Mario@greenhausriordan.com
This letter highlights some of the more important tax developments that have come out
during the second three months of 2012. Most are documents from the Internal Revenue
Service, but some are important cases and legislative changes you might want to be aware
of for you or your business.
Individual Mandate to Buy Health Insurance: In National Federation of Independent
Business v. Sebelius, , No. 11-393 (U.S. 6/28/12), the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4
opinion, upholds the individual mandate under Affordable Care Act (ACA) as within
Congress's taxing power, stating that the ACA's “requirement that certain individuals pay a
financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a
tax.”
Pension Smoothing: As part of the highway funding bill (MAP-21), effective for plan years
beginning after December 31, 2011, the Act amends §430(h) to revise rules for determining
the segment rates under single-employer plan funding rules by adjusting a segment rate if
the rate determined under the regular rules is outside a specified range of the average of
the segment rates for the preceding 25-year period (“average” segment rates). The Act also
requires additional information to be included in the annual funding notice that defined
benefit plans must provide to participants and beneficiaries, labor organizations
representing such participants or beneficiaries, and the Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation.
S Corporation Shareholder Basis: In Maguire v. Comr., T.C. Memo 2012-160 (6/6/12), the
U.S. Tax Court held that shareholders in two related S corporations are not prohibited from
receiving a distribution of assets from one of their S corporations and then contributing
those assets to another of their S corporations in order to increase their bases in the latter
to absorb losses otherwise unavailable due to the basis limitation of §1366(d)(1). The fact
that the two S corporations had a synergistic business relationship and were owned by the
same shareholders did not preclude this result because the distributions and contributions
actually occurred. Shortly thereafter, the IRS issued Prop. Regs. §1.1366-2, REG-13404207, 77 Fed. Reg. 34884 (6/11/12), which would clarify the requirements for increasing basis
of indebtedness and to assist S corporation shareholders in determining with greater
certainty whether their particular arrangement creates basis of indebtedness. The IRS
explained that the proposed regulations would require that loan transactions represent bona
fide indebtedness of the S corporation to the shareholder in order to increase basis of
indebtedness; therefore, an S corporation shareholder would need not otherwise satisfy the
“actual economic outlay” doctrine for purposes of §1366(d)(1)(B). According to the IRS, the
NEW MILFORD• ORANGE • DANBURY • LAKEVILLE
860-355-1124 • GREENHAUSRIORDAN.COM
Mario@greenhausriordan.com
proposed regulations' key requirement would be that purported indebtedness of the S
corporation to a shareholder must be bona fide indebtedness to the shareholder.
COD Income Under §108: In Rev. Rul. 2012-14, 2012-24 I.R.B. 1012, the IRS ruled that to
measure a partner's insolvency under §108(d)(3), each partner treats as a liability the
amount of the partnership's discharged excess nonrecourse debt based on allocation of
cancellation of indebtedness income to the partner under §704(b).
Earnings and Profits: In REG-141268-11, 77 Fed. Reg. 22515 (4/16/12), the IRS issued
proposed regulations under §312 regarding allocation of earnings and profits in tax-free
transfers from one corporation to another. The proposed regulations would clarify that,
except as provided in Regs.§1.312-10, if property is transferred from one corporation to
another and no gain or loss is recognized, no allocation of the earnings and profits of the
transferor is made to the transferee unless the transfer is described in §381(a).
Deferral of Losses on Sale or Exchange of Property Between Controlled Group: In T.D.
9583, 77 Fed. Reg. 22480 (4/16/12), the IRS issued final regulations that provide that to
the extent a selling member's loss would be redetermined to be a noncapital, nondeductible
amount under Regs. §1.1502-13, but is not redetermined under Regs. §1.267(f)1(c)(2) (which generally renders the attribute redetermination rule inapplicable to sales
between members of a controlled group), the selling member's loss continues to be
deferred.
UNICAP Avoided Cost Rule: The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, in Dominion Resources
Inc. v. U.S., No. 2011-5087 (Fed. Cir. 5/31/12), held that the associated property rule laid
out in Regs. §1.263A-11(e)(1)(ii)(B), as applied to property temporarily withdrawn from
service, is not reasonable interpretation of the avoided cost rule in §263A. At issue in the
case was the amount of interest Dominion Resources must capitalize, rather than deduct,
from its taxable income as a result of burner improvements in its power plants.
Defense of Marriage Act Held Unconstitutional: The First Circuit Court of Appeals, in
(Massachusetts v. HHS, No. 10-2204 (1st Cir. 5/31/12), held that the Defense of Marriage
Act, 1 USC §7, is unconstitutional, that provisions in the Act, which deny numerous benefits,
including tax benefits, to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts,
impermissibly undercut choices made by same-sex couples and states in deciding who can
be married to whom. However, the court stayed enforcement of the decision until the
Supreme Court has the opportunity to issue its own ruling on the case, citing the likely
appeal of the First Circuit's holding.
NEW MILFORD• ORANGE • DANBURY • LAKEVILLE
860-355-1124 • GREENHAUSRIORDAN.COM
Mario@greenhausriordan.com
Deduction for Local Lodging Expenses: The IRS issued proposed regulations, REG-13758907, 77 Fed. Reg. 24657 (4/25/12), that would allow taxpayers to deduct local lodging
expenses as ordinary and necessary business expenses in appropriate circumstances. The
proposed regulations would not apply Regs. §1.262-1(b)(5) to expenses for local lodging of
an employee that an employer provides to the employee or requires the employee to
obtain, if: (1) the lodging is provided on a temporary basis; (2) the lodging is necessary for
the employee to participate in or be available for a bona fide business meeting or function of
the employer; and (3) the expenses are otherwise deductible by the employee, or would be
deductible if paid by the employee, under §162(a).
Overstatement of Basis for Extended Statute of Limitations: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled,
in (U.S. v. Home Concrete & Supply LLC, No. 11-139 (U.S. 4/25/12), that the extended sixyear statute of limitations period in §6501(e) does not apply to overstatement of basis as
an overstatement of basis is not an omission from gross income. The Court's ruling decides
a circuit split in favor of the Fourth and Fifth Circuits versus the Seventh, Federal, D.C., and
Tenth Circuits, which all held that an overstatement of basis is an omission of gross income
triggering the extended six-year statute of limitations.
Reporting of Interest Paid to Foreigners: While reporting of interest to foreigners is
controversial enough in its own right, final regulations (T.D. 9584, 77 Fed. Reg. 23391
(4/19/12)) are particularly notable in that the regulations will provide the IRS with
information that can be exchanged with foreign authorities under information exchange
arrangements to help the IRS under FATCA. The final rules ostensibly have been
“simplified,” by requiring reporting only when interest is paid to a resident of a country with
which the United States has an information sharing agreement; this in effect requires
financial institutions to parse their customer base to identify customers to get reports and
customers who don't need reports.
Draft Forms W-8: The IRS released draft Forms W-8 to comply with new FATCA
requirements. Separate versions of Form W-8BEN are proposed for individuals (draft W8BEN) and entities (draft W-8BEN-E), the latter of which is now six pages long instead of
one. The forms can be found in the lower right corner of this
URL: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/corporations/article/0,,id=236667,00.html
Inversions: The IRS, in T.D. 9592, 77 Fed. Reg. 34785 (6/12/12), and REG-107889-12, 77
Fed. Reg. 34887 (6/12/12), finalized and proposed regulations governing inversions. The
most controversial provision is one that defines a “substantial business” in a foreign country
by objective tests looking at whether 25% of assets, payroll and income are earned in a
NEW MILFORD• ORANGE • DANBURY • LAKEVILLE
860-355-1124 • GREENHAUSRIORDAN.COM
Mario@greenhausriordan.com
country. Since passing this test excuses a foreign company from the inversion rules, this is
an important test.
Program-Related Investments of Private Foundations: The IRS issues proposed rules (REG144267-11, 77 Fed. Reg. 23429 (4/19/12)) providing guidance to private foundations on
program-related investments. The proposed regulations provide a series of new examples
illustrating investments that qualify as program-related investments and do not modify
existing regulations. Instead, they provide additional examples that illustrate the application
of the existing regulations, IRS said. The charitable activities illustrated in the new examples
are based on published guidance and on financial structures described in private letter
rulings, IRS said. Aside from private foundations, the proposed regulations affect foundation
managers participating in the making of program-related investments.
Delay in Basis Reporting of Debt Instruments: The IRS, in Notice 2012-34, 2012-21 I.R.B.
937, in response to concerns about approaching deadlines, states that brokers will have
until 2014 to begin basis reporting on debt instruments and options. The change is in
response to worries voiced by brokers and other interested parties who complained to the
IRS that the proposed effective date of Jan. 1, 2013, did not give them enough time to build
and test the systems required to implement the reporting for debt instruments and options.
The Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 amended the broker reporting rules
in §6045 for certain securities, including debt instruments and options.
Proving IRS Deficiency Notices: The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, in Welch v. U.S., No.
2011-5090 (Fed. Cir. 5/18/12), lays out a test for determining whether evidence submitted
by the IRS is sufficient to demonstrate the mailing of a deficiency notice. “Use of the form
prescribed in the Internal Revenue Manual for establishing compliance with the notice of
deficiency mailing requirement — PS Form 3877 — is not a prerequisite to the government
demonstrating mailing of a notice of deficiency, but some corroborating evidence of both the
existence and timely mailing of the notice of deficiency is required,” explained the Federal
Circuit
First-Time Homebuyer Credit: The U.S. Tax Court, in a case of first impression (Trugman v.
Comr., 138 T.C. No. 22 (5/21/12)), holds that an individual may not claim the First-Time
Homebuyer Credit for a principal residence purchased through a Subchapter S corporation.
The court examined the term “individual” within the context of §36, and “read the term
‘individual' in section 36 to exclude S corporations.” The court stated “S corporations are not
individuals for purposes of section 36” and the corporations remain freestanding entities
“independently recognizable” from their shareholders.
NEW MILFORD• ORANGE • DANBURY • LAKEVILLE
860-355-1124 • GREENHAUSRIORDAN.COM
Mario@greenhausriordan.com
Substantial Risk of Forfeiture: The IRS, in REG-141075-09, 77 Fed. Reg. 31783 (5/30/12),
addresses points of confusion surrounding the “substantial risk of forfeiture” provision
under §83. The proposed rules would, among other clarifications, provide that such a risk
can be established only through a service condition, or a condition related to the purpose of
the transfer. The general concept of the provision is that property (such as stock options) is
not to be included in the gross income of a service provider (such as an employee) if there
is a risk that the conditions on which the property transfer are based could fail to
materialize and the property thus forfeited.
Health FSA Salary Reduction Limits: The IRS, in Notice 2012-40, 2012-26 I.R.B. 1046,
stated that the $2,500 limit on salary reduction contributions to health flexible spending
arrangements set by a provision of the 2010 federal health care law does not apply for plan
years starting before 2013.Notice 2012-40 fleshes out the details of the $2,500 cap on
salary reduction contributions to cafeteria plan health FSAs under §125(i). The notice
defines the term “taxable year” under §125(i) as the plan year of a cafeteria plan, a
clarification that employers sponsoring plans with fiscal years not lining up with the calendar
year have been anxiously awaiting.
Fee for Renewing PTIN: The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held, in Brannen v. U.S., No.
11-14138 (11th Cir. 6/7/12), that the Treasury Department has the statutory authority to
charge fees for issuing and renewing preparer tax identification numbers.
Portability of Deceased Spousal Unused Exclusion Amount: The IRS issued temporary and
proposed regulations (T.D. 9593, 77 Fed. Reg. 36150 (6/18/12); REG-141832-11, 77 Fed.
Reg. 36229 (6/18/12)) providing guidance on the estate and gift tax applicable exclusion
amount and the applicable requirements for electing portability of a deceased spousal
unused exclusion (DSUE) amount to the surviving spouse. The temporary rules also provide
guidance on the applicable rules for the surviving spouse's use of the DSUE amount. The
portability rules affect married spouses where the death of the first spouse occurs on or
after Jan. 1, 2011.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any concerns about how any of these new
development would affect you.
Sincerely,
Mario V. Lucibello, CPA
NEW MILFORD• ORANGE • DANBURY • LAKEVILLE
860-355-1124 • GREENHAUSRIORDAN.COM
Mario@greenhausriordan.com
NEW MILFORD• ORANGE • DANBURY • LAKEVILLE
860-355-1124 • GREENHAUSRIORDAN.COM