Final regulations dealing with the 100 percent bonus depreciation allowance for qualified property acquired and placed in service after September 27, 2017, allow property which is constructed under a pre-September 28, 2017 binding contract to qualify for the 100 percent rate. The final regulations adopt proposed regulations ( REG-104397-18) with certain modifications, including a revised constructed property rule. In addition, the IRS has issued a new set of proposed regulations dealing with issues it is not ready to finalize.

Final regulations dealing with the 100 percent bonus depreciation allowance for qualified property acquired and placed in service after September 27, 2017, allow property which is constructed under a pre-September 28, 2017 binding contract to qualify for the 100 percent rate. The final regulations adopt proposed regulations ( REG-104397-18) with certain modifications, including a revised constructed property rule. In addition, the IRS has issued a new set of proposed regulations dealing with issues it is not ready to finalize.

FINAL REGULATIONS: Written Binding Contract Rules
Constructed property. The proposed regulations provided that property manufactured, constructed, or produced for the taxpayer by another person under a written binding contract entered into prior to the manufacture, etc., of the property is acquired pursuant to a written binding contract. Thus, if the contract was entered into before September 28, 2017, the 100 bonus rate did not apply.

That rule was scrapped in response to negative feedback. Instead the final regulations provide that such property is treated as self-constructed property, and the contract is ignored for purposes of determining when the property is deemed acquired. The acquisition date is now the date that the taxpayer begins manufacturing, constructing, or producing the property as determined under rules similar to those that apply to 50 percent bonus property.

Acquisition date. The final regulations provide that the acquisition date of property acquired pursuant to a written binding contract is the later of:

• the date on which the contract is entered into;
• the date on which the contract is enforceable under state law;
• if the contract has one or more cancellation periods, the date on which all cancellation periods end; or
• if the contract has one or more contingency clauses, the date on which all conditions subject to such clauses are satisfied.

Liquidated damage clause. When a contract has multiple damage provisions, the final regulations clarify that only the provision with the highest damages is taken into account in determining whether the contract limits damages.

Qualified Improvement Property
The IRS once again declined to make qualified improvement property placed in service after 2017 eligible for bonus depreciation. A legislative change is required to give this property its intended 15-year recovery period. With a 15-year recovery period, qualified improvement property will qualify for bonus depreciation under the general rule that allows bonus depreciation on property with an MACRS recovery period of 20 years or less.

Used Property
Predecessor defined. Property previously used by the taxpayer or a predecessor of a taxpayer does not qualify for bonus depreciation if the taxpayer or predecessor had a depreciable interest in the property. The final regulations define "predecessor" as:

• a transferor of an asset to a transferee in a transaction to which Code Sec. 381(a) applies;
• a transferor of an asset to a transferee in a transaction in which the transferee’s basis in the asset is determined, in whole or in part, by reference to the basis of the asset in the transferor’s hands;
• a partnership that is considered as continuing under Code Sec. 708(b)(2);
• the decedent in the case of an asset acquired by an estate; or
• a transferor of an asset to a trust.

Depreciable interest look back rule. The final regulations do not define a "depreciable interest" because this is a facts and circumstances issue. However, a five-year look back period is provided for determining whether a taxpayer or predecessor held a depreciable interest in property.

Substantially renovated property. If a taxpayer places substantially renovated property in service and the taxpayer or a predecessor previously had a depreciable interest in the property before it was substantially renovated, the taxpayer’s or predecessor’s prior depreciable interest does not prevent the taxpayer from claiming bonus depreciation. Property is substantially renovated if the cost of the used parts is not more than 20 percent of the total cost of the substantially renovated property, whether acquired or self-constructed.

Syndication transactions. A lessor who reacquires property in a syndication transaction is not treated as having a prior depreciable interest in the property.

Partnerships
The final regulations permit a partnership to claim bonus depreciation on the portion of a Code Sec. 743(b) basis increase that is attributable to built-in gain under Code Sec. 704(c), even if the partnership is using the remedial allocation method. An exception is provided for publicly traded partnerships that need to maintain fungibility for publicly traded partnership units.

If a partnership interest is acquired and disposed of during the same tax year, the bonus deduction is not allowed for any Code Sec. 743(b) adjustment arising from the initial acquisition. However, if a partnership interest is purchased and disposed of in a "step-in-the shoes" Code Sec. 168(i)(7) transaction in the same tax year, bonus on the section 743(b) adjustment is allowed. The section 743(b) adjustment is apportioned between the purchaser/transferor and the transferee.

The final regulations also clarify the treatment of qualified property transferred in a Code Sec. 721(a) transaction to a partnership in the same tax year that the qualified property is acquired by the transferor if the partnership has another partner who previously had a depreciable interest in the qualified property. In this situation, the qualified property is deemed placed in service by the transferor during that tax year, and the bonus deduction is allocated entirely to the transferor and not to the partnership. Thus, the contributing partner has contributed property with a zero basis to the partnership, and the contributed property is Code Sec. 704(c) property in the hands of the partnership.

Film, Television, and Theatrical Productions
The final regulations clarify that a used qualified film, television, or live theatrical production does not qualify for bonus depreciation. Also, the basis of a qualified film, television, or live theatrical production is reduced by the deduction claimed under Code Sec. 181 before computing the bonus deduction.

Using ADS
Using the alternative depreciation system (ADS) to determine the adjusted basis of a taxpayer’s qualified business investment (under Code Sec. 250(b)(2)(B) or Code Sec. 951A(d)(3)) or the adjusted basis of a taxpayer’s tangible assets for allocating business interests expense between excepted and non-excepted trades or businesses (under Code Sec. 163(j)) does not cause a taxpayer’s tangible property to be ineligible for bonus depreciation.

Public Utility Property
An example is added to clarify that the 100 percent bonus rate does not apply to self-constructed property of a regulated public utility if construction begins after September 27, 2017, and the property is placed in service in a tax year beginning after 2017.

Effective Date
The final regulations apply to qualified property placed in service during or after the tax year that includes the date of publication in the Federal Register. However, a taxpayer may choose to apply the final regulations in their entirety to qualified property acquired and placed in service after September 27, 2017, provided the taxpayer consistently applies all rules in the final regulations. Additionally, a taxpayer may rely on the proposed regulations issued on August 8, 2018, to qualified property acquired and placed in service after September 27, 2017, in tax years ending before the date of publication of the final regulations.

PROPOSED REGULATIONS: Acquired and Self-Constructed Components
A taxpayer may elect to treat components of a larger self-constructed property that are acquired or self constructed after September 27, 2017, as eligible for the 100 percent bonus rate, even though manufacture, construction, or production of the larger self-constructed began before September 28, 2017. The larger property must be eligible for bonus depreciation at the 50 percent rate.

Businesses With Floor Plan Financing
Property used in a trade or business that has had floor plan financing indebtedness does not qualify for bonus depreciation if the floor plan financing interest related to the indebtedness is taken into account under Code Sec. 163(j)(1)(C) in determining the allowable business interest deduction.

The proposals provide rules for determining whether interest in floor plan financing indebtedness has been taken into account during a tax year. In general, floor plan interest is not considered taken into account for a tax year if the sum of interest business income for the tax year and 30 percent of the adjusted taxable income for the tax year equals or exceeds business interest as defined in Code Sec. 163(j)(5). The proposals clarify that the determination of whether a trade or business that has had floor plan financing indebtedness has taken floor plan financing interest into account is made annually.

Leased Property
The proposals clarify that taxpayers leasing property to a trade or business with floor plan financing indebtedness or a rate-regulated utility may claim bonus depreciation. The taxpayer, however, may not be a trade or business with floor plan financing indebtedness that prevents it from claiming bonus depreciation or a rate-regulated utility.

Used Property
Five-year lookback. A safe harbor provides that a taxpayer who disposes of property within 90 days after placing it in service did not hold a prior depreciable interest in the property. Consequently, the property is eligible for bonus depreciation if subsequently reacquired.

Partnerships. A taxpayer has a prior depreciable interest in a portion of property if the taxpayer was a partner in a partnership at any time the partnership owned the property. The amount of the prior depreciable interest is based on the partner’s total share of depreciation deductions with respect to the property.

Series of related transactions. Special rules in the original proposed regulations governing the treatment of a series of related transactions for purposes of the used property acquisition requirements are modified and expanded.

Consolidated groups. Significant clarifications to the rules governing the used property acquisition requirements for consolidated groups are also made.

Written Binding Contract Rules
Property not acquired pursuant to a contract. The acquisition date of property that is not acquired pursuant to a written binding contract is the date on which the taxpayer paid or incurred more than 10 percent of the total cost of the property. The cost of land and preliminary activities are excluded from cost for this purpose.

Purchase of entities. Binding contract rules that apply to the purchase of an entity are proposed. The current binding contract rules only deal with purchases of assets.

A contract to acquire all or substantially all of the assets of a trade or business, or to acquire an entity such as a corporation, a partnership, or a limited liability company, is binding if it is enforceable under state law against the parties to the contract. The presence of a condition outside the parties’ control (including, for example, regulatory agency approval) will not prevent the contract from being a binding contract. Further, the fact that insubstantial terms remain to be negotiated by the parties to the contract, or that customary conditions remain to be satisfied, does not prevent the contract from being a binding contract. This proposed rule also applies to a contract for the sale of the stock of a corporation that is treated as an asset sale as a result of a deemed asset acquisition election under Code Sec. 338.

Long Production Property
The proposals provide rules for determining qualifying basis attributable to the manufacture, construction, or production of long production property and certain aircraft eligible for an extended placed in service deadline.

Mid-Quarter Convention
The mid-quarter convention applies to property placed in service during the tax year if 40 percent or more of the basis of the property was placed in service in the last three months of the tax year. The proposals clarify that the basis of property is not reduced by the 100 percent bonus allowance. This rule has always applied to 50 percent bonus property.

Effective Date of Proposals
In general, the proposed regulations apply to qualified property placed in service during or after the tax year that includes the date the proposals are finalized. A taxpayer may rely on the proposals in their entirety to qualified property acquired and placed in service after September 27, 2017.

Proposed regulations would provide guidance on the inclusion of income and deduction items in the calculation of built-in gains and losses under Code Sec. 382(h). The proposed regulations would:

• simplify the application of Code Sec. 382;
• provide more certainty to taxpayers in determining built-in gains and losses for Code Sec. 382(h) purposes; and
• ensure that the application of certain law changes made by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97) (TCJA) does not further complicate the application of Code Sec. 382(h).

Taxpayers may rely on these proposed regulations until final regulations are issued. When these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, it is expected that Notice 87-79, 1987-2 CB 387, Notice 90-27, 1990-1 CB 336, Notice 2003-65, 2003-2 CB 747, and Notice 2018-30, 2018-21 I.R.B. 610, will be withdrawn and declared obsolete.

Built-in Gains and Losses
Generally, Code Sec. 382 imposes a value-based limitation (section 382 limitation) on the ability of a loss corporation to offset its taxable income in periods subsequent to an ownership change with losses attributable to periods prior to that ownership change.

Code Sec. 382(h) provides rules relating to the determination of a loss corporation’s built-in gains and losses as of the date of the ownership change (change date). In general, built-in gains recognized during the five-year period beginning on the change date (recognition period) allow a loss corporation to increase its section 382 limitation. Built-in losses recognized during the recognition period are subject to the loss corporation’s section 382 limitation.

Specifically, if a loss corporation has a net unrealized built-in gain (NUBIG), the section 382 limitation for any tax year ending during the recognition period is increased by the recognized built-in gain (RBIG) for the year, with cumulative increases limited to the amount of the NUBIG. If a loss corporation has a net unrealized built-in loss (NUBIL), the use of any recognized built-in loss (RBIL) during the recognition period is subject to the section 382 limitation.

IRS Guidance and TCJA
Notice 2003-65 provides interim guidance on the identification of built-in gains and losses under Code Sec. 382(h). This notice permits taxpayers to rely on safe harbor approaches for applying Code Sec. 382(h) to an ownership change prior to the effective date of temporary or final regulations issued under that provision.

Notice 2003-65 provides (i) a single safe harbor for computing the NUBIG or NUBIL of a loss corporation, based on principles underlying the calculation of net recognized built-in gain under Code Sec. 1374, and (ii) two safe harbors for the computation of a loss corporation’s RBIG or RBIL: the 1374 approach and the 338 approach.

The 1374 approach identifies RBIG and RBIL at the time of the disposition of a loss corporation’s assets during the recognition period. Generally, this approach relies on accrual method of accounting principles to identify built-in income and deduction items at the time of the ownership change, with certain exceptions.

In contrast, the 338 approach identifies items of RBIG and RBIL generally by comparing the loss corporation’s actual items of income, gain, deduction, and loss recognized during the recognition period with those that would have been recognized had an election under Code Sec. 338 (section 338 election) been made with respect to a hypothetical purchase of all of the outstanding stock of the loss corporation on the change date.

Taxpayers may rely on either the 338 approach or the 1374 approach until the IRS issues temporary or final regulations under Code Sec. 382(h). Compared to the 338 approach, the accrual-based 1374 approach is simpler to apply and administer and provides greater certainty for taxpayers.

Prior to the issuance of Notice 2003-65, the IRS had issued Notice 87-79 and Notice 90-27, which provided much more limited guidance regarding the determination of built-in gains and losses. After the TCJA, the IRS issued Notice 2018-30, which makes the 338 approach unavailable when computing items arising from bonus depreciation under Code Sec. 168(k).

The law changes made by the TCJA created additional uncertainty regarding the application of Code Sec. 382 in general, and Notice 2003-65 in particular. Specifically, certain important changes under the TCJA could potentially compromise the mechanics of the 338 approach and further complicate its application.

1374 Approach
For purposes of computing NUBIG and NUBIL, the proposed regulations would adopt as mandatory the NUBIG/NUBIL safe harbor and the 1374 approach described in Notice 2003-65, with certain modifications. These modifications would include technical fixes to calculations involving cancellation of indebtedness (COD) income, deductions for contingent liabilities, and cost recovery deductions. Additionally, the proposed regulations would clarify that carryovers of Code Sec. 163(j) disallowed business interest are counted only once for purposes of Code Sec. 382.

The modifications to the existing NUBIG/NUBIL safe harbor and the 1374 approach would ensure greater consistency between:

• amounts that are included in the NUBIG/NUBIL computation; and
• items that could become RBIG or RBIL during the recognition period.

Comment 
According to the IRS, the proposed regulations would modestly restrict net operating loss usage by reducing the amount that would qualify as RBIG, reducing the incentive to engage in inefficient, tax-motivated mergers and acquisitions.

NUBIG or NUBIL Computation
The proposed rules for the computation of NUBIG/NUBIL would capture a range of items that closely tracks the NUBIG/NUBIL safe harbor computation in Notice 2003-65. However, the component steps of the proposed NUBIG/NUBIL computation would be more explicit, as follows:

• The proposed NUBIG/NUBIL computation would first take into account the aggregate amount that would be realized in a hypothetical disposition of all of the loss corporation’s assets in two steps treated as taking place immediately before the ownership change:
  • —Step 1: the loss corporation would be treated as satisfying any inadequately secured nonrecourse liability by surrendering to each creditor the assets securing such debt.
  • —Step 2 : the loss corporation would be treated as selling all remaining assets pertinent to the NUBIG/NUBIL computation in a sale to an unrelated third party, with the hypothetical buyer assuming no amount of the seller’s liabilities.
  • That total hypothetical amount realized by the loss corporation pursuant to Steps 1 and 2, above, would be then decreased by (i) the sum of the loss corporation’s deductible liabilities (both fixed and contingent), and (ii) the loss corporation’s basis in its assets.
  • Finally, the decreased hypothetical total would be then increased or decreased, as applicable, by the following:
  • —(i) the net amount of the total RBIG and RBIL income and deduction items that could be recognized during the recognition period (excluding COD income); and
  • —(ii) the net amount of positive and negative section 481 adjustments that would be required to be included on the previously-described hypothetical disposal of all of the loss corporation’s assets.

The proposed regulations generally would not allow COD income to be included in the calculation of NUBIG/NUBIL, but would provide certain exceptions.

RBIG and RBIL Items
As mentioned above, the proposed regulations would apply a methodology for identifying RBIG or RBIL that closely tracks the accrual based 1374 approach described in Notice 2003-65. However, the proposed regulations would significantly modify the 1374 approach to include as RBIL the amount of any deductible contingent liabilities paid or accrued during the recognition period, to the extent of the estimated value of those liabilities on the change date.

The proposed regulations also would add a rule clarifying that certain items do not constitute RBIG (such as dividends paid during the recognition period). In addition, limitations would be provided on the extent to which excluded COD income is treated as RBIG. Further, the proposed regulations would provide two different RBIG ceilings with regard to COD on recourse debt, and would provide special rules for COD income on nonrecourse debt.

Finally, rules would be provided for the interaction between Code Sec. 163(j) and Code Sec. 382. To eliminate the possibility of duplication of RBIL items, the proposed regulations would provide that Code Sec. 382 disallowed business interest carryforwards would not be treated as RBIL if such amounts were allowable as a deduction during the recognition period. The proposed regulations also would clarify the treatment of certain items allocated from a partnership.

Applicability Date
The regulations are proposed to be effective for ownership changes occurring after the date the proposed regulations are published as final regulations in the Federal Register. However, taxpayers and their related parties may apply these proposed regulations to any ownership change occurring during a tax year with respect to which the period described in Code Sec. 6511(a) has not expired, so long as the taxpayers and all of their related parties consistently apply the rules of these proposed regulations to such ownership change and all subsequent ownership changes that occur before the applicability date of the final regulations.

Comments and Requests for Hearing
Written or electronic comments must be received by November 9, 2019. Written or electronic requests for a public hearing and outlines of topics to be discussed at the public hearing must be received by November 9, 2019. Electronic submissions must be sent via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov (indicate IRS and REG-125710-18) by following the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted to the Federal eRulemaking Portal, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The Treasury and the IRS will publish for public availability any comment received to its public docket, whether submitted electronically or in hard copy.

Hard copy submissions must be sent to: Internal Revenue Service, CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-125710-18), Room 5203, Post Office Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (indicate REG-125710-18), Courier’s Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.

The IRS has issued final regulations that amend the rules relating to hardship distributions from Code Sec. 401(k) plans. The final regulations are substantially similar to the proposed regulations. Further, plans that complied with the proposed regulations satisfy the final regulations as well. The regulations are effective on September 23, 2019.

The IRS has issued final regulations that amend the rules relating to hardship distributions from Code Sec. 401(k) plans. The final regulations are substantially similar to the proposed regulations. Further, plans that complied with the proposed regulations satisfy the final regulations as well. The regulations are effective on September 23, 2019.

The final regulations:

• reflect statutory changes affecting Code Sec. 401(k) plans, including changes made by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 ( P.L. 115-123); and
• affect participants in, beneficiaries of, employers maintaining, and administrators of plans that include cash or deferred arrangements or provide for employee or matching contributions.

Deemed Immediate and Heavy Financial Need
The final regulations modify the safe harbor list of expenses for which distributions are deemed to be made on account of an immediate and heavy financial need. The final regulations:

• add "primary beneficiary under the plan" as an individual for whom qualifying medical, educational, and funeral expenses may be incurred;
• modify the expense listed in existing Reg. §1.401(k)-1(d)(3)(iii)(B)(6) to provide that the limitations in Code Sec. 165(h)(5) do not apply for this purpose; and
• add to the list a new type of expense, relating to expenses incurred as a result of certain disasters.

Distribution Necessary to Satisfy Financial Need
The final regulations modify the rules for determining whether a distribution is necessary to satisfy an immediate and heavy financial need, by:

• eliminating any requirement that an employee be prohibited from making elective contributions and employee contributions after receipt of a hardship distribution; and
• eliminating any requirement to take plan loans prior to obtaining a hardship distribution.

In particular, the final regulations, like the proposed regulations, eliminate the safe harbor in existing Reg. §1.401(k)-1(d)(3)(iv)(E), under which a distribution is deemed necessary to satisfy the financial need only if elective contributions and employee contributions are suspended for at least six months after a hardship distribution is made and, if available, nontaxable plan loans are taken before the hardship distribution is made.

Expanded Sources for Hardship Distributions
The final regulations modify existing Reg. §1.401(k)-1(d)(3) to permit hardship distributions from Code Sec. 401(k) plans of elective contributions, qualified nonelective contributions (QNECs), qualified matching contributions (QMACs), and earnings on these amounts, regardless of when contributed or earned.

Section 403(b) Plans
A hardship distribution of Code Sec. 403(b) elective deferrals is subject to the rules and restrictions set forth in Reg. §1.401(k)-1(d)(3). Accordingly, the preamble to the proposed regulations had stated that the new rules relating to a hardship distribution of elective contributions from a Code Sec. 401(k) plan generally apply to Code Sec. 403(b) plans. Because this requirement is retained in the final regulations, at Reg. §1.401(k)-1(d)(3)(iii)(B), it applies to Code Sec. 403(b) plans.

Applicability Dates
The changes to the hardship distribution rules made by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 are effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 2018.

Plan Amendments
The Treasury Department and IRS expect that plan sponsors will need to amend their plans’ hardship distribution provisions to reflect the final regulations, and any such amendment must be effective for distributions beginning no later than January 1, 2020. The deadline for amending a disqualifying provision is set forth in Rev. Proc. 2016-37, I.R.B. 2016-29,136.

For a taxpayer using an accrual method of accounting, the all events test is not met for item of gross income any later than when is included in revenue on an applicable financial statement (AFS) or other financial statement specified by the Treasury Secretary. How the AFS income inclusion rule applies to accrual method taxpayers with an AFS is described and clarified by Proposed Reg. §1.451-3.

For a taxpayer using an accrual method of accounting, the all events test is not met for item of gross income any later than when is included in revenue on an applicable financial statement (AFS) or other financial statement specified by the Treasury Secretary. How the AFS income inclusion rule applies to accrual method taxpayers with an AFS is described and clarified by Proposed Reg. §1.451-3.

Year-by-Year Application
The proposed regulations provide that the AFS income inclusion rule generally applies to accrual method taxpayers with an AFS when the timing of income inclusion for one or more items of income is determined using the all events test. They further clarify that the AFS income inclusion rule applies only to taxpayers that have one or more AFS covering the entire tax year.

The AFS income inclusion rule applies on a year-by-year basis and, therefore, an accrual taxpayer with an AFS in one tax year that does not have an AFS in another tax year must apply the AFS income inclusion rule in the tax year that it has an AFS, and does not apply the rule in the tax year in which it does not have an AFS.

No Change to Income Tax Treatment
The proposed regulations also clarify that AFS income inclusion rule does not change the treatment of a transaction for federal income tax purposes:

• The treatment of a transaction or event in a tax year may be different for federal income tax and AFS purposes.
• The applicability of any exclusion provision, or the treatment of nonrecognition transactions, in the Code, the Income Tax Regulations, or other guidance does not change.

Partial Payment
The proposed regulations provide that an amount included in the transaction price for AFS purposes may not be treated as contingent on the occurrence or nonoccurrence of a future event if the taxpayer has been paid or has an equitable, contractual, or other right to partial payment for performance completed to date. Additionally, that transaction price may not be reduced for amounts subject to Code Sec. 461, including reward amounts in credit card transactions.

Special Methods and Multi-Year Contracts
The proposed regulations clarify that when a taxpayer uses a special method of accounting, the special method of accounting determines the timing of the income inclusion.

Proposed regulations also provide guidance for taxpayers with a financial reporting period that is different than the taxpayer’s tax year. The taxpayer must use one of three permissible methods in order to determine whether an item of income has been included in revenue on an AFS.

For a contract with multiple performance obligations, the allocation of the transaction price to each performance obligation equals the amount allocated to each performance obligation for purposes of including the item in revenue in the taxpayer's AFS. The proposed regulations clarify that a transaction price does not include amounts collected on behalf of third parties, or amounts that are contingent on the occurrence or nonoccurrence of a future event.

A taxpayer with a multi-year contract applies the all events test by applying a cumulative approach reflecting amounts previously included under Code Sec. 451 rather than an annualized approach.

Fees
Under the proposed regulations if the taxpayer does not treat a fee as discount or as an adjustment to the yield of a debt instrument over the life of the instrument (such as points) in its AFS, and the fee otherwise would be treated as creating or increasing original issue discount (OID) for federal income tax purposes (specified fee), then the rules in the proposed regulations under Code Sec. 451(b) apply before the rules in Code Secs. 1271 through Code Sec. 1275. Removing specified fees and specified credit card fees from the calculation of OID will permit taxpayers to apply only the rules of Code Sec. 451(b) to these fees, without also having to apply the rules relevant to OID.

The proposed section regulations would not apply to determine the time at which OID generally is includible in income.

Effective Date
The regulations are proposed generally to apply to tax years beginning on or after the date the final regulations are published in the Federal Register. However, in the case of a specified fee, Proposed Reg. §1.451-3(i)(2) is proposed to apply for a taxpayer’s first tax year beginning one year after the date the Treasury Decision adopting these regulations as final is published in the Federal Register.

A taxpayer may rely on the proposed regulations (other than the proposed regulations relating to specified fees) for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017 (after December 31, 2018, for specified credit card fees), as long as the taxpayer: (1) applies all the applicable rules contained in the proposed regulations for specified credit card fees; and (2) consistently applies the proposed regulations to all items of income during the tax year (other than specified fees).

Proposed regulations provide rules for accrual method taxpayers who receive advance payments. The proposed regulations include provisions affecting both taxpayers both with and without applicable financial statements (AFS), and describe and clarify the statutory requirements of Code Sec. 451(c).

Similar to Rev. Proc. 2004-34
The proposed regulations include many provisions similar to those of Rev. Proc. 2004-34, I.R.B. 2004-22, 991. For example the proposed regulations:

• provide a similar deferral method for non-AFS taxpayers;
• provide a list of items excluded from the definition of advance payment;
• provide rules consistent with Rev. Proc. 2004-34 to ensure the acceleration of an advance payment when a taxpayer dies or ceases to exist, or when a taxpayer’s obligation is satisfied or otherwise ends; and
• use the short tax year rules of Rev. Proc. 2004-34 for the AFS and non-AFS deferral methods
  The proposed regulations also provide additional definitions and clarifications.

Change in Accounting Method
The IRS intends to provide the procedures by which a taxpayer may change its method of accounting to use one of the deferral methods described in these proposed regulations. Until further guidance is issued, a taxpayer may continue to rely on Rev. Proc. 2004-34, as described in Notice 2018-35, I.R.B. 2018-18, 520.

Effective Date
The proposed regulations are to apply to tax years beginning on or after the date the final regulations are published in the Federal Register. Until the date the Treasury Decision adopting these regulations as final regulations is published in the Federal Register, a taxpayer may rely on these proposed regulations for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, as long as the taxpayer: (1) applies all the applicable rules contained in these proposed regulations, and (2) consistently applies these proposed regulations to all advance payments.

Taxpayers may use the automatic consent procedures to change accounting methods to comply with the recent proposed regulations described above. Rev. Proc. 2018-31, I.R.B. 2018-22, 637, is modified.

Taxpayers may use the automatic consent procedures to change accounting methods to comply with the recent proposed regulations described above. Rev. Proc. 2018-31, I.R.B. 2018-22, 637, is modified.

The proposed regulations provide rules for:

• inclusion in gross income under the all events test for taxpayers with an applicable financial statement (AFS) ( NPRM REG-104870-18); and
• use of the deferral method for advance payments for taxpayers with or without an AFS ( NPRM REG-104554-18).

Certain qualifying taxpayers may apply for a change to comply with the proposed regulations without filing a Form 3115, Application for Change in Accounting Method.

Taxpayers Affected
The accounting change procedures for inclusion in gross income for taxpayers with an AFS generally apply to taxpayers with an AFS that want to:

• change to a method of accounting that treats an item of gross income as meeting the all events test no later than when the item is taken into account as revenue in its AFS under Code Sec. 451(b)(1)(A);
• in certain cases, allocate the transaction price to performance obligations under Code Sec. 451(b)(4);
• change to a method of accounting that complies with Proposed Reg. §1.451-3; or
• change to a method of accounting that complies with Proposed Reg. §1.451-8(c).

The procedures also apply to taxpayers that do not have an AFS and that want to change to a method of accounting that complies with Proposed Reg. §1.451-8(d).

In addition, the procedures apply to a change in AFS in order to apply certain revenue recognition methods of accounting.

Pending Nonautomatic Applications
The IRS will return any Form 3115 requesting a change in method of accounting available under this revenue procedure that:

• was filed on or before September 9, 2019, under the non-automatic procedures for a tax year beginning after December 31, 2017; and
• is pending with the National Office on September 9, 2019.

The National Office will send a letter to the taxpayer acknowledging the return of the Form 3115, and will return the user fee submitted with the form. A timely resubmitted Form 3115 will be considered filed as of the date the taxpayer originally filed the Form 3115 under the nonautomatic change procedures.

Effective Date
This revenue procedure is generally effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. For specified credit card fees, it is effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2018.

Amendments to have been proposed to update the information reporting regulations under Code Sec. 6033, which generally apply to organizations exempt from tax under Code Sec. 501(a). The proposed regulations reflect statutory amendments and certain grants of reporting relief announced through guidance that has been made since the current regulations were adopted. The amendments and grants of relief apply particularly with respect to tax-exempt organizations required to file an annual Form 990, Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax, or a Form 990-EZ information return.

Amendments to have been proposed to update the information reporting regulations under Code Sec. 6033, which generally apply to organizations exempt from tax under Code Sec. 501(a). The proposed regulations reflect statutory amendments and certain grants of reporting relief announced through guidance that has been made since the current regulations were adopted. The amendments and grants of relief apply particularly with respect to tax-exempt organizations required to file an annual Form 990, Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax, or a Form 990-EZ information return.

Annual Return and Reporting Requirements
Code Sec. 6033 outlines various requirements for an annual information return to be filed by organizations that are exempt from tax under Code Sec. 501(a) or are described in Code Sec. 527, including exceptions to the filing requirement. The reporting requirements under Code Sec. 6033(h) mandate controlling organizations to include on their returns:

• interest, annuities, royalties, or rents received from each controlled entity under Code Sec. 512(b)(13);
• any loans made to each such controlled entity; and
• any transfers of funds between such controlling organization and each such controlled entity.

Penalty Relief
Under Code Sec. 6104(b), the IRS must make the filed annual returns available to the public. Under Rev. Proc. 2018-38, I.R.B. 2018-31, 280, tax-exempt organizations (other than charities exempt under Code Sec. 501(c)(3) and Code Sec. 527 political organizations) were no longer required to report the names and addresses of contributors on Schedule B when filing their information returns. This change applied to information reporting for tax years ending on or after December 31, 2018, for donations above certain applicable thresholds.

However, Rev. Proc. 2018-38 has been overturned by a federal district court ( S.C. Bullock, DC Mont., 2019-2 ustc ¶50,245), which held that the IRS failed to follow the notice and comment procedures required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Code Sec. 6652(c)(1)(A) imposes penalties for a failure to file a return required under Code Sec. 6033, failure to include any required information, or failure to provide correct information. Under Code Sec. 6652(c)(5), the penalty is not imposed if it is shown that the failure was due to reasonable cause. Notice 2019-47 provides that the IRS will consider there to be a reasonable cause based on reliance on Rev. Proc. 2018-38 for any organizations that file Form 990 or 990-EZ and did not include on their 2018 information return such donor information as Rev. Proc. 2018-38 indicated was not required.

Proposed Amendments
The proposed amendments to the regulations would restore relief from the requirement to report contributor names and addresses on the annual returns filed by certain tax-exempt organizations that was previously provided in Rev. Proc. 2018-38 before the federal district court overturned that rule. Therefore, only organizations exempt under Code Secs. 501(c)(3) and 527 would need to continue reporting their donor information on their Forms 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF.

In addition, the proposed amendments would incorporate into the regulations the existing exception from having to file an annual return for certain organizations that normally have gross receipts of $50,000 or less, found in Rev. Proc. 2011-15, I.R.B. 2011-3, 322.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Current liabilities

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

Current liabilities

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

Total assets

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

Net Sales

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

Total assets

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.

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.

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.

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.

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,

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.