Newsletters

The IRS has provided guidance on two exceptions to the 10 percent additional tax under Code Sec. 72(t)(1) for emergency personal expense distributions and domestic abuse victim distributions. These exceptions were added by the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022, P.L. 117-328, and became effective January 1, 2024. The Treasury Department and the IRS anticipate issuing regulations under Code Sec. 72(t) and request comments to be submitted on or before October 7, 2024.

The IRS has provided guidance on two exceptions to the 10 percent additional tax under Code Sec. 72(t)(1) for emergency personal expense distributions and domestic abuse victim distributions. These exceptions were added by the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022, P.L. 117-328, and became effective January 1, 2024. The Treasury Department and the IRS anticipate issuing regulations under Code Sec. 72(t) and request comments to be submitted on or before October 7, 2024.

Distributions for Emergency Personal Expenses

Code Sec. 72(t)(2)(I) provides an exception to the 10 percent additional tax for a distribution from an applicable eligible retirement plan to an individual for emergency personal expenses. The term "emergency personal expense distribution" means any distribution made from an applicable eligible retirement plan to an individual for purposes of meeting unforeseeable or immediate financial needs relating to necessary personal or family emergency expenses. The IRS specifically noted that emergency expenses could be related to: medical care; accident or loss of property due to casualty; imminent foreclosure or eviction from a primary residence; the need to pay for burial or funeral expenses; auto repairs; or any other necessary emergency personal expenses.

The IRS provides that a plan administrator or IRA custodian may rely on a written certification from the employee or IRA owner that they are eligible for an emergency personal expense distribution. Furthermore, the IRS provides that an emergency personal expense distribution is not treated as a rollover distribution and thus is not subject to mandatory 20% withholding. However, the distribution is subject to withholding, the IRS said. If the emergency personal expense distribution is repaid, it is treated as if the individual received the distribution and transferred it to an eligible retirement plan within 60 days of distribution.

If an otherwise eligible retirement plan does not offer emergency personal expense distributions, the IRS indicated that an individual may still take an otherwise permissible distribution and treat it as such on their federal income tax return. The individual claims on Form 5329 that the distribution is an emergency personal expense distribution, in accordance with the form’s instructions. The individual has the option to repay the distribution to an IRA within 3 years.

Distributions to Domestic Abuse Victims

Code Sec. 72(t)(2)(K) provides an exception to the 10 percent additional tax for an eligible distribution to a domestic abuse victim (domestic abuse victim distribution). The guidance defines a"domesticabusevictimdistribution" as any distribution from an applicable eligible retirement plan to a domestic abuse victim if made during the 1-year period beginning on any date on which the individual is a victim of domestic abuse by a spouse or domestic partner. "Domesticabuse" is defined as physical, psychological, sexual, emotional, or economic abuse, including efforts to control, isolate, humiliate, or intimidate the victim, or to undermine the victim’s ability to reason independently, including by means of abuse of the victim’s child or another family member living in the household.

As with distributions for emergency personal expenses, a retirement plan may rely on an employee’s written certification that they qualify for a domestic abuse victim distribution. Similarly, if an otherwise eligible retirement plan does not offer domestic abuse victim distributions, the IRS indicated that an individual may still take an otherwise permissible distribution and treat it as such on their federal income tax return. The individual claims on Form 5329 that the distribution is a domestic abuse victim distribution, in accordance with the form’s instructions. The individual has the option to repay the distribution to an IRA within 3 years.

Request for Comments

The Treasury Department and the IRS invite comments on the guidance, and specifically on whether the Secretary should adopt regulations providing exceptions to the rule that a plan administrator may rely on an employee’s certification relating to emergency personal expense distributions and procedures to address cases of employee misrepresentation. Comments should be submitted in writing on or before October 7, 2024, and should include a reference to Notice 2024-55.

On June 17, 2024, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service announced a new regulatory initiative focused on closing tax loopholes and stopping abusive partnership transactions used by wealthy taxpayers to avoid paying taxes.

On June 17, 2024, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service announced a new regulatory initiative focused on closing tax loopholes and stopping abusive partnership transactions used by wealthy taxpayers to avoid paying taxes.

Specifically targeted by this new tax compliance effort are partnership basis shifting transactions. In these transactions, a single business that operates through many different legal entities (related parties) enters into a set of transactions that manipulate partnership tax rules to maximize tax deductions and minimize tax liability. These basis shifting transactions allow closely related parties to avoid taxes.

The use of these abusive transactions grew during a period of severe underfunding for the IRS. As such, the audit rates for these increasingly complex structures fell significantly. It is estimated that these abusive transactions, which cut across a wide variety of industries and individuals, could potentially cost taxpayers more than $50 billion over a 10-year period, according to an IRS News Release.

"Using Inflation Reduction Act funding, we are working to reverse more than a decade of declining audits among the highest income taxpayers, as well as complex partnerships and corporations," IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel said during a press call discussing the new effort on June 14, 2024.

"This announcement signals the IRS is accelerating our work in the partnership arena, which has been overlooked for more than a decade and allowed tax abuse to go on for far too long," said IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel. "We are building teams and adding expertise inside the agency so we can reverse long-term compliance declines that have allowed high-income taxpayers and corporations to hide behind complexity to avoid paying taxes. Billions are at stake here".

This multi-stage regulatory effort announced by the Treasury and IRS includes the following guidance designed to stop the use of basis shifting transactions that use related-party partnerships to avoid taxes:

• proposed regulations under existing regulatory authority to stop related parties in complex partnership structures from shifting the tax basis of their assets amongst each other to take abusive deductions or reduce gains when the asset is sold;

• proposed regulation to require taxpayers and their material advisers to report if they and their clients are participating in abusive partnership basis shifting transactions; and

• a Revenue Rulingproviding that certain related-party partnership transactions involving basis shifting lack economic substance.

"Treasury and the IRS are focused on addressing high-end tax abuse from all angles, and the proposed rules released today will increase tax fairness and reduce the deficit," said U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Janet L. Yellen.

In the June 14, 2024, press call, Commissioner Danny Werfel also noted that there will be an increase in audits of large partnerships with average assets over $10 billion dollars and larger organizational changes taking place to support compliance efforts, including the creation of a new associate office that will focus exclusively on partnerships, S corporations, trusts, and estates.

By Catherine S. Agdeppa, Content Management Analyst

A savings account with the tax benefits of a health savings account or an educations savings account but without the singular restricted focus could be something that gains traction as Congress addresses the tax provision of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that expire in 2025.

A savings account with the tax benefits of a health savings account or an educations savings account but without the singular restricted focus could be something that gains traction as Congress addresses the tax provision of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that expire in 2025.

The concept was promoted by multiple witnesses testifying during a recent Senate Finance Committee hearing on the subject of child savings accounts and other tax advantaged accounts that would benefit children. It also is the subject of a recently released report from The Tax Foundation.

Rather than push new limited-use savings accounts, "policymakers may want to consider enacting a more comprehensive savings program such as a universalsavingsaccount," Veronique de Rugy, a research fellow at George Mason University, testified before the committee during the May 21, 2024, hearing. "Universalsavingsaccounts will allow workers to save in one simple account from which they would withdraw without penalty for any expected or unexpected events throughout their lifetime."

She noted that, like other more focused savings accounts, like health savings accounts, it would have "the benefit of sheltering some income from the punishing double taxation that our code imposes."

De Rugy added that universal savings accounts "have a benefit that they do not discourage savings for those who are concerned that the conditions for withdrawals would stop them from addressing an emergency in their family."

Adam Michel, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute, who also promoted the idea of universal savings accounts. He said these accounts "would allow families to save for their kids or any of life’s other priorities. The flexibility of these accounts make them best suited for lower and middle income Americans."

He also noted that they are promoting savings in countries that have implemented them, including Canada and United Kingdom.

"For example, almost 60 percent of Canadians own tax-free savingsaccounts," Michel said. "And more than half of those account holders earned the equivalent of about $37,000 a year. These accounts have helped increase savings and support the rest of the Canadian savings ecosystem."

De Rugy noted that in countries that have implemented it, they function like a Roth account in that money that has already been taxed can be put into it and not penalized or taxed upon withdrawal.

Michel also noted that the if the tax benefits extend to corporations as they do with deposits to employee health savings accounts, "to the extent that you lower the corporate income tax, you’re going to encourage a different additional investment into savings by those entities."

Simulating The Universal Savings Account Impact

The Tax Foundation in its report simulated how a universal savings account could work, based on how they are implemented in Canada. The simulation assumed the accounts could go active in 2025 for adults aged 18 years or older.

On a post-tax basis, individuals would be allowed to contribute up to $9,100 on a post-tax basis annually, with that cap indexed for inflation. Any unused "contribution room" would be allowed to be carried forward. Earnings would be allowed to grow tax-free and withdrawals would be allowed for any purpose without penalty or further taxation. Any withdrawal would be added back to that year’s contribution room and that would be eligible for carryover as well.

"The fiscal cost of this USA policy would be offset by ending the tax advantage of contributions to HSAs beginning in 2025," the report states. "As such, future contributions to HSAs would be given normal tax treatment, i.e. included in taxable income and subject to payroll tax with subsequent returns on contributions also included in taxable income."

In this scenario, the Tax Foundation report estimates that "this policy change would on net raise tax revenue by about $110 billion over the 10-year budget window."

As for the impact on taxpayers, the "after-tax income would fall by about 0.1 percent in 2025 and by a smaller amount in 2034, reflecting the net tax increase in those years," the report states. "Over the long run, and accounting for economic impacts, taxpayers across every quintile would see a small increase in after-tax income on average, but the top 5 percent of earners would continue to see a small decrease in after-tax income on average."

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

The Internal Revenue Service’s use of artificial intelligence in selecting tax returns for National Research Program audits that areused to estimate the tax gap needs more documentation and transparency, the U.S. Government Accountability Office stated.

The Internal Revenue Service’s use of artificial intelligence in selecting tax returns for National Research Program audits that areused to estimate the tax gap needs more documentation and transparency, the U.S. Government Accountability Office stated.

In a report issued June 5, 2024, the federal government watchdog noted that while the agency uses AI to improve the efficiency and selection of audit cases to help identify noncompliance, "IRS has not completed its documentation of several elements of its AI sample selection models, such as key components and technical specifications."

GAO noted that the IRS began using AI in a pilot in tax year 2019 for sampling tax returns for NRP audits. The current plan is to use AI to create a sample size of 4,000 returns to measure compliance and help inform tax gap estimates, although GAO expressed concerns about the accuracy of the estimates with that sample size.

"For example, NRP historically included more than 2,500 returns that claimed the Earned Income Tax Credit, but the redesigned sample has included less than 500 of these returns annually," the report stated.

IRS told GAO that it "is exploring ways to combine operational audit data with NRP audit data when developing its taxgapestimates. IRS officials also told us that if IRS can reliably combine these data for taxgap analysis, IRS might be better positioned to identify emerging trends in noncompliance and reduce the uncertainty of the estimates due to the small sample size."

The report also highlighted the fact that the agency "has multiple documents that collectively provide technical details and justifications for the design of the AI models. However, no set of documents contains complete information and IRS analyst could use to run or update the models, and several key documents are in draft form."

"Completing documentation would help IRS retain organizational knowledge, ensure the models are implemented consistently, and make the process more transparent to future users," the report stated.

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

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).