The IRS has announced a significant increase in enforcement actions for syndicated conservation easement transactions. This is a "priority compliance area" for the agency.

The IRS has announced a significant increase in enforcement actions for syndicated conservation easement transactions. This is a "priority compliance area" for the agency.

Throughout the IRS, coordinated examinations are being conducted in the Small Business and Self-Employed (SB/SE) Division, Large Business and International (LB&I) Division, and Tax Exempt and Government Entities (TE/GE) Division. The IRS Criminal Investigation (CI) Division has also been initiating investigations. The audits and investigations cover billions of dollars of potentially inflated deductions, as well as hundreds of partnerships and thousands of investors.

"We will not stop in our pursuit of everyone involved in the creation, marketing, promotion and wrongful acquisition of artificial, highly inflated deductions based on these aggressive transactions. Every available enforcement option will be considered, including civil penalties and, where appropriate, criminal investigations that could lead to a criminal prosecution," said IRS Commissioner Charles "Chuck" Rettig. "Our innovation labs are continually developing new, more extensive enforcement tools that employ advanced techniques. If you engaged in any questionable syndicated conservation easement transaction, you should immediately consult an independent, competent tax advisor to consider your best available options. It is always worthwhile to take advantage of various methods of getting back into compliance by correcting your tax returns before you hear from the IRS. Our continued use of ever-changing technologies would suggest that waiting is not a viable option for most taxpayers," he added.

Syndicated Conservation Easements

The IRS issued Notice 2017-10, I.R.B. 2017-4, 544, in 2016, which designated certain syndicated conservation easements as listed transactions. In these types of transactions, investors in pass-through entities receive promotional material which offer the possibility of a charitable contribution deduction worth at least two-and-a-half times their investment. The deduction taken in many transactions has been significantly higher than 250 percent of the investment.

Syndicated conservation easements were included on the IRS’s 2019 "Dirty Dozen" list of tax scams to avoid.

Not only do these transactions grossly overstate the value of the easement that was purportedly donated to charity, they often also fail to comply with the basic requirements for claiming a charitable deduction for a donated easement.

Taxpayers may avoid the imposition of penalties for improper contribution deductions if they fully remove the improper contribution and related tax benefits from their returns by timely filing a qualified amended return or timely administrative adjustment request.

Enforcement Actions

The IRS has prevailed in many cases involving the charitable deduction basic requirements, and has established a body of law that it believes supports disallowance of the deduction in a significant number of pending conservation easement cases. The IRS will soon be moving the Tax Court to invalidate the claimed deductions in all cases where the transactions fail to comply with the basic requirements, leaving only the final penalty amount to be determined.

In addition to auditing participants in syndicated conservation easement transactions, the IRS is pursuing investigations of promoters, appraisers, tax return preparers and others, and is evaluating numerous referrals of practitioners to the IRS Office of Professional Responsibility. The IRS will develop and assert all appropriate penalties, including:

• penalties for participants (40 percent accuracy-related penalty);
• penalties for appraisers (penalty for substantial and gross valuation misstatements attributable to incorrect appraisals);
• penalties for promoters, material advisors, and accommodating entities (penalty for promoting abusive tax shelters, and penalty for aiding and abetting understatement of tax liability); and
• penalties for return preparers (penalty for understatement of taxpayer’s liability by a tax return preparer).

Rettig, Desmond Highlight Heightened Focus

Rettig and IRS Chief Counsel Michael J. Desmond have each highlighted the IRS’s heightened, agency-wide focus on syndicated conservations easements.

While speaking at the American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) 2019 National Tax Conference in Washington, D.C., Rettig and Desmond both separately underscored the IRS’s increased enforcement efforts toward abuses of certain tax-advantaged land transactions under Code Sec. 170(h).

"We appreciate the value of conservation easements," Rettig said. "We do not appreciate the activities that have gone on with respect to the syndicated conservation easements—there are some artificial appraisals there… some fatal flaws."

Reiterating the IRS’s tough stance on the matter, Rettig said that the IRS is not going to "stand down." The information in IR-2019-182 issued on November 12 was "fair warning," Rettig said.

Likewise, Desmond stressed that the challenges surrounding syndicated conservation easements are an "institutional concern" for the IRS, "one that we will be responding to," he emphasized.

Treasury and the IRS are expected to release proposed rules in "early 2020" that would clarify certain limitations on the carried interest tax break, according to David Kautter, Treasury’s assistant secretary for tax policy. Kautter briefly addressed the proposed regulations’ timeline while speaking at the American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) 2019 National Tax Conference in Washington, D.C.

Treasury and the IRS are expected to release proposed rules in "early 2020" that would clarify certain limitations on the carried interest tax break, according to David Kautter, Treasury’s assistant secretary for tax policy. Kautter briefly addressed the proposed regulations’ timeline while speaking at the American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) 2019 National Tax Conference in Washington, D.C.

Carried Interest Limitation

The forthcoming regulations are expected to restrict S corporations from taking advantage of a carried interest exemption provision under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97). The TCJA requires certain money managers to hold investments for at least three years before becoming eligible for the lower, 20 percent capital gains rate. However, it exempted corporations from this holding period, which Treasury and many lawmakers on Capitol Hill say resulted in an unintended "loophole."

The proposed regulations are expected to clarify the law’s intent that S corporations are subject to the three-year holding period for carried interest, according to Treasury’s last press release on the matter issued in March 2018 (see "Treasury, IRS Issue Guidance On Carried Interest," at https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm0302).

Legal Questions May Arise

Most notably, however, the TCJA does not expressly contain this limitation on S-corporations, which has left some on Capitol Hill questioning Treasury and the IRS’s authority to implement such a restriction via regulations. The IRS on November 15 directed Wolters Kluwer to Treasury for confirmation on this anticipated rule and projected timeline. As of press time, Treasury had not responded to Wolters Kluwer’s request for comment.

Hopes for a year-end tax extenders package appear to be dwindling on Capitol Hill.

Hopes for a year-end tax extenders package appear to be dwindling on Capitol Hill.

Tax Extenders Need a Legislative Vehicle

Over 30 expired or soon-to-be expired tax breaks known as tax extenders were originally considered a top contender for hitching a ride on a larger, must-pass government funding bill. Considering the lack of time left on the legislative calendar this year, a stand-alone tax bill has been considered an unlikely initiative. Thus, a must-pass appropriations bill was seen by several lawmakers as the likely legislative vehicle for tax extenders and other tax items such as technical corrections to Republicans’ 2017 tax reform law.

However, a spokesperson for Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, confirmed to Wolters Kluwer on October 28 that Grassley believes there is "no hope" for action this year on a tax extenders package if lawmakers do not move quickly with respect to its legislative driver. Many within the practitioner community following these developments have said that the chances of providing taxpayers with certain tax breaks retroactively significantly decrease if Congress moves into next year leaving them expired.

Another Stopgap Spending Bill Appears Likely

Currently, the federal government is operating on a stopgap spending bill temporarily extending fiscal year (FY) 2019 funding levels through November 21. Previously, several lawmakers, in particular Grassley, had hoped that a tax extenders package would be attached to a larger, more comprehensive appropriations bill next month. However, Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Richard Shelby, R-Ala., told reporters that another short-term stopgap spending bill is the more likely option to keep the government open after November 21. "Unless a miracle happens around here with the House and Senate, we will have to put forth another [continuing resolution] CR," Shelby told reporters.

Notably, another short-term government funding bill is considered unlikely to have any policy riders. Generally, stop gap spending bills are usually considered "clean," for the most part. Also playing a role in tax extenders’ fate is whether President Trump would sign a more comprehensive appropriations bill. At this time, his support for a larger FY 2020 funding bill, apart from tax policy reasons, remains unclear.

Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and other top Senate tax writers are calling for Senate action on the bipartisan Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Secure bill (HR 1994) (SECURE Act). The House-approved, bipartisan retirement savings bill has remained stalled in the Senate since May.

Senate Finance Committee (SFC) Chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and other top Senate tax writers are calling for Senate action on the bipartisan Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Secure bill (HR 1994) (SECURE Act). The House-approved, bipartisan retirement savings bill has remained stalled in the Senate since May.

SECURE Act’s Route to Senate Floor Remains Unclear

Grassley’s communications director Michael Zona told Wolters Kluwer on October 21 that it remains "unclear at this point" whether the SECURE Act will move through committee, reach the Senate floor by unanimous consent, or be attached to a larger, year-end tax package. "Grassley supports the House-passed SECURE Act. There are several holds on the bill, and he is working to get them lifted," Zona said.

The SECURE Act cleared the House on May 23 by a 417-to-3 vote. The bipartisan measure, which proposes sweeping changes to retirement savings tax policy, was originally expected to quickly clear the Senate after its approval in the House. However, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex., blocked the bill from reaching the Senate floor. Cruz blocked the bill in protest of House Democrats’ 11th hour-removal of a provision from the original bill that would have expanded tax-advantaged Section 529 education savings plans to include homeschooling and certain elementary and secondary expenses. Cruz and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., are reportedly still holding up the measure from reaching the Senate floor.

Catch-All Tax Package

However, the SECURE Act, among other bipartisan tax-related items including tax extenders, could be attached to a catch-all tax package that is expected on Capitol Hill to hitch a ride on a year-end government funding bill. A "must-pass" appropriations bill, like the one currently being negotiated to keep the government open after funding expires on November 21, could serve as the tax package’s legislative vehicle, thus fast tracking its approval.

"As the economy continues to change, the way we approach retirement savings must change as well. Otherwise, too many Americans will be left behind," Grassley said on October 21, noting that the SECURE Act is under "active consideration."

Similar to Grassley’s push, Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., led a letter sent to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., urging immediate Senate consideration of the SECURE Act. "This bipartisan legislation would expand access to retirement plans for millions of Americans, allow older workers and retirees to contribute more to their retirement accounts, increase 401(k) coverage to part-time employees, prevent as many as 4 million people in private-sector pension plans from losing future benefits, protect 1,400 religiously affiliated organizations whose access to their defined contribution retirement plans is in jeopardy, and do the right thing for Gold Star families," according to Scott.

The Senate blocked a Democratic resolution on October 23 to overturn Treasury rules preventing certain workarounds to the $10,000 state and local tax (SALT) federal deduction cap.

The Senate blocked a Democratic resolution on October 23 to overturn Treasury rules preventing certain workarounds to the $10,000 state and local tax (SALT) federal deduction cap.

SALT Cap Workaround

Senate Democrats’ resolution, S.J. Res. 50, forced a vote on Wednesday to nullify Treasury regulations that block taxpayers from circumventing the SALT cap through certain states’ programs that convert state and local taxes into fully deductible charitable contributions. The resolution failed by a largely party-line vote of 43-to-52.

Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., voted against the Democratic measure while Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., supported it. While the resolution would not repeal the SALT cap itself, House Democrats are reportedly crafting legislation to do so. Democrats and some Republicans, particularly from high-tax states, have criticized the SALT cap since its enactment in 2017 under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97).

Debate on SALT Cap, Treasury Rules

"Without any clear authority to do so, the Treasury Department reversed a long-standing IRS position that had allowed taxpayers a full deduction for charitable contributions to state tax credit programs," Senate Finance Committee (SFC) ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said on the Senate floor before the vote. "My view is the Treasury Department should not be putting its thumb on the scale on behalf of Republican interests, and it shouldn’t be using phony regulatory justifications to fix Republicans’ extraordinarily poorly drafted law."

However, several Republicans cited to a recent report from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), which estimated that repealing the SALT cap beginning in 2019 would result in over $40 billion of the associated tax cut going to taxpayers with incomes of at least $1 million ( JCX-35-19).

"It’s bad enough that my Democratic colleagues want to unwind tax reform, but it’s downright comical that their top priority is helping wealthy people in blue states find loopholes to pay even less," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said from the Senate floor on October 23. "Repealing the SALT cap would give millionaires an average tax cut of $60,000. Meanwhile, the average tax cut for taxpayers earning between $50,000 and $100,000 would be less than ten dollars."

Vaping Tax

In other news, the House Ways and Means Committee approved a bipartisan vaping tax bill, ( HR 4742), on October 23 by a 24-to-15 vote. The bill would establish a $27.81 tax per gram of nicotine used in vaping devices.

Treasury and the IRS on October 31 announced the release of a new, draft form implementing certain reporting requirements under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Opportunity Zone program.

Treasury and the IRS on October 31 announced the release of a new, draft form implementing certain reporting requirements under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Opportunity Zone program.

The proposed Form 8996 for Qualified Opportunity Funds (QOFs) comes after numerous calls on Capitol Hill for more transparency within the Opportunity Zone program. "The form is designed to collect information on the amount of investment by opportunity funds in business property by census tract," according to a Treasury press release.

Opportunity Zones’ Architect Applauds Treasury’s Steps Toward Reporting Requirements

Ken Farnaso, press secretary for Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., chief architect of the TCJA’s bipartisan Opportunity Zone program, told Wolters Kluwer on October 31 that reporting requirements, "an important piece of the puzzle," were, in fact, originally in the bill. "Unfortunately, during the tax reform process, Senate Democrats blocked these requirements from being included in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Since then, Senator Scott has continued working to restore those reporting requirements," Farnaso said.

Additionally, Farnaso told Wolters Kluwer that Scott applauds Treasury’s steps to ensure a clearer picture of the impact the Opportunity Zones initiative can have on the country. "Senator Scott will also continue to push for his current bill restoring robust reporting requirements to create a holistic picture of how the initiative is functioning," Farnaso said. "Overall, today is a good day for Opportunity Zones. We look forward to the more than $44 billion in currently anticipated investment being deployed in distressed communities across the nation, and that number growing even larger in the future."

Opportunity Zones Tax Incentive

The Opportunity Zone Program enacted under TCJA ( P.L. 115-97) is considered on Capitol Hill as one of the most generous and ambitious tax incentives for investors in distressed communities. Under Code Sec. 1400Z-2, investors may defer taxation of capital gains that are invested in a QOF.

Generally, the following investor tax benefits were created under the Opportunity Zone program:

• a temporary tax deferral for capital gains realized on the sale of appreciated assets and reinvested within 180 days in a QOF;
• the elimination of up to 10 or 15 percent of the tax on the capital gain that is invested in the QOF and held between five and seven years; and
• the permanent exclusion of tax when exiting a qualified opportunity fund investment held for at least 10 years.

Draft IRS Form 8996

Specifically, the new, draft Form 8996 for the 2019 tax year requires QOFs to report the following information:

• the Employer Identification Number (EIN) of each business in which the QOF has an ownership interest;
• the census tract location of the tangible property of the business;
  the value of the QOF’s investment; and
• the value and census tract location of qualified business property directly owned or leased.

"This is an important step towards a thorough evaluation of the Opportunity Zone tax incentive," Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said. "We want to understand where Opportunity Zone investments are going and strengthening the economy so that investors and communities can learn from the successes of this bipartisan, pro-growth policy."

Generally, the collection of this information will play a role in allowing lawmakers and the public to evaluate the effects of the tax incentive and to understand why some locations may be more successful than others at attracting investment, according to Treasury.

Opportunity Zones Criticism

The Opportunity Zone program has not come to fruition without its share of criticism, however. Although lawmakers have called for reporting requirements related to QOFs since the TCJA’s enactment, the program has recently come under increased scrutiny and criticism. Senate Finance Committee (SFC) ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., has said that the lack of reporting requirements are "inexcusable."

"Requiring taxpayers to prove they’re actually following the rules of the Opportunity Zone program is a positive first step, but it’s one that should have been taken two years ago…," Wyden said in an October 31 statement. "The Opportunity Zone program has been operating without any effort to ensure compliance and that’s inexcusable."

A California-based medical marijuana dispensary corporation’s motion for summary judgment challenging the constitutionality of Code Sec. 280E was denied. The Tax Court also addressed whether Code Sec. 280E applies to marijuana businesses legally operating under state (California) law, and whether the prohibition on deductions is limited to ordinary and necessary business expenses.

A California-based medical marijuana dispensary corporation’s motion for summary judgment challenging the constitutionality of Code Sec. 280E was denied. The Tax Court also addressed whether Code Sec. 280E applies to marijuana businesses legally operating under state (California) law, and whether the prohibition on deductions is limited to ordinary and necessary business expenses.

Section 280E

Congress enacted Code Sec. 280E after the court had allowed certain deductions for expenses incurred in connection with an illegal drug trade. Generally, Code Sec. 280E disallows any deductions attributable to a taxpayer’s illegal drug related trade or business. Taxpayers may reduce their income by the cost of goods sold (COGS), and Code Sec. 280E does not generally disallow deductions attributable to a taxpayer’s non-drug-related business.

Constitutionality

The Eighth Amendment of the Constitution prohibits excessive fines or penalties. The dispensary in this case claimed that Code Sec. 280E is a punitive provision that violates the Eighth Amendment. However, because Congress generally has the power to levy taxes under the Sixteenth Amendment, the Tax Court found that the law’s denial of certain deductions cannot be construed as a penalty.

Legality Under State Law

The dispensary also argued that its actions could not be considered "trafficking" for purposes of Code Sec. 280E because its activities were not illegal under California law. The court noted that because marijuana is still considered a Schedule I controlled substance and is banned under federal law, the application of Code Sec. 280E does not depend on the legality of marijuana sales under California law.

Additional Deductions

Finally, the dispensary argued that Code Sec. 280E only applies to deductions under Code Sec. 162, and that other deductions such as those under Code Secs. 164 and 167 should be permitted. However, the text of Code Sec. 280E broadly states that "no deduction or credit shall be allowed." It does not limit the deductions to those claimed under Code Sec. 162.

Dissenting Opinions

The Tax Court decision included several concurring and dissenting opinions, which primarily addressed the issue as to whether Code Sec. 280E is in fact a penalty provision that would violate the Eighth Amendment.

The dissenting opinions found that Code Sec. 280E is punitive in nature. One dissenter noted that rather than specify a narrow range of disallowed expenses, Code Sec. 280E attacks the entire marijuana industry with a broad denial of otherwise allowable deductions. The opinion stated that Congress passed Code Sec. 280E order to deter the sale of controlled substances and to penalize the drug trade. That intent was found to be "clearly in the nature of a penalty." Both dissents concluded with two additional questions, which the dissenters felt need to be addressed:

• Is the punitive nature of Code Sec. 280E excessive to the point where it violates the Eighth Amendment?, and
• Does the Eighth Amendment apply to corporation taxpayers?

The IRS has proposed regulations that define an eligible terminated S corporation (ETSC), and provide rules relating to distributions of money by an ETSC after the post-termination transition period (PTTP). The proposed regulations also extend the treatment of distributions of money during the PTTP to all shareholders of the corporation, and update and clarify the allocation of current earnings and profits to distributions of money and other property.

The IRS has proposed regulations that define an eligible terminated S corporation (ETSC), and provide rules relating to distributions of money by an ETSC after the post-termination transition period (PTTP). The proposed regulations also extend the treatment of distributions of money during the PTTP to all shareholders of the corporation, and update and clarify the allocation of current earnings and profits to distributions of money and other property.

Code Sec. 1371(f), as added by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ( P.L. 115-97) extends the period during which C corporation shareholders can benefit from the corporation’s accumulated adjustment account (AAA) generated during its former status as an S corporation. Specifically, the provision allows the C corporation to source qualified distributions of money to which Code Sec. 301 would otherwise apply to in whole or part to AAA. The provision only applies if the corporation is an ETSC as defined in Code Sec. 481(d).

Under the proposed regulations, the revocation of S corporation status may be made during the two-year period beginning on December 22, 2017, even if the effective date for the revocation occurs after the conclusion of the two-year period.

Shareholder Identity Requirement

A former S corporation is not an ETSC unless the owners of its stock are the same owners (and in identical proportions) on December 22, 2017, and on the date of the S corporation revocation. The proposed regulations identify various categories of stock transfers that are not considered an ownership change for purposes of this rule.

ETSC Proration

A distributing ETSC’s AAA is allocated to qualified distributions and the distributions are chargeable to the ETSC’s accumulated earnings and profits (AE&P) based on the ETSC proration. The ETSC proration is implemented in a manner that facilitates the prompt distribution of AAA and full transition to C corporation status. Specifically, the proposed regulations:

• specify the time at which amounts of AAA and AE&P are determined for purposes of the ETSC proration;

• provide AAA and AE&P ratios used to the implement the proration; and

• describe in detail the method of characterizing qualified distributions.

The proposed regulations adopt a "snapshot" approach under which amounts of AAA and AE&P are determined on a specified date. As a result, the same ETSC proration is applied to all qualified distributions. Under the proposed regulations, the determination date is the date when the S corporation revocation election is effective. A "dynamic" approach that recalculated the amounts before each qualified distribution was rejected as administratively cumbersome.

The proposed regulations provide two ratios for determining the part of a qualified distribution that is sourced from AAA and from AE&P. The AAA ratio is the ratio of historical AAA to the sum of historical AAA and historical AE&P. The AE&P ratio is the ratio of historical AE&P and the sum of historical AAA and historical AE&P. The qualified distribution is multiplied by these ratios to determine the amount sourced from AAA and AE&P.

The proposed regulations provide a priority rule under which ETSC proration first applies to qualified distributions during the tax year. The rules of Code Sec. 301 and allocation rules of Code Sec. 316 then apply to any nonqualified distributions that are not fully accounted for by the ETSC proration because the corporation’s AAA or AE&P are exhausted.

Effective Date

The proposed regulations will be effective in tax years beginning after the date they are published as final regulations. A taxpayer may apply the regulations in their entirely to tax years that begin on or before the date of publication as final regulations.

A pre-tax benefit can come in a variety of shapes and sizes, but usually can fit into one of two categories.

A pre-tax benefit can come in a variety of shapes and sizes, but usually can fit into one of two categories.

Most are benefits that an employee elects to pay for by using a portion of his or her compensation that would have otherwise been taxed as salary. The other category consists of benefits paid by your employer on a take-it-or-leave-it basis for which you are not taxed.

Pre-tax benefits usually are provided either within a cafeteria plan or separately.

Cafeteria plan pre-tax benefits

A cafeteria plan is a written plan under which all participants are employees who may choose among two or more benefits consisting of cash and qualified benefits.

Qualified benefits include:

1. Accident or health plan coverage;
2. Dependent care assistance;
3. Contributions to a cash or deferred arrangement such as 401(k) plans; and
4. Taxable and nontaxable group-term life insurance.

In general, the benefits that may be offered under a cafeteria plan are those that are not includable in the employee's gross income because of a specific Internal Revenue Code provision. However, cash, group-term life insurance on an employee's life in excess of $50,000, and group-term life insurance on the lives of the employee's spouse or dependents may be provided under a cafeteria plan even though they are taxable. Employees are not taxed on taxable options offered under a cafeteria plan unless they elect to receive them.

Other pre-tax fringe benefits

Employees are taxed on fringe benefits unless the benefits are specifically excluded from income by the Internal Revenue Code. Benefits that are specifically not included in an employee's taxable salary include:

1. Benefits that can be offered in a cafeteria plan, but are instead offered separately;
2. No-additional-cost services ("excess-capacity" services offered for sale to customers);
3. Employee discounts;
4. Working condition fringe benefits (for example, the use of a company car for business);
5. De minimis fringe benefits (benefits too small to count, such as occasional personal use of the company photocopier, or an occasional free ticket to a sporting event);
6. Qualified moving expense reimbursements;
7. Qualified retirement planning services; and
8. Qualified transportation fringe benefits (including van pooling, transit passes and qualified parking, up to specified dollar limits).

In connection with the last item-qualified transportation fringe benefits-either the employer can fund this benefit directly for everyone or only those employees who choose to receive this benefit can have a portion of their salary used to fund it.

Flexible spending accounts

A flexible spending account (FSA) can either form part of a cafeteria plan or it can be offered as a separate pre-tax fringe benefit. Either way, its purpose is to use funds that would otherwise be paid out as taxable salary to pay for certain benefits on a pre-tax basis.

An FSA is an arrangement under which an amount is credited to an account from which an employee may be reimbursed for health care, dependent care or other expenses that are excludable from gross income if paid by an employer. A separate account must be set up to pay for each type of expense, and the account cannot be drawn upon in any way other than for reimbursement of that type of expense. Beginning in 2013, an FSA for health care costs cannot exceed a $2,500 annual limit, as required under the Affordable Care Act.

The account may be funded by employer contributions or by a salary reduction agreement. An FSA can be a cafeteria plan if it is funded by a salary reduction agreement or otherwise allows employees to choose to receive cash instead of a qualified benefit. It is not a cafeteria plan if employees are not given this choice.

Please contact this office if you have any questions about taking advantage of pre-tax fringe benefits.

The Electronic Federal Tax Payment System (EFTPS) allows individuals and businesses to make tax payments by telephone, personal computer or through the Internet.

The Electronic Federal Tax Payment System (EFTPS) allows individuals and businesses to make tax payments by telephone, personal computer or through the Internet.

Paperless

EFTPS is one of the most user-friendly programs developed by the IRS. EFTPS is totally paperless. Everything is done by telephone or computer. Because it's electronic, it's available 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

You make your tax payments electronically by:

· Calling EFTPS; or

· Using special computer software or the Internet.

Who can use EFTPS

EFTPS is available to businesses and individuals but businesses have more options.

Businesses: If your total deposits of federal taxes are more than $200,000 each year, you must use EFTPS. If not, you can still use EFTPS but you're not required to.

To calculate the $200,000 threshold, you have to include every federal tax your business pays, such as payroll, income, excise, social security, railroad retirement, and any other federal taxes.

The IRS wants businesses to use EFTPS and makes it difficult to stop using it. Once you meet the $200,000 threshold, you have to continue using EFTPS even if your annual tax deposits fall below $200,000 in the future.

Individuals: Individuals can also use EFTPS. Many of the individuals using EFTPS are making quarterly estimated tax payments but it's also available to people paying federal estate and gift taxes and installment payments.

How EFTPS works

There are two versions of EFTPS: direct and through a financial institution.

Direct: EFTPS-Direct is just what the name suggests. You access EFTPS directly - by telephone or computer - and make your tax payments. You tell EFTPS when you want to deposit your taxes and on that date EFTPS tells your bank to transfer the funds from your account to the IRS. At the same time, the IRS updates your payroll tax records to reflect the deposit.

Example. Your payroll taxes are due on the 15th. You have to contact EFTPS by 8PM at least one day before your tax due date. You either call EFTPS or log-on using special software or through the Internet. You enter your payment and EFTPS automatically debits your bank account and transfers the funds to the IRS on the date you indicate.

If you're a business, you can schedule your tax deposits up to 120 days before the due date. Individuals can schedule tax deposits up to 365 days before the due date.

Through a financial institution: You can also access EFTPS through a bank or credit union. Instead of contacting EFTPS directly and making your tax payments, your bank does it for you. Not all banks and credit unions participate in EFTPS so you have to check with your financial institution.

Only businesses can use EFTPS through a financial institution. If you're an individual and you want to use EFTPS, you have to use it directly. Also, while EFTPS-Direct is free, some financial institutions charge a fee for accessing EFTPS.

Getting started

To access EFTPS, you have to enroll. Your tax advisor can help you navigate the enrollment process and, once you're part of EFTPS, he or she can make the payments for you.

Once you retire or reach age 70 ½ (depending on your retirement plan), the law requires that you start making -at a minimum-some periodic withdrawals. These withdrawals are called required minimum distributions.

Why required minimum distributions?

First, the tax policy behind letting you save in a tax-deferred account was to allow you to use those funds in your retirement, rather than to use them as just another way to build up your estate for your heirs. Second, because those accounts are usually tax-deferred, withdrawals after retirement are taxed to you as ordinary income. As a result, the IRS wants you to withdraw at least a minimum amount from those accounts each year so that it can be taxed.

New IRS rules substantially simplify the computation of required minimum distributions (RMDs). In addition, Congress has forced the IRS to adopt new life expectancy tables that reflect longer life expectancies, resulting in distributions to be made over a longer time-period and for the RMD to be smaller than would have been required in previous years.

Good tax news

Good news for taxpayers who are interested in retaining funds in their IRAs and their tax-qualified plans because it means deferring income tax on the funds even longer.

If you are alive in the year in which you must begin required minimum distributions, your new MRD is calculated each year by dividing the account balance by your life expectancy, as determined by the uniform distribution period table (the "Uniform Table") in the new IRS rules.

Example. At the time his required beginning date is reached (usually retirement or 70 ½), John Smith had a balance of $1 million in his IRA, as of the previous December 31. He previously named a beneficiary, who is age 67.

The difference in the computation of the RMD under the new rules is dramatic.

Under pre-2001 rules, he checks the joint and last survivor table and finds that his divisor for his $1 million account is 22.

Under revised rules in effect in 2001, his divisor is 26.2.

Under the new Uniform Lifetime Tables now in effect, his divisor is 27.4.

The difference in required distributions is significant.

Under pre-2001 rules, John must withdraw at least $45,454 this year

Under the 2001 rules, John must withdraw at least $38,168 this year.

Under the new tables, John must withdraw at least $36,496 this year.

Because of the new regulations, John has an extra $8,958 in his IRA at the end of the year over what he could have kept under the rules only a few years ago. This amount can then continue to accumulate earnings. This savings can be realized-and compounded-every subsequent year for the next 27 years. As a bonus, John's federal income tax (assuming a marginal rate of 35 percent) is more than $3,135 less ($12,773 instead of $15,908).

If you die before reaching your retirement having designated your spouse as beneficiary, distributions must begin by December 31 of the year following your death or the year that you would have turned 70½, whichever is later. At that time, RMD is computed over your spouse's life expectancy.

Caution!

The new rules-although more flexible-leave little room for mistakes in timing. Failure to take the minimum required distribution by the RBD will result in a 50 percent excise tax equal to half of the amount that should have been paid out but wasn't. Although early versions of proposed legislation included a decrease in the penalty from 50 percent to 10 percent, that provision is not the law.

If you'd like more specific advice on how the new Minimum Required Distribution rules apply to your retirement strategies, please contact this office.

No use worrying. More than five million people every year have problems getting their refund checks so your situation is not uncommon. Nevertheless, you should be aware of the rules, and the steps to take if your refund doesn't arrive.

Average wait time

The IRS suggests that you allow for "the normal processing time" before inquiring about your refund. The IRS's "normal processing time" is approximately:

• Paper returns: 6 weeks
• E-filed returns: 3 weeks
• Amended returns: 12 weeks
• Business returns: 6 weeks

IRS website "Where's my refund?" tool

The IRS now has a tool on its website called "Where's my refund?" which generally allows you to access information about your refund 72 hours after the IRS acknowledges receipt of your e-filed return, or three to four weeks after mailing a paper return. The "Where's my refund?" tool can be accessed at www.irs.gov.

To get out information about your refund on the IRS's website, you will need to provide the following information from your return:

• Your Social Security Number (or Individual Taxpayer Identification Number);
• Filing status (Single, Married Filing Joint Return, Married Filing Separate Return, Head of Household, or Qualifying Widow(er)); and
• The exact whole dollar amount of your refund.

 Start a refund trace

If you have not received your refund within 28 days from the original IRS mailing date shown on Where's My Refund?, you can start a refund trace online.

Getting a replacement check

If you or your representative contacts the IRS, the IRS will determine if your refund check has been cashed. If the original check has not been cashed, a replacement check will be issued. If it has been cashed, get ready for a long wait as the IRS processes a replacement check.

The IRS will send you a photocopy of the cashed check and endorsement with a claim form. After you send it back, the IRS will investigate. Sometimes, it takes the IRS as long as one year to complete its investigation, before it cuts you a replacement check.

A bigger problem

Another problem may come to the fore when the IRS is contacted about the refund. It might tell you that it never received your tax return in the first place. Here's where some quick action is important.

First, you are required to show that you filed your return on time. That's a situation when a post-office or express mail receipt really comes in handy. Second, get another, signed copy off to the IRS as quickly as possible to prevent additional penalties and interest in case the IRS really can prove that you didn't file in the first place.

Minimize the risks

When filing your return, you can choose to have your refund directly deposited into a bank account. If you file a paper return, you can request direct deposit by giving your bank account and routing numbers on your return. If you e-file, you could also request direct deposit. All these alternatives to receiving a paper check minimize the chances of your refund getting lost or misplaced.

If you've moved since filing your return, it's possible that the IRS sent your refund check to the wrong address. If it is returned to the IRS, a refund will not be reissued until you notify the IRS of your new address. You have to use a special IRS form.

IRS may have a reason

You may not have received your refund because the IRS believes that you aren't entitled to one. Refund claims are reviewed -usually only in a cursory manner-- by an IRS service center or district office. Odds are, however, that unless your refund is completely out of line with your income and payments, the IRS will send you a check unless it spots a mathematical error through its data-entry processing. It will only be later, if and when you are audited, that the IRS might challenge the size of your refund on its merits.

IRS liability

If the IRS sends the refund check to the wrong address, it is still liable for the refund because it has not paid "the claimant." It is also still liable for the refund if it pays the check on a forged endorsement. Direct deposit refunds that are misdirected to the wrong account through no fault of your own are treated the same as lost or stolen refund checks.

The IRS can take back refunds that were paid by mistake. In an erroneous refund action, the IRS generally has the burden of proving that the refund was a mistake. Nevertheless, although you may be in the right and eventually get your refund, it may take you up to a year to collect. One consolation: if payment of a refund takes more than 45 days, the IRS must pay interest on it.

If you are still worrying about your refund check, please give this office a call. We can track down your refund and seek to resolve any problem that the IRS may believe has developed.

Q. My husband and I have a housekeeper come in to clean once a week; and someone watches our children for about 10 hours over the course of each week to free up our time for chores. Are there any tax problems here that we are missing?

Q. My husband and I have a housekeeper come in to clean once a week; and someone watches our children for about 10 hours over the course of each week to free up our time for chores. Are there any tax problems here that we are missing?

A. Cooking, cleaning and childcare: domestic concerns - or tax issues? The answer is both. A few years ago, several would-be Presidential appointees were rejected -- when it was revealed that they had failed to pay payroll taxes for their domestic help. The IRS is aggressively looking for cheaters so it's particularly important that you don't stumble through ignorance in not fulfilling your obligations.

Who is responsible

Employers are responsible for withholding and paying payroll taxes for their employees. These taxes include federal, state and local income tax, social security, workers' comp, and unemployment tax. But which domestic workers are employees? The housekeeper who works in your home five days a week? The nanny who is not only paid by you but who lives in a room in your home? The babysitter who watches your children on Saturday nights?

In general, anyone you hire to do household work is your employee if you control what work is done and how it is done. It doesn't matter if the worker is full- or part-time or paid on an hourly, daily, or weekly basis. The exception is an independent contractor. If the worker provides his or her own tools and controls how the work is done, he or she is probably an independent contractor and not your employee. If you obtain help through an agency, the household worker is usually considered their employee and you have no tax obligations to them.

What it costs

In general, if you paid cash wages of at least $1,300 in 2001 to any household employee, you must withhold and pay social security and Medicare taxes. The tax is 15.3 percent of the wages paid. You are responsible for half and your employee for the other half but you may choose to pay the entire amount. If you pay cash wages of at least $1,000 in any quarter to a household employee, you are responsible for paying federal unemployment tax, usually 0.8 percent of cash wages.

Deciding who is an employee is not easy. Contact us for more guidance.