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)

People are buzzing about Roth Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs). Unlike traditional IRAs, "qualified" distributions from a Roth IRA are tax-free, provided they are held for five years and are made after age 59 1/2, death or disability. You can establish a Roth IRA just as you would a traditional IRA. You can also convert assets in a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA.

Before 2010, only taxpayers with adjusted gross income of $100,000 or less were eligible to convert their traditional IRA (provided they were not married taxpayers filing separate returns). Beginning in 2010, anyone can convert a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA, regardless of income level or filing status.

Comment: While you can only contribute a maximum of $5,000 to a Roth IRA for 2010 (plus a $1,000 catch-up contribution if you are over age 50), you can convert an unlimited amount from a traditional IRA.

Conversion is treated as a taxable distribution of assets from the traditional IRA to the IRA holder, although it is not subject to the 10 percent tax on early distributions. While paying taxes on conversion is undesirable, the advantages of holding assets in a Roth IRA usually outweigh this disadvantage, especially if you will not be retiring soon. Furthermore, if you convert assets in 2010, you have the option of including them in income in 2011 and 2012 (50 percent each year) instead of 2010.

Comment: Generally, this income-splitting would be advantageous to any taxpayer who does not expect a sharp increase in income in 2011 or 2012. A wildcard factor is that the lower income tax rates that have been in effect since 2001 will expire after 2010 and could increase in 2011.

There are four ways to convert a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA:

• A rollover - you receive a distribution from a traditional IRA and roll it over to a Roth IRA within 60 days;
• Trustee-to-trustee transfer - you direct the trustee of the traditional IRA to transfer an amount to the trustee of a Roth IRA;
• Same-trustee transfer - the trustee of the traditional IRA transfers assets to a Roth IRA maintained by the same trustee; or
• Redesignation - you designate a traditional IRA as a Roth IRA, instead of opening a new Roth account.

Comment: The account holder does not have to convert all of the assets in the traditional IRA.

Another advantage of converting assets from a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA is that you can change your mind and put the assets back into the traditional IRA. This is known as a recharacterization. You have until the due date, with extensions, for the return filed for the year of conversion. Thus, if you convert assets in 2010, you have until mid-October in 2011 to undo the conversion.

This ability to recharacterize the conversion allows you to use hindsight to check whether your assets declined in value after the conversion. Since you are paying taxes on the amount converted, a decline in asset value means that you paid taxes on phantom income that no longer exists. However, if you convert assets into multiple Roth IRAs, you can choose to recharacterize the assets in a Roth IRA that decreased in value, while maintaining the conversion for a Roth IRA's assets that appreciated in value.

The use of a Roth IRA can be a savvy investment, but whether to convert assets is not an easy decision. If you would like to explore your options, please contact this office.

Yes, but only for a limited time. In late December 2009, Congress passed the 2010 Defense Appropriations Act (2010 Defense Act). The new law temporarily extends the eligibility period for COBRA premium assistance through February 28, 2010 and the duration of the subsidy for an additional six months (up to 15 months).

Reduced premiums

Individuals who are involuntarily separated from employment between September 1, 2008 and February 28, 2010 may be able to make reduced premium payments for COBRA continuation coverage. Instead of paying the full monthly premium, assistance eligible individuals pay 35 percent of the premium and their former employers pay the remaining 65 percent of the premium. The former employer is reimbursed by a payroll tax credit.

Extension

Originally, Congress set a December 31, 2009 deadline for eligibility for COBRA premium assistance. The 2010 Defense Act extended the deadline for eligibility to February 28, 2010. The 2010 Defense Act also extended the maximum period for receiving the subsidy an additional six months (from nine to 15 months).

In some cases, an individual may have exhausted his or her nine months of COBRA premium assistance before Congress approved the extension. The 2010 Defense Act provides an extended period for the retroactive payment of the individual's 35 percent payment. To continue coverage, the assistance eligible individual must pay the 35 percent of premium costs by February 17, 2010 or, if later, 30 days after notice of the extension is provided by their plan administrator.

In other cases, an individual may have exhausted his or her nine months of COBRA premium assistance and paid 100 percent of the COBRA premium for December. Individuals who paid the full COBRA premium in December are entitled to a refund under the 2010 Defense Act.

Automatic

Individuals who qualify for COBRA premium assistance are automatically eligible to pay reduced premiums for up to six more months for a total of 15 months. The individual must continue to be eligible for the subsidy. If he or she becomes eligible for other group health coverage (such as a spouse's plan) or Medicare the individual is no longer eligible for COBRA premium assistance.

Income limits

Higher-income individuals may qualify for COBRA premium assistance but find they have to repay it. If an individual's modified adjusted gross income for the tax year in which the premium assistance is received exceeds $145,000 (or $290,000 for married couples filing a joint return), the amount of the subsidy during the tax year must be repaid. For taxpayers with adjusted gross income between $125,000 and $145,000 (or $250,000 and $290,000 for married couples filing a joint return), the amount of the premium reduction that must be repaid is reduced proportionately.

Higher-income individuals may permanently waive the right to COBRA premium assistance. However, they may not later obtain the subsidy if their adjusted gross incomes end up below the limits. Our office can help you decide which option is best.

Possible extension

Many lawmakers in Congress support extending eligibility for COBRA premium assistance beyond February 28, 2010. In fact, the House of Representatives approved a bill in December extending eligibility through June 30, 2010. However, the Senate has yet to vote on the bill. Our office will keep you posted of developments.

The new "new homebuyer" tax credit

The homebuyer tax credit would have expired on November 30, 2009 had Congress not extended the credit. The new credit is extended to homes purchased before (1) May 1, 2010, or (2) July 1, 2010 if the taxpayer enters into a written binding contract before May 1, 2010 to close on the home before July 1, 2010. The credit amount remains at a maximum of $8,000, or 10 percent of the home's purchase price (whichever is less). However, the new law places a cap on the home's purchase price, which cannot exceed $800,000 in order to claim the credit. In addition, a modified credit is available for "repeat" homebuyers, discussed below.

Comment. The "first-time homebuyer credit" is somewhat of a misnomer. Under the original - and now extended - credit, you did not (and still do not) technically have to be purchasing your very first home to qualify for and take the credit. A first-time homebuyer for purposes of the $8,000 credit is a taxpayer who an individual (and spouse, if married) who had no present ownership interest in a principal residence during the three-year period ending on the date the home is purchased. This means that you could have previously owned a home as long as you have not had any ownership interest in a personal residence for at least the three years prior to purchasing the home for which you are claiming the credit.

Congress raises income limits

The homebuyer tax credit is also now available to a greater segment of the home-buying population. The new law has increased the income limits that phase out the credit, allowing higher income individuals and families to qualify.Phase-out of the credit begins under the new law at $125,000 modified adjusted gross income (AGI) for single taxpayers (up from $75,000) and at $225,000 for married taxpayers filing joint returns (up from $150,000). The phaseout range itself is $20,000, thereby reducing the credit to zero for individual taxpayers with modified AGI of more than $145,000 ($245,000 for married joint filers). The credit is reduced proportionately for taxpayers with modified AGIs between these amounts.

"Long-time" homeowners qualify for reduced $6,500 credit

A reduced homebuyer tax credit may be claimed by existing homeowners who have owned and lived in their home for a long period of time. The reduced tax credit, of up to $6,500, may benefit long-time homeowners who are ready to move up or simply move on from their current home. The tax credit is equal to 10 percent of the home's purchase price up to a maximum of $6,500. Purchases of homes priced above $800,000 are not eligible for the tax credit.

To qualify for the reduced $6,500 credit, you must be a "long-time resident" as defined by the law. For purposes of the credit, a "long-time resident" is defined as a person who has owned and resided in the same home for at least five consecutive years of the eight years prior to the purchase of the new residence. Importantly, for married taxpayers, the law tests the homeownership history of both the spouses.

If you are an existing, repeat homebuyer who qualifies for the reduced credit, you do not have to purchase a home that is more expensive than your previous home to qualify for the tax credit. There is no requirement that the new principal residence be a "move up" property; it can be less expense than your former home. However it must be your new "principal residence" in order to claim the credit. Moreover, a repeat homebuyer does not need to sell or otherwise dispose of his or her current residence to qualify for the $6,500, either, as long as your new home becomes your principal residence.

Example. Bob and Edith are married and are both eligible to claim the reduced $6,500 credit for existing "long-time residents." Their modified AGI is $240,000, which results in being $15,000 over the beginning of the phaseout for married taxpayers filing jointly. They will be able to claim a partial reduced homebuyer credit in the amount of $1,650 (15,000/$20,000 = 0.75; 1.0-0.75 = 0.25. $6,500 x 0.25 = $1,625).

While the homebuyer credit can be very valuable, it is also very complex. In addition to the provisions we have described, there are special rules for repayment, new documentation requirements, a purchase price cap, and more. Please contact our office for more details about the first-time homebuyer credit.