The American Institute of CPAs in a March 31 letter to House of Representatives voiced its “strong support” for a series of tax administration bills passed in recent days.

The American Institute of CPAs in a March 31 letter to House of Representatives voiced its “strong support” for a series of tax administration bills passed in recent days.

The four bills highlighted in the letter include the Electronic Filing and Payment Fairness Act (H.R. 1152), the Internal Revenue Service Math and Taxpayer Help Act (H.R. 998), the Filing Relief for Natural Disasters Act (H.R. 517), and the Disaster Related Extension of Deadlines Act (H.R. 1491).

All four bills passed unanimously.

H.R. 1152 would apply the “mailbox” rule to electronically submitted tax returns and payments. Currently, a paper return or payment is counted as “received” based on the postmark of the envelope, but its electronic equivalent is counted as “received” when the electronic submission arrived or is reviewed. This bill would change all payment and tax form submissions to follow the mailbox rule, regardless of mode of delivery.

“The AICPA has previously recommended this change and thinks it would offer clarity and simplification to the payment and document submission process,” the organization said in the letter.

H.R. 998 “would require notices describing a mathematical or clerical error be made in plain language, and require the Treasury Secretary to provide additional procedures for requesting an abatement of a math or clerical adjustment, including by telephone or in person, among other provisions,” the letter states.

H.R. 517 would allow the IRS to grant federal tax relief once a state governor declares a state of emergency following a natural disaster, which is quicker than waiting for the federal government to declare a state of emergency as directed under current law, which could take weeks after the state disaster declaration. This bill “would also expand the mandatory federal filing extension under section 7508(d) from 60 days to 120 days, providing taxpayers with additional time to file tax returns following a disaster,” the letter notes, adding that increasing the period “would provide taxpayers and tax practitioners much needed relief, even before a disaster strikes.”

H.R. 1491 would extend deadlines for disaster victims to file for a tax refund or tax credit. The legislative solution “granting an automatic extension to the refund or credit lookback period would place taxpayers affected my major disasters on equal footing as taxpayers not impacted by major disasters and would afford greater clarity and certainty to taxpayers and tax practitioners regarding this lookback period,” AICPA said.

Also passed by the House was the National Taxpayer Advocate Enhancement Act (H.R. 997) which, according to a summary of the bill on Congress.gov, “authorizes the National Taxpayer Advocate to appoint legal counsel within the Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS) to report directly to the National Taxpayer Advocate. The bill also expands the authority of the National Taxpayer Advocate to take personnel actions with respect to local taxpayer advocates (located in each state) to include actions with respect to any employee of TAS.”

Finally, the House passed H.R. 1155, the Recovery of Stolen Checks Act, which would require the Treasury to establish procedures that would allow a taxpayer to elect to receive replacement funds electronically from a physical check that was lost or stolen.

All bills passed unanimously. The passed legislation mirrors some of the provisions included in a discussion draft legislation issued by the Senate Finance Committee in January 2025. A section-by-section summary of the Senate discussion draft legislation can be found here.

AICPA’s tax policy and advocacy comment letters for 2025 can be found here.

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

The Tax Court ruled that the value claimed on a taxpayer’s return exceeded the value of a conversation easement by 7,694 percent. The taxpayer was a limited liability company, classified as a TEFRA partnership. The Tax Court used the comparable sales method, as backstopped by the price actually paid to acquire the property.

The Tax Court ruled that the value claimed on a taxpayer’s return exceeded the value of a conversation easement by 7,694 percent. The taxpayer was a limited liability company, classified as a TEFRA partnership. The Tax Court used the comparable sales method, as backstopped by the price actually paid to acquire the property.

The taxpayer was entitled to a charitable contribution deduction based on its fair market value. The easement was granted upon rural land in Alabama. The property was zoned A–1 Agricultural, which permitted agricultural and light residential use only. The property transaction at occurred at arm’s length between a willing seller and a willing buyer.

Rezoning

The taxpayer failed to establish that the highest and best use of the property before the granting of the easement was limestone mining. The taxpayer failed to prove that rezoning to permit mining use was reasonably probable.

Land Value

The taxpayer’s experts erroneously equated the value of raw land with the net present value of a hypothetical limestone business conducted on the land. It would not be profitable to pay the entire projected value of the business.

Penalty Imposed

The claimed value of the easement exceeded the correct value by 7,694 percent. Therefore, the taxpayer was liable for a 40 percent penalty for a gross valuation misstatement under Code Sec. 6662(h).

Ranch Springs, LLC, 164 TC No. 6, Dec. 62,636

State and local housing credit agencies that allocate low-income housing tax credits and states and other issuers of tax-exempt private activity bonds have been provided with a listing of the proper population figures to be used when calculating the 2025:

State and local housing credit agencies that allocate low-income housing tax credits and states and other issuers of tax-exempt private activity bonds have been provided with a listing of the proper population figures to be used when calculating the 2025:

• calendar-year population-based component of the state housing credit ceiling under Code Sec. 42(h)(3)(C)(ii);
• calendar-year private activity bond volume cap under Code Sec. 146; and
• exempt facility bond volume limit under Code Sec. 142(k)(5)

These figures are derived from the estimates of the resident populations of the 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, which were released by the Bureau of the Census on December 19, 2024. The figures for the insular areas of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands are the midyear population figures in the U.S. Census Bureau’s International Database.

Notice 2025-18

The value of assets of a qualified terminable interest property (QTIP) trust includible in a decedent's gross estate was not reduced by the amount of a settlement intended to compensate the decedent for undistributed income.

The value of assets of a qualified terminable interest property (QTIP) trust includible in a decedent's gross estate was not reduced by the amount of a settlement intended to compensate the decedent for undistributed income.

The trust property consisted of an interest in a family limited partnership (FLP), which held title to ten rental properties, and cash and marketable securities. To resolve a claim by the decedent's estate that the trustees failed to pay the decedent the full amount of income generated by the FLP, the trust and the decedent's children's trusts agreed to be jointly and severally liable for a settlement payment to her estate. The Tax Court found an estate tax deficiency, rejecting the estate's claim that the trust assets should be reduced by the settlement amount and alternatively, that the settlement claim was deductible from the gross estate as an administration expense (P. Kalikow Est., Dec. 62,167(M), TC Memo. 2023-21).

Trust Not Property of the Estate

The estate presented no support for the argument that the liability affected the fair market value of the trust assets on the decedent's date of death. The trust, according to the court, was a legal entity that was not itself an asset of the estate. Thus, a liability that belonged to the trust but had no impact on the value of the underlying assets did not change the value of the gross estate. Furthermore, the settlement did not burden the trust assets. A hypothetical purchaser of the FLP interest, the largest asset of the trust, would not assume the liability and, therefore, would not regard the liability as affecting the price. When the parties stipulated the value of the FLP interest, the estate was aware of the undistributed income claim. Consequently, the value of the assets included in the gross estate was not diminished by the amount of the undistributed income claim.

Claim Not an Estate Expense

The claim was owed to the estate by the trust to correct the trustees' failure to distribute income from the rental properties during the decedent's lifetime. As such, the claim was property included in the gross estate, not an expense of the estate. The court explained that even though the liability was owed by an entity that held assets included within the taxable estate, the claim itself was not an estate expense. The court did not address the estate's theoretical argument that the estate would be taxed twice on the underlying assets held in the trust and the amount of the settlement because the settlement was part of the decedent's residuary estate, which was distributed to a charity. As a result, the claim was not a deductible administration expense of the estate.

P.B. Kalikow, Est., CA-2

An individual was not entitled to deduct flowthrough loss from the forfeiture of his S Corporation’s portion of funds seized by the U.S. Marshals Service for public policy reasons. The taxpayer pleaded guilty to charges of bribery, fraud and money laundering. Subsequently, the U.S. Marshals Service seized money from several bank accounts held in the taxpayer’s name or his wholly owned corporation. 

An individual was not entitled to deduct flowthrough loss from the forfeiture of his S Corporation’s portion of funds seized by the U.S. Marshals Service for public policy reasons. The taxpayer pleaded guilty to charges of bribery, fraud and money laundering. Subsequently, the U.S. Marshals Service seized money from several bank accounts held in the taxpayer’s name or his wholly owned corporation. The S corporation claimed a loss deduction related to its portion of the asset seizures on its return and the taxpayer reported a corresponding passthrough loss on his return.

However, Courts have uniformly held that loss deductions for forfeitures in connection with a criminal conviction frustrate public policy by reducing the "sting" of the penalty. The taxpayer maintained that the public policy doctrine did not apply here, primarily because the S corporation was never indicted or charged with wrongdoing. However, even if the S corporation was entitled to claim a deduction for the asset seizures, the public policy doctrine barred the taxpayer from reporting his passthrough share. The public policy doctrine was not so rigid or formulaic that it may apply only when the convicted person himself hands over a fine or penalty.

Hampton, TC Memo. 2025-32, Dec. 62,642(M)

Stock options have become a common part of many compensation and benefits packages. Even small businesses have jumped on the bandwagon and now provide a perk previously confined to the executive suites of large publicly held companies. If you are an employee who has received stock options, you need to be aware of the complicated tax rules that govern certain stock options -- several potential "gotchas" exist and failing to spot them can cause major tax headaches.

Stock options have become a common part of many compensation and benefits packages. Even small businesses have jumped on the bandwagon and now provide a perk previously confined to the executive suites of large publicly held companies. If you are an employee who has received stock options, you need to be aware of the complicated tax rules that govern certain stock options -- several potential "gotchas" exist and failing to spot them can cause major tax headaches.

Over the past few years, the rules governing stock options have become increasingly complicated. More than ever, it is important that employees who receive stock options have a good understanding about how they are taxed -- on receipt of the option, at its exercise, or pursuant to the sale of the underlying stock -- as well as the potential consequences of their decisions regarding the timing of the taxation of those options.

NSOs vs ISOs

The most common type of stock option that employees receive is called a nonstatutory stock option (NSO). The other, less common type of stock option is generically referred to as an incentive stock option (ISO). ISOs are governed by very specific rules and are subjected to strict statutory requirements; NSOs, on the other hand, are subject to more general rules and guidelines.

Incentive stock options (ISOs) give the employee the right to purchase stock from the employer at a specified price. The employee is not taxed on the ISO at the time of its grant or at the time of the exercise of the option. Instead, he or she is taxed only at the time of the disposition of the stock acquired through exercise of the option. Note, however, the exercise of an ISO does give rise to an alternative minimum tax item in the amount of the difference between the option price and the market price of the stock.

Note. The IRS temporarily suspended the collection of ISO alternative minimum tax (AMT) liabilities through September 30, 2008.

NSOs also give the employee the right to purchase stock from the employer at a specified price. When and how an NSO is taxed depends on several factors including whether the underlying stock is substantially vested, and whether or not the fair market value of the stock is readily ascertainable.

Vesting. If an employee receives options from his employer, the tax consequences depend on whether the stock is vested. Stock you receive from your employer is "substantially vested" if it is either "transferable" by the employee or it is no longer subject to a "substantial risk of forfeiture". Property is "transferable" if you can sell, assign or pledge your interest in the option without the risk of losing it. A "substantial risk of forfeiture" exists if the rights in the property transferred depend on the future performance (or refraining from performance) of substantial services by any person, or the occurrence of a certain condition related to the transfer.

Readily ascertainable fair market value. An NSO always has a readily ascertainable fair market value when the option is publicly traded. When an option is not publicly traded, it can have a readily ascertainable fair market value if its value can be measured with reasonable accuracy. IRS rules spell out when fair market value can be measured with reasonable accuracy.

Generally, an employee who receives an NSO that has a readily ascertainable fair market value is subject to special tax rules under the Internal Revenue Code that apply to property received by a taxpayer in exchange for services when the option is granted. Under these rules, the option must be included in the employee's income as ordinary income in the amount of the fair market value in the year the option becomes substantially vested. If the employee paid for the option, he recognizes the value of the option minus its cost. The employee is not taxed again when he exercises the option and buys the corporate stock; he is taxed when the stock is sold. The gain or loss recognized when the employee sells the stock is capital in nature.

No readily ascertainable fair market value. Employees who receive NSOs from privately held companies are most likely to receive an NSO without a readily ascertainable fair market value. In general, when an NSO does not have a readily ascertainable fair market value, taxation occurs at the time when the option is exercised or transferred. The employee will recognize ordinary income in the amount of the value of the stock when it becomes substantially vested minus any amounts paid for the option or stock. The gain or loss recognized when the employee sells the stock is capital in nature. However, employees who have NSOs without a readily ascertainable fair market value also have the ability to elect to have the transaction taxed differently,

Section 83(b) election: Elector beware

Employees who exercise options that did not have a readily ascertainable fair market value when they were granted may elect to report income from the stock underlying the option at the time of the exercise rather than waiting until the stock is substantially vested. This election is referred to as a "Section 83(b) election" and is non-revocable. Once the election is made, any later subsequent appreciation when the stock becomes substantially vested would not be includible in income.

As you can see, the rules and tax laws related to stock options are indeed complicated and require some advance planning in order to avoid a big tax "gotcha". If you are contemplating entering into any transactions that involve stock options, please contact the office for additional guidance.

Keeping the family business in the family upon the death or retirement of the business owner is not as easy as one would think. In fact, almost 30% of all family businesses never successfully pass to the next generation. What many business owners do not know is that many problems can be avoided by developing a sound business succession plan in advance.

Keeping the family business in the family upon the death or retirement of the business owner is not as easy as one would think. In fact, almost 30% of all family businesses never successfully pass to the next generation. What many business owners do not know is that many problems can be avoided by developing a sound business succession plan in advance.

In the event of a business owner's demise or retirement, the absence of a good business succession plan can endanger the financial stability of his business as well as the financial security of his family. With no plan to follow, many families are forced to scramble to outsiders to provide capital and acquire management expertise.

Here are some ideas to consider when you decided to begin the process of developing your business' succession plan:

Start today. Succession planning for the family-owned business is particularly difficult because not only does the founder have to address his own mortality, but he must also address issues that are specific to the family-owned business such as sibling rivalry, marital situations, and other family interactions. For these and other reasons, succession planning is easy to put off. But do you and your family a favor by starting the process as soon as possible to ensure a smooth, stress-free transition from one generation to the next.

Look at succession as a process. In the ideal situation, management succession would not take place at any one time in response to an event such as the death, disability or retirement of the founder, but would be a gradual process implemented over several years. Successful succession planning should include the planning, selection and preparation of the next generation of managers; a transition in management responsibility; gradual decrease in the role of the previous managers; and finally discontinuation of any input by the previous managers.

Choose needs over desires. Your foremost consideration should be the needs of the business rather than the desires of family members. Determine what the goals of the business are and what individual has the leadership skills and drive to reach them. Consider bringing in competent outside advisors and/or mediators to resolve any conflicts that may arise as a result of the business decisions you must make.

Be honest. Be honest in your appraisal of each family member's strengths and weaknesses. Whomever you choose as your successor (or part of the next management team), it is critical that a plan is developed early enough so these individuals can benefit from your (and the existing management team's) experience and knowledge.

Other considerations

A business succession plan should not only address management succession, but transfer of ownership and estate planning issues as well. Buy-sell agreements, stock gifting, trusts, and wills all have their place in the succession process and should be discussed with your professional advisors for integration into the plan.

Developing a sound business succession plan is a big step towards ensuring that your successful family-owned business doesn't become just another statistic. Please contact the office for more information and a consultation regarding how you should proceed with your business' succession plan.

As you open the doors of your new business, the last thing on your mind may be the potential for loss of profits through employee oversight or theft - especially if you are the only employee. However, setting up some basic internal controls to guard against future loss before you hire others can save you headaches in the future.

As you open the doors of your new business, the last thing on your mind may be the potential for loss of profits through employee oversight or theft - especially if you are the only employee. However, setting up some basic internal controls to guard against future loss before you hire others can save you headaches in the future.

Soon after you start making money and the world realizes that they cannot live without your goods or service, you will probably need to hire employees. Although necessary for your growing company, hiring employees increases your risk of loss through errors, oversights and theft.

Implementing internal controls to help you monitor your business can decrease the need for constant supervision of your employees. Internal controls are checks and balances to prevent fraud, limit financial losses and reduce errors or oversights by employees. For example, the most basic internal control concept requires that certain tasks be handled by different people. This process, called "separation of duties", can greatly decrease the probability of loss.

The following basic internal control checklist includes suggestions that, once implemented, can help you and your employees avoid concerns about fraud or theft in the workplace:

As your company grows, you may want to become less and less involved with the day-to-day operations of the business. The internal controls you put into place now will help keep the profits up, the losses down, and help you sleep better at night. If you need any assistance with setting up internal controls for you business, please feel free to contact our office.

The United States is currently experiencing the largest influx of inpatriates (foreign nationals working in the U.S.) in history. As the laws regarding United States taxation of foreign nationals can be quite complex, this article will answer the most commonly asked questions that an inpatriate may have concerning his/her U.S. tax liability and filing requirements.

The United States is currently experiencing the largest influx of inpatriates (foreign nationals working in the U.S.) in history. As the laws regarding United States taxation of foreign nationals can be quite complex, this article will answer the most commonly asked questions that an inpatriate may have concerning his/her U.S. tax liability and filing requirements.

I am a foreign national working in the United States and am paid by my foreign employer. Do I need to file a tax return and pay income taxes?

The general rule is that all wages earned while working in the United States, regardless of who pays for it or the locations of the employer, is taxable in the United States. This is true whether you are treated as a U.S. resident or not.

What is the difference in taxation of a resident alien versus a nonresident alien?

The difference in being taxed as a resident versus a nonresident is as follows: a resident alien is taxable in the U.S. on all worldwide income, regardless of what country it is earned or located in. A nonresident alien is generally taxable only on what is referred to as "effectively connected income". This is normally wages earned while in the U.S., along with earnings on property located in the United States. Certain deductions, exemptions, and filing statuses are not available to nonresidents.

I am not a resident for immigration purposes as I am here on a temporary visa. Can I still be a resident for U.S. tax purposes?

The determination of residency for tax purposes does not bear any relationship to your legal or immigration status. It is quite common for a foreign national to be a nonresident for legal or immigration purposes and yet be a resident for tax purposes. In addition, being a resident for income tax purposes can be different than being a resident for estate tax or even social security tax purposes. In some cases, it is actually more beneficial to be treated as a resident than as a nonresident. As a result, it is important to have all of the information we request in order to make the best decision for you.

How do you determine whether you are a resident or nonresident for U.S. income tax purposes?

As a foreign national working in the U.S., you must first determine if you are a "resident" for U.S. income tax purposes. There are two tests to determine whether you are a U.S. tax resident. These two tests are:

If you meet the requirements of either of these two tests, you will be treated as a U.S. tax resident (unless a treaty overrides this).

What is the difference between a lawful permanent resident and meeting the substantial presence test?

Lawful Permanent Resident Test - In its simplest form, this is when you have been issued a green card or alien registration card allowing for permanent residency.

Substantial Presence Test - This is a more complicated test that looks at the number of days of physical presence in the U.S. over a three-year period of time. If the number of days of U.S. presence exceeds 183 days in the current year, or 183 equivalent days during a three-year period, you are a resident for U.S. tax purposes. An "equivalent day" is defined as:

There are exceptions to the counting of days, but in general, any part of a day counts as a full day.

What if I meet the substantial presence test? Are there exceptions to allow me to be a nonresident anyway?

31 Day Exception - If you are present in the States for less than 31 days in the current year, the substantial presence test is not applied.

Closer Connections Exception - If you are present in the U.S. for fewer than 183 days in the current year AND you maintain a "tax home" in another country during the entire year AND you maintain a closer connection to the foreign country in which you have a tax home, then this test will not apply.

J-1 Visa - Subject to some limitations, you do not count days in the U.S., for calculating the substantial presence test, while you are here on a J-1 visa (generally for up to two years). This does not exempt the earnings, but just allows you to be treated as a nonresident alien, not a resident alien.

Treaty - Some countries have treaties with the U.S. which, in some cases, will override either the U.S. Internal Revenue Code or the income tax law of the foreign country.

If I become a U.S. taxable resident during the year, when does my residency begin?

In general, residency begins on the first physically present day in the U.S. during the year you meet the substantial presence test. There are exceptions for "nominal" days along with the closer connection exception, which can apply here. Remember that residency determines from what point you are taxable on your worldwide income, not when you are taxable.

Likewise, your residency is deemed to end on the last day that you are present in the U.S. within the year that you move from the United States. Problems can arise if you return back to the U.S. within a short period of time.

Can I elect to be treated as a taxable resident even if I do not meet any of the tests (in order to take advantage of special tax rates and laws not available to nonresidents)?

First Year Election - Sometimes it can be better to be treated as a resident than as a nonresident. There is an election available that allows a foreign national to be taxed as a resident in the initial year of a U.S. assignment even if one of the residency tests is not met for the year. To qualify, you would have to satisfy the following:

What if my home country considers me as a taxable resident at the same time the U.S. treats me as a taxable resident? Am I double taxed?

The general rules discussed above are based on the IRS Code. The United States has entered into numerous tax treaties with other countries. The purpose of these treaties is to prevent double taxation issues that may arise due to differences in the tax laws of the two countries. It is possible to be considered a resident, subject to tax in both countries. The treaties usually provide for 'tiebreaker' rules to override the IRS Code or the foreign home country tax laws. Most treaty provisions require the filing of certain documents, though, in order to take benefit of them.

I am on a short-term assignment from my home country and my employer pays for my rent and meals while I am working here in the U.S. Is any of this taxable?

The first thing you need to do is determine whether your assignment is considered "short-term" within the definition of U.S. law. An individual is treated as being on a short-term assignment in the U.S. if their tax home has not changed from their foreign location. If the intent of the assignment is to return to the original work location within one year, the assignment is considered a temporary assignment. This does not determine whether you are a resident or not. It just determines which types of payments are taxable.

The advantage of a temporary assignment is that the employer-provided benefits such as lodging, meals travel and certain other expenses are not considered taxable wages in the U.S. In this case, a resident or nonresident would not be taxed on these payments. On a long-term assignment (more than 12 months), these are typically taxed in addition to the wages.

What happens if I am a nonresident for part of the year and a resident for another part of the year?

It is possible to be taxed in one year as both a resident and a nonresident. If this is the case, a special filing is made on a single tax return, with certain forms required. During the residency period, you would be taxed on worldwide income. During the nonresidency period, you would be taxed only on effectively connected income (usually wages earned in the U.S., as noted earlier).

Can I be exempt or excluded from tax from the U.S. federal government but still be taxed by one of the States?

Yes. Please note quite a few of the 50 states of the U.S. do not follow some, or all, of the U.S. federal tax codes or recognize the Treaties between the U.S. and other countries. So, it is possible, and highly probable, you could be taxable for State purposes but may be exempt for federal. In addition, other tax filing requirements, including estate and gift taxes, social security taxes, along with other filing forms, may be required regardless of your income tax residency determination.