IRS Penalties Assessed Against Your Client May Not Be Valid

Auditor Examining Documents With Magnifying Glass At Table
Photo Credit: istock.com/AndreyPopov

Written by Robin C. Gilden 

Internal Revenue Code section 6751(b) provides that no penalty shall be assessed under the Code unless the initial determination of such assessment is personally approved (in writing) by the immediate supervisor of the individual making such determination, or such higher level official as the Secretary of the Treasury may designate.  This section defines penalty as any addition to tax or any additional amount.  The requirement for prior written approval does not apply to penalties for failure to file a return or pay tax, or to penalties that are automatically calculated through electronic means, but does apply to negligence and substantial understatement penalties, as well as the “responsible party” penalty for failure to withhold or remit payroll taxes.

Continue reading “IRS Penalties Assessed Against Your Client May Not Be Valid”

Has Your Partnership or LLC Agreement Been Updated to Comply with the New Tax Rules?

Photo credit: iStock.com/pichet_w

By Robin Gilden and Daniel Cousineau 

The new partnership audit rules substantially change the audit procedures for partnerships (including multi-member LLCs) and may require that you update certain provisions within your partnership or LLC agreement to maintain compliance.

In partnership audits, the IRS has historically adjusted the returns of partners, rather than the partnership, because partnerships do not actually pay an entity level tax but pass through their income and losses to the partners. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (the “Act”) substantially changed these rules for partnerships with tax years beginning after December 31, 2017.

Under the Act, the IRS will examine partnerships and make any adjustments at the partnership level in the year that the audit is completed rather than the year under review. The partnership will pay the tax, interest and penalties on any underpayments at the highest statutory rate for each partner’s distributive share of the underpayment (i.e., the highest corporate rate for corporate partners and the highest individual rate for individuals). This change in the rule shifts the cost of the adjustment to the partners holding a partnership interest at the time of the audit rather than those partners who held a partnership interest in the year of underpayment. Continue reading “Has Your Partnership or LLC Agreement Been Updated to Comply with the New Tax Rules?”

New Partnership Audit Regime and Partnership M&A Transactions

business man financial inspector and secretary making report, calculating or checking balance. Internal Revenue Service inspector checking document. Audit concept.
Photo credit: iStock.com/IndypendenZ

By Robin C. Gilden

Background:

Congress has changed the way partnership[1] audits will be conducted in the future. Beginning with tax years starting on or after January 1, 2018, audits will still be done at the partnership level; however unlike current practice where adjustments and additional tax payments are made at the partner level, under the new rules the adjustments and additional tax payments will in many cases now be done at the partnership level with the payments made in the year the tax audit is finalized. The changes were made to make it easier for the IRS to audit partnerships.

The new rules raise a number of unanswered questions in the M&A arena all of which require a significant rethinking of the way partnership M&A transactions are structured and documented. There are likely to be significant differences in the responses to the Open Issues set out below between a transaction involving a LLC, which would survive as a separate legal entity after the acquisition, and a limited partnership which would terminate and not exist as a separate legal entity after the acquisition as it would only have one member. Continue reading “New Partnership Audit Regime and Partnership M&A Transactions”

Proposed IRS Regulations Could End Most Valuation Discounts for Family Entities

By Allan Cutrow and Jeffrey Eisen

On August 2, 2016, the Treasury Department issued proposed regulations under Section 2704 of the Internal Revenue Code. The proposed regulations, if adopted in their current form, essentially will eliminate all minority discounts or lack of control discounts and lack of marketability discounts for transfers between family members of interests in family-controlled businesses.

The proposed regulations accomplish this result in complex ways. But here are some points to consider as you decide whether to act quickly.

  1. The regulations are “proposed.” This means that they are not currently in effect. The Internal Revenue Service has scheduled a public hearing on the regulations in Washington, DC on December 1, 2016. They take effect when the IRS announces that they are “final.” Thus, these regulations could take effect shortly after the hearing, sometime in 2017, years from now, or never (in theory). The IRS may change the regulations in meaningful ways before adopting them as final. Continue reading “Proposed IRS Regulations Could End Most Valuation Discounts for Family Entities”

Important New Guidance on Charitable Remainder Annuity Trusts

 

By David Wheeler Newman

The Internal Revenue Service has issued important new guidance that can allow a charitable remainder annuity trust (CRAT) to qualify under Internal Revenue Code section 664 in a low-interest environment.

Background

Section 664 confers substantial tax benefits on charitable remainder trusts that meet its requirements. These are irrevocable trusts that during their term distribute a formula amount to one or more non-charitable beneficiaries, with the remainder distributed to charity upon termination of the trusts. There are two allowable formulas. A charitable remainder unitrust (CRUT) distributes a fixed percentage of the value of trust assets determined every year. There are some allowable variations for CRUT distributions, but in general this means that distributions from a CRUT can go up or down from year to year, depending on increases or decreases in the value of trust assets. While CRUTs are by far the more popular of the two main varieties, some clients and donors prefer the CRAT, which distributes the same amount every year during its term, which is fixed at the time the trust is created and which must be at least 5% of the value of assets contributed to the trust. Continue reading “Important New Guidance on Charitable Remainder Annuity Trusts”

4 Things Beneficiaries Who Receive IRS Form 8971’s Schedule A Must Know

By Jacey L. Hayes

When someone inherits assets, he or she is supposed to have a tax basis in the inherited asset for income tax purposes equal to the “fair market value” of the inherited asset at the date of death. The IRS is concerned that it is losing billions of dollars due to improper basis reporting for inherited assets: that is, the executor reports the assets on the estate tax return at one value, and then when those same assets are later sold, exchanged, or transferred by the beneficiary, the beneficiary reports the basis at a higher value. To tackle this concern, all estates which file an estate tax return after July 31, 2015, also must now file, within 30 days after filing the estate tax return, new IRS Form 8971, and provide a Schedule A to each beneficiary. A beneficiary’s Schedule A must also be given to the beneficiary within the same time frame. (Note that for all estate tax returns filed between August 1, 2015 and May 31, 2016, the due date of Form 8971 was postponed to June 30, 2016, leading to a flood of recent filings.) Continue reading “4 Things Beneficiaries Who Receive IRS Form 8971’s Schedule A Must Know”

IRS Confirms – No More Phone Calls (At Least Not Initially)

By Jeffrey D. Davine

It has been somewhat of an epidemic. Lots of taxpayers have received calls from persons who claim to be from the IRS and who assert that the recipient of the call has an outstanding federal tax liability. The caller then threatens some kind of draconian penalty (e.g., the police will be immediately dispatched to arrest the recipient of the call) unless immediate payment is made by wire transfer, debit card, or some other mechanism whereby the caller can extort some quick money.  Continue reading “IRS Confirms – No More Phone Calls (At Least Not Initially)”