Internal Revenue Code Archives - The National Law Forum

Direct Employer Assistance and 401(k) Plan Relief Options for Employees Affected by California Wildfires

National Law Forum — Thu, 16 Jan 2025 00:00:40 +0000

In the past week, devastating wildfires in Los Angeles, California, have caused unprecedented destruction across the region, leading to loss of life and displacing tens of thousands. While still ongoing, the fires already have the potential to be the worst natural disaster in United States history.

Quick Hits

Employers can assist employees affected by the Los Angeles wildfires through qualified disaster relief payments under Section 139 of the Internal Revenue Code, which are tax-exempt for employees and deductible for employers.
The SECURE Act 2.0 allows employees impacted by federally declared disasters to take immediate distributions from their 401(k) plans without the usual penalties, provided their plan includes such provisions.

As impacted communities band together and donations begin to flow to families in need, many employers are eager to take steps to assist employees affected by the disaster.

As discussed below, the Internal Revenue Code provides employers with the ability to make qualified disaster relief payments to employees in need. In addition, for employers maintaining a 401(k) plan, optional 401(k) plan provisions can enable employees to obtain in-service distributions based on hardship or federally declared disaster.

Internal Revenue Code Section 139 Disaster Relief

Section 139 of the Internal Revenue Code provides for a federal income exclusion for payments received due to a “qualified disaster.” Under Section 139, an employer can provide employees with direct cash assistance to help them with costs incurred in connection with the disaster. Employees are not responsible for income tax, and payments are generally characterized as deductible business expenses for employers. Neither the employees nor the employer are responsible for federal payroll taxes associated with such payments.

“Qualified disasters” include presidentially declared disasters, including natural disasters and the coronavirus pandemic, terrorist or military events, common carrier accidents (e.g., passenger train collisions), and other events that the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury concludes are catastrophic. On January 8, 2025, President Biden approved a Major Disaster Declaration for California based on the Los Angeles wildfires.

In addition to the requirement that payments be made pursuant to a qualified disaster, payments must be for the purpose of reimbursing reasonable and necessary “personal, family, living, or funeral expenses,” costs of home repair, and to reimburse the replacement of personal items due to the disaster. Payment cannot be made to compensate employees for expenses already compensated by insurance.

Employers implementing qualified disaster relief plans should maintain a written policy explaining that payments are intended to approximate the losses actually incurred by employees. In the event of an audit, the employer should also be prepared to substantiate payments by retaining communications with employees and any expense documentation. Employers should also review their 401(k) plan documents to determine that payments are not characterized as deferral-eligible compensation and consider any state law implications surrounding cash payments to employees.

401(k) Hardship and Disaster Distributions

In addition to the Section 139 disaster relief described above, employees may be able to take an immediate distribution from their 401(k) plan under the hardship withdrawal rules and disaster relief under the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 (SECURE 2.0).

Hardship Distributions

If permitted under the plan, a participant may apply for and receive an in-service distribution based on an unforeseen hardship that presents an “immediate and heavy” financial need. Whether a need is immediate and heavy depends on the participant’s unique facts and circumstances. Under the hardship distribution rules, expenses and losses (including loss of income) incurred by an employee on account of a federally declared disaster declaration are considered immediate and heavy provided that the employee’s principal residence or principal place of employment was in the disaster zone.

The amount of a hardship distribution must be limited to the amount necessary to satisfy the need. If the employee has other resources available to meet the need, then there is no basis for a hardship distribution. In addition, hardship distributions are generally subject to income tax in the year of distribution and an additional 10 percent early withdrawal penalty if the participant is below age 59 and a half. The participant must submit certification regarding the hardship to the plan sponsor, which the plan sponsor is then entitled to rely upon.

Qualified Disaster Recovery Distributions

Separate from the hardship distribution rules described above, SECURE 2.0 provides special rules for in-service distributions from retirement plans and for plan loans to certain “qualified individuals” impacted by federally declared major disasters. These special in-service distributions are not subject to the same immediate and heavy need requirements and tax rules as hardship distributions and are eligible for repayment.

SECURE 2.0 allows for the following disaster relief:

Qualified Disaster Recovery Distributions. Qualified individuals may receive up to $22,000 of Disaster Recovery Distributions (QDRD) from eligible retirement plans (certain employer-sponsored retirement plans, such as section 401(k) and 403(b) plans, and IRAs). There are also special rollover and repayment rules available with respect to these distributions.
Increased Plan Loans. SECURE 2.0 provides for an increased limit on the amount a qualified individual may borrow from an eligible retirement plan. Specifically, an employer may increase the dollar limit under the plan for plan loans up to the full amount of the participant’s vested balance in their plan account, but not more than $100,000 (reduced by the amount of any outstanding plan loans). An employer can also allow up to an additional year for qualified individuals to repay their plan loans.

Under SECURE 2.0, an individual is considered a qualified individual if:

the individual’s principal residence at any time during the incident period of any qualified disaster is in the qualified disaster area with respect to that disaster; and
the individual has sustained an economic loss by reason of that qualified disaster.

A QDRD must be requested within 180 days after the date of the qualified disaster declaration (i.e., January 8, 2025, for the 2025 Los Angeles wildfires). Unlike hardship distributions, a QDRD is not subject to the 10 percent early withdrawal penalty for participants under age 59 and a half. Further, unlike hardship distributions, taxation of the QDRD can be spread over three tax years and a qualified individual may repay all or part of the amount of a QDRD within a three-year period beginning on the day after the date of the distribution.

As indicated above, like hardship distributions, QDRDs are an optional plan feature. Accordingly, in order for QDRDs to be available, the plan’s written terms must provide for them.

The post Direct Employer Assistance and 401(k) Plan Relief Options for Employees Affected by California Wildfires appeared first on The National Law Forum.

Disregarded Entity Eligibility for the CTA Large Operating Company Exemption

National Law Forum — Thu, 28 Nov 2024 18:00:22 +0000

Summary: As discussed in detail below, the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) provides an exemption to its reporting requirements for certain large operating companies (the Large Operating Company Exemption or “LOC Exemption”). In order to qualify for the LOC Exemption, a reporting company must, among other requirements, “have filed a Federal income tax or information return in the United States in the previous year demonstrating more than $5,000,000 in gross receipts or sales.” Certain reporting companies are “disregarded entities” (DREs) for Federal tax purposes and, as such, do not themselves directly have a Federal tax filing obligation or ability. However, based upon guidance from FinCEN and the IRS, support exists for the proposition that the Federal tax filing of a DRE’s sole individual owner or sole parent entity constitutes the filing referenced in the LOC Exemption, and that a DRE reporting company is not, per se, disqualified from utilizing the LOC Exemption.

* * * * *

Certain business entities may elect (including through default attribution under the Internal Revenue Code, (IRC) to be treated as “disregarded” from their individual owner or parent entity for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Such entities include limited liability companies (LLCs) who have a single member (unless such an LLC has elected on Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 8832 to be taxed as a “corporation”), or certain wholly owned subsidiaries of “S-corporations” where the parent S-corporation has made an election (referred to as a “Q-Sub election”) on IRS Form 8869 to treat the subsidiary as a qualified subchapter S subsidiary (QSub), whereby such Q-Sub is deemed to be liquidated (for federal tax purposes only) into the parent S-corporation.

These entities, often referred to simply as “disregarded entities” do not, as a distinct, juridical person, file a federal income tax return per se. Instead, DREs have their taxable income and loss reflected, on an aggregated basis, on the federal income tax return of their individual owner or (direct or indirect) parent entity. In fact, when reporting the taxpayer identification number (TIN) of a DRE on an IRS Form W-9 (Request for Taxpayer Identification Number and Certification), the DRE provides the federal employer identification number (FEIN) of a parent entity or a social security number (SSN) of an individual owner, rather than a TIN of the DRE itself. This is true even if the DRE has filed for, and has received from the IRS, its own FEIN.

Further to this point, some DREs do not, and are not required to, file for their own FEIN. As such, not all DREs possess their own FEIN or other entity distinct TIN.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), in its Frequently Asked Question F.13 issued July 24, 2024, acknowledged this fact as follows:

“An entity that is disregarded for U.S. tax purposes—a “disregarded entity”—is not treated as an entity separate from its owner for U.S. tax purposes. Instead of a disregarded entity being taxed separately, the entity’s owner reports the entity’s income and deductions as part of the owner’s federal tax return. …

Consistent with rules of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regarding the use of TINs, different types of tax identification numbers may be reported for disregarded entities under different circumstances:

If the disregarded entity has its own EIN, it may report that EIN as its TIN. If the disregarded entity does not have an EIN, it is not required to obtain one to meet its BOI reporting requirements so long as it can instead provide another type of TIN….
If the disregarded entity is a single-member limited liability company (LLC) or otherwise has only one owner that is an individual with a SSN or ITIN, the disregarded entity may report that individual’s SSN or ITIN as its TIN.
If the disregarded entity is owned by a U.S. entity that has an EIN, the disregarded entity may report that other entity’s EIN as its TIN.
If the disregarded entity is owned by another disregarded entity or a chain of disregarded entities, the disregarded entity may report the TIN of the first owner up the chain of disregarded entities that has a TIN as its TIN.

As explained above, a disregarded entity that is a reporting company must report one of these tax identification numbers when reporting beneficial ownership information to FinCEN.”ⁱ

While the above FAQ is not offered by FinCEN specifically in the context of the LOC Exemption, this FAQ does have important implications for the LOC Exemption. In stating that a DRE is not required to obtain an FEIN merely for purposes of having such a number for purposes of filing a beneficial ownership information report (BOIR) under the CTA, and acknowledging that a DRE may provide a SSN of an individual owner, or an FEIN of a parent entity, in satisfaction of the DRE’s requirement to provide a tax identification number as required in FinCEN’s form for filing BOIRs, FinCEN has recognized that the same TIN required by the IRS to be disclosed on a Form W-9 in respect of a DRE is recognized by FinCEN as an appropriate TIN in respect of the DRE for purposes of such entity’s BOIR filing.

As such, the federal tax return filing associated with such a TIN is, therefore, the tax return associated with the DRE reporting such TIN on its BOIR filing. In other words, the fact that an individual owner or a parent entity has made a prior year’s federal tax return filing, which filing includes the U.S. generated gross receipts or sales of the DRE, should be sufficient to satisfy the DRE’s prior year’s federal tax return filing status with respect to such revenue.

As stated in FAQ F.13 above, “a DRE—is not treated as an entity separate from its owner for U.S. tax purposes…, the entity’s owner reports the entity’s income and deductions as part of the owner’s federal tax return…”

* * * * *

With this background, we next analyze the associated implications to a DRE that may qualify for the LOC Exemption.

For purposes of clarity, the requirements for an entity to qualify for the LOC Exemption is that the entity satisfy all three parts of the following three-part test:

“[A]n entity must have more than 20 full-time employees in the United States, must have filed a Federal income tax or information return in the United States in the previous year demonstrating more than $5,000,000 in gross receipts or sales, and must have an operating presence at a physical office in the United States.”ⁱⁱ

The CTA itself provides more specificity in this regard. The CTA provides that the term “reporting company” does not include any entity that:

“(I) employs more than 20 employees on a full-time basis in the United States; (II) filed in the previous year Federal income tax returns in the United States demonstrating more than $5,000,000 in gross receipts or sales in the aggregate, including the receipts or sales of (aa) other entities owned by the entity; and (bb) other entities through which the entity operates; and (III) has an operating presence at a physical office within the United States.”ⁱⁱⁱ

Although FinCEN has, to date, issued no formal acknowledgment or interpretation with regard to the applicability of the above “revenue prong” specifically in the DRE context, for the reasons outlined above, a reasoned and supported proposition in the DRE situation may be that the “filed Federal income tax or information return” referenced in the LOC Exemption is the federal tax return filing of the reporting company’s individual owner or parent entity, as applicable.

Further to the revenue prong, it appears that if the DRE itself generates U.S. generated gross receipts or sales in excess of five million dollars as reported on the prior year’s federal tax return filing, that the DRE meets the revenue prong of the LOC Exemption. However, based on the above analysis, it may also be a colorable position that the DRE MAY be able to assert that ALL of the U.S. generated gross revenue appearing on the individual owner’s or parent entity’s federal tax return filing may be attributable to the revenue test prong of the LOC Exemption, because all of such revenue is associated with that tax return. This situation is notionally similar to FinCEN’s interpretation that all members of a consolidated corporate taxed group (including each subsidiary) may share in credit for the aggregated gross receipts or sales of the entire group in meeting each of their respective, individual revenue requirements under the LOC Exemption. Here, both the individual and DRE or the parent entity and disregarded subsidiary would be relying upon the same federal tax return, in the individual or partnership tax context.

* * * * *

For purposes of clarity and completeness, we acknowledge a countervailing position espoused by some commentators in the marketplace. That position holds that a DRE is ab initio ineligible to qualify for the LOC Exemption merely because of such reporting company’s status as a DRE (i.e., that it, itself, as a business entity, does not directly cause the filing of its own, independent federal tax return). For the reasons outlined herein, we find this position less compelling than the proposition that disregarded entities have a filed Federal income tax or information return when filed by their individual owner or parent entity.

* * * * *

With respect to exemptions from the reporting obligations under the CTA, each such exemption is “self-executing.” In other words, if an exemption applies to a reporting company, that reporting company has no filing obligation to FinCEN under the CTA. As such, there is no BOIR filing on record documenting that the DRE is relying on its individual owner’s SSN or its parent entity’s FEIN, and, derivatively, the associated federal tax return filing, in establishing compliance with the revenue prong of the LOC Exemption test. We recommend that each DRE making such a reliance-based exemption determination maintain a record of their CTA diligence, analysis and exercise of business judgment made upon a fully informed basis, that underpins the substantiation of the DRE’s satisfaction of all parts of the LOC Exemption test.^iv Such substantiation may be needed in the future if FinCEN or one of the DRE’s financial institutions requests substantiation of the DRE’s asserted position that such DRE is not required to file a BOIR under the CTA.

* * * * *

Conclusion. The compliance requirements under the CTA went live on January 1, 2024, and you have only the remainder of this year to take any action to prepare for your compliance position. Now is the time to discuss the CTA with your Polsinelli legal team for guidance.

[i] See FinCEN CTA FAQs F.13 (issued July 24, 2024)(https://www.fincen.gov/boi-faqs)

[ii] See FinCEN CTA FAQs L.7 (issued April 18, 2024)(https://www.fincen.gov/boi-faqs)

[iii] U.S.C. § 5336 (a)(11)(B)(xxi).

[iv] Note that there are other factors of the LOC Exemption that must be met in order to rely on that exemption, and such other factors are required to be met directly by the DRE. This discussion is not intended to suggest that the DRE may rely, for example, on employee counts of affiliated entities or impermissible U.S. physical address locations in qualifying for the LOC Exemption.

The post Disregarded Entity Eligibility for the CTA Large Operating Company Exemption appeared first on The National Law Forum.

Post Election – Expect Tax Legislation

National Law Forum — Thu, 14 Nov 2024 15:00:59 +0000

I. Introduction

With clear Republican victories in the White House and the Senate, and a very slim majority for either side in the House of Representatives, we can expect tax legislation in the coming year. It is expected that the President elect will likely seek to enact his economic agenda as quickly as possible. While Congress may work for bipartisan support of any such legislation, Congressional Republicans and the Administration have the ability to utilize the filibuster-proof budget reconciliation rules (that eliminate the need for 60 votes in the Senate) to pass such tax legislation. We understand that the advance preparation and work for a 2025 reconciliation bill began in Republican Leadership offices over the summer and will continue through the end of the year.

Key to the current discussions of tax policy are provisions from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “TCJA”), a large overhaul of the Internal Revenue Code during President Trump’s first term. The TCJA instituted many significant changes to U.S. tax laws, including cutting the corporate rate, lowering individual income tax rates, and introducing a new deduction for passthrough income. However, due to various reasons, including the arcana of procedural rules of Congress associated with the “reconciliation” procedures, many of these provisions were temporary and scheduled to expire at the end of 2025. Exactly which provisions are to be extended, which to be modified, which to be abandoned and how to budget for each of these provisions, is expected to be a part of the legislative agenda next year. It is important to note that, among certain other items, the reduced corporate tax rate enacted in the TCJA is not scheduled to expire.

The most significant expiring provisions of the TCJA are set forth below.

II. Expiring Provisions

A. Changes to non-corporate tax rates, credits, deductions, exemptions and exclusions

The most significant expiring provisions, at least from a political perspective, are the provisions providing significant adjustments to the various tax rates, credits, deductions and similar provisions mostly applicable to individuals, resulting in a broad-scale reversion to the pre-2017 regime for individual taxpayers. The key changes are the following, generally coming into effect in 2026, if not extended or modified:

The lower individual income tax rates in the TCJA will expire, and the top marginal rate will go from 37% to 39.6%;
The estate and gift tax exclusion amount will be cut in half to $5 million and then adjusted for inflation, so the estate tax exemption will go from approximately $14 million in 2025 to approximately $7 million in 2026;
The standard deduction will revert to pre-TCJA levels (almost half the current standard deduction), although the personal exemption amount (which was set to zero under the TCJA) will return to pre-TCJA levels as well;
The deduction for miscellaneous itemized expenses, including unreimbursed employee expenses and tax preparation fees will return, and taxpayers will be able to deduct miscellaneous itemized expenses above 2% of adjusted gross income (“AGI”);
The phasing-out of itemized deductions for high income taxpayers will return;
The TCJA’s cap on the deductibility of state and local tax will expire, so taxpayers will be able to deduct all state and local income taxes (or sales taxes, if selected by the taxpayer) and property taxes—this may be celebrated by higher-income taxpayers in high tax states, but much of the benefit could be tempered by the return of broader scope of the alternative minimum tax discussed immediately below;
The alternative minimum tax (the “AMT”), which under the TCJA was limited to a small number of taxpayers, will return to its pre-TCJA form (which applied to a much larger group of individual taxpayers);
The deduction limit for cash charitable deductions will revert to 50% of AGI (as compared the current limit of 60% of AGI);
The child tax credit will be cut in half so that the maximum credit is $1,000 per child, the refundable portion of the credit will decline from $1,400 to $1,000, and other various adjustments will apply; and
The broader mortgage interest exemption available under the pre-TCJA regime will return.

B. Employment-related provisions

Certain employment-related provisions will also expire, and many pre-TCJA rules will return, generally in 2026, if not extended or modified. The most significant changes are the following:

The Work Opportunity Tax Credit, which provides a credit to employers who hire members of certain groups, such as veterans, recipients of various federal welfare benefit programs, and residents of empowerment zones, would expire;
Employers who pay wages to employees on family and medical leave are generally eligible currently for a credit for a percentage of 12 weeks of paid leave wages—this credit would expire;
The deductibility of employer-provided meal expenses, currently limited to 50 percent of the meal expense, will be eliminated; and
The suspension of the exclusion for employer reimbursements for moving expenses for persons other than certain members of the armed services, will be lifted, at which point taxpayers will be able once again to exclude from income qualifying moving expense reimbursements received from an employer.

C. Various business provisions

Multiple provisions designed to create tax benefits or tax reductions for certain business operations or activities are also amongst the set of expiring or changing provisions. Among the key provisions that will change, generally in 2026, if not extended or modified are the following:

The TCJA introduced the qualified business income deduction for 20% of qualified passthrough income, excluding specified service trade or business income, and ordinary REIT dividends—this deduction would expire, so passthrough income and ordinary REIT dividends will be taxed at ordinary income rates with no deduction;
The TCJA’s bonus depreciation allowance will continue to decline over the next few years: only a 40% immediate deduction in 2025, 20% in 2026, and no bonus depreciation after 2026 (with some exceptions);
The special “opportunity zone” rules—whereby taxpayers could defer capital gains if the gains are reinvested in such an opportunity zone and exclude capital gains income after a 10-year holding period—will expire. Similarly, the empowerment zone program’s tax benefits and the New Markets Tax Credit will also expire.

D. International tax provisions

The TCJA also made some significant revisions to the international and cross-border tax rules, many of which will have changes that will automatically trigger in 2025 or 2026. The most material are:

The “base erosion and anti-abuse tax” (the “BEAT”) minimum tax rate will increase to 12.5% (from 10%) and the calculation of the modified income tax (on which the BEAT minimum tax rate applies) will be adjusted to eliminate the taxpayer’s ability to benefit from certain tax credits;
The deductions applicable to global intangible low-taxed income (“GILTI”) inclusions for corporations will be reduced (resulting in an increase in the amount of tax imposed on such inclusions)—the deductions for most income will drop from 50% to 37.5%;
The deduction on “foreign derived intangible income” (“FDII”) will drop from 37.5% to 21.875%; and
The oft extended “look through” rule (which did not originate in the TCJA) for dividends, interest, rents and royalties received by a controlled foreign corporation from another related controlled foreign corporation is set to expire.

As one can imagine on reading this long list of expiring tax provisions (and not even taking account the many more minor provisions also set to expire or change which are not included above), the likelihood of a new tax bill to address these provisions is high. Given the nature of the Congressional rules around reconciliation and the nature of budget and tax negotiations, attempts to extend many of these provisions would likely involve the addition of new revenue-raising provisions. As such, the prospects of tax reform in 2025 are high. Proskauer closely monitors legislative developments, and additional tax blog posts will be made as specific tax proposals are moved through Congress.

The post Post Election – Expect Tax Legislation appeared first on The National Law Forum.

It Ain’t Over ‘til It’s Over: IRS Reminds Taxpayers That Section 280E Applies to Marijuana Companies Until Rescheduling Becomes Law

National Law Forum — Wed, 03 Jul 2024 13:06:18 +0000

This is a tax blog. Stay with me – it’s short.

While marijuana advocates celebrate the potential rescheduling of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III, the taxman has made clear that marijuana remains a Schedule I substance subject to Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code. For those who aren’t cannabis tax specialists, 280E provides that:

No deduction or credit shall be allowed for any amount paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business if such trade or business (or the activities which comprise such trade or business) consists of trafficking in controlled substances (within the meaning of schedule I and II of the Controlled Substances Act) which is prohibited by Federal law or the law of any State in which such trade or business is conducted.

Marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance and is subject to the limitations of the Internal Revenue Code. As we previously reported, the Justice Department recently published a notice of proposed rulemaking with the Federal Register to initiate a formal rulemaking process to consider rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act. That change would remove marijuana from the purview of 280E.

Predictably, a number of cannabis operators couldn’t help themselves and began filing amended returns seeking to avail themselves of what they apparently felt was a change in the law. The response from the IRS is clear:

Taxpayers seeking a refund of taxes paid related to Internal Revenue Code Section 280E by filing amended returns are not entitled to a refund or payment. Until a final rule is published, marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance and is subject to the limitations of Internal Revenue Code Section 280E.

The reasoning is simple – marijuana is a Schedule I substance until it is not. While there is currently in place a process that could lead to the rescheduling of marijuana, it has not actually been rescheduled.

Cannabis operators can dream of a time when they will not be subject to the ravages of 280E, but for now that remains just out of grasp, albeit tantalizingly close.

As usual, stay tuned to Budding Trends. We’ll be monitoring all the impacts of rescheduling, including tax implications like this one.

Listen to this post

The post It Ain’t Over ‘til It’s Over: IRS Reminds Taxpayers That Section 280E Applies to Marijuana Companies Until Rescheduling Becomes Law appeared first on The National Law Forum.

Supreme Court Rules Against Taxpayers in IRC Section 965 Case

National Law Forum — Tue, 25 Jun 2024 23:00:19 +0000

On June 20, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a 7-2 opinion in Moore v. United States, 602 U.S. __ (2024), ruling in favor of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

Moore concerned whether US Congress and the IRS could tax US shareholders of controlled foreign corporations (CFCs) on those corporations’ earnings even though the earnings were not distributed to the shareholders. The case specifically focused on the so-called “mandatory repatriation tax” under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 965, a one-time tax on certain undistributed income of a CFC that is payable not by the CFC but by its US shareholders. Some viewed the case as hinging upon whether Congress has the power to tax economic gains that have not been “realized.” (i.e., In the case of a house whose value has appreciated from $500,000 to $600,000, the increased value is “realized” only when the house is sold and the additional $100,000 reaches the taxpayer’s coffers.)

However, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, rejected that position on the ground that the mandatory repatriation tax “does tax realized income,” albeit income realized by a CFC. On this basis, they reasoned that the question at issue was whether Congress has the power to attribute realized income of a CFC to (and tax) US shareholders on their respective shares of the undistributed income. This group of justices ultimately decided Congress does have the power.

The majority went out of its way to avoid expressing any opinion as to whether Congress can tax unrealized appreciation, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s concurrence and Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissent asserting that it cannot. Perhaps the Court was signaling a distaste for the Billionaire Minimum Income Tax proposed by US President Joe Biden, which would impose a minimum 20% tax on the total income of the wealthiest American households, including both realized and unrealized amounts, among other Democratic proposals.

Practice Point: We previously noted that certain taxpayers should consider filing protective refund claims contingent on the possibility that Moore would be decided in favor of the taxpayers. In light of the case’s outcome, however, those protective claims are now moot.

The post Supreme Court Rules Against Taxpayers in IRC Section 965 Case appeared first on The National Law Forum.

Protect Yourself: Action Steps Following the Largest-Ever IRS Data Breach

National Law Forum — Sat, 27 Apr 2024 17:00:36 +0000

On January 29, 2024, Charles E. Littlejohn was sentenced to five years in prison for committing one of the largest heists in the history of the federal government. Littlejohn did not steal gold or cash, but rather, confidential data held by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) concerning the United States’ wealthiest individuals and families.

Last week, more than four years after Littlejohn committed his crime, the IRS began notifying affected taxpayers that their personal data had been compromised. If you received a notice from the IRS, it means you are a victim of the data breach and should take proactive steps to protect yourself from fraud.

IN DEPTH

Littlejohn’s crime is the largest known data theft in the history of the IRS. He pulled it off while working for the IRS in 2020, using his access to IRS computer systems to illegally copy tax returns (and documents attached to those tax returns) filed by thousands of the wealthiest individuals in the United States and entities in which they have an interest. Upon obtaining these returns, Littlejohn sent them to ProPublica, an online nonprofit newsroom, which published more than 50 stories using the data.

Under federal law, the IRS was required to notify each taxpayer affected by the data breach “as soon as practicable.” However, the IRS did not send notifications to the affected taxpayers until April 12, 2024 – more than four years after the data breach occurred, and months after Littlejohn’s sentencing hearing.

TAKE ACTION

If you received a letter from the IRS (Letter 6613-A) enclosing a copy of the criminal charges against Littlejohn, it means you were a victim of his illegal actions. To protect yourself from this unprecedented breach of the public trust, we recommend the following actions:

Consider Applying for an Identity Protection PIN. A common crime following data theft involves using a taxpayer’s social security number to file fraudulent tax returns requesting large refunds. An Identity Protection PIN (IP PIN) can help protect you from this scheme. After you obtain an IP PIN, criminals cannot file an income tax return under your name without knowing your identification number, which changes annually. Learn more and apply for an IP PIN here.
Request and Review Your Tax Transcript. The IRS maintains a transcript of all your tax-related matters, including filings, payments, refunds, extensions and official notices. Regularly reviewing your tax transcript (e.g., every six to 12 months) can reveal fraudulent activity while there is still time to take remedial action. Request a copy of your tax transcript here. If you have questions about your transcript or need help obtaining it, we are available to assist you.
Obtain Identity Protection Monitoring Services. Applying for an IP PIN and regularly reviewing your tax transcript will help protect you from tax fraud, but it will not protect you from other criminal activities, such as fraudulent loan applications. To protect yourself from these other risks, you should obtain identity protection monitoring services from a reputable provider.
Evaluate Legal Action. Data breach victims should consider taking legal action against Littlejohn, the IRS and anyone else complicit in his wrongdoing. Justifiably, most victims will not want to suffer the cost, aggravation and publicity of litigation, but for those concerned with the public tax system’s integrity, litigation is an option.

In fact, litigation against the IRS is already underway. On December 13, 2022, Kenneth Griffin, the founder and CEO of Citadel, filed a lawsuit against the IRS in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida after discovering his personal tax information was unlawfully disclosed to ProPublica. In his complaint, Griffin alleges that the IRS willfully failed to establish adequate safeguards over confidential tax return information – notwithstanding repeated warnings from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration and the US Government Accountability Office that the IRS’s existing systems were wholly inadequate. Griffin is seeking an order directing the IRS “to formulate, adopt, and implement a data security plan” to protect taxpayer information.

The future of Griffin’s lawsuit is uncertain. Recently, the judge in his case dismissed one of his two claims and cast doubt on the theories underpinning his remaining claim. It could be years before a final decision is entered.

Although Griffin is leading the charge, joining the fight would bolster his efforts and promote the goal of ensuring the public tax system’s integrity. A final order in Griffin’s case will be appealable to the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. A decision there will be binding on both the IRS and taxpayers who live in Alabama, Florida and Georgia. However, the IRS could also be bound by orders entered by other federal courts arising from lawsuits filed by taxpayers who live elsewhere. Because other courts may disagree with the Eleventh Circuit, taxpayers living in other states could file their own lawsuits against the IRS in case Griffin does not prevail.

Victims of the IRS data breach who are interested in taking legal action should act quickly. Under the Internal Revenue Code, a lawsuit must be filed within two years after the date the taxpayer discovered the data breach.

The post Protect Yourself: Action Steps Following the Largest-Ever IRS Data Breach appeared first on The National Law Forum.

House Passes $78 Billion Tax Bill that Includes Affordable Housing Help

National Law Forum — Mon, 12 Feb 2024 15:00:40 +0000

How long is something called a “crisis” before it just becomes the “new normal?” It is apparent there has been an affordable housing crisis in the United States for decades. One way that the federal government has addressed this is by motivating developers with the 9% Low Income Housing Tax Credit (the “9% LIHTC”) and the 4% Low Income Housing Tax Credit (the “4% LIHTC”) that a developer can receive for building a “qualified low-income building” described under Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”).

These LIHTCs are awarded by a state government (or political subdivision thereof) to eligible participants to offset a portion of their federal tax liability in exchange for the production or preservation of affordable housing. On average, 50% of the total financing for 9% LIHTC projects comes from equity derived from the credit. Many states have used the 9% LIHTC as their primary tool to facilitate the production and rehabilitation of affordable rental housing. However, the 9% LIHTC is incredibly competitive. Each year the federal government allocates 9% LIHTC to each state on the basis of population.

The 4% LIHTC is another viable (and slightly less competitive) option. Currently, the 4% LIHTC is available for acquisition and rehabilitation of existing buildings and for new construction where 50% of the aggregate basis of the land and the building is financed with proceeds of tax-exempt bonds issued pursuant to Section 142(d) of the Code (“Affordable Housing PABs”). Unlike the 9% LIHTC, the amount of 4% LIHTC available is ostensibly unlimited; however, Affordable Housing PABs come with some strings attached, one of which is a Code Section 146 requirement to obtain an allocation of volume cap equal to the higher of the issue price or the par amount of the Affordable Housing PABs issued.

The federal government places a cap on the volume of certain types of tax-exempt private activity bonds, such as Affordable Housing PABs, that each state can issue. This limit is based on the population of the state. Each state has its own procedure for the allocation of and certification as to volume cap. Bonds that are subject to a volume cap limit are generally subject to an overall issuance limit each calendar year within each state. Each year, the IRS publishes a revenue procedure promulgating the volume cap applicable to each state. States then further apportion their allocable volume cap among various issuers and types of tax-exempt bonds that require volume cap within the state. As of March 2, 2023, the volume cap in 18 states and Washington, D.C. was oversubscribed for 2023.[1] Oversubscribed volume cap leads to competition for Affordable Housing PABs, which must be issued to receive the 4% LIHTCs to fund development for affordable housing.

After that primer, these authors can finally cut to the chase![2] On Wednesday, January 31, 2024, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill called the Tax Relief for American Families and Workers Act.

What Would This Legislation Do?

In addition to expanding the child tax credit and loosening restrictions on research and development tax deductions, this new legislation would (1) raise the 9% LIHTC through calendar year 2025 and (2) reduce the amount of Affordable Housing PABs needed for the 4% LIHTC from 50% of a project’s aggregate basis to 30% for a period of time.

For those keeping score at home, that is a 40% reduction in the amount of Affordable Housing PABs needed for the 4% LIHTC! If passed by the Senate, this package would be great news because it would free up bond capacity for more Affordable Housing PABs and for other tax-exempt bonds that require volume cap.[3]

But before you get too excited, note we said for a period of time and the Senate has yet to pass this legislation. How long a period? As drafted, the new legislation provides that the reduction of the Affordable Housing PABs requirement to 30% is applicable to projects, which are financed in part (at least 5% of the aggregate basis of the building and land)[4] by Affordable Housing PABs which have an issue date is in 2024 or 2025. So, the 40% reduction would be much like those endless infomercials we endured during COVID (available for a limited time only!). The reduction would be available from the date that the legislation takes effect for Affordable Housing PABs issued through December 31, 2025 (or for about a year to a year and a half). So, while this is a step in the right direction, this is not a permanent reduction in the amount of Affordable Housing PABs required to obtain the 4% LIHTC.

Recall that Congress has extended programs like this before. For example, the Qualified Zone Academy Bond program was established by the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 in order to promote private-sector investment in primary and secondary public education in areas with scarce public resources. Initially authorized only for 1998 and 1999, the program ended up being extended every two years right up through 2017. These types of extensions would make it a lot harder to plan yearly volume cap requests, but the new legislation is still a positive development.

The public policy and municipal bond sectors think this legislation does have a chance in the Senate, but it will likely take a while. Not surprisingly, Congress has other crises to address beyond affordable housing, including the laddered continuing resolutions funding the government that will expire on March 1and March 8. As Brian Egan, the director of government affairs for the National Association of Bond Lawyers said, this “overwhelming House vote demonstrates a momentum that the deal’s advocates will not want to squander. It also proves that members on both sides of the aisle want to get something done on tax before the end of the 118^th Congress.”

Stay tuned for more on this and our expanding coverage of affordable and workforce housing in the coming weeks!

[1] https://www.novoco.com/notes-from-novogradac/population-figures-increase-multiplier-mean-record-pab-cap-2023-small-state-recipients-largely.

[2] You probably would never want to listen to the authors of this blog post tell any sort of suspenseful story. You would be here for days!

[3] Like the 25% volume cap requirement for qualified carbon dioxide capture facilities. We are all still waiting for that guidance on how to implement those provisions of the Code; we are looking at you Internal Revenue Service.

[4] Note that the new legislation also attempts to provide a transition rule for projects that already have some Affordable Housing PABs issued (but not the full 50% required prior to the enactment of this legislation) by permitting the reduced 30% requirement to be applied if at least 5 percent or more of the aggregate basis of the building and land is financed by Affordable Housing PABs with an issue date in 2024 or 2025. See the H. Rept. 118-353 – TAX RELIEF FOR AMERICAN FAMILIES AND WORKERS ACT OF 2024.

The post House Passes $78 Billion Tax Bill that Includes Affordable Housing Help appeared first on The National Law Forum.

Michigan SALT Workaround Update: Accrual Taxpayers

National Law Forum — Tue, 04 Jan 2022 00:00:12 +0000

As a follow up to our tax advisory issued December 23, 2021, pertaining to Michigan’s new SALT workaround (Michigan Tops the Growing List of States with a SALT Cap Workaround for Pass-Through Entities), we are providing this update to alert accrual-basis taxpayers regarding the Michigan SALT workaround and the deductibility of taxes under section 164.

Section 164(a) of the Internal Revenue Code provides a deduction for state and local income taxes “paid or accrued”. Under normal accrual method accounting rules, taxes may be deducted if both of the following apply:

The all events test has been met (i.e. all events have occurred that fix the fact of liability, and the liability can be determined with reasonable accuracy); and
Economic performance has occurred.

With respect to taxes, economic performance generally occurs when taxes are paid. However, there is an exception to this for recurring items that meet four requirements:

The all-events test is met.
Economic performance occurs by the earlier of:
- 8½ months after the close of the year, or
- The date you file a timely tax return (including extensions) for the year.
The item is recurring in nature and the taxpayer consistently treats similar items as incurred in the tax year in which the all-events test is met, and
Either:
- The item is not material, or
- Accruing the item in the year in which the all-events test is met results in a better match against income from accruing the item in the year of economic performance.

Thus, under normal instances, if payment of tax is made by an accrual-basis taxpayer with a timely filed tax return in the following year and the rest of the elements above are met, state income taxes can be deducted on an entity’s federal return. Applying the normal accrual rules to the Michigan SALT cap workaround without additional authority, a partnership/S corporation that makes an election to be taxed at the passthrough entity level but does not pay such taxes until it files a timely return may still deduct Michigan income taxes if the elements above are met.

There is substantial concern, however, that the IRS may challenge this deduction based on authority issued. In Notice 2020-75, the IRS provided a limited blessing of certain SALT workarounds but focuses on where “specified income tax payments” are made. The notice does not specifically address accrual taxpayers, or whether accrual accounting rules would still apply to such taxes allowing payment in the following year. There are also concerns that the IRS may view passthrough entity taxes paid by accrual taxpayers as not satisfying the accrual accounting rules because of the elective nature of the tax.

Given the lack of certainty in this area, the conservative position for accrual-basis taxpayers should be to pay the passthrough entity tax by December 31, 2021. Payments can be made today on the Michigan Treasury Online system, which also triggers the election for the passthrough entity tax. From communications with the State of Michigan, we expect additional guidance to be issued in January of 2022 for the Michigan SALT workaround, including the release of the election form.

Article By Steven G. Cappellino and Eric M. Nemeth of Varnum LLP

For more articles on SALT, visit the NLR Tax section.

The post Michigan SALT Workaround Update: Accrual Taxpayers appeared first on The National Law Forum.

Incentive Compensation That is Never Subject to Income Tax – Too Good to Be True?

National Law Forum — Mon, 24 Sep 2018 21:05:24 +0000

Clients frequently ask if they can provide incentive compensation to their employees and executives in a manner that gives them flexibility and drives performance, but receives coveted capital gains treatment. This usually sounds too good to be true. In most cases, you can defer or sometimes minimize income tax for employees (retirement plans, deferred compensation arrangements, stock appreciation rights, non-qualified stock options), but there is one tool that enables employees to skip income tax, FICA, and withholding altogether – well-designed and-well managed incentive stock options or “ISOs.”

Incentive stock options – sometimes called statutory options because they are established and governed by Internal Revenue Code 422 – are a kind of stock option that can provide “special” tax treatment to the recipients if certain requirements are satisfied. There are two key differences between incentive stock options and their more common cousin – the non-qualified stock option:

First, executives will not recognize any ordinary income tax at exercise of an ISO (as compared to a non-qualified option – which requires executives to recognize ordinary income on the spread – or difference between the exercise price and the value of the option on the date of exercise – and come up with money to pay their withholding on that amount). This can be a big benefit as long as the exercise does not end up triggering the AMT (which has historically been an issue for many incentive stock option holders, but is less likely now in light of changes made to the AMT by the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act).

What is AMT? At a very high level, the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) is simply an alternative tax structure to the more well-understood and more often used regular income tax method. In order to determine which tax to apply, taxpayers must calculate taxes under the regular income tax method and the alternative minimum tax and then pay whichever amount is greater. This does not come up particularly often for most normal taxpayers, but is relevant for most ISO recipients because the value of the spread at exercise is not taken into account under the regular tax method, but it is considered as a preference item in the AMT method. The larger the spread, the more likely ISOs will trigger the AMT.

Second, if all of the statutory requirements are satisfied, then the gain – the difference between the incentive stock option’s exercise price (generally, the fair market value of the stock on the date of grant) and the amount the holder will receive when she ultimately sells the stock after exercise – will all be taxed at the lower capital gains rate (currently, 15 percent or 20 percent, depending on income level), rather than income tax (the top tax bracket is currently at 37 percent), and no FICA or withholding obligations will apply. That is a tax savings of more than 17 percent!

The flipside is that ISOs are less tax advantageous to employers because, if all goes as planned, they will never be permitted to take a deduction for the compensation. However, because the corporate tax rate was reduced with the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act, some employers are taking a second look at whether to issue ISOs now, considering that the deduction is now less valuable.

To receive this special treatment, the plan document, award agreement, and management of the incentive stock option award must meet certain requirements:

Plan and Award Agreement

Incentive stock options must be issued pursuant to an equity incentive plan.
The plan must provide the number of shares reserved for issuance as ISOs.
The plan must be approved by the company’s shareholders within 12 months before or after it is adopted by the company, and re-approved at least every 10 years thereafter.
The award agreement must provide an exercise price that is no less than the fair market value of the stock underlying the options on the date of grant (100 percent of the fair market value for 10 percent owners). [This will also help with Code Section 409A compliance.]
Each award must have a stated term of no more than 10 years (five years for 10 percent owners).

Eligibility and Operation

ISOs may only be issued to employees – not to consultants or non-employee directors.
ISOs may only be issued by corporations.
No more than $100,000 of ISOs may become exercisable in any given calendar year (based on the fair market value on the grant date). [This seems straightforward until companies add fancy features like accelerated vesting on a change in control event.]
Certain limits on post-termination exercise apply, notably ISOs must be exercised within three months of a standard termination (longer periods apply in the event of death or disability).
After the option is exercised, and stock is actually purchased, the stock must be held until the later of (i) the second anniversary of the grant date or (ii) one year from the exercise date. [This tends to be one of the most difficult requirements to satisfy because many employees want to wait to exercise until a liquidity event – or change in control – but will not satisfy the holding period if they sell their stock shortly after exercise.]

This post was written by Casey K Fleming of Foley & Lardner LLP.

Please find more tax legal news on the National Law Review tax type of law page.

The post Incentive Compensation That is Never Subject to Income Tax – Too Good to Be True? appeared first on The National Law Forum.