The American Institute of CPAs in a March 31 letter to House of Representatives voiced its “strong support” for a series of tax administration bills passed in recent days.

The American Institute of CPAs in a March 31 letter to House of Representatives voiced its “strong support” for a series of tax administration bills passed in recent days.

The four bills highlighted in the letter include the Electronic Filing and Payment Fairness Act (H.R. 1152), the Internal Revenue Service Math and Taxpayer Help Act (H.R. 998), the Filing Relief for Natural Disasters Act (H.R. 517), and the Disaster Related Extension of Deadlines Act (H.R. 1491).

All four bills passed unanimously.

H.R. 1152 would apply the “mailbox” rule to electronically submitted tax returns and payments. Currently, a paper return or payment is counted as “received” based on the postmark of the envelope, but its electronic equivalent is counted as “received” when the electronic submission arrived or is reviewed. This bill would change all payment and tax form submissions to follow the mailbox rule, regardless of mode of delivery.

“The AICPA has previously recommended this change and thinks it would offer clarity and simplification to the payment and document submission process,” the organization said in the letter.

H.R. 998 “would require notices describing a mathematical or clerical error be made in plain language, and require the Treasury Secretary to provide additional procedures for requesting an abatement of a math or clerical adjustment, including by telephone or in person, among other provisions,” the letter states.

H.R. 517 would allow the IRS to grant federal tax relief once a state governor declares a state of emergency following a natural disaster, which is quicker than waiting for the federal government to declare a state of emergency as directed under current law, which could take weeks after the state disaster declaration. This bill “would also expand the mandatory federal filing extension under section 7508(d) from 60 days to 120 days, providing taxpayers with additional time to file tax returns following a disaster,” the letter notes, adding that increasing the period “would provide taxpayers and tax practitioners much needed relief, even before a disaster strikes.”

H.R. 1491 would extend deadlines for disaster victims to file for a tax refund or tax credit. The legislative solution “granting an automatic extension to the refund or credit lookback period would place taxpayers affected my major disasters on equal footing as taxpayers not impacted by major disasters and would afford greater clarity and certainty to taxpayers and tax practitioners regarding this lookback period,” AICPA said.

Also passed by the House was the National Taxpayer Advocate Enhancement Act (H.R. 997) which, according to a summary of the bill on Congress.gov, “authorizes the National Taxpayer Advocate to appoint legal counsel within the Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS) to report directly to the National Taxpayer Advocate. The bill also expands the authority of the National Taxpayer Advocate to take personnel actions with respect to local taxpayer advocates (located in each state) to include actions with respect to any employee of TAS.”

Finally, the House passed H.R. 1155, the Recovery of Stolen Checks Act, which would require the Treasury to establish procedures that would allow a taxpayer to elect to receive replacement funds electronically from a physical check that was lost or stolen.

All bills passed unanimously. The passed legislation mirrors some of the provisions included in a discussion draft legislation issued by the Senate Finance Committee in January 2025. A section-by-section summary of the Senate discussion draft legislation can be found here.

AICPA’s tax policy and advocacy comment letters for 2025 can be found here.

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

The Tax Court ruled that the value claimed on a taxpayer’s return exceeded the value of a conversation easement by 7,694 percent. The taxpayer was a limited liability company, classified as a TEFRA partnership. The Tax Court used the comparable sales method, as backstopped by the price actually paid to acquire the property.

The Tax Court ruled that the value claimed on a taxpayer’s return exceeded the value of a conversation easement by 7,694 percent. The taxpayer was a limited liability company, classified as a TEFRA partnership. The Tax Court used the comparable sales method, as backstopped by the price actually paid to acquire the property.

The taxpayer was entitled to a charitable contribution deduction based on its fair market value. The easement was granted upon rural land in Alabama. The property was zoned A–1 Agricultural, which permitted agricultural and light residential use only. The property transaction at occurred at arm’s length between a willing seller and a willing buyer.

Rezoning

The taxpayer failed to establish that the highest and best use of the property before the granting of the easement was limestone mining. The taxpayer failed to prove that rezoning to permit mining use was reasonably probable.

Land Value

The taxpayer’s experts erroneously equated the value of raw land with the net present value of a hypothetical limestone business conducted on the land. It would not be profitable to pay the entire projected value of the business.

Penalty Imposed

The claimed value of the easement exceeded the correct value by 7,694 percent. Therefore, the taxpayer was liable for a 40 percent penalty for a gross valuation misstatement under Code Sec. 6662(h).

Ranch Springs, LLC, 164 TC No. 6, Dec. 62,636

State and local housing credit agencies that allocate low-income housing tax credits and states and other issuers of tax-exempt private activity bonds have been provided with a listing of the proper population figures to be used when calculating the 2025:

State and local housing credit agencies that allocate low-income housing tax credits and states and other issuers of tax-exempt private activity bonds have been provided with a listing of the proper population figures to be used when calculating the 2025:

• calendar-year population-based component of the state housing credit ceiling under Code Sec. 42(h)(3)(C)(ii);
• calendar-year private activity bond volume cap under Code Sec. 146; and
• exempt facility bond volume limit under Code Sec. 142(k)(5)

These figures are derived from the estimates of the resident populations of the 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, which were released by the Bureau of the Census on December 19, 2024. The figures for the insular areas of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands are the midyear population figures in the U.S. Census Bureau’s International Database.

Notice 2025-18

The value of assets of a qualified terminable interest property (QTIP) trust includible in a decedent's gross estate was not reduced by the amount of a settlement intended to compensate the decedent for undistributed income.

The value of assets of a qualified terminable interest property (QTIP) trust includible in a decedent's gross estate was not reduced by the amount of a settlement intended to compensate the decedent for undistributed income.

The trust property consisted of an interest in a family limited partnership (FLP), which held title to ten rental properties, and cash and marketable securities. To resolve a claim by the decedent's estate that the trustees failed to pay the decedent the full amount of income generated by the FLP, the trust and the decedent's children's trusts agreed to be jointly and severally liable for a settlement payment to her estate. The Tax Court found an estate tax deficiency, rejecting the estate's claim that the trust assets should be reduced by the settlement amount and alternatively, that the settlement claim was deductible from the gross estate as an administration expense (P. Kalikow Est., Dec. 62,167(M), TC Memo. 2023-21).

Trust Not Property of the Estate

The estate presented no support for the argument that the liability affected the fair market value of the trust assets on the decedent's date of death. The trust, according to the court, was a legal entity that was not itself an asset of the estate. Thus, a liability that belonged to the trust but had no impact on the value of the underlying assets did not change the value of the gross estate. Furthermore, the settlement did not burden the trust assets. A hypothetical purchaser of the FLP interest, the largest asset of the trust, would not assume the liability and, therefore, would not regard the liability as affecting the price. When the parties stipulated the value of the FLP interest, the estate was aware of the undistributed income claim. Consequently, the value of the assets included in the gross estate was not diminished by the amount of the undistributed income claim.

Claim Not an Estate Expense

The claim was owed to the estate by the trust to correct the trustees' failure to distribute income from the rental properties during the decedent's lifetime. As such, the claim was property included in the gross estate, not an expense of the estate. The court explained that even though the liability was owed by an entity that held assets included within the taxable estate, the claim itself was not an estate expense. The court did not address the estate's theoretical argument that the estate would be taxed twice on the underlying assets held in the trust and the amount of the settlement because the settlement was part of the decedent's residuary estate, which was distributed to a charity. As a result, the claim was not a deductible administration expense of the estate.

P.B. Kalikow, Est., CA-2

An individual was not entitled to deduct flowthrough loss from the forfeiture of his S Corporation’s portion of funds seized by the U.S. Marshals Service for public policy reasons. The taxpayer pleaded guilty to charges of bribery, fraud and money laundering. Subsequently, the U.S. Marshals Service seized money from several bank accounts held in the taxpayer’s name or his wholly owned corporation. 

An individual was not entitled to deduct flowthrough loss from the forfeiture of his S Corporation’s portion of funds seized by the U.S. Marshals Service for public policy reasons. The taxpayer pleaded guilty to charges of bribery, fraud and money laundering. Subsequently, the U.S. Marshals Service seized money from several bank accounts held in the taxpayer’s name or his wholly owned corporation. The S corporation claimed a loss deduction related to its portion of the asset seizures on its return and the taxpayer reported a corresponding passthrough loss on his return.

However, Courts have uniformly held that loss deductions for forfeitures in connection with a criminal conviction frustrate public policy by reducing the "sting" of the penalty. The taxpayer maintained that the public policy doctrine did not apply here, primarily because the S corporation was never indicted or charged with wrongdoing. However, even if the S corporation was entitled to claim a deduction for the asset seizures, the public policy doctrine barred the taxpayer from reporting his passthrough share. The public policy doctrine was not so rigid or formulaic that it may apply only when the convicted person himself hands over a fine or penalty.

Hampton, TC Memo. 2025-32, Dec. 62,642(M)

Starting in 2010, the $100,000 adjusted gross income cap for converting a traditional IRA into a Roth IRA is eliminated. All other rules continue to apply, which means that the amount converted to a Roth IRA still will be taxed as income at the individual's marginal tax rate. One exception for 2010 only: you will have a choice of recognizing the conversion income in 2010 or averaging it over 2011 and 2012.

The Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 eliminated the $100,000 adjusted gross income (AGI) ceiling for converting a traditional IRA into a Roth IRA. While this provision does not apply until 2010, now may be a good time to make plans to maximize this opportunity.

The Roth IRA has benefits that are especially useful to high-income taxpayers, yet as a group they have been denied those advantages up until now. Currently, you are allowed to convert a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA only if your AGI does not exceed $100,000. A married taxpayer filing a separate return is prohibited from making a conversion. The amount converted is treated as distributed from the traditional IRA and, as a consequence, is included in the taxpayer's income, but the 10-percent additional tax for early withdrawals does not apply.

Significant benefits

While recognizing income sooner rather than later is usually not smart tax planning, in the case of this new opportunity to convert a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA, the math encourages it. The difference is twofold:

1. All future earnings on the account are tax free; and
2. The account can continue to grow tax free longer than a traditional IRA without being forced to be distributed gradually after reaching age 70 ½.

These can work out to be huge advantages, especially valuable to individuals with a degree of accumulated wealth who probably won't need the money in the Roth IRA account to live on during retirement.

Example. Mary's AGI in 2010 is $200,000 and she has traditional IRA balances that will have grown to $300,000. Assuming a marginal federal and local income tax of about 40 percent on the $300,000 balance, the $180,000 remaining in the account can grow tax free thereafter, with distributions tax free. Further assume that Mary is 45 years of age with a 90 year life expectancy and money conservatively doubles every 15 years. She will die with an account of $1.44 million, income tax free to her heirs. If the Roth IRA is bequeathed to someone in a younger generation with a long life expectancy, even factoring in eventual required minimum distributions, the amount that can continue to accumulate tax free in the Roth IRA can be staggering, eventually likely to reach over $10 million.

Planning strategies

Now is not too early to start planning to take advantage of the Roth IRA conversion opportunity starting in 2010. While planning to maximize the conversion will become more detailed as 2010 approaches and your assets and income for that year are more measurable, there are certain steps you can start taking now to maximize your savings.

Start a nondeductible IRA

The income limits on both kinds of IRAs have prevented higher income taxpayers from making deductible contributions to traditional IRAs or any contributions to Roth IRAs. They could always make nondeductible contributions to a traditional IRA, but such contributions have a limited pay-off (no current deduction, tax on account income is deferred rather than eliminated, required minimum distributions).

While a taxpayer could avoid these problems by making nondeductible contributions to a traditional IRA and then converting it to a Roth IRA, this option was not available for upper income taxpayers who would have the most to benefit from such a conversion. With the elimination of the income limit for tax years after December 31, 2009, higher income taxpayers can begin now to make nondeductible contributions to a traditional IRA and then convert them to a Roth IRA in 2010. In all likelihood, there will be little to tax on the converted amount.

What's more, taxpayers with $100,000-plus AGIs should consider continue making nondeductible IRA contributions in the future and roll them over into a Roth IRA periodically. As a result, the elimination of the income limit for converting to a Roth IRA also effectively eliminates the income limit for contributing to a Roth IRA.

Example. John and Mary are a married couple with $300,000 in income. They are not eligible to contribute to a Roth IRA because their AGI exceeds the $160,000 Roth IRA eligibility limit. Beginning in 2006, the couple makes the maximum allowed nondeductible IRA contribution ($8,000 in 2006 and 2007, and $10,000 in 2008, 2009, and 2010). In 2010, their account is worth $60,000, with $46,000 of that amount representing nondeductible contributions that are not taxed upon conversion. The couple rolls over the $60,000 in their traditional IRA into a Roth IRA. They must include $14,000 in income (the amount representing their deductible contributions), which they can recognize either in 2010, or ratably in 2011 and 2012.

Assuming they have sufficient earned income each year thereafter (until reaching age 70 1/2), John and Mary can continue to make the maximum nondeductible contributions to a traditional IRA and quickly roll over these funds into their Roth IRA, thereby avoiding significant taxable growth in the assets that would have to be recognized upon distribution from a traditional IRA.

Rollover 401(k) accounts

Contributions to a Section 401(k) plans cannot be rolled over directly into a Roth IRA. The lifting of the $100,000 AGI limit does not change this rule. However, they often can be rolled over into a traditional IRA and then, after 2009, converted into a Roth IRA.

Not everyone can just pull his or her balance out of a 401(k) plan. A plan amendment must permit it or, more likely, those who are changing jobs or are otherwise leaving employment can choose to roll over the balance into an IRA rather than elect to continue to have it managed in the 401(k) plan.

For money now being contributed to 401(k) plans by employees, an even better option would be for those contributions to be made to a Roth 401(k) plan. Starting in 2006, as long as the employer plan allows for it, Roth 401(k) accounts may receive employee contributions.

Gather those old IRA accounts

Many taxpayers opened IRA accounts when they were first starting out in the work world and their incomes were low enough to contribute. Over the years, many have seen those account balances grow. These accounts now may be converted into Roth IRAs starting in 2010, regardless of income.

Paying the tax

In spite of all the advantages of a Roth IRA, a conversion is advisable only if the taxpayer can readily pay the tax generated in the year of the conversion. If the tax is paid out of a distribution from the converted IRA, that amount is also taxed; and if the distribution counts as an early withdrawal, it is also subject to an additional 10-percent penalty. For those planning to convert who may not already have the funds available, saving now in a regular bank or brokerage account to cover the amount of the tax in 2010 can return an unusually high yield if it enables a Roth IRA conversion in 2010 that might not otherwise take place.

Careful planning is key

Transferring funds between retirement accounts can carry a high price tag if it is done incorrectly. For those who plan carefully, however, converting from a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA can yield very substantial after-tax rates of return. Please feel free to call our offices if you have any questions about how the 2010 conversion opportunity should fit into your overall tax and wealth-building strategy.

The AMT is difficult to apply and the exact computation is very complex. If you owed AMT last year and no unusual deduction or windfall had come your way that year, you're sufficiently at risk this year to apply a detailed set of computations to any AMT assessment. Ballpark estimates just won't work.

If you did not owe AMT last year, you still may be at risk. The IRS estimates that half million more individuals will be subject to the AMT in 2006 because of rising deductions and exemptions. If Congress doesn't extend the same AMT exclusion amount given in 2005, an estimated 3 million more taxpayers will pay AMT.

For a system that was intended originally to target only the very rich, the AMT now hits many middle to upper-middle class taxpayers as well. Obviously something has to be done, and will be, eventually, through proposed tax reform measures. In the meantime, expect AMT to be around for at least another year.

Basic calculations. Whether you will be liable for the AMT depends on your combination of income, adjustments and preferences. After all the computations, if your AMT liability exceeds your income tax liability, you will be liable for the AMT. Here are the basic steps to take to determine in evaluating whether you will owe the AMT:

• Step #1: Calculate your regular taxable income. If your regular tax were to be determined by reference to an amount other than taxable income, that amount would need to be determined and used in the next steps.
  
• Step #2: Calculate your alternative minimum taxable income (AMTI) by increasing or reducing your regular taxable income (or other relevant amount) by applying the AMT adjustments or preferences. These include business depreciation adjustments and preferences, loss, timing and personal itemized deductions adjustments, and tax-exempt or excluded income preferences. This is the step with potentially many sub-computations in determining increases and reductions in tax liability.
  
• Step #3:  If your AMTI exceeds the applicable AMT exemption amount, pay AMT on the excess.

While no single factor will automatically trigger the AMT, the cumulative result of several targeted tax benefits considered in Step #2, above, can be fatal. Common items that can cause an "ordinary" taxpayer to be subject to AMT are:

• All personal exemptions (especially of concern to large families);
• Itemized deductions for state and local income taxes and real estate taxes;
• Itemized deductions on home equity loan interest (except on loans used for improvements);
• Miscellaneous Itemized Deductions;
• Accelerated depreciation;
• Income from incentive stock options; and
• Changes in some passive activity loss deductions.

Starting for tax year 2005, businesses have been able to take a new deduction based on income from manufacturing and certain services. Congress defined manufacturing broadly, so many businesses -just not those with brick and mortar manufacturing plants-- will be able to claim the deduction. The deduction is 3 percent of net income from domestic production for 2005 and 2006. This percentage rises to 6 percent and then 9 percent in subsequent years.

Domestic production includes the manufacture of tangible personal property and computer software in the U.S. It also includes construction activities and services from engineering and architecture. Income from these activities must be calculated on an item-by-item basis and cannot be determined by division, product line or transaction. Direct and indirect costs are subtracted to determine "qualified production income." Land does not qualify as domestic production property.

The 3 percent rate is applied to the lower of net income from domestic production and overall net income. That amount is then capped at 50 percent of wages paid out by the employer for all its business activities.

Example. In 2005, Company X has $300,000 of income from domestic production activities. The company's overall net income was $500,000.  The 3 percent rate is applied to $300,000, yielding a potential deduction of $9,000.

Company X paid its employees $50,000 in wages and reported this amount on Forms W-2 for 2005.  Since the deduction is limited to 50 percent of wages paid and reported, Company X's deduction for 2005 is capped at $25,000 (50 percent of $50,000 in wages).  X is entitled to a $9,000 deduction.

W-2 wage limitation

In some cases, the W-2 wage limit can easily trip up taxpayers. A successful sole proprietor who earns income but has no employees would not have any W-2 wages and, therefore, could not take the deduction.  Self-employment income is not treated as wages. Neither are payments made to independent contractors. A small business that is incorporated but has no employees would have the same problem. Because payments to partners are not W-2 wages, a partnership with two partners and no employees also would be unable to take the deduction. Sole proprietors and other small businesses may want to consider putting a family member on the payroll, so that they have W-2 wages to satisfy this requirement.

An incorporated business, such as an S corporation, could put an owner on the payroll and apply the W-2 limit to reasonable wages paid to the owner. Employees include officers of the corporation and common law employees, as defined in the Tax Code.  The more labor-intensive the manufacturing process, the more likely that a deduction will not be reduced by the W-2 wage limitation. The more automated the manufacturing process, the more likely it is that the manufacturer will find itself restricted by the wage limitation and not be able to take the full manufacturing deduction.

Code Sec. 199 defines W-2 wages as the sum of the total W-2 wages reported on Forms W-2, "Wage and Tax Statement," for the calendar year ending during the employer's taxable year. W-2 wages are defined as wages and deferred salary that is included on Form W-2.  Deferred salary includes elective deferrals for a 401(k) plan or tax-sheltered annuity; contributions to a plan of a state and local government or tax-exempt entity; and designated Roth IRA contributions. IRS guidance provides three methods for calculating W-2 wages.

Our office can help you determine your eligibility for the manufacturing deduction and the amount of the deduction. Give us a call today.