated entities (sole proprietorships) that establish a retirement plan or that file certain tax forms will also need an EIN for filing the relevant forms.

Application process

The IRS does not charge for obtaining an EIN and has sought to simplify the application process. Taxpayers may apply by mail, by fax, or online. International applicants may also apply by phone. In all cases, if the IRS determines that the applicant needs an EIN, the IRS will issue the EIN and transmit it to the taxpayer in the same manner as the application was made.

Applications by mail generally take four weeks, the IRS indicates, once the SS-4 is properly and completely filled out. Entities located in the U.S. or a U.S. territory can apply online. For online applications, the IRS validates the information and issues the EIN immediately. The IRS notes that the principal officer or other relevant party must have a valid taxpayer identification number, such as a Social Security Number, to use the online application process. The IRS will respond to a completed fax application within four business days, if the applicant provides a fax number.

Filing without EIN

The IRS states that it will only issue one EIN per day per responsible party, regardless of the means of applying. If the taxpayer needs to file a return but lacks an EIN because of this limitation, the IRS advises that the taxpayer should attach a completed Form SS-4 to the completed and signed tax return. The IRS will assign an EIN and then process the return.