Newsletters

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has removed the requirement that U.S. companies and U.S. persons must report beneficial ownership information (BOI) to FinCEN under the Corporate Transparency Act.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has removed the requirement that U.S. companies and U.S. persons must report beneficial ownership information (BOI) to FinCEN under the Corporate Transparency Act. This interim final rule is consistent with the Treasury Department's recent announcement that it was suspending enforcement of the CTA against U.S. citizens, domestic reporting companies, and their beneficial owners, and that it would be narrowing the scope of the BOI reporting rule so that it applies only to foreign reporting companies.

The interim final rule amends the BOI regulations by:

• changing the definition of "reporting company" to mean only those entities that are formed under the law of a foreign country and that have registered to do business in any U.S. State or Tribal jurisdiction by filing of a document with a secretary of state or similar office (these entities had formerly been called "foreign reporting companies"), and
• exempting entities previously known as "domestic reporting companies" from BOI reporting requirements.

Under the revised rules, all entities created in the United States (including those previously called "domestic reporting companies") and their beneficial owners are exempt from the BOI reporting requirement, including the requirement to update or correct BOI previously reported to FinCEN. Foreign entities that meet the new definition of "reporting company" and do not qualify for a reporting exemption must report their BOI to FinCEN, but are not required to report any U.S. persons as beneficial owners. U.S. persons are not required to report BOI with respect to any such foreign entity for which they are a beneficial owner.

Reducing Regulatory Burden

On January 31, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14192, which announced an administration policy "to significantly reduce the private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations to secure America’s economic prosperity and national security and the highest possible quality of life for each citizen" and "to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens" on the American people.

Consistent with the executive order and with exemptive authority provided in the CTA, the Treasury Secretary (in concurrence with the Attorney General and the Homeland Security Secretary) determined that BOI reporting by domestic reporting companies and their beneficial owners "would not serve the public interest" and "would not be highly useful in national security, intelligence, and law enforcement agency efforts to detect, prevent, or prosecute money laundering, the financing of terrorism, proliferation finance, serious tax fraud, or other crimes."The preamble to the interim final rule notes that the Treasury Secretary has considered existing alternative information sources to mitigate risks. For example, under the U.S. anti-money laundering/countering the financing of terrorism regime, covered financial institutions still have a continuing requirement to collect a legal entity customer's BOI at the time of account opening (see 31 CFR 1010.230). This will serve to mitigate certain illicit finance risks associated with exempting domestic reporting companies from BOI reporting.

BOI reporting by foreign reporting companies is still required, because such companies present heightened national security and illicit finance risks and different concerns about regulatory burdens. Further, the preamble points out that the policy direction to minimize regulatory burdens on the American people can still be achieved by exempting foreign reporting companies from having to report the BOI of any U.S. persons who are beneficial owners of such companies.

Deadlines Extended for Foreign Companies

When the interim final rule is published in the Federal Register, the following reporting deadlines apply:

• Foreign entities that are registered to do business in the United States before the publication date of the interim final rule must file BOI reports no later than 30 days from that date.
• Foreign entities that are registered to do business in the United States on or after the publication date of the interim final rule have 30 calendar days to file an initial BOI report after receiving notice that their registration is effective.

Effective Date; Comments Requested

The interim final rule is effective on the date of its publication in the Federal Register.

FinCEN has requested comments on the interim final rule. In light of those comments, FinCEN intends to issue a final rule later in 2025.

Written comments must be received on or before the date that is 60 days after publication of the interim final rule in the Federal Register.

Interested parties can submit comments electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, comments may be mailed to Policy Division, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, P.O. Box 39, Vienna, VA 22183. For both methods, refer to Docket Number FINCEN-2025-0001, OMB control number 1506-0076 and RIN 1506-AB49.

FinCEN Interim Final Rule RIN 1506-AB49

FinCEN News Release

Melanie Krause, the IRS’s Chief Operating Officer, has been named acting IRS Commissioner following the retirement of Doug O’Donnell. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent acknowledged O’Donnell’s 38 years of service, commending his leadership and dedication to taxpayers.

Melanie Krause, the IRS’s Chief Operating Officer, has been named acting IRS Commissioner following the retirement of Doug O’Donnell. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent acknowledged O’Donnell’s 38 years of service, commending his leadership and dedication to taxpayers. O’Donnell, who had been acting Commissioner since January, will retire on Friday, expressing confidence in Krause’s ability to guide the agency through tax season. Krause, who joined the IRS in 2021 as Chief Data & Analytics Officer, has since played a key role in modernizing operations and overseeing core agency functions. With experience in federal oversight and operational strategy, Krause previously worked at the Government Accountability Office and the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General. She became Chief Operating Officer in 2024, managing finance, security, and procurement. Holding advanced degrees from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Krause will lead the IRS until a permanent Commissioner is appointed.

A grant disbursement to a corporation to be used for rent payments following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center was not excluded from the corporation's gross income. Grants were made to affected businesses with funding provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The corporation's grant agreement required the corporation to employ a certain number of people in New York City, with a portion of those people employed in lower Manhattan for a period of time. Pursuant to this agreement, the corporation requested a disbursement as reimbursement for rent expenses.

A grant disbursement to a corporation to be used for rent payments following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center was not excluded from the corporation's gross income. Grants were made to affected businesses with funding provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The corporation's grant agreement required the corporation to employ a certain number of people in New York City, with a portion of those people employed in lower Manhattan for a period of time. Pursuant to this agreement, the corporation requested a disbursement as reimbursement for rent expenses.

Exclusions from Gross Income

Under the expansive definition of gross income, the grant proceeds were income unless specifically excluded. Payments are only excluded under Code Sec. 118(a) when a transferor intends to make a contribution to the permanent working capital of a corporation. The grant amount was not connected to capital improvements nor restricted for use in the acquisition of capital assets. The transferor intended to reimburse the corporation for rent expenses and not to make a capital contribution. As a result, the grant was intended to supplement income and defray current operating costs, and not to build up the corporation's working capital.

The grant proceeds were also not a gift under Code Sec. 102(a). The motive for providing the grant was not detached and disinterested generosity, but rather a long-term commitment from the company to create and maintain jobs. In addition, a review of the funding legislation and associated legislative history did not show that Congress possessed the requisite donative intent to consider the grant a gift. The program was intended to support the redevelopment of the area after the terrorist attacks. Finally, the grant was not excluded as a qualified disaster relief payment under Code Sec. 139(a) because that provision is only applicable to individuals.

Accuracy-Related Penalty

Because the corporation relied on Supreme Court decisions, statutory language, and regulations, there was substantial authority for its position that the grant proceeds were excluded from income. As a result, the accuracy-related penalty was not imposed.

CF Headquarters Corporation, 164 TC No. 5, Dec. 62,627

The parent corporation of two tiers of controlled foreign corporations (CFCs) with a domestic partnership interposed between the two tiers was not entitled to deemed paid foreign tax credits under Code Sec. 902 or Code Sec. 960 for taxes paid or accrued by the lower-tier CFCs owned by the domestic partnership. Code Sec. 902 did not apply because there was no dividend distribution. Code Sec. 960 did not apply because the Code Sec. 951(a) inclusions with respect to the lower-tier CFCs were not taken into account by the domestic corporation.

The parent corporation of two tiers of controlled foreign corporations (CFCs) with a domestic partnership interposed between the two tiers was not entitled to deemed paid foreign tax credits under Code Sec. 902 or Code Sec. 960 for taxes paid or accrued by the lower-tier CFCs owned by the domestic partnership. Code Sec. 902 did not apply because there was no dividend distribution. Code Sec. 960 did not apply because the Code Sec. 951(a) inclusions with respect to the lower-tier CFCs were not taken into account by the domestic corporation.

Background

The parent corporation owned three CFCs, which were upper-tier CFC partners in a domestic partnership. The domestic partnership was the sole U.S. shareholder of several lower-tier CFCs.

The parent corporation claimed that it was entitled to deemed paid foreign tax credits on taxes paid by the lower-tier CFCs on earnings and profits, which generated Code Sec. 951 inclusions for subpart F income and Code Sec. 956 amounts. The amounts increased the earnings and profits of the upper-tier CFC partners.

Deemed Paid Foreign Tax Credits Did Not Apply

Before 2018, Code Sec. 902 allowed deemed paid foreign tax credit for domestic corporations that owned 10 percent or more of the voting stock of a foreign corporation from which it received dividends, and for taxes paid by another group member, provided certain requirements were met.

The IRS argued that no dividends were paid and so the foreign income taxes paid by the lower-tier CFCs could not be deemed paid by the entities in the higher tiers.

The taxpayer agreed that Code Sec. 902 alone would not provide a credit, but argued that through Code Sec. 960, Code Sec. 951 inclusions carried deemed dividends up through a chain of ownership. Under Code Sec. 960(a), if a domestic corporation has a Code Sec. 951(a) inclusion with respect to the earnings and profits of a member of its qualified group, Code Sec. 902 applied as if the amount were included as a dividend paid by the foreign corporation.

In this case, the domestic corporation had no Code Sec. 951 inclusions with respect to the amounts generated by the lower-tier CFCs. Rather, the domestic partnerships had the inclusions. The upper- tier CFC partners, which were foreign corporations, included their share of the inclusions in gross income. Therefore, the hopscotch provision in which a domestic corporation with a Code Sec. 951 inclusion attributable to earnings and profits of an indirectly held CFC may claim deemed paid foreign tax credits based on a hypothetical dividend from the indirectly held CFC to the domestic corporation did not apply.

Eaton Corporation and Subsidiaries, 164 TC No. 4, Dec. 62,622

Other Reference:

• Code Sec. 960

An appeals court affirmed that payments made by an individual taxpayer to his ex-wife did not meet the statutory criteria for deductible alimony. The taxpayer claimed said payments were deductible alimony on his federal tax returns.

An appeals court affirmed that payments made by an individual taxpayer to his ex-wife did not meet the statutory criteria for deductible alimony. The taxpayer claimed said payments were deductible alimony on his federal tax returns.

The taxpayer’s payments were not deductible alimony because the governing divorce instruments contained multiple clear, explicit and express directions to that effect. The former couple’s settlement agreement stated an equitable division of marital property that was non-taxable to either party. The agreement had a separate clause obligating the taxpayer to pay a taxable sum as periodic alimony each month. The term “divorce or separation instrument” included both divorce and the written instruments incident to such decree.

Unpublished opinion affirming, per curiam, the Tax Court, Dec. 62,420(M), T.C. Memo. 2024-18.

J.A. Martino, CA-11

Just because you're married doesn't mean you have to file a joint return. This is a common misconception along with thinking that "married filing separately" applies to couples who are separated or seeking a divorce. As a married couple, you have two choices: file a joint return or file separate returns. Naturally, there are benefits and detriments to each and your tax advisor can chart the best course of action for you.

Traditional treatment

Historically, the tax laws reward marriage. Married couples are eligible for many incentives. For example, they can make tax-free gifts of up to $26,000 (for 2009) to the same individual ($13,000 from each spouse). Single taxpayers can only make tax-free gifts up to $13,000 to the same person. Married couples also have a larger home sale exclusion: they can exclude up to $500,000 in gain from the sale of their home. Single taxpayers are limited to an exclusion of up to $250,000.

Moreover, single individuals no longer have a leg-up when it comes to the standard deduction because of the "marriage penalty." The standard deduction for married couples is now twice the deduction for single taxpayers. For 2009, the standard deduction for married taxpayers filing jointly is $11,400 (for single taxpayers, the standard deduction for 2009 is $5,700). Married taxpayers filing separately also individually take a standard deduction of $5,700 for 2009.

Important credits and deductions

Credits and deductions significantly lower your tax bill. Unfortunately, some credits and deductions are lost unless you file a joint return. These include:

-- HOPE Scholarship credit (temporarily renamed the American Opportunity Education credit for 2009 and 2010);

-- Lifetime Learning credit;

-- Dependent care credit;

-- Earned Income Tax Credit;

-- Adoption credit; and the

-- Deduction for student loan interest.

If these credits and deductions are valuable to you, and you are married, you'll have to file a joint return.

When to file separately

Two events may make you decide to file a separate return:

--Your personal itemized deductions are very high; or

--You do not want to be legally responsible for your spouse's tax liability.

Let's look at the second one first. When a married couple files a joint return they are both legally liable for any tax owed to the government. This is a hard and fast rule. The moment you sign your name to your joint return, you are just as liable for the tax as your spouse. The IRS can come after both of you or just one for the full amount of the tax liability.

Getting out of joint liability is not easy. If you did not know about errors or false statements on your return, you can petition for relief under the innocent spouse rules. The IRS may excuse you from joint liability but the process takes a long time. If you do not want to be liable for your spouse's taxes, don't sign a joint return.

Sometimes one spouse has a large amount of itemized deductions. This often occurs because of illness. Medical expenses are deductible only to the extent that they exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income. If only one spouse had the majority of the couple's medical expenses, it may be easier to overcome the 7.5 percent threshold when only one spouse's income is reported on the return.

Employee business expenses and casualty losses, such as damage from a natural disaster to property owned by one spouse, also are common triggers for filing separately. If these expenses are high, they may reduce your tax bill if reported on a separate return.

Itemizing

If you decide to file separate returns, you and your spouse must itemize deductions or take the standard deduction. You cannot itemize deductions on your return and your spouse take the standard deduction on his return.

Weighing the pros and cons of filing separately is complex and unique to each couple. Lots of other factors, such as children, Social Security and pension benefits, and residency, can make a difference. Contact this office for help in deciding which filing status will maximize your tax breaks and minimize your tax bill.

The IRS has some good news for you. Under new rules, you may be able to gain a partial tax break on the full $250,000 capital gain exclusion ($500,000 if you file jointly with your spouse), even if you haven't satisfied the normal "two out of five year test" necessary to gain that tax benefit. You may qualify for an exception.

The IRS has some good news for you. Under generous tax rules, you may be qualify for a partial tax break on the full $250,000 capital gain exclusion ($500,000 if you file jointly with your spouse), even if you haven't satisfied the normal "two out of five year test" necessary to gain that tax benefit. You may qualify for an exception. However, under new rules established in the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, gain from the sale of a principal residence will no longer be excluded from gross income under Code Sec. 121 for periods that the home was not used as a principal residence.

Traditional approach

Homeowners who have owned or used their principal residence for less than two of the five years preceding the sale or exchange, or who have excluded gain from another sale or exchange during the last two years, may qualify for the reduced maximum exclusion if the sale or exchange is due to a change in place of employment, health, or unforeseen circumstances. The reduced exclusion is equal to the regular $250,000 ($500,000 for joint filers) exclusion amount multiplied by the number of days of ownership and use over the two-year period.

Reduced home sale exclusion

The 2008 Housing Act changed the homesale exclusion for home sales after December 31, 2008. Under the 2008 Housing Act, gain from the sale of a principal residence will no longer be excluded from a homeowner's gross income for periods that the home was not used as a principal residence (i.e. "non-qualifying use"). A period of absence generally counts as qualifying use if it occurs after the home was used as the principal residence.

In effect, the rule prevents the use of the Code Sec. 121 exclusion of gain from the sale of a principal residence of up to $250,000 ($500,000 for joint filers) for appreciation attributable to periods after 2008 that the home was used as a vacation home or rental property before being used as a principal residence.

Traditionally, the IRS was very reluctant to dispense people from the strict home exclusion rules. The IRS could make an exception based on a hardship or an unforeseen circumstance, but the criteria for these exceptions weren't very clear. The exceptions weren't always uniform. Now, the government has clarified the exceptions and significantly expanded them.

Criteria

Health reasons You may exclude gain if you sell your residence because of ill health. If your physician recommends a change in residence, the IRS explained that would be sufficient grounds to qualify for the exclusion. This important exclusion is also available if your spouse, the co-owner of your home or a household member must relocate for health reasons.

Change in employment If you must relocate because of a change in employment, you may be able to exclude gain from the sale of your residence. Your new place of employment must be at least 50 miles farther away. Like the special exception for health reasons, you can qualify for this exception if you, your spouse, another co-owner of your home or a household member must move for this reason.

Unforeseen circumstances This exception is very broad and can be confusing. Before you think you qualify under this exception, seek advice from a tax professional. Here are some events that qualify as an unforeseen circumstance:

--(1) Death;

--(2) Divorce or separation;

--(3) Unemployment;

--(4) Multiple births from the same pregnancy;

--(5) Moving closer to care for a close relative who is ill;

--(6) Condemnation or seizure of your home;

--(7) War or terrorism; and

--(8) Natural or man-made disasters.

In addition to these exceptions, the IRS has discretion to determine other circumstances as unforeseen. Like the health and change in employment exceptions, you may be eligible for an exclusion based on unforeseen circumstances if you, your spouse, the co-owner of your home, or a household member satisfies one of these criteria.

Professional guidance

Before you think you qualify under any of the exceptions, seek advice from a tax professional. For example, to qualify for the unemployment exception, you must be eligible for unemployment compensation. To come under the exception that accommodates moving to take care of a close relative, careful medical records and personal logs should be maintained. By gathering the proper proof in advance, major headaches with the IRS may be avoided.

As a business owner you have likely heard about the tax advantages of setting up a retirement plan for you and your employees. Many small business owners, however, have also heard some of the horror stories and administrative nightmares that can go along with plan sponsorship. Through marketing information that you receive, you may have learned that a simplified employer plan (SEP) is a retirement plan you can sponsor without the administrative hassle associated with establishing other company plans, including Keoghs.

Evaluate your needs

Getting started

Once you establish a SEP, the administrative requirements are simple. The IRS and each employee must be sent an annual statement about SEP contributions made on behalf of the employee and the value of that employee's accounts at the beginning and the end of the year. This responsibility can be handled by the financial institution for a small fee.

If you want assistance in establishing a SEP for your business, contact us for further information.

U.S. citizens and resident aliens working abroad may exclude up to $91,400 of their foreign earned income for 2009. Additionally, expatriates may deduct or exclude their foreign housing costs in excess of a base amount. The housing exclusion is for reimbursed expenses while the deduction is for unreimbursed costs.

Earned foreign income

Before being able to claim these exclusions, you must meet some primary requirements. Foreign earned income is an individual's earned income from foreign sources during the time period that he or she has a foreign tax home and either satisfies the bona fide or physical residence test.

Tax home

Your tax home also must be in a foreign country. Generally, the IRS and the courts hold that your principal place of business or employment is your tax home.

Status

Finally, you must be a:

U.S. citizen who is a bona fide resident of a foreign country or countries for a continuous time period including the entire tax year;

U.S. resident alien who is a citizen or national of a country having an income tax treaty with the U.S. and who satisfies the continuous residency requirement; or

U.S. citizen or resident alien physically present in a foreign country or countries for a minimum of 330 days during any consecutive 12 month period.

Higher-income individuals whose adjusted gross income (AGI) exceeds a threshold level must reduce the amount of their otherwise allowable itemized deductions.

Higher-income individuals whose adjusted gross income (AGI) exceeds a threshold level must continue to reduce the amount of their otherwise allowable itemized deductions.

Under the limitation, your total itemized deduction amount (with the exceptions, noted below) is reduced by the lesser of:

-- Three percent of the amount of your AGI in excess of the threshold amount for the tax year (adjusted for inflation); or

-- 80 percent of the itemized deductions otherwise allowable for the tax year.

For the 2009 tax year, the inflation-adjusted threshold amount is $166,800 for married taxpayers filing jointly, single taxpayers, and heads of households; and $83,400 for married taxpayers filing separately

For purposes of this limitation, itemized deductions do not include the deduction relating to medical expenses, the deduction for investment interest expenses, casualty or theft losses, or allowable wagering losses.

In computing the amount of the reduction of total itemized deductions, all other limitations applicable to those deductions, such as the 2-percent floor for miscellaneous itemized deductions, are applied first, and then the otherwise allowable total amount of deductions is reduced pursuant to this provision.

Example

For 2009, Smith is single and has AGI of $250,000 and $110,000 of itemized deductions, which include miscellaneous itemized deductions of $15,000 and a theft loss deduction of $20,000.

The theft loss is excluded in determining itemized deductions for this purpose, and the miscellaneous itemized deductions are first reduced by the 2-percent floor ($250,000 x 2% = $5,000). Therefore, otherwise allowable itemized deductions (excluding the theft loss) are $85,000 ($90,000 - $5,000). This amount is further reduced by $2,496 (3% x ($250,000 - $166,800). As such, total net deductions equal $82,504. The theft loss amount is added to this, for a total allowed itemized deduction amount of $102,504. Thus, Smith's itemized deductions are reduced by a total of $7,496 because of the size of his income (which in the 33% income tax bracket will cost him $2,473.68).