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)

With the U.S. and world financial markets in turmoil, many individual investors may be watching the value of their stock seesaw, or have seen it plummet in value. If the value of your shares are trading at very low prices, or have no value at all, you may be wondering if you can claim a worthless securities deduction for the stock on your 2008 tax return.

Capital or ordinary loss treatment

When stock you own in a corporation becomes totally worthless during the tax year, you may be able to report a loss in the stock equal to its tax basis. Generally, a worthless stock loss is characterized as a capital loss because securities like stock that become worthless are usually treated as capital assets. When a security that is not a capital asset becomes wholly worthless, the loss is deductible as an ordinary loss. For example, if worthless stock is Code Sec. 1244 stock, ordinary loss treatment applies. Worthless stock is treated as if it was sold on the last day of the tax year.

Note. You may only deduct a loss on worthless securities if the loss is incurred in a trade or business, in a transaction entered into for profit, or as the result of a fire, storm, shipwreck, another casualty, or theft. It is generally assumed that an individual acquires securities for profit (although this assumption may be refuted).

Your stock is trading at $1.08 a share: Is it "worthlessness?"

A worthless stock deduction may only be taken when your securities have become totally worthless. You can not take the deduction for stock that has become only partially worthless. The Internal Revenue Code, however, does not define "worthlessness." Nonetheless, in the IRS's eyes, a company's stock is not going to be automatically considered worthless simply because the stock or security has plummeted in value and is now trading at mere dollars and cents.

With the current market turmoil, many stocks have taken big hits and dropped significantly in value, perhaps even trading for a $1.08 per share, but are nonetheless still alive and trading on an exchange. Therefore, you can not take a worthless stock deduction for a mere decline in value of stock caused by a fluctuation in market price or other similar cause, no matter how steep the decline, if your stock has any recognizable value on the date you claim as the date of loss. Even if a company in which you have stock files for bankruptcy, or lawsuits are filed against it, does not automatically qualify the stock or securities as worthlessness.

More hurdles to overcome

Even if you can establish that the stock you own has become totally worthless, the loss must be (1) evidenced by a closed and completed transaction, (2) fixed by identifiable events and (3) actually sustained during the tax year. First, you may only claim the deduction on your return for the tax year in which the stock has become completely worthless, and you must be able to show that the year in which you are claiming the loss is the appropriate tax year.

Generally, a worthless stock loss deduction can be taken in the year in which you abandon the stock. To abandon a security, you must permanently surrender and relinquish all rights in the security and receive no consideration in exchange for the security. But, whether the transaction qualifies as abandonment, and not an actual sale or exchange, is a facts and circumstances test.

If you would like to know whether the stock or other securities you own have become worthless, please contact our office. We can help you navigate these complex rules.

Move over hybrids - buyers of Volkswagen and Mercedes diesel vehicles now qualify for the valuable alternative motor vehicle tax credit. Previously, the credit had gone only to hybrid vehicles. Now, the IRS has qualified certain VW and Mercedes diesels as "clean" as a hybrid.

Qualifying vehicles

The IRS has designated the following diesel-powered vehicles as advanced lean-burning technology motor vehicles that qualify for the alternative motor vehicle tax credit:

• The 2009 VW Jetta TDI sedan and TDI sportwagen models; and
• The 2009 Mercedes-Benz GL320, R320 and ML320 Bluetec models.

 The credit amounts vary depending on the vehicle's fuel economy. The credit amounts for each vehicle are as follows:

• 2009 VW Jetta TDI sedan and TDI sportwagen: $1,300 credit;
• 2009 Mercedes ML320 Bluetec: $900;
• 2009 Mercedes R320 Bluetec: $1,550; and
• 2009 GL320 Bluetec: $1,800.

VW's diesels went on sale in August, while the Mercedes Bluetec models are expected to go on sale beginning this October.

The alternative motor vehicle tax credit, generally

The alternative motor vehicle tax credit is a lucrative tax credit for purchasers of qualifying automobiles. But, just as the situation is with hybrids, the full amount of the credit for each vehicle is available only during a limited period. The dollar value of the tax credit will begin to be reduced once the manufacturer sells 60,000 vehicles that qualify for the tax credit. Additionally, the credit is available only to the original purchaser of a new, qualifying vehicle. As such individuals who lease the vehicle are not eligible for the credit - the credit is allowed only to the vehicle's owner, such as the leasing company.

Taxpayers may claim the full amount of the allowable credit up to the end of the first calendar quarter after the quarter in which the manufacturer records its sale of the 60,000th advance lean burn technology motor vehicle or hybrid passenger automobile or light truck. For the second and third calendar quarters after the quarter in which the 60,000th vehicle is sold, taxpayers may claim 50 percent of the credit. For the fourth and fifth calendar quarters, taxpayers may claim 25 percent of the credit. No credit is allowed after the fifth quarter.

The credit - as Congress has allotted so far - may only be taken for qualified vehicles purchased before the end of 2010.

To ease the pain of the ever-escalating costs of healthcare, many employers provide certain tax-driven health benefits and plans to their employees. To help employers understand the differences and similarities among three popular medical savings vehicles - health savings accounts (HSAs), flexible spending accounts (FSAs) and health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs) - here's an overview.

Health Savings Accounts (HSAs)

HSAs are relatively new. An HSA is a tax-exempt trust or custodial account that is established exclusively to pay for (or reimburse) the qualified medical expenses of the account holder (typically an employee), a spouse or dependents such as children. Individuals get to take an above-the-line deduction for HSA contributions, while employer contributions to an employee's HSA are neither included in the employee's gross income nor subject to employment taxes. HSA earnings grow tax-free and distributions to pay for qualified medical expenses are also tax-free.

For 2008, a deduction may be taken up to $2,900 by individuals with self-only coverage and $5,800 by individuals with family coverage. And, individuals age 55 or older may make additional "catch-up" contributions to an HSA.

HSA contributions in an account carry over from year to year until the employee uses them. HSAs are also portable, meaning that an employee can take their funds when they leave or change jobs.

To be eligible for an HSA, an individual must generally:

• Have a high deductible health plan (HDHP);
• Have no other health coverage except for certain types of permitted coverage (for example, coverage for accidents, disability, dental and vision care, and long-term care);
• Not be enrolled in Medicare; and
• Not be able to be claimed as a dependent on another person's tax return.

HDHPs feature higher annual deductibles than other traditional health plans. For 2008, the minimum HDHP deductible is $1,100 for self-only coverage, and $2,200 for family coverage. HSA annual contributions, however, are not limited to the annual deductible under an HDHP.

Flexible Spending Arrangements (FSAs)

An FSA is an employer-provided benefit program that reimburses employees for specified expenses as they are incurred. Employees must first incur and substantiate the expense before it is reimbursed by the employer. FSAs are also known as "cafeteria plans" or "Section 125 plans" because they are allowed under Code Sec. 125 of the Internal Revenue Code. An FSA allows employees to contribute before-tax dollars to the account to be used to reimburse health care costs. Employers can also contribute to an employee's FSA. Generally, distributions may only be made to reimburse an employee for qualified medical expenses. They generally cannot be carried forward from year to year; specific "use-it-or-lose-it" rules apply.

Funds set aside in an FSA, typically through a voluntary salary reduction agreement, are not included in an employee's gross income or subject to employment taxes (with an exception for employer contributions used to pay for long-term care insurance). Withdrawals from an FSA are tax-free if used for qualified medical expenses. Employees can also withdraw funds from their account to pay for qualified medical expenses even if they have not yet placed the funds in the FSA.

Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs)

An HRA is a type of FSA in which an employer sets aside funds to reimburse employees for qualified medical expenses up to a maximum dollar amount. Employer HRA contributions are not included in employees' gross income or subject to employment taxes. Additionally, employers get to deduct amounts contributed to employees' HRAs. HRAs can only be established and funded by an employer, and can be offered together with other employer-provided health benefits. Self-employed individuals are not eligible for HRAs.

Generally, there is no limit on the amount an employer can contribute to an employee's HRA, and any unused amounts in an HRA can be carried forward to later years. HRAs, however, are not portable and therefore do not follow employees if they change employment.

Distributions from HRAs can only be used to pay for qualified medical expenses that an employee has incurred on or after the date he or she enrolled in the HRA. If a distribution is made to pay for non-qualified medical expenses, those amounts are included in the employee's gross income. Moreover, distributions made to someone other than the employee, their spouse or dependents are taxable income.

If you need further analysis of which of these health-benefit plans may be right for you, and your employees if applicable, please call us.