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.
Tax legislation that was included in the massive spending bill signed by the President included provisions affecting the charitable sector. We previously reported on one provision that will be welcomed across the sector. Another provision will be good news for donors making charitable contributions for disaster relief.
The Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Relief Tax Act signed into law on December 20 includes various tax provisions intended to mitigate a portion of the enormous financial cost of recent hurricanes, tornadoes, forest fires, earthquakes and other natural disasters. Included was an enhanced tax benefit for donors making charitable contributions to organizations providing disaster relief.
Wealthy Californians, and more importantly, their children and grandchildren, can pop that champagne. The bill that would have imposed a California gift, estate, and generation skipping transfer tax appears to be dead – – at least for now. It will not get a floor vote in the California Legislature. Absent a floor vote, the California bill will not obtain the required approval of the California Legislature to put it on the November 2020 ballot. (more…)
Congress has changed the way partnership 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. (more…)
The Taxpayer Transparency and Fairness Act of 2017
Established by the California Constitution in 1879, the California State Board of Equalization (the “BOE”) has been the agency charged with administering most of the taxes imposed by California. In addition, the BOE was the tribunal whose function was to decide taxpayer appeals of decisions by the California Franchise Tax Board (the “FTB”) concerning income tax matters. All of this is about to change with the passage of AB 102. AB 102, which is named the “Taxpayer Transparency and Fairness Act of 2017” (the “Act”), was signed into law by Governor Brown on June 27th. The Act effectively cuts the legs out from underneath the BOE.
In March of this year, the California Department of Finance issued a derisive report asserting that the BOE misallocated tax revenues, used BOE employees to assist elected BOE members with political activities, and attempted to improperly affect BOE audits. In response, and at the urging of the Governor, the Act was passed by the California Legislature. (more…)
It is far too early to discern the extent of any change to the relationship between the U.S. and Mexico in the face of the oft-repeated insistence of the Trump campaign to “renegotiate” NAFTA, a promise that was reiterated once Mr. Trump was sworn into office. Following a prickly meeting last month between President Trump and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, accounts from Mexico report the government as having started consultations with its business community, a process described as taking 90 days. The results of those consultations and how they might impact any further discussions with the U.S. remain to be seen. Similarly, President Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau also met last month, but under somewhat more cordial circumstances. Again, next steps with Canada remain an open question. However, the overarching theme is the oft-repeated promise from the Trump Administration that a border tax will be imposed. While nothing concrete has been proposed to date, how such a border tax might work has understandably caused varying levels of concern among American companies. Given there is nothing concrete to examine, in this Alert, we seek to provide a brief explanation of the concepts being bandied about. (more…)
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.) (more…)
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. (more…)