Newsletters

The Treasury and IRS have issued final regulations excepting certain partnership-related items from the centralized partnership audit regime created by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA), providing alternative examination rules for the excepted items, conforming the existing centralized audit regime regulations to Internal Revenue Code changes, and clarifying the existing audit regime rules.

The Treasury and IRS have issued final regulations excepting certain partnership-related items from the centralized partnership audit regime created by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA), providing alternative examination rules for the excepted items, conforming the existing centralized audit regime regulations to Internal Revenue Code changes, and clarifying the existing audit regime rules. The regulations finalize with revisions 2020 proposed regulations ( REG-123652-18).

Centralized Partnership Audit Regime

The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA, P.L. 114-74) replaced the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA, P.L. 97-248) partnership procedures with a centralized partnership audit regime for making partnership adjustments and tax determinations, assessments, and collections at the partnership level. These changes were further amended by the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act, P.L. 114-113) and the Tax Technical Corrections Act of 2018 (TTCA, P.L. 115-141). The centralized audit regime, as amended, generally applies to returns filed for partnership tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. A partnership with no more than 100 partners may generally elect out of the centralized audit regime if all the partners are eligible partners.

Under the post-2017 centralized partnership audit regime, the IRS examines “partnership-related items” of all domestic and foreign partnerships and their partners. A "partnership-related item" is any item relevant to the determination of the income tax liability of any person. However, Code Sec. 6241(11), added by the BBA, authorizes Treasury to except “special enforcement matters” from the centralized partnership audit regime and to issue regulations providing alternative assessment and collection rules for those matters. The 2020 proposed regulations and these final regulations implement Code Sec. 6241(11) and make changes to previously issued final regulations pertaining to the centralized partnership audit regime.

Special Enforcement Matters

Code Sec. 6241(11) sets forth six categories of "special enforcement matters":

• (1) failures to comply with the requirements for a partnership partner or S corporation partner to furnish statements or compute and pay an imputed underpayment;
• (2) assessments relating to termination assessments of income tax or jeopardy assessments of income, estate, gift, and certain excise taxes;
• (3) criminal investigations;
• (4) indirect methods of proof of income;
• (5) foreign partners or partnerships; and
• (6) other matters identified in IRS regulations.

The final regulations add three new types of special enforcement matters:

• partnership-related items underlying non-partnership-related items;
• relationship of a partner to the partnership under the Code Sec. 267(b) or Code Sec. 707(b) related-party rules and extensions of the partner’s period of limitations; and
• penalties and taxes imposed on the partnership under chapter 1.

The final regulations also require the IRS to provide written notice of most special enforcement matters to taxpayers to whom the adjustments are being made.

In addition, the final regulations clarify that the IRS may adjust partnership-level items for a partner or indirect partner without regard to the centralized audit regime if the adjustment relates to termination and jeopardy assessments, the partner is under criminal investigation, or the adjustment is based on an indirect method of proof of income.

However, the final regulations provide that a determination about partnership-related items made outside of the centralized partnership regime is not binding on any person who is not a party to that proceeding. The final regulations clarify that neither the partnership nor the other partners are bound by a determination regarding a partnership-related item from a partner-level examination and that neither the partnership nor the other partners need to adjust their returns.

In addition, the special-enforcement-matter rules do not apply to the extent a partner can demonstrate that adjustments to partnership-related items in the deficiency or an adjustment by the IRS were (i) previously taken into account under the centralized audit regime by the person being examined or (ii) included in an imputed underpayment paid by a partnership (or pass-through partner) for any tax year in which the partner was a reviewed-year partner (but only if the amount exceeds the amount reported by the partnership to the partner that was either reported by the partner or included in the deficiency or adjustment).

Imputed Underpayments

The IRS and Treasury believe that a mechanism must exist for including adjustments from a centralized-regime audit in the partnership’s imputed underpayment, even if the partnership elects to “push out” the adjustment to its partners.

Under existing regulations for calculating imputed underpayments, an adjustment to a non-income item (that is, an item that is not an item of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit) that is related to, or results from, an adjustment to an item of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit is generally treated as zero. The final regulations require a partnership to take into account an adjustment to a non-income item on its adjustment-year return by adjusting the item to be consistent with the adjustment, but only to the extent the item would appear on that return without regard to the adjustment. If the item already appeared on the partnership’s adjustment-year return as a non-income item or the item appeared as a non-income item on any return of the partnership for a tax year between the reviewed year and the adjustment year, the partnership does not create a new item on the partnership’s adjustment-year return.

The final regulations provide that if the partnership is required to adjust its basis in an asset, the partnership does so in the adjustment year; however, the partnership only recognizes income and gain as a result of the basis adjustment in situations in which income or gain would be recognized. The final regulations also demonstrate how adjustments to liabilities are taken into account when they do not result in an imputed underpayment, and how an amended return should reflect adjustments to non-income items.

The final regulations follow the proposed regulations in allowing either the IRS or the partnership to treat an adjustment to a non-income item as zero. The final regulations also permit a partnership to treat such an adjustment as zero if the adjustment is related to, or results from, another adjustment to a non-income item. The partnership may not, however, treat such an adjustment as zero if one adjustment is positive and the other is negative.

Partnership Ceasing to Exist

Code Sec. 6241 states that if a partnership ceases to exist before any partnership adjustments take effect, the former partners of the partnership must take the adjustments into account in the manner prescribed in regulations. The final regulations clarify that even if a partnership has ceased to exist, it may make the election to push out the adjustments, request modification of the imputed underpayment, or pay the imputed underpayment within ten days of notice and demand for payment.

A section of the proposed regulations that would define "former partners" is not included in the final regulations and remains proposed.

Effective and Applicability Dates

The final regulations, which are effective December 8, 2022, apply to tax years ending on or after November 20, 2020 (except that final Reg. § 301.6241-7(b) applies to tax years beginning after December 20, 2018).

An IRS Notice provides guidance on the prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 ( P.L. 117-169) added to several new and amended tax credits and deductions.

An IRS Notice provides guidance on the prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 ( P.L. 117-169) added to several new and amended tax credits and deductions. The IRS also anticipates issuing proposed regulations and other guidance with respect to the prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements.

These requirements generally apply if construction of a qualified facility, or installation of qualified property in an energy efficient commercial building, begins on or after the date that is 60 days after the IRS publishes guidance. This notice serves as the guidance that starts the 60-day clock. Thus, these rules apply when a qualified facility begins construction or the installation of qualified property begins on or after January 29, 2023.

The notice also provides guidance for determining the beginning of construction of a facility for certain credits, and the beginning of installation of certain property with respect to the energy efficient commercial buildings deduction.

The notice includes examples to illustrate these rules.

Prevailing Wage Requirements

For purposes of the credits, a taxpayer must satisfy the prevailing wage requirements with respect to any laborer or mechanic employed in the construction, alteration, or repair of a facility, property, project, or equipment by the taxpayer and the taxpayer’s contractors and subcontractors. The taxpayer must also maintain and preserve sufficient records to establish compliance, including books of account or records for work performed by contractors or subcontractors.

The prevailing wage rate is generally the one published by the Secretary of Labor on www.sam.gov for the geographic area and type of construction applicable to the facility, including all labor classifications for the construction, alteration, or repair work that will be done on the facility by laborers or mechanics.

If the Secretary has not published a prevailing wage rate for the geographic area or the particular type of work, the taxpayer may request a wage determination or wage rate from the Wage and Hour Division. The taxpayer must follow prescribed procedures in order to rely on the provided wage or rate.

Similarly, for purposes of the deduction for energy efficient commercial buildings, the prevailing wage rate for installation of energy efficient commercial building property, energy efficient building retrofit property, or property installed pursuant to a qualified retrofit plan, is determined with respect to the prevailing wage rate for construction, alteration, or repair of a similar character in the locality in which the property is located, as most recently determined by the Secretary of Labor.

Apprenticeship Requirements

A taxpayer satisfies the apprenticeship requirements if:

1. The taxpayer satisfies the Apprenticeship Labor Hour Requirements, subject to any applicable Apprenticeship Ratio Requirements;
2. The taxpayer satisfies the Apprenticeship Participation Requirements; and
3. The taxpayer maintains sufficient records.

Under the Good Faith Effort Exception, the taxpayer will be considered to have made a good faith effort in requesting qualified apprentices if the taxpayer requests qualified apprentices from a registered apprenticeship program in accordance with usual and customary business practices for registered apprenticeship programs in a particular industry.

Beginning of Construction or Installation

The beginning of construction is determined under the Physical Work Test and the Five-Percent Safe Harbor established in Notice 2013-29. The Continuity Safe Harbor established by Notice 2016-31 also applies.

The IRS has notified taxpayers, above the age of 72 years, that they can delay the withdrawal of the required minimum distributions (RMD) from their retirement plans and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRA), until April 1, following the later of the calendar year that the taxpayer reaches age 72 or, in a workplace retirement plan, retires.

The IRS has notified taxpayers, above the age of 72 years, that they can delay the withdrawal of the required minimum distributions (RMD) from their retirement plans and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRA), until April 1, following the later of the calendar year that the taxpayer reaches age 72 or, in a workplace retirement plan, retires. The Service also reminded taxpayers that they must meet the deadlines to avoid penalties and that such RMDs may not be rolled over to another IRA or retirement plan. The Service also informed taxpayers that not taking a required distribution, or not withdrawing enough, could mean a 50% excise tax on the amount not distributed.

The deadlines for the different RMDs are as follows:

• Taxpayers holding traditional IRAs , and SEP, SARSEP, and SIMPLE IRA should take their first RMD, even if they’re still working, by April 1, 2023, and the second RMD by Dec. 31, 2023, and each year thereafter.
• For taxpayers with retirement plans, the first RMD is due by April 1 of the later of the year they reach age 72, or the participant is no longer employed. A 5% owner of the employer must begin taking RMDs at age 72.
• An IRA trustee, or plan administrator, must either report the amount of the RMD to the IRA owner or offer to calculate it. They may be able to withdraw the total amount from one or more of the IRAs. However, RMDs from workplace retirement plans must be taken separately from each plan.

An RMD may be required for an IRA, retirement plan account or Roth IRA inherited from the original owner. A 2020 RMD that qualified as a coronavirus-related distribution may be repaid over a 3-year period or the taxes due on the distribution may be spread over three years. A 2020 withdrawal from an inherited IRA could not be repaid to the inherited IRA but may be spread over three years for income inclusion.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would implement the beneficial ownership information provisions of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) that govern access to and protection of beneficial ownership information.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would implement the beneficial ownership information provisions of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) that govern access to and protection of beneficial ownership information. The proposed regulations address the circumstances under which beneficial ownership information may be disclosed to certain governmental authorities and financial institutions, and how that information must be protected.

The proposed regulations would—

• specify how government officials would access beneficial ownership information in support of law enforcement, national security, and intelligence activities;
• describe how certain financial institutions and their regulators would access that information to fulfill customer due diligence requirements and conduct supervision; and
• set high standards for protecting this sensitive information, consistent with CTA goals and requirements.

The NPRM also proposes amendments to the final reporting rule issued on September 30, 2022, effective January 1, 2024, to specify when reporting companies may report FinCEN identifiers associated with entities.

Limiting Access to Beneficial Ownership Information

The NPRM follows the final reporting rule which requires most corporations, limited liability companies, and other similar entities created in or registered to do business in the United States, to report information about their beneficial owners to FinCEN. Per CTA requirements, the proposed regulations limit access to beneficial ownership information to—

• federal agencies engaged in national security, intelligence, or law enforcement activities;
• state, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies, if authorized by a court of competent jurisdiction;
• financial institutions with customer due diligence requirements, and federal regulators supervising them for compliance with those requirements;
• foreign law enforcement agencies, judges, prosecutors, central authorities, and other agencies that meet specific criteria, and whose requests are made under an international treaty, agreement, or convention, or via law enforcement, judicial, or prosecutorial authorities in a trusted foreign country; and
• U.S. Treasury officers and employees whose official duties require beneficial ownership information inspection or disclosure, or for tax administration.

The proposed regulation would subject each authorized recipient category to unique security and confidentiality protocols that align with the scope of the access and use provisions.

Proposed Effective Date

FinCEN is proposing an effective date of January 1, 2024, to align with the date when the final beneficial ownership information reporting rule becomes effective.

Request for Comments

Interested parties can submit written comments on the NPRM by or before February 14, 2023 (60 days following publication in the Federal Register). Comments may be submitted by the Federal E-rulemaking Portal ( regulations.gov), or by mail to Policy Division, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, P.O. Box 39, Vienna, VA 22183. Refer to Docket Number FINCEN-2021-0005 and RIN 1506-AB49/AB59.

The IRS and the Treasury Department have released final regulations that provide some clarity and relief with regards to certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act ( P.L. 111-148), including the definition of minimum essential coverage under Code Sec. 5000A and reporting requirements for health insurance issuers and employers under Code Secs. 6055 and 6056. The final regulations finalize 2021 proposed regulations with some clarifications ( REG-109128-21).

The IRS and the Treasury Department have released final regulations that provide some clarity and relief with regards to certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act ( P.L. 111-148), including the definition of minimum essential coverage under Code Sec. 5000A and reporting requirements for health insurance issuers and employers under Code Secs. 6055 and 6056. The final regulations finalize 2021 proposed regulations with some clarifications ( REG-109128-21).

The final regulations provide that the term "minimum essential coverage" does not include Medicaid coverage limited to COVID-19 testing and diagnostic services provided under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act ( P.L. 116-127). If an individual qualifies solely for this coverage, then it does not prevent them from claiming the premium tax credit under Code Sec. 36B. This amendment to Reg.§ 1.5000A-2 applies for months beginning after September 28, 2020.

The final regulations also provide:

• An automatic 30-day extension of time under Code Sec. 6056 for "applicable large employers" (generally employers with 50 or more full-time employees, including full-time equivalent employees) to furnish statements relating to health insurance that the applicable large employers offer to their full-time employees; ·
• An automatic 30-day extension of time under Code Sec. 6055 for providers of minimum essential coverage (such as health insurance issuers) that would provide an automatic extension of time for furnishing statements to responsible individuals; and
• An alternative method for reporting entities to furnish statements to their insured members when their shared responsibility payment is zero. The regulations under Reg.§1.6055-1(g)(4)(ii)(B) provide sample language for furnishing these statements.

The regulations under Reg. §§1.6055-1 and 301.6056-1 apply for years beginning after December 31, 2021.

The final regulations affect some taxpayers who claim the premium tax credit; health insurance issuers, self-insured employers, government agencies, and other persons that provide minimum essential coverage to individuals; and applicable large employers.

A theme running through the recent Internal Revenue Service Independent Office of Appeals Focus Guide for fiscal year 2023 is moving on past the issues created by the COVID-19 pandemic and getting back to helping taxpayers through the appeals process.

A theme running through the recent Internal Revenue Service Independent Office of Appeals Focus Guide for fiscal year 2023 is moving on past the issues created by the COVID-19 pandemic and getting back to helping taxpayers through the appeals process.

"It's time, as we leave some of those pandemic issues behind us, to focus more on our core mission in appeals, which is the quality resolution of taxpayer cases," Independent Office of Appeals Chief Andy Keyso said in a recent interview with Federal Tax Daily. "I think that's the theme you see throughout the focus guide," which was issued November 4, 2022.

To that end, Keyso highlighted two key areas that will enable the office to meet that core mission – staffing and technology upgrades.

Rebuilding Staff

On the staffing side, Keyso noted that 10 years ago, the Appeals staff was at 2,100 employees, but in that window dropped to a low of about 1,100.

"We have made a big push to restack, using any kind of approval we could get here internally, and we currently are sitting at about 1,500 employees," he said, adding that the office currently has about 1,500 employees, with a goal in 2023 to get up to 1,725.

Keyso noted that the office is different from other parts of the IRS that have an exam or a collections function.

"If you don’t have the number of people you’d like to have, you just do fewer collection actions or you do fewer audits," Keyso said. "In Appeals, we have unique challenges. We’ve got to work every case that comes in the door. We can’t say, ‘We don’t have enough people, so we are not going to work your case.’ So for us, hiring is particularly an acute issue and recruiting and hiring will be one of our focus areas for this year."

He added that the staffing targets are based on the IRS’ set budget for 2023 and do not include potential increases that could come with the additional funding provided by the Inflation Reduction Act.

Improving Technology

Like the rest of the agency, the Office of Appeals is working through its own technology issues and is in need of upgrades.

In particular, Keyso highlighted the need to get away from paper.

"I think we learned during the pandemic a few things about technology and how paper can really be our Achilles heel when you have to move paper case files," he said. "That was a particular issue during the pandemic when you didn’t have all of your people in the office to ship case files around."

Moving to a more paperless environment is a "continuing challenge," Keyso said, not only for communicating between Appeals employees, but between staff and taxpayers. "Should we really be mailing things back and forth through the U.S. Postal Service? Or is there a better way to communicate with taxpayers that’s faster and maybe preferable to taxpayers?"

As part of the technology challenges, the Independent Office of Appeals also is looking to continue to use video conferencing, something that gained traction during the pandemic.

"With the service wide return to the office, we are again offering in person conferences, which is something Appeals is very excited about," Amy Giuliano, senior advisor to the Chief and Deputy Chief in the Office of Appeal, said. "But we want video conferences to remain a permanent option to alongside in person. We requested comments in August … for people to submit input on experiences they had with video conferences with appeals that should inform our longer term guidelines. And we've received a lot of positive feedback that video conferences, when they're managed effectively, are a great way for a taxpayer to present their case to appeals."

She applauded the fact that video conferences have the benefits of a face-to-face conference in that one can see the IRS agent they are dealing with, but they avoid the logistical issues with traveling to an IRS office to conduct the meeting. It makes things more accessible, especially if the taxpayer has medical or other mobility issues.

"That's why it's so important that it remain an option going forward alongside in person and alongside telephone," she said.

Improving Overall Access

Keyso also noted that a key area of focus going forward is improving the overall access to the Independent Office of Appeals now that access has been codified into law through the Taxpayer First Act of 2019. Treasury is currently working on regulations that will implement the law.

"Our position in the Appeals Office is, you know, we want the broadest access to appeals possible for us to hear controversies or disputes between IRS and taxpayer," Keyso said. "So we will continue to push for broad access to taxpayers to appeals."

Giuliano added that "enhancing the taxpayer experience is really what sort of animates and informs everything else that we're doing."

Keyso also mentioned that Appeals is planning on continuing convening practitioner panels, during which the office invites practitioners to talk about issues they are facing as they deal with the appeals process. He noted that it was through these panels that the office made changes to letters that went out to taxpayers and their representatives that included more contact information on managers so taxpayers and their representatives have it handy if they need to escalate a situation.

Audits by the Internal Revenue Service in 2017 and 2019 were not conducted to target specific individuals, according to a new report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.

Audits by the Internal Revenue Service in 2017 and 2019 were not conducted to target specific individuals, according to a new report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.

The report, dated November 29, 2022, but released December 1, found that "key decisions and information related to the tax return selection process for Tax Years 2017 and 2019 were determined prior to the start of each year’s respective filing season and prior to the selection of any returns," the Treasury watchdog said in a statement. "TIGTA also confirmed that the computer program used to select tax returns worked as designed and di not included any malicious code that would force the selection of specific taxpayers for an NRP [National Research Program] audit."

TIGTA conducted the analysis of the audit selection process following a July 2022 media report that suggested the selection for those tax years may not have been random. To answer the allegations, TIGTA hired a contractor that, according to the report, "replicated the process. Specifically, the contractor replicated each week’s original sample selection file through April 2018 and July 2020 for TYs 2017 and 2019, respectively."

Once replicated, a return-by-return comparison of the replicated files and the original sample selection was conducted to verify the files matched.

"They concluded that the tax returns in the original samples were the same tax returns selected when the process was replicated using the respective seed numbers," the report states. "TIGTA also compared the contractor’s replicated weekly output files to the original weekly output files, and same as the IRS, TIGTA determined they matched."

The report noted that a line-by-line review of the original source code was conducted "to determine whether information (i.e., TIN) was improperly coded in the program that would result in a specific taxpayer being selected for an NRP audit. The contractor concluded that no specific taxpayer information was included in the original source code."

Q:  One of my children received a full scholarship for all expenses to attend college this year.  I had heard that this amount may not be required to be reported on his tax return if certain conditions were met and the funds were used specifically for certain types of her expenses.  Is this true and what amounts spent on my child's education will be treated as qualified expenses?

Q: One of my children received a full scholarship for all expenses to attend college this year. I had heard that this amount may not be required to be reported on his tax return if certain conditions were met and the funds were used specifically for certain types of her expenses. Is this true and what amounts spent on my child's education will be treated as qualified expenses?

A: Any amount received as a "qualified scholarship" or fellowship is not required to be reported as income if your child is a candidate for a degree at an educational institution. For the college that your child attends to be treated as an educational organization, it must (1) be an institution that has as its primary function the presentation of formal instruction, (2) normally maintain a regular faculty and curriculum, and (3) have a regularly enrolled body of students in attendance at the place where the educational activities are regularly carried on. Your child has received a qualified scholarship if he or she can establish, that in accordance with the conditions of the scholarship, the funds received were used for qualified tuition and related expenses.

Qualified tuition and related expenses include tuition and fees required for enrollment or attendance at the educational institution, as well as any fees, books, supplies, and equipment required for courses of instruction at the educational institution. To be treated as related expenses, the fees, books supplies, and equipment must be required of all students in the particular course of instruction. Incidental expenses, such as expenses for room and board, travel, research, equipment, and other expenses that are not required for either enrollment or attendance at the educational institution are not treated as related expenses. Any amounts that are used for room, board and other incidental expenses are not excluded from income.

Example: Assume this year your son received a scholarship in the amount of $20,000 to pay for expenses at a qualified educational institution. His expenses included $12,000 for tuition; $1,100 for books; $900 for lab supplies and fees; and $6,000 for food, housing, clothing, laundry, and other living expenses.

The $14,000 that your son paid for tuition, books and lab supplies and fees are considered to be qualified educational expenses and therefore would not have to be reported as income. The $6,000 that he spent on housing and the other living expenses is considered to be incidental expenses and would have to be reported in his income.

Note: This tax exclusion for qualified scholarships should not be confused with the Hope Scholarship Tax Credit, which has been temporarily renamed the American Opportunity Tax Credit and enhanced for 2009 and 2010 by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The American Opportunity Tax Credit can reach as high as $2,500 for 2009 and 2010 for tuition expenses paid by you for yourself, a spouse or a dependent. Scholarship money that is excluded from income cannot be used in computing your costs for the American Opportunity Tax Credit (i.e. Hope Scholarship Tax Credit). "Financial aid" in the form of student loans, however, is not counted as a scholarship and any money applied to pay tuition can qualify for the Hope Scholarship Tax Credit.

There can be all sorts of complicating factors in assessing whether a particular scholarship will be taxed, such as the treatment of work-study scholarships, educational sabbaticals, scholarships paid by an employer, and stipends to cover the tax on the non-tuition portion of attending a university. If you need additional assistance in determining the taxability of scholarships funds, please contact the office.

Q:The holidays are approaching and I would like to consider giving gifts of appreciation to my employees. What kinds of gifts can I give my employees that they would not have to declare as income on their tax returns? I also would like to make sure my company would be able to deduct the costs of these gifts.

A:First of all, anything given in the business setting is presumed, until proven otherwise, not to be a gift (e.g., is taxable income) -- that is, you are either rewarding an employee for work done or providing an incentive in which he or she will be inclined to do more work in the future. However, the Tax Code and related IRS regulations still allow many gifts to remain tax-free to the employee while being tax deductible to the business. Here is a short list of the rules:

$25 gift rule

A business may deduct up to $25 in gifts given to each recipient during any given year. However, you can't get around this limit by giving to each family member of the intended recipient: they all share in one $25 limit. Items clearly of an advertising nature such as promotional items do not count as long as the item costs $4 or less.

No dollar limit exists on a deduction if the gift is given to a corporation or a partnership. The cost of gifts such as baseball tickets that will be used by an unidentified group of employees also qualifies for the unlimited deduction. However, once again, if the gift is intended eventually to go to a particular individual shareholder or partner, the deduction is limited to $25.

Separate "de minimis" rules

A "de minimis" fringe benefit from employer to employee is considered to be made tax-free to the employee. "De minimis" fringe benefits are not restricted by the $25 per recipient limit otherwise applicable outside of the employer-employee context. However, de minimis fringe benefits must be small "within reason." Typical de minimis gifts include holiday gifts such as a turkey or ham, the occasional company picnic, occasional use of the photocopy machine, occasional supper money, or flowers sent to a sick employee.

The general guidelines for de minimis fringe benefits are:

• the value of the gift must be nominal,
• accounting for all such gifts would be administratively nitpicking,
• the gifts are only occasional, and
• they are given "to promote health, good will, contentment, or efficiency" of employees.

Unfortunately, "gifts of nominal value" exclude such perks as use of a company lodge, season theater tickets, or country club dues. These cannot be given tax-free to an employee. But they do include occasional theater or sports tickets or group meals.

What's more, fringe benefits such as the use of an on-premise athletic facility or subsidized cafeteria are specifically included under IRS rules as de minimis fringe benefits. The traditional gold retirement watch -- or similar gift-- to commemorate a long period of employment is also treated as de minimis. However, cash or items readily convertible into cash, such as gift certificates, are taxable, no matter what the amount.

Dual-income families are commonplace these days, however, some couples are discovering that their second income may not be worth the added aggravation and effort. After taking into consideration daycare expenses, commuting expenses, the countless take-out meals, and additional clothing costs, many are surprised at how much (or how little) of that second income is actually hitting their bank account.

Dual-income families are commonplace these days, however, some couples are discovering that their second income may not be worth the added aggravation and effort. After taking into consideration daycare expenses, commuting expenses, the countless take-out meals, and additional clothing costs, many are surprised at how much (or how little) of that second income is actually hitting their bank account.

Before you and your spouse head off for yet another hectic workweek, it may be worth your time to take a few moments to do a few simple calculations. After assessing what expenditures are necessary in order for both parents to work outside of the home, many couples quickly realize that their second income is essentially paying for the second person to be working.

Crunch the numbers. To determine whether your second income is worth the energy, you will need to calculate the estimated value of the second income. First determine how much the second income brings in after taxes. Then subtract expenses incurred due to the second person working, such as dry cleaning expenses, childcare bills, transportation costs, housecleaning services, landscaping services, and outside dining expenses. The result will be the estimated value of the second person working.

Consider the long-term. Even if your result turns out to be small, you may find that having the second person working will be beneficial to the household in the long run. However, don't forget to consider that, by losing the second income, you may also be losing future retirement benefits and social security earnings.

Take a "dry run". Before reducing down to one income, try living on the person's income you intend to keep for six months, stashing the other income into an emergency savings account. If you are able to do this, chances are you will be able to endure for the long haul.

Many different factors can affect a family's decision to have both parents work - including the fulfillment each parent may get from working regardless of whether their income is adding significantly to the household. However, if trying to make ends meet is the major reason, it may pay off to spend some time analyzing the real net benefit from that second income. If you need any assistance while determining if both spouses should work or not, please feel free to contact the office.

Employers are required by the Internal Revenue Code to calculate, withhold, and deposit with the IRS all federal employment taxes related to wages paid to employees. Failure to comply with these requirements can find certain "responsible persons" held personally liable. Who is a responsible person for purposes of employment tax obligations? The broad interpretation defined by the courts and the IRS may surprise you.

Employers are required by the Internal Revenue Code to calculate, withhold, and deposit with the IRS all federal employment taxes related to wages paid to employees. Failure to comply with these requirements can find certain "responsible persons" held personally liable. Who is a responsible person for purposes of employment tax obligations? The broad interpretation defined by the courts and the IRS may surprise you.

Employer's responsibility regarding employment taxes

Employment taxes such as federal income tax, social security (FICA) tax, unemployment (FUTA) tax and various state taxes (note that state issues are not addressed in this article) are all required to be withheld from an employee's wages. Wages are defined in the Code and the accompanying IRS regulations as all remuneration for services performed by an employee for an employer, including the value of remuneration, such as benefits, paid in any form other than cash. The employer is responsible for depositing withheld taxes (along with related employer taxes) with the IRS in a timely manner.

100% penalty for non-compliance

Although the employer entity is required by law to withhold and pay over employment taxes, the penalty provisions of the Code are enforceable against any responsible person who willfully fails to withhold, account for, or pay over withholding tax to the government. The trust fund recovery penalty -- equal to 100% of the tax not withheld and/or paid over -- is a collection device that is normally assessed only if the tax can't be collected from the employer entity itself. Once assessed, however, this steep penalty becomes a personal liability of the responsible person(s) that can wreak havoc on their personal financial situation -- even personal bankruptcy is not an "out" as this penalty is not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

A corporation, partnership, limited liability or other form of doing business won't insulate a "responsible person" from this obligation. But who is a responsible person for purposes of withholding and paying over employment taxes, and ultimately the possible resulting penalty for noncompliance? Also, what constitutes "willful failure to pay and/or withhold"? To give you a better understanding of your potential liability as an employer or employee, these questions are addressed below.

Who are "responsible persons"?

Typically, the types of individuals who are deemed "responsible persons" for purposes of the employment tax withholding and payment are corporate officers or employees whose job description includes managing and paying employment taxes on behalf of the employer entity.

However, the type of responsibility targeted by the Code and regulations includes familiarity with and/or control over functions that are involved in the collection and deposit of employment taxes. Unfortunately for potential targets, Internal Revenue Code Section 6672 doesn't define the term, and the courts and the IRS have not formulated a specific rule that can be applied to determine who is or is not a "responsible person." Recent cases have found the courts ruling both ways, with the IRS generally applying a broad, comprehensive standard.

A Texas district court, for example, looked at the duties performed by an executive -- and rejected her argument that responsibility should only be assigned to the person with the greatest control over the taxes. Responsibility was not limited to the person with the most authority -- it could be assigned to any number of people so long as they all had sufficient knowledge and capability.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has delineated six nonexclusive factors to determine responsibility for purposes of the penalty: whether the person: (1) is an officer or member of the board of directors; (2) owns a substantial amount of stock in the company; (3) manages the day-to-day operations of the business; (4) has the authority to hire or fire employees; (5) makes decisions as to the disbursement of funds and payment of creditors; and (6) possesses the authority to sign company checks. No one factor is dispositive, according to the court, but it is clear that the court looks to the individual's authority; what he or she could do, not what he or she actually did -- or knew.

The Ninth Circuit recently cited similar factors, holding that whether an individual had knowledge that the taxes were unpaid was irrelevant; instead, said the court, responsibility is a matter of status, duty, and authority, not knowledge. Agreeing with the Texas district court, above, the court held that the penalty provision of Code section 6672 doesn't confine liability for unpaid taxes to the single officer with the greatest control or authority over corporate affairs.

Suffice it to say that, under the various courts' interpretations -- or that of the IRS -- many corporate managers and officers who are neither assigned nor assume any actual responsibility for the regular withholding, collection or deposit of federal employment taxes would be surprised to find that they could be responsible for taxes that should have been paid over by the employer entity but weren't.

What constitutes "willful failure" to comply?

Once it has been established that an individual qualifies as a responsible person, he must also be found to have acted willfully in failing to withhold and pay the taxes. Although it may be easier to establish the ingredients for "responsibility," some courts have focused on the requirement that the individual's failure be willful, relying on various means to divine his or her intent.

An Arizona district court, for example, found that a retired company owner who had turned over the operation of his business to his children while maintaining only consultant status was indeed a responsible person -- but concluded that his past actions indicated that he did not willfully cause the nonpayment of the company's employment taxes. Since he had loaned money to the company in the past when necessary, his inaction with respect to the taxes suggested that he believed the company was meeting its obligations and the taxes were being paid.

A Texas district court found willfulness where an officer of a bankrupt company knew that the taxes were due but paid other creditors instead.

The Fifth Circuit has determined that the willfulness inquiry is the critical factor in most penalty cases, and that it requires only a voluntary, conscious, and intentional act, not a bad motive or evil intent. "A responsible person acts willfully if [s]he knows the taxes are due but uses corporate funds to pay other creditors, or if [s]he recklessly disregards the risk that the taxes may not be remitted to the government, or if, learning of the underpayment of taxes fails to use later-acquired available funds to pay the obligation.

Planning ahead

Is there any way for those with access to the inner workings of an employer's finances or tax responsibilities -- but without actual responsibility or knowledge of employment tax matters -- to protect themselves from the "responsible person" penalty? It may depend on which jurisdiction you're in -- although a survey of the courts suggests most are more willing than not to find liability. Otherwise, the wisest course may be to enter into an employment contract that carefully delineates and separates the duties and responsibilities -- and the expected scope of knowledge -- of an individual who might find himself with the dubious distinction of being responsible for a distinctly unexpected and undesirable drain on his finances.

The laws and requirements related to employment taxes can be complex and confusing with steep penalties for non-compliance. For additional assistance with your employment related tax issues, please contact the office for additional guidance.

How quickly could you convert your assets to cash if necessary? Do you have a quantitative way to evaluate management's effectiveness? Knowing your business' key financial ratios can provide valuable insight into the effectiveness of your operations and your ability to meet your financial obligations as well as help you chart your company's future.

How quickly could you convert your assets to cash if necessary? Do you have a quantitative way to evaluate management's effectiveness? Knowing your business' key financial ratios can provide valuable insight into the effectiveness of your operations and your ability to meet your financial obligations as well as help you chart your company's future.

Step 1: Calculate your ratios.

Acid Test: determines your company's ability to convert assets to cash to pay current obligations.

Cash & near cash

Current liabilities

Current Ratio measures your company's liquidity and ability to pay short-term debts.

Current assets

Current liabilities

Debt to Assets Ratio determines the extent to which your company is financed by debt.

Total debt

Total assets

Gross Profit Margin Rate: measures how much of each sales dollar can go for operating expenses and profit.

Gross Profit

Net Sales

Return on Assets (ROA): measures how much income is generated from your company's assets.

Net profit

Total assets

Step 2: Evaluate results.

Once you have calculated the ratios, you will need to be able to translate the numbers into results that relate to your business. Below are some examples of how you can use these ratios in your business:

Acid Test: A result of 2:0:1 means you have a two dollars' worth of easily convertible assets for each dollar of current liabilities.

Current Ratio A ratio of 2.0:1 means that the value of your current assets are twice that of what your current obligations are, a good indicator to a potential lender that your company is in sound financial condition.

Debt to Assets Ratio This ratio shows how many cents per dollar of assets are financed. An 82% ratio would indicate that your company's assets are heavily financed and may be a troubling sign to a potential lender.

Gross Profit Margin Ratio A ratio of .45:1 indicates that for every dollar of sales, your company has 45 cents to cover operating expenses and profit. This information can be used when setting pricing for your company's products and services.

Return on Assets Ratio (ROA): A ratio of .08:1 would mean that the company is bringing in 8 cents for every dollar of assets. These results can be used to determine the effectiveness of management's efforts to utilize assets.

Step 3: Compare to previous periods' results.

Take the results from the current period (e.g., this month) and deduct from the results of the previous period (e.g., last month). The result will be the net change in the ratio from one period to another. Because increases from period to period are good for one ratio (e.g., acid test) but maybe not so good for another (e.g., debt to assets ratio) it's important to analyze each ratio separately.

While changes in ratios don't always mean your company is getting off track, analyzing the cause of the changes can help uncover potential problem areas that need your attention.

There are many applications for key financial ratios to help you and your management team identify your company's strengths and weaknesses. If you would like any additional assistance with the calculation or analysis of your company's ratios, please contact the office.

Q. I have a professional services firm and am considering hiring my wife to help out with some of the administrative tasks in the office. I don't think we'll have a problem working together but I would like to have more information about the tax aspects of such an arrangement before I make the leap. What are some of the tax advantages of hiring my spouse?

Q. I have a professional services firm and am considering hiring my wife to help out with some of the administrative tasks in the office. I don't think we'll have a problem working together but I would like to have more information about the tax aspects of such an arrangement before I make the leap. What are some of the tax advantages of hiring my spouse?

A. Small business owners have long adhered to the practice of hiring family members to help them run their businesses -- results have ranged from very rewarding to absolutely disastrous. From a purely financial aspect, however, it is very important for you as a business owner to consider the tax advantages and potential pitfalls of hiring -- or continuing to employ -- family members in your small business.

Keeping it all in the family

Pay your family -- not Uncle Sam. Hiring family members can be a way of keeping more of your business income available for you and your family. The business gets a deduction for the wages paid -- as long as the family members are performing actual services in exchange for the compensation that they are receiving. This is true even though the family member will have to include the compensation received in income.

Some of the major tax advantages that often can be achieved through hiring a family member -- in this case, your spouse -- include:

Health insurance deduction. If you are self-employed and hire your spouse as a bona fide employee, your spouse -- as one of your employees -- can be given full health insurance coverage for all family members, including you as the business owner. This will convert the family health insurance premiums into a 100% deductible expense.

Company retirement plan participation. You may be able to deduct contributions made on behalf of your spouse to a company sponsored retirement plan if they are employees. The tax rules involved to put family members into your businesses retirement plan are quite complex, however, and generally require you to give equal treatment to all employees, whether or not related.

Travel expenses. If your spouse is an employee, you may be able to deduct the costs attributable to her or him accompanying you on business travel if both of you perform a legitimate business function while travelling.

IRA contributions. Paying your spouse a salary may enable them to make deductible IRA contributions based on the earned income that they receive, or Roth contributions that will accumulate tax-free for eventual tax-free distribution.

"Reasonable compensation"

In order for a business owner to realize any of the advantages connected with the hiring family members as discussed above, it is imperative for the family member to have engaged in bona fide work that merits the compensation being paid. Because this area has such a high potential for abuse, it's definitely a hot issue with the IRS. If compensation paid to a family member is deemed excessive, payments may be reclassified as gifts or as a means of equalizing payments to shareholders.

As you decide on how much to pay your spouse working in your business, keep in mind the reasonable compensation issue. Consider the going market rate for the work that is being done and pay accordingly. This conservative approach could save you money and headaches in the event of an audit by the IRS.

Hiring your spouse can be a rewarding and cost effective solution for your small business. However, in order to get the maximum benefit from such an arrangement, proper planning should be done. For additional guidance, please feel free to contact the office.

Stock options have become a common part of many compensation and benefits packages. Even small businesses have jumped on the bandwagon and now provide a perk previously confined to the executive suites of large publicly held companies. If you are an employee who has received stock options, you need to be aware of the complicated tax rules that govern certain stock options -- several potential "gotchas" exist and failing to spot them can cause major tax headaches.

Stock options have become a common part of many compensation and benefits packages. Even small businesses have jumped on the bandwagon and now provide a perk previously confined to the executive suites of large publicly held companies. If you are an employee who has received stock options, you need to be aware of the complicated tax rules that govern certain stock options -- several potential "gotchas" exist and failing to spot them can cause major tax headaches.

Over the past few years, the rules governing stock options have become increasingly complicated. More than ever, it is important that employees who receive stock options have a good understanding about how they are taxed -- on receipt of the option, at its exercise, or pursuant to the sale of the underlying stock -- as well as the potential consequences of their decisions regarding the timing of the taxation of those options.

NSOs vs ISOs

The most common type of stock option that employees receive is called a nonstatutory stock option (NSO). The other, less common type of stock option is generically referred to as an incentive stock option (ISO). ISOs are governed by very specific rules and are subjected to strict statutory requirements; NSOs, on the other hand, are subject to more general rules and guidelines.

Incentive stock options (ISOs) give the employee the right to purchase stock from the employer at a specified price. The employee is not taxed on the ISO at the time of its grant or at the time of the exercise of the option. Instead, he or she is taxed only at the time of the disposition of the stock acquired through exercise of the option. Note, however, the exercise of an ISO does give rise to an alternative minimum tax item in the amount of the difference between the option price and the market price of the stock.

Note. The IRS temporarily suspended the collection of ISO alternative minimum tax (AMT) liabilities through September 30, 2008.

NSOs also give the employee the right to purchase stock from the employer at a specified price. When and how an NSO is taxed depends on several factors including whether the underlying stock is substantially vested, and whether or not the fair market value of the stock is readily ascertainable.

Vesting. If an employee receives options from his employer, the tax consequences depend on whether the stock is vested. Stock you receive from your employer is "substantially vested" if it is either "transferable" by the employee or it is no longer subject to a "substantial risk of forfeiture". Property is "transferable" if you can sell, assign or pledge your interest in the option without the risk of losing it. A "substantial risk of forfeiture" exists if the rights in the property transferred depend on the future performance (or refraining from performance) of substantial services by any person, or the occurrence of a certain condition related to the transfer.

Readily ascertainable fair market value. An NSO always has a readily ascertainable fair market value when the option is publicly traded. When an option is not publicly traded, it can have a readily ascertainable fair market value if its value can be measured with reasonable accuracy. IRS rules spell out when fair market value can be measured with reasonable accuracy.

Generally, an employee who receives an NSO that has a readily ascertainable fair market value is subject to special tax rules under the Internal Revenue Code that apply to property received by a taxpayer in exchange for services when the option is granted. Under these rules, the option must be included in the employee's income as ordinary income in the amount of the fair market value in the year the option becomes substantially vested. If the employee paid for the option, he recognizes the value of the option minus its cost. The employee is not taxed again when he exercises the option and buys the corporate stock; he is taxed when the stock is sold. The gain or loss recognized when the employee sells the stock is capital in nature.

No readily ascertainable fair market value. Employees who receive NSOs from privately held companies are most likely to receive an NSO without a readily ascertainable fair market value. In general, when an NSO does not have a readily ascertainable fair market value, taxation occurs at the time when the option is exercised or transferred. The employee will recognize ordinary income in the amount of the value of the stock when it becomes substantially vested minus any amounts paid for the option or stock. The gain or loss recognized when the employee sells the stock is capital in nature. However, employees who have NSOs without a readily ascertainable fair market value also have the ability to elect to have the transaction taxed differently,

Section 83(b) election: Elector beware

Employees who exercise options that did not have a readily ascertainable fair market value when they were granted may elect to report income from the stock underlying the option at the time of the exercise rather than waiting until the stock is substantially vested. This election is referred to as a "Section 83(b) election" and is non-revocable. Once the election is made, any later subsequent appreciation when the stock becomes substantially vested would not be includible in income.

As you can see, the rules and tax laws related to stock options are indeed complicated and require some advance planning in order to avoid a big tax "gotcha". If you are contemplating entering into any transactions that involve stock options, please contact the office for additional guidance.

All of us will, at one time or another, incur financial losses - whether insubstantial or quite significant -- in our business and personal lives. When business fortunes head South -- either temporarily or in a more prolonged slide, it is important to be aware of how the tax law can limit the actual amount of your losses and your ability to deduct them. Here are some of the types of losses your business may experience and the related tax considerations to keep in mind in the event of a business downturn.

All of us will, at one time or another, incur financial losses - whether insubstantial or quite significant -- in our business and personal lives. When business fortunes head South -- either temporarily or in a more prolonged slide, it is important to be aware of how the tax law can limit the actual amount of your losses and your ability to deduct them. Here are some of the types of losses your business may experience and the related tax considerations to keep in mind in the event of a business downturn.

Bad debts

One loss that occurs frequently when business slows down is bad debt. A bad debt is simply a technical term used to describe a debt that has become totally or partially worthless. Different strategies apply depending upon whether you are the borrower or the lender.

As borrower. If you are the borrower, the "forgiveness" of all or part of the debt by the lender will generally trigger taxable income on that amount, unless the business is insolvent (debts exceed liabilities).

Note. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (2009 Recovery Act) allows some business to elect to recognize cancellation of indebtedness income over five years, beginning in 2014. The temporary benefit applies to specific types of business debt repurchased by the business after December 31, 2008 and before January 1, 2011. Under this provision, an applicable debt instrument includes a bond, note, certificate, debenture, or other instrument that constitutes indebtedness issued by a C corporation or any other "person" in connection with the conduct of trade or business by that person. This election is irrevocable. Moreover, the liquidation or sale of substantially all the taxpayer's assets can result in acceleration of deferred items.

Although recognizing income may not be an immediate problem for a business that has plenty of losses to net against current income, additional income may wash out a net operating loss carryover that can either provide an immediate refund for a past tax year or shelter from income in the future. As a result, some businesses re-define debt "forgiveness" into a non-taxable event, such as a refinancing or a business-generated settlement.

As lender. If you are the lender, your major tax concern will be proving that a real debt exists, and then determining how fast you can deduct the bad debt and whether the deduction can offset ordinary income, as opposed to just capital gains.

Loans between corporations and their shareholders are scrutinized to make sure that they are really debts rather than disguised dividends or contributions to the corporation's capital. You can protect yourself by taking the steps that an arm's-length lender would take, such as putting it in writing and charging a reasonable rate of interest.

The IRS sometimes requires taxpayers to play a guessing game about which tax year a debt becomes sufficiently worthless to support the deduction. Because of potential statute of limitations problems, tax experts generally recommend that you claim the loss in the earliest possible year that it can reasonably be argued to be worthless.

Finally, you must determine whether a business or nonbusiness bad debt exists. A business bad debt must be created or acquired, or become worthless, in the course of your trade or business. If you conduct a business in the form of a corporation, generally any debt held by the corporation is a business debt. Any debt not falling into the business category is a nonbusiness debt.

As guarantor. If you take out a loan on behalf of your corporation or you personally guarantee the loan and then must make good on it, you are usually considered to have either made a contribution to capital or created a nonbusiness bad debt to protect your position as an investor. A nonbusiness debt must be completely worthless before a loss can be taken. Furthermore, nonbusiness bad debts are subject to limits on capital losses. Business bad debts, on the other hand, are deductible as ordinary losses in full against your other income.

Net operating losses

If you show a net operating loss for the year, it normally may be carried back two years or carried forward up to 20 years until it can be netted against current taxable income. A net operating loss (NOL) for this purpose has some complexity built in to strip it of most personal tax characteristics. An individual's NOL, for example, does not include any offset for personal or dependency exemptions, for net nonbusiness capital losses, or for nonbusiness itemized deductions that exceed nonbusiness income. Another choice in dealing with an NOL is to elect to immediately carryforward the loss. This can be advantageous when high rate-bracket income is anticipated in the following year.

Note. The 2009 Recovery Act provides a five-year carryback of 2008 NOLs for qualified small businesses only. These are small businesses with average gross receipts of $15 million or less. Businesses can choose to carryback NOLs three, four or five years. This treatment applies only to NOLs for any tax year beginning or ending in 2008. The normal NOL carryback period returns in for NOLs incurred in 2009.

Pass-through losses

One of the advantages of investing in a business as a partner or a subchapter S shareholder is that losses on the business level get passed-through to your individual tax return. Regular corporations, on the other hand, file separate returns and the shareholder cannot "realize" a tax loss until he or she actually sells stock.

For both partners and S shareholders, however, the ability to deduct pass-through losses is determined by the amount of tax basis the partner has in his partnership interest or the S shareholder has in his shares. This, in turn, depends upon a variety of factors, including the original price paid, the amount of losses already passed through, cash or property distributed, and any later contributions.

If you have such a stake in a business, a tax strategy for both adding to basis and preventing its diminution is critical to your ability to be able to deduct business losses as a partner or S shareholder.

Section 1244 Stock

If you sell stock at a loss and that stock had been designated on its issuance to be "Section 1244 stock," you are more fortunate than most investors who bail out during a business downturn. Reason: you are entitled to an ordinary loss deduction rather than a capital loss. This special loss treatment is limited to $50,000 for any one year ($100,000 for joint returns). Other requirements are that the stock was issued for no more than $1 million, less than 50% of corporate receipts were from passive sources for the first five years of operation, and the shareholder claiming the treatment must be an individual.

Dealing with and making the most of losses related to a business downturn can get complicated. Because the preceding discussion is meant to be general, is limited in nature and does not cover all the tax rules involved, you are encourage to contact the office for additional guidance with this issue.