Fluent in English, Spanish & Italian | 888-882-9243

call us toll free: 888-8TAXAID

Blog

No FBAR Penalty Exceptions for Voluntary Disclosure and Plea Bargins

What a difference one court case makes. Gone is the believe that it was almost impossible for the IRS to get the BIG FBAR penalty (of half the value of the offshore bank account for each and every unreported year). United States Court Of Appeals for The Fourth Circuit reversed a district court opinion in favor of the taxpayer.

The Government brought its action seeking to enforce civil penalties assessed against J. Bryan Williams for his failure to report his interest in two foreign bank accounts for tax year 2000, in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5314. Following a bench trial, the district court entered judgment in favor of Williams.

The Government appealed. Because the Court of Appeals concluded that the district court clearly erred in finding that the Government failed to prove that Williams willfully violated § 5314, it reversed the non-guilty verdict.

The key evidence is the CPA’s tax organizer and the plea bargain statement.

Relevant to this appeal, Williams completed a “tax organizer” in January 2001, which had been provided to him by his accountant in connection with the preparation of his 2000 federal tax return. In response to the question in the tax organizer regarding whether Williams had “an interest in or a signature or other authority over a bank account, or other financial account in a foreign country,” Williams answered “No.” J.A. 111.

Thus, we are convinced that, at a minimum, Williams’s undisputed actions establish reckless conduct, which satisfies the proof requirement under § 5314. Safeco Ins., 551 U.S. at 57. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court clearly erred in finding that willfulness had not been established.

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand this case for proceedings consistent with this opinion. REVERSED

If you have Unreported Bank Accounts, call the lawyers  at Marini & Associates, P.A. for a FREE Tax Consultation at www.TaxAid.us or www.TaxLaw.ms or Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888 882-9243).

For more on this go to: 4th DCA Reverses DC - Intent to Evade Taxes Does Not Makes sequent Violations of FBAR Rules Willful - Willful Blindness Does. United States v. J.Bryan Williams; No. 10-2230

Read more at: Tax Times blog

House Passes a Blueprint for Tax Reform – Top Rate 25%

The House of Representatives, on August 2, approved H.R. 6169, the Republican-backed “Pathway to Job Creation througha Simpler, Fairer Tax Code Act of 2012.”

The bill would provide expedited procedures to enable lawmakers in both the House and Senate to overcome technical hurdles that might cause a “comprehensive tax reform” bill to languish during the legislative process.
Comprehensive tax reform would be defined as a bill that:
(1) consolidates the current six individual income tax brackets into not more than two brackets of 10% and not more than 25%;
(2) reduces the corporate tax rate to not greater than 25%;
(3) repeals the alternative minimum tax;
(4) broadens the tax base to maintain revenue between 18% and 19% of the economy; and
(5) changes from a worldwide to a territorial system of taxation.

In the House, the bill would provide that if the Rules Committee fails to provide for consideration of an applicable tax reform bill within 15 days after the Ways and Means Committee reports the tax reform bill, a process for floor consideration of the bill, similar to an open rule, will automatically be put in place. In the Senate, the bill would provide that any applicable tax reform bill would not be subject to a cloture vote on a Motion to Proceed or on individual amendments. A cloture vote may still be required to end consideration of the bill. The expedited procedures also require that amendments be relevant to the underlying bill.
If you need Tax Planning Advise, contact the Tax Lawyers at Marini & Associates, P.A. for a FREE Tax Consultation at www.TaxAid.us or www.TaxLaw.ms or Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888 882-9243).

Read more at: Tax Times blog

Father’s Transfer of Business to Children Through Gifts of Stock Followed by Redemption of Father’s Shares is Approved by IRS.

PrivateLetter Ruling 201228012 - The IRS issued a private letter ruling allowing a father to transfer his corporate business to his two children through the use of gifts and stock redemption. This transaction results in favorable tax consequences to the father, his children and the corporation.

The facts of this ruling are: A father owns all of the outstanding stock of a C corporation which has earnings and profits. The father is a director and president of the corporation and his two children are also directors of the corporation.
The father wants to retire and cede management and control of the corporation to his two children. In order to accomplish this, he devises a plan to gift some of his shares of stock in the corporation to each of his two children and then immediately thereafter have the corporation redeem his remaining shares of stock for cash and a promissory note for the total redemption price, as determined by a third-party appraisal. The promissory note is payable by the corporation over a period of time in monthly installments of principal and interest at the applicable federal rate.

The father made the following representations to the IRS:
  • The promissory note will not be subordinated to the claims of general creditors of the corporation.
  • The stock redemption price is not contingent on future earnings of the corporation, nor is it contingent on working capital being maintained at a certain level.
  • In the event of a default on the promissory note, no shares of the corporation will revert to or be received by the father or any entity related to him, nor will the father or any entity related to him be permitted to purchase the stock at public or private sale.
  • No shareholder of the corporation has been or will be obligated to purchase any of father’s shares of stock to be redeemed.
  • The redemption is related to the gifts of shares to the children.
  • None of the shares to be redeemed was acquired by father within the 10-year period from a family member whose stock would be attributed to father under the family stock attribution rules.
  • After the redemption, father will not have any interest in the corporation (including an interest as officer, director or employee), other than an interest as a creditor.
  • Father will execute and file the agreement and information required to be filed with the IRS.
  • Father will not hold any obligation of the corporation except for the promissory note.
  • Father will not enter into any contract or agreement, or have any other business relationship with the corporation.
  • The stock redeemed from father is not Section 306 stock. 
Based on this information, the IRS issued the following rulings:
  • The proposed gifts of shares by the father to his children do not have as one of their principal purposes the avoidance of federal income tax.
  • Provided that father files the required agreement with the IRS, referenced above, in accordance with the Tax Regulations and assuming that the conditions stated in the Tax Code (which were included in the representations made by father to IRS) are satisfied, the stock redemption will qualify as a complete termination of father’s interest in the corporation and will be treated as a sale of father’s stock to the corporation. This would result in gain recognition by father measured by the difference between the stock redemption price and the father’s tax basis in the shares redeemed. Such gain will be capital gain provided that the stock is a capital asset to father.
  • Father may report the gain on the redemption of his stock using the installment method of accounting.
  • The corporation will not recognize gain or loss on the distribution of the promissory note in redemption of father’s stock.
  • Provided that the stock redemption is not performed in satisfaction of a primary and unconditional obligation of either of father’s two children to acquire the stock of the corporation held by father, the redemption will not cause any dividend income to be constructively received by the children.
  • The interest paid by the corporation on the promissory note is deductible, subject to any applicable restrictions.
  • There is no imputed interest with respect to the promissory note.
While the above-referenced ruling is not binding authority, it is encouraging to note that the IRS did not treat the father’s gifts of his shares to his children immediately prior to the stock redemption transaction as having tax avoidance as one of its principal purposes. Otherwise, the stock redemption would not have qualified as a sale of father’s stock in the corporation and, instead, would have been taxed as a dividend to father to the extent of the corporation’s earnings and profits, without reduction for his basis in the stock.
The IRS viewed the father’s gifts of his shares to his children as part of an integrated plan to facilitate the father’s retirement from the business and allow him to cede management and control of the corporation to his children which the IRS apparently agreed was undertaken for proper business purpose.

Although this transaction could have been structured as a stock sale and achieved capital gain treatment, structuring this transaction as a stock redemption allows the corporation’s earnings and profits to be used to fund the stock redemption payments to father without creating any taxable dividends to the father or to the children.

If you desire to Transfer Your Business to your Children, contact the Tax Lawyers at Marini & Associates, P.A. for a FREE Tax Consultation at www.TaxAid.us or www.TaxLaw.ms or Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888 882-9243).

Read more at: Tax Times blog

Tax Developments in the Second Quarter of 2012

This letter highlights some of the more important tax developments that have come out during the previous hitsecondnext hit three months of 2012. Most are documents from the Internal Revenue Service, but some are important cases and legislative changes you might want to be aware of for you or your business.

Individual Mandate to Buy Health Insurance: In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, , No. 11-393 (U.S. 6/28/12), the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 opinion, upholds the individual mandate under Affordable Care Act (ACA) as within Congress's taxing power, stating that the ACA's “requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax.”

Pension Smoothing: As part of the highway funding bill (MAP-21), effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 2011, the Act amends §430(h) to revise rules for determining the segment rates under single-employer plan funding rules by adjusting a segment rate if the rate determined under the regular rules is outside a specified range of the average of the segment rates for the preceding 25-year period (“average” segment rates). The Act also requires additional information to be included in the annual funding notice that defined benefit plans must provide to participants and beneficiaries, labor organizations representing such participants or beneficiaries, and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

S Corporation Shareholder Basis: In Maguire v. Comr., T.C. Memo 2012-160 (6/6/12), the U.S. Tax Court held that shareholders in two related S corporations are not prohibited from receiving a distribution of assets from one of their S corporations and then contributing those assets to another of their S corporations in order to increase their bases in the latter to absorb losses otherwise unavailable due to the basis limitation of §1366(d)(1). The fact that the two S corporations had a synergistic business relationship and were owned by the same shareholders did not preclude this result because the distributions and contributions actually occurred. Shortly thereafter, the IRS issued Prop. Regs. §1.1366-2, REG-134042-07, 77 Fed. Reg. 34884 (6/11/12), which would clarify the requirements for increasing basis of indebtedness and to assist S corporation shareholders in determining with greater certainty whether their particular arrangement creates basis of indebtedness. The IRS explained that the proposed regulations would require that loan transactions represent bona fide indebtedness of the S corporation to the shareholder in order to increase basis of indebtedness; therefore, an S corporation shareholder would need not otherwise satisfy the “actual economic outlay” doctrine for purposes of §1366(d)(1)(B). According to the IRS, the proposed regulations' key requirement would be that purported indebtedness of the S corporation to a shareholder must be bona fide indebtedness to the shareholder.

COD Income Under §108: In Rev. Rul. 2012-14, 2012-24 I.R.B. 1012, the IRS ruled that to measure a partner's insolvency under §108(d)(3), each partner treats as a liability the amount of the partnership's discharged excess nonrecourse debt based on allocation of cancellation of indebtedness income to the partner under §704(b).

Earnings and Profits: In REG-141268-11, 77 Fed. Reg. 22515 (4/16/12), the IRS issued proposed regulations under §312 regarding allocation of earnings and profits in tax-free transfers from one corporation to another. The proposed regulations would clarify that, except as provided in Regs. §1.312-10, if property is transferred from one corporation to another and no gain or loss is recognized, no allocation of the earnings and profits of the transferor is made to the transferee unless the transfer is described in §381(a).

Deferral of Losses on Sale or Exchange of Property Between Controlled Group: In T.D. 9583, 77 Fed. Reg. 22480 (4/16/12), the IRS issued final regulations that provide that to the extent a selling member's loss would be redetermined to be a noncapital, nondeductible amount under Regs. §1.1502-13, but is not redetermined under Regs. §1.267(f)-1(c)(2) (which generally renders the attribute redetermination rule inapplicable to sales between members of a controlled group), the selling member's loss continues to be deferred.

UNICAP Avoided Cost Rule: The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, in Dominion Resources Inc. v. U.S., No. 2011-5087 (Fed. Cir. 5/31/12), held that the associated property rule laid out in Regs. §1.263A-11(e)(1)(ii)(B), as applied to property temporarily withdrawn from service, is not reasonable interpretation of the avoided cost rule in §263A. At issue in the case was the amount of interest Dominion Resources must capitalize, rather than deduct, from its taxable income as a result of burner improvements in its power plants.

Defense of Marriage Act Held Unconstitutional: The First Circuit Court of Appeals, in (Massachusetts v. HHS, No. 10-2204 (1st Cir. 5/31/12), held that the Defense of Marriage Act, 1 USC §7, is unconstitutional, that provisions in the Act, which deny numerous benefits, including tax benefits, to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts, impermissibly undercut choices made by same-sex couples and states in deciding who can be married to whom. However, the court stayed enforcement of the decision until the Supreme Court has the opportunity to issue its own ruling on the case, citing the likely appeal of the First Circuit's holding.

Deduction for Local Lodging Expenses: The IRS issued proposed regulations, REG-137589-07, 77 Fed. Reg. 24657 (4/25/12), that would allow taxpayers to deduct local lodging expenses as ordinary and necessary business expenses in appropriate circumstances. The proposed regulations would not apply Regs. §1.262-1(b)(5) to expenses for local lodging of an employee that an employer provides to the employee or requires the employee to obtain, if: (1) the lodging is provided on a temporary basis; (2) the lodging is necessary for the employee to participate in or be available for a bona fide business meeting or function of the employer; and (3) the expenses are otherwise deductible by the employee, or would be deductible if paid by the employee, under §162(a).

Overstatement of Basis for Extended Statute of Limitations: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in (U.S. v. Home Concrete & Supply LLC, No. 11-139 (U.S. 4/25/12), that the extended six-year statute of limitations period in §6501(e) does not apply to overstatement of basis as an overstatement of basis is not an omission from gross income. The Court's ruling decides a circuit split in favor of the Fourth and Fifth Circuits versus the Seventh, Federal, D.C., and Tenth Circuits, which all held that an overstatement of basis is an omission of gross income triggering the extended six-year statute of limitations.

Reporting of Interest Paid to Foreigners: While reporting of interest to foreigners is controversial enough in its own right, final regulations (T.D. 9584, 77 Fed. Reg. 23391 (4/19/12)) are particularly notable in that the regulations will provide the IRS with information that can be exchanged with foreign authorities under information exchange arrangements to help the IRS under FATCA. The final rules ostensibly have been “simplified,” by requiring reporting only when interest is paid to a resident of a country with which the United States has an information sharing agreement; this in effect requires financial institutions to parse their customer base to identify customers to get reports and customers who don't need reports.

Draft Forms W-8: The IRS released draft Forms W-8 to comply with new FATCA requirements. Separate versions of Form W-8BEN are proposed for individuals (draft W-8BEN) and entities (draft W-8BEN-E), the latter of which is now six pages long instead of one. The forms can be found in the lower right corner of this URL: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/corporations/article/0,,id=236667,00.html

Inversions: The IRS, in T.D. 9592, 77 Fed. Reg. 34785 (6/12/12), and REG-107889-12, 77 Fed. Reg. 34887 (6/12/12), finalized and proposed regulations governing inversions. The most controversial provision is one that defines a “substantial business” in a foreign country by objective tests looking at whether 25% of assets, payroll and income are earned in a country. Since passing this test excuses a foreign company from the inversion rules, this is an important test.

Program-Related Investments of Private Foundations: The IRS issues proposed rules (REG-144267-11, 77 Fed. Reg. 23429 (4/19/12)) providing guidance to private foundations on program-related investments. The proposed regulations provide a series of new examples illustrating investments that qualify as program-related investments and do not modify existing regulations. Instead, they provide additional examples that illustrate the application of the existing regulations, IRS said. The charitable activities illustrated in the new examples are based on published guidance and on financial structures described in private letter rulings, IRS said. Aside from private foundations, the proposed regulations affect foundation managers participating in the making of program-related investments.

Delay in Basis Reporting of Debt Instruments: The IRS, in Notice 2012-34, 2012-21 I.R.B. 937, in response to concerns about approaching deadlines, states that brokers will have until 2014 to begin basis reporting on debt instruments and options. The change is in response to worries voiced by brokers and other interested parties who complained to the IRS that the proposed effective date of Jan. 1, 2013, did not give them enough time to build and test the systems required to implement the reporting for debt instruments and options. The Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 amended the broker reporting rules in §6045 for certain securities, including debt instruments and options.

Proving IRS Deficiency Notices: The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, in Welch v. U.S., No. 2011-5090 (Fed. Cir. 5/18/12), lays out a test for determining whether evidence submitted by the IRS is sufficient to demonstrate the mailing of a deficiency notice. “Use of the form prescribed in the Internal Revenue Manual for establishing compliance with the notice of deficiency mailing requirement — PS Form 3877 — is not a prerequisite to the government demonstrating mailing of a notice of deficiency, but some corroborating evidence of both the existence and timely mailing of the notice of deficiency is required,” explained the Federal Circuit

First-Time Homebuyer Credit: The U.S. Tax Court, in a case of first impression (Trugman v. Comr., 138 T.C. No. 22 (5/21/12)), holds that an individual may not claim the First-Time Homebuyer Credit for a principal residence purchased through a Subchapter S corporation. The court examined the term “individual” within the context of §36, and “read the term ‘individual' in section 36 to exclude S corporations.” The court stated “S corporations are not individuals for purposes of section 36” and the corporations remain freestanding entities “independently recognizable” from their shareholders.

Substantial Risk of Forfeiture: The IRS, in REG-141075-09, 77 Fed. Reg. 31783 (5/30/12), addresses points of confusion surrounding the “substantial risk of forfeiture” provision under §83. The proposed rules would, among other clarifications, provide that a such a risk can be established only through a service condition, or a condition related to the purpose of the transfer. The general concept of the provision is that property (such as stock options) is not to be included in the gross income of a service provider (such as an employee) if there is a risk that the conditions on which the property transfer are based could fail to materialize and the property thus forfeited.

Health FSA Salary Reduction Limits: The IRS, in Notice 2012-40, 2012-26 I.R.B. 1046, stated that the $2,500 limit on salary reduction contributions to health flexible spending arrangements set by a provision of the 2010 federal health care law does not apply for plan years starting before 2013. Notice 2012-40 fleshes out the details of the $2,500 cap on salary reduction contributions to cafeteria plan health FSAs under §125(i). The notice defines the term “taxable year” under §125(i) as the plan year of a cafeteria plan, a clarification that employers sponsoring plans with fiscal years not lining up with the calendar year have been anxiously awaiting.

Fee for Renewing PTIN: The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held, in Brannen v. U.S., No. 11-14138 (11th Cir. 6/7/12), that the Treasury Department has the statutory authority to charge fees for issuing and renewing preparer tax identification numbers.

Portability of Deceased Spousal Unused Exclusion Amount: The IRS issued temporary and proposed regulations (T.D. 9593, 77 Fed. Reg. 36150 (6/18/12); REG-141832-11, 77 Fed. Reg. 36229 (6/18/12)) providing guidance on the estate and gift tax applicable exclusion amount and the applicable requirements for electing portability of a deceased spousal unused exclusion (DSUE) amount to the surviving spouse. The temporary rules also provide guidance on the applicable rules for the surviving spouse's use of the DSUE amount. The portability rules affect married spouses where the death of the first spouse occurs on or after Jan. 1, 2011.

If you have any concerns about how any of these new development would affect you, contact the Tax Lawyers at Marini & Associates, P.A. for a FREE Tax Consultation at www.TaxAid.us or www.TaxLaw.ms or Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888 882-9243).
Source BNA

Read more at: Tax Times blog

Live Help