Tag: taxpayers

Proposed Disregarded Payment Loss Rules Create Traps for the Unwary

Be wary: The US Department of the Treasury’s proposed disregarded payment loss (DPL) regulations lay surprising new traps for multinational taxpayers – and those ensnared are unlikely to see what’s coming.

Under the proposed regulations, disregarded payments from a foreign disregarded entity to its domestic corporate parent can give rise to a US income inclusion without any offsetting deduction.[1] This phantom income can be substantial and because the inclusion results from payments that are disregarded as a matter of US tax law, it is sure to be an unwelcome surprise for some taxpayers.

Multinational taxpayers with US corporate entities that hold or acquire interests in foreign disregarded entities should understand the proposed regulations, determine their potential exposure, and consider steps to mitigate potential tax liabilities. This article provides a high-level overview of the proposed regulations and reviews the questions that multinational companies should ask themselves before the traps are sprung.

In Depth

The DPL rules are included in proposed regulations that were published on August 7, 2024.[2] The proposed regulations address, among other topics, how the Section 1503(d) dual consolidated loss (DCL) rules apply in the context of Pillar Two taxes. Though the proposed regulations include both DCL and DPL rules and the DPL rules use similar timing and concepts as the DCL rules, the DPL rules operate separately and apply to a different set of circumstances.[3]

While the DCL rules prevent taxpayers from deducting the same loss twice (once in the United States and once in a foreign jurisdiction), the DPL rules target “deduction/no inclusion” (D/NI) outcomes. In a D/NI scenario, a domestic corporation owns a foreign disregarded entity that makes payments to its domestic corporate parent. The payments are regarded for foreign tax purposes and may give rise to a foreign deduction or loss but are disregarded for US tax purposes, so there is no corresponding US income inclusion. Under foreign tax law, the foreign deduction or loss can be used to offset other foreign income and reduce foreign tax.[4]

To prevent D/NI outcomes, the proposed DPL rules identify certain foreign tax losses attributable to disregarded payments and then require the domestic corporate parent to include a corresponding amount of income for US tax purposes. However, the rules are extremely broad and may require US income inclusions where there is no D/NI outcome or potentially when the foreign disregarded entity is not actually in a loss position from a foreign tax perspective.[5]

As explained below, the rules (1) apply only to domestic corporations that are deemed to consent to their application, (2) may require domestic corporations to include a substantial “DPL inclusion amount” as ordinary income with no offsetting deduction, and (3) will require such inclusion whenever one of two triggering events occur, namely, a “foreign use” of the DPL or a failure to satisfy the rules’ certification requirements.

DEEMED CONSENT

The DPL rules apply only to consenting domestic corporations but set a low bar for what this “consent” requires. Essentially, a domestic corporation consents to the rules if it owns a foreign disregarded entity, with the applicability date depending on when the domestic corporation acquired or checked the box on the foreign disregarded entity.

First, a domestic corporation consents to the DPL rules if it directly or indirectly owns interests in a “specified eligible entity”[6] that makes a check-the-box election on or after August 6, 2024, to be a disregarded entity.[7]

Second, a domestic corporate owner is deemed to consent to the DPL rules if, as of August 6, 2025, the entity directly or indirectly owns interests in a disregarded entity and has not otherwise consented to the rules. To avoid such deemed consent with respect to a disregarded entity, the disregarded entity may instead elect to be treated as a corporation prior to August 6, 2025. Of course, the related consequences of such an election can be significant.[8]

THE DPL INCLUSION AMOUNT

Domestic corporations that consent to the rules may be required to include a DPL inclusion amount as income. For a specified eligible entity or foreign branch of a consenting domestic corporation (such specified eligible entity or foreign branch is referred to as a “disregarded payment entity”), the DPL for a given tax year is the disregarded payment entity’s net loss for foreign tax purposes that is composed of certain items of income and deduction that are disregarded for US tax purposes.[9] The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) provides the following example:

[I]f for a foreign taxable year a disregarded payment entity’s only items are a $100x interest deduction and $70x of royalty income, and if each item were disregarded for U.S. tax purposes as a payment between a disregarded entity and its tax owner (but taken into account under foreign law), then the entity would have a $30x disregarded payment loss for the taxable year.

The DPL inclusion amount is the DPL amount reduced by the positive balance of the “DPL cumulative register.” The DPL cumulative register reflects the cumulative amount of disregarded payment income attributable to the disregarded payment entity across multiple years. The NPRM also provides the following example:

[I]f a disregarded payment entity incurs a $100x disregarded payment loss in year 1 and has $80x of disregarded payment income in year 2, only $20x of the disregarded payment loss is likely available under the foreign tax law to be put to a foreign use. As such, if a triggering event occurs at the end of year 2, then the specified domestic owner must include in gross income $20x (rather than the entire $100x of the disregarded payment loss).

Taxpayers who expect to benefit from the DPL cumulative register should keep in mind that the register only reflects disregarded payments that would be interest, royalties, or structured payments if regarded for US tax purposes. It reflects no other disregarded payments, and it reflects no regarded payments of any sort.

Notably, disregarded payment entities “for which the relevant foreign tax law is the same” are generally combined and treated as a single disregarded payment entity for purposes of the DPL rules. As a result, disregarded payments between entities formed in the same foreign jurisdiction generally should not give rise to DPL inclusions. However, this rule applies only where the entities have the same foreign tax year and are owned by the same consenting domestic corporation or by consenting domestic corporations that are members of the same consolidated group. Further, to ensure the items of foreign income and deduction net against one another within the combined disregarded payment entity, taxpayers should analyze the applicable foreign tax rules to confirm that these items accrue in the same foreign taxable year.

THE TRIGGERING EVENTS

Consenting domestic corporations will be forced to include the DPL inclusion amount as ordinary income if one of two triggering events occurs within a certification period. A certification period includes the foreign tax year in which the DPL is incurred, any prior foreign tax year, and the subsequent 60-month period. These certification periods and triggering events are somewhat similar to the ones used in the DCL rules. In the case of the DPL rules, however, there is no ability to make a domestic use election, as for US tax purposes there is no regarded loss that can be used to offset US tax.

The first triggering event is a “foreign use” of the DPL. A foreign use is determined under the principles of the DCL rules. Thus, a foreign use generally occurs when any portion of a deduction taken into account in computing the DPL is made available to offset or reduce income under foreign tax law that is considered under US tax law to be income of a related foreign corporation (and certain other entities in limited circumstances).

The second triggering event occurs if the domestic corporation fails to comply with certification requirements. Specifically, where a consenting domestic corporation’s disregarded entity has incurred a DPL, the domestic corporation must certify annually throughout the certification period that no foreign use of the DPL has occurred.

HYBRID MISMATCH RULES AND PILLAR TWO

The DPL rules provide that if a relevant foreign tax law denies a deduction for an item to prevent a D/NI outcome, the item is not taken into account for purposes of computing DPL or disregarded payment income. These so-called “hybrid mismatch rules” go some way toward softening the headache the DPL rules are likely to cause taxpayers.

However, foreign countries’ adoption of Pillar Two rules will exacerbate their impact. The rules make clear that for purposes of a qualified domestic minimum top-up tax (QDMTT) or income inclusion rule (IIR) top-up tax, foreign use is considered to occur where a portion of the deductions or losses that comprise a DPL is taken into account in determining net Global Anti-Base Erosion Rules income for a QDMTT or IIR or in determining qualification for the Transitional Country-by-Country Safe Harbor.[10] There is also a transition rule providing that, for this purpose, QDMTTs and IIRs are not taken into account for taxable years beginning before August 6, 2024.[11] This means that calendar year taxpayers who have not consented early to the DPL rules generally should not have a DPL inclusion amount in 2024 solely as a result of Pillar Two taxes, but, depending on their facts, could have an inclusion next year if proactive measures are not taken.

NEXT STEPS

Now is the time for multinational taxpayers to evaluate their risk under the DPL rules. Taxpayers with a domestic corporation in their structure should think carefully before making check-the-box elections to treat foreign entities as disregarded entities.[12] Moreover, taxpayers should determine whether their domestic corporations own any foreign disregarded entities or other specified entities that will cause them to be deemed to consent to the rules as of August 6, 2025.

Multinational taxpayers also should determine whether they have disregarded interest payments, structured payments, or royalties that fall under the purview of the rules. If so, they should consider whether they will be able to avoid future triggering events or if “foreign uses” of DPLs will be unavoidable. One should pay particular attention to Pillar Two, including the Transitional Country-by-Country Safe Harbor, when considering whether there could be a foreign use.

Taxpayers who cannot avoid triggering events should consider whether, and when, to take some defensive measures. Such actions might include winding up foreign disregarded entities that could be subject to the rules, eliminating disregarded payments that would result in DPL income inclusions,[13] or taking other restructuring steps (e.g., electing to treat certain foreign disregarded entities as associations, as the Treasury suggests). When determining whether to take defensive actions, taxpayers should consider the impact that DPL inclusions could have on their overall tax profile, including sourcing issues, foreign tax credits, and the Section 163(j) limitation on business interest deductions. In terms of timing, taxpayers also should consider whether they have until August 5, 2025, to unwind any arrangements subject to the DPL rules or whether it may be prudent to unwind any such arrangements before the end of the year.

Finally, taxpayers concerned about these rules should watch for news about whether they will be issued in final form. The results of the 2024 US presidential election call into question whether the proposed rules will be finalized or, conceivably, shelved.[14] These considerations further complicate the question of whether and when multinational taxpayers should act in response to the rules, particularly as the clock continues to tick toward the deemed consent date of August 6, 2025.

Endnotes

[1] The proposed regulations also can apply to payments made by a foreign disregarded entity to other foreign disregarded entities owned by the same domestic corporate parent.

[2] REG-105128-23.

[3] Although not analyzed in detail here, the proposed changes to the DCL rules are also significant and taxpayers should consider their impact.

[4] For example, the foreign deduction or loss can be used through a loss surrender or consolidation regime.

[5] For example, this may occur when a foreign disregarded entity makes a payment that is included in another foreign disregarded entity payee’s income for foreign tax purposes.

[6] A specified eligible entity is an eligible entity that is a foreign tax resident or owned by a domestic corporation that has a foreign branch.

[7] The rules also can apply to an entity that is formed or acquired after August 6, 2024, and classified without an election as a disregarded entity.

[8] For example, Section 367 may apply to a deemed contribution to the newly regarded foreign corporation.

[9] Generally, these are items of income and deduction from certain disregarded interest, royalties, and “structured payments” within the meaning of the Section 267A regulations.

[10] A limited exception is available in certain cases where the Pillar Two duplicate loss arrangement rule applies.

[11] This favorable transition rule is subject to an anti-abuse provision that can prevent it from applying.

[12] Taxpayers also should give careful thought to any internal restructurings involving foreign disregarded entities.

[13] Eliminating these payments may, of course, result in a corresponding increase in foreign tax liability.

[14] Commentators to the proposed regulations also have raised substantive invalidity arguments under the Loper Bright framework.

© 2024 McDermott Will & Emery
For more on the Treasury, visit the NLR Tax section

What Happened: Policy and Politics

Baseline: The future of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), signed in 2022 to boost US clean energy with new tax incentives, hangs in the balance. President-elect Trump and some Republicans in Congress have threatened to repeal all or part of it because they don’t agree with the policy, and they need the revenue savings to offset their 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) extensions. The processing of a tax bill next year provides a rare opening for taxpayers who are dissatisfied with the IRA or with the Biden administration tax regulations which implement the IRA.

Pulse Check: Much depends on whether Republicans gain control of both chambers of Congress, enabling them to tap into the vaunted congressional budget reconciliation process and easing their path to legislative change.

What to Monitor: Expect IRA supporters to spend time educating administration officials and congressional offices about the valuable economic and other benefits provided by these tax provisions, particularly in GOP-represented congressional districts and states. Meanwhile, industries from biofuels to hydropower are lobbying for new tax credits in the 2025 tax bill, aiming to secure a place in the complex tax landscape that lies ahead.

Voters delivered a sweeping victory to Donald Trump on Tuesday, setting him up to be the 47th President, and the first since Grover Cleveland in 1892 to be elected to a second non-consecutive term. After a surprise electoral college victory in 2016 and a narrow defeat in 2020, Trump won an outright majority of the national popular vote, the first Republican to do so since George W. Bush in 2004. While his victory helped propel a pickup of at least four Senate seats, wresting back control of the chamber from Democrats, the fate of the House remains uncertain pending the counting of outstanding California mail ballots that could drag out for a week or more.

The victory was driven by disproportionate gains among key demographics and subgroups that will become clear as the dust settles, but the overall pattern was unmistakable: Trump made significant gains coast-to-coast, in urban, suburban, and rural areas, and among virtually every cohort of the electorate. His improvement in the key battlegrounds was actually dwarfed by his gains in the nation’s bluest states, with double-digit swings in places like New York, Maryland and California. In addition to avenging his 2020 loss, the President-elect can now credibly claim a popular mandate for his policies, and quite possibly the congressional majorities to pursue them legislatively.

The restoration of President-elect Trump represents a return to 2016-17, with many of the same conditions seen seven years ago: the potential for a unified Republican government, and a clear commitment from the new administration to roll back the regulatory agenda of the previous administration and institute “America-first” policies when it comes to energy, immigration and trade. The key difference is that while the outcome of the 2016 election caught even the Trump apparatus flat-footed, preparations for President-elect Trump’s second term have been underway for the past three years. Expect a second Trump administration to be savvier and more focused in carrying out its goals, installing key personnel, and implementing policy.

The expectation is that strong policy decisions are ready for implementation on Inauguration Day through Executive Orders that will clearly lay out the regulatory and policy framework for rescinding and replacing the Biden administration agenda. Examination of the Inflation Reduction Act and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act mechanisms will certainly occur. President-elect Trump has made clear his intentions to leverage American foreign policy through trade and tariffs rather than military means. Particularly in the energy space, President-elect Trump has pledged a return to American energy dominance backed by a foundation and focus on leveraging domestic traditional energy resources. As observed in his first term, separating campaign rhetoric from implanted policy will continue to be a critical exercise. It is a guarantee that President-elect Trump intends to staff up quickly with political loyalists who have experience in navigating the proclivities of both a Trump administration and Washington bureaucracy, one that he has yet again pledged to dismantle.

President-elect Trump re-assumes the White House with a certain Republican majority in the US Senate and a likely slim majority in the US House of Representatives, providing the ability to implement legislative initiatives while ensuring a full swath of Cabinet-level and senior-level appointees. Legislative action will be necessary for targeting provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, and while the notion of full repeal exists in rhetoric, it is more likely that Republicans use a more precise approach, preserving legacy provisions that tend to benefit traditional energy sources and targeting those that are more renewable energy focused. However, the slim majorities in each chamber complicate the full breadth of legislation that Republicans can expect to implement. The focus in the early days of Congress will be on the aforementioned Senate confirmation process and resolutions of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act to repeal Biden administration regulations finalized in the last 60 days of the previous Congress, which are both likely to be comfortable party-aligned exercises. The tools of congressional oversight will be trained on assisting the Trump administration in implementing regulatory changes and building a record toward federal agency reforms – such as permitting, federal workforce, and agency re-organization.

© 2024 Bracewell LLP
For more on the 2024 General Election, visit the NLR Election Law Legislative News section

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

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.

© 2024 McDermott Will & Emery
For more news on the IRS Data Breach, visit the NLR Tax section.

IRS Delays Additional Amendment Deadlines for Major Retirement Legislation

The IRS has extended additional deadlines for required retirement plan amendments, similar to the extensions we discussed last month found here. Notice 2022-45 extends the deadline for amending qualified retirement plans to comply with certain provisions of:

  • The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”)

  • The Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2020 (“Relief Act”)

Notice 2022-45 specifically extends the amendment deadlines for Section 2202 of the CARES Act and Section 302 of the Relief Act. Section 2202 of the CARES Act permitted plans to: (1) provide coronavirus-related distributions, (2) increase retirement plan loan sizes, and (3) pause retirement plan loan payments. Section 302 of the Relief Act permitted qualified disaster distributions.

Notice 2022-45 extends the amendment deadlines relating to the applicable provisions in the CARES and Relief Acts for non-governmental qualified plans and 403(b) plans to December 31, 2025. Governmental plans (including qualified plans, 403(b) plans maintained by public schools, and 457(b) plans) are granted further delays depending on the underlying circumstances of the plan sponsor.  These extended deadlines under Notice 2022-45 align with the previous deadline extensions under Notice 2022-33. Accordingly, most plan sponsors will be able to adopt a single amendment to comply with the SECURE Act, BAMA, the CARES Act, and the Relief Act.

Notably, tax-exempt 457(b) plans do not appear to be covered by the relief granted by either Notice 2022-33 or Notice 2022-45. Accordingly, these plans remain subject to a December 31, 2022, amendment deadline.

Article By Brian T. Gallagher, Samantha A. Kopacz, and Samuel L. Parks of Miller Canfield

For more tax law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone PLC

Tax Deficiencies and Automatic Penalties: Challenging by Reasonable Cause?

HMB Chartered B

Increasingly, taxpayers are seeing the imposition of penalties on deficiency assessments. In fact in a number of situations the imposition of the penalty is automatic upon the issuance of the assessment. The penalties, which may range from 20% to 25% of the liability, are imposed for late payment or underpayment of taxes. Such penalties are generally imposed without taking into consideration the fact there is a lack of guidance or legal authority with respect to the substantive issue which gave rise to the tax underpayment. Absent legal authority or guidance, the taxpayer is left to his own devices to interpret statutory changes or guess at policies when preparing and filing returns. Should the interpretation be inconsistent with that of the taxing authority, the taxpayer is rewarded with a penalty. The imposition of a non-deductible penalty leaves the taxpayer with basically two choices: pay the penalty and move on, or challenge the penalty citing reasonable cause.

A logical person would conclude that if there is no legal authority or guidance addressing the underlying issue, the taxpayer acted reasonably when preparing and filing its return. This is precisely what the New Jersey Supreme Court concluded in United Parcel Services General Services Co. v. Director Division of Taxation. The court noted the absence of legal authority or guidance gives rise to a genuine question of law and fact. A taxpayer who interprets a statute based on his knowledge in light of the lack of legal authority has demonstrated reasonable cause.  The New Jersey Supreme Court’s approach is logical and more importantly fair. Although not precedent outside of New Jersey, one could hope that other Departments review the court’s rationale and re-evaluate their penalty policies particularly in those instances where legal authority or regulatory guidance is nonexistent.

ARTICLE BY

Marilyn A. Wethekam
OF
Horwood Marcus & Berk Chartered

2013 Year-End Planning for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Taxpayers

marcum logo

2013 has been a year of historic change for the LGBT community. The landmark Supreme Court decision in U. S. v. Windsor, decided on June 26, 2013, held that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (defining marriage for federal purposes as being between a man and a woman) violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution and is therefore unconstitutional.

For married same-sex couples living in one of the 14 states (as of this writing) or District of Columbia which recognize same-sex marriages, their marriages are now recognized for both federal and state purposes. Married same-sex couples living in a state that does not recognize same-sex marriages are left with many questions.

Place of Celebration

On August 29, 2013 the IRS released Revenue Ruling 2013-17 clarifying that where a couple was married (place of celebration) rather than where a couple resides (place of domicile) determines a same-sex couple’s marital status for federal tax purposes. A tremendous benefit of this decision is that married same-sex couples can now travel freely across state lines and be considered married in each state for federal tax purposes. This ruling applies to same-sex marriages legally entered into in a US state, the District of Columbia, a US territory or foreign country. The ruling does not apply to civil unions, registered domestic partnerships or similar relationships that might be recognized under state law but do not necessarily guarantee the same protection as marriage.

Impact on Gift and Estate Taxes

Before the Windsor decision, transfers between same-sex married couples could result in significant gift and estate taxes. Now transfers between same-sex spouses can generally be made with no tax consequences. In addition, certain estate provisions such as portability, the marital deduction and qualified terminable interest property (QTIP) trusts are now available to same-sex married couples. Other commonly used estate and gift planning tools for married couples, such as gift splitting and spousal rollover IRA’s, are also now available to a same sex married couple.

If you die in a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, your spouse will not automatically inherit under state spousal rights statutes. Therefore, if the couple intends to inherit from each other, a will or living trust is still needed.

Planning tip: An important part of 2013 year-end planning is to review and update wills and estate documents to make sure to take advantage of the new rules and to properly designate beneficiaries.

Impact on Income Taxes

Many married couples have a lower joint tax liability because of netting income and deductions, eligibility for certain tax credits and income exclusions, or have an increased tax liability due to the marriage penalty tax or because of limitations on deductions based on their combined adjusted gross income. For 2013, LGBT couples considered married under the state of celebration rule will have to file their federal tax return as married filing joint or married filing separate, which may cause a shift in tax planning.

Planning tips: As part of 2013 year-end planning, same-sex couples should work with their tax advisors to determine if original or amended returns, using married filing joint or married filing separate status, should be filed for years open under the statute of limitations. The statute for a refund claim is open for three years from the date the return was filed or two years from the date the tax was paid, whichever is later. Projections should be run to compare the potential benefit or cost of a married-joint filing versus separate-single or head of household filing, as there may be a better tax result to leave the returns as filed and not amend.

In addition, same-sex couples should consider credits that might not have been available as single filers, or consider the traditional year-end planning ideas for married couples mentioned in other sections of this guide.

Impact on Benefits

Before the fall of DOMA, benefits provided to the non-employee same-sex spouse, such as employer provided health insurance, flexible spending plans, etc. were paid with after-tax dollars and the benefit was included in the employee’s taxable income. Now, same-sex couples can pay for these benefits with pre-tax dollars and the coverage will not be included in their taxable income. Employees can file amended returns (for years prior to 2013) excluding those benefits from taxable income and request refunds. Also, employers who paid payroll taxes based on previously taxed health insurance and fringe benefits can also file amended returns (Notice 2013-61 provides guidance to employers for correcting overpayments of employment taxes (FICA) for 2013).

On August 9, 2013, the US Department of Labor (DOL) announced that the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) extends only to same-sex marriage couples who reside in states that recognize same-sex marriage.

On September 18, 2013 the DOL announced (in Technical Release 2013-04) that same-sex couples legally married in a jurisdiction that recognizes their marriage will be treated as married for purposes of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1975 (ERISA) and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). The DOL recognizes the marriage regardless of where the legally married couple currently resides. This announcement covers pensions, 401K’s, and health plans.

The Social Security Administration (SSA) also announced that it will process and pay out spousal retirement claims for same-sex spouses. The SSA urges people who believe they are eligible for benefits to apply as soon as possible in order to establish a protective filing date, which is used to determine the start of potential benefits. Under the SSA’s “Windsor instructions”, claims can be filed when the holder of a social security number was married in a state that permits same-sex marriages and resides in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage at the time of application. Once benefits are approved, the recipient can move to any state without disqualification. Applications that don’t meet these criteria are being held for later processing when further guidance is issued.

Planning tips for employees: Employees in a same-sex marriage should consider amending their tax returns if they were paying for employer-provided benefits to their spouse. Employees in a same sex-marriage should also review the benefits their employer offers to married couples to make sure they are taking full advantage of all benefits. Also, same-sex married couples should provide their Human Resource Department with a copy of their marriage license and confirm that the spouse’s insurance coverage is no longer being included in taxable income and/or that an appropriate adjustment will be made for the 2013 calendar year.

Planning tips for employers: Employers should ensure that their benefits packages are in compliance with the new laws. See Rev. Rul. 2013-61 for guidance on how to correct overpayments of employment taxes for 2013 by either adjusting 4th QTR 2013 Form 941, (correcting the 1st -3rd Quarterly filings) or by filing Form 941-X (correcting all quarters of 2013).

Pre- and Post-Nuptial Agreements

Consider agreements for same-sex couples to avoid disagreements and litigation expenses for future possible divorce. State uncertainty remains.The majority of states currently do not recognize same-sex marriages. There are prominent court cases challenging these state laws, and the resulting impacts on tax and estate planning for same-sex married couples are as yet unknown.

Article by:

Janis Cowhey McDonagh

Of:

Marcum LLP