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)

Hopes for a pre-election resolution to the fate of the Bush-era tax cuts, extenders and other tax incentives are quickly fading as summer approaches.  This year is increasingly looking like a replay of 2010, the last time the Bush-era tax cuts were facing imminent expiration.  The White House, the Democratic-controlled Senate and the GOP-controlled House all have different opinions on the fate of these tax incentives and negotiations, which have been few and far between, and have quickly bogged down.  One solution, which is being talked about more and more, is a temporary extension of the tax cuts.  While this would punt the issue to the next Congress, it does little to ease taxpayers’ concerns about tax planning in a climate of constant uncertainty.

Hopes for a pre-election resolution to the fate of the Bush-era tax cuts, extenders and other tax incentives are quickly fading as summer approaches.  This year is increasingly looking like a replay of 2010, the last time the Bush-era tax cuts were facing imminent expiration.  The White House, the Democratic-controlled Senate and the GOP-controlled House all have different opinions on the fate of these tax incentives and negotiations, which have been few and far between, and have quickly bogged down.  One solution, which is being talked about more and more, is a temporary extension of the tax cuts.  While this would punt the issue to the next Congress, it does little to ease taxpayers’ concerns about tax planning in a climate of constant uncertainty.

Bush-era tax cuts

Unless extended, the tax cuts in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA) (as extended by the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010) will sunset after December 31, 2012.  The list of expiring tax incentives is long and includes reduced individual income tax rates and capital gains/dividends tax rates; the $1,000 child tax credit; enhancements to the earned income tax credit (EIC); and much more.

On May 15, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said that the House will vote before the November elections on legislation to extend the Bush-era tax cuts.  Boehner gave no timetable for a vote.  It is unclear at this time if the GOP plans to vote on making the Bush-era tax cuts permanent or merely to extend them one or two more years. Also unclear is whether or not any extension would be offset with revenue raisers elsewhere.  Even if the House votes on the tax cuts, there is no guarantee the Senate will take them up.

Complicating matters is the federal budget deficit.  After months of partisan wrangling last year, Congress passed the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA).  The BCA imposes mandatory, across-the-board spending cuts through sequestration.  The BCA’s spending cuts are scheduled to take effect in 2013.  The GOP wants to repeal the BCA and on May 10, the House approved legislation to effectively do that.  The GOP bill has no chance of passage in the Democratic-controlled Senate.  So the BCA remains, for now, law.

Few Capitol Hill observers expect Congress to take any meaningful action on the Bush-era tax cuts before the November elections. This leaves the fate of the Bush-era tax cuts to the lame duck Congress.  Depending on the outcome of the November elections, the lame duck Congress could do nothing and allow the Bush-era tax cuts to expire, make the tax cuts permanent, or – and this appears to be the most likely scenario – extend the tax cuts for one year. Either way, the uncertainty complicates tax planning for 2012 and beyond.

Small businesses

Lawmakers are also dueling over competing small business tax bills. The House has approved the GOP-sponsored Small Business Tax Cut Act.  The GOP bill would, among other provisions, provide a deduction for 20 percent of qualified domestic business income of the taxpayer for the tax year, subject to limitations. In the Senate, the Democrats’ small business bill would give a 10 percent income tax credit to small employers that increase wages or create jobs in 2012 and extend 100 percent bonus depreciation through 2012 (which had expired at the end of 2011).   If the Senate approves the Democratic bill, the two chambers could iron-out the differences in the bills in conference.

Tax extenders

Since January, supporters of the tax extenders have tried several times, all unsuccessfully, to attach the extenders to other bills.  Some of the extenders were initially attached to the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, which extended the employee-side payroll tax cut for all of calendar year 2012, but were subsequently dropped. Supporters also tried to include many of the extenders, especially energy-related tax incentives, to the Senate’s highway funding bill: the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act.  At the last minute, the extenders were removed from the Senate bill.

A drag on the extenders is their estimated cost to the federal budget.  According to the Congressional Research Service, renewing all of the extenders for 2012 would cost $35 billion. This is one reason why supporters have tried to move only some of the extenders.  There have also been calls in Congress to let some of the extenders expire permanently; but every extender has its supporter.

Federal estate tax

Another big question mark hovers over the federal estate tax.  Unless Congress acts, the federal estate tax is schedule to revert to its pre-EGTRRA levels (a top tax rate of 55 percent with a $1 million exclusion).  In 2010, the White House and the GOP agreed on a top tax rate of 35 percent with a $5 million exclusion (indexed for inflation) for decedents dying in 2011 and 2012 (special rules applied to decedents dying in 2010).  The GOP has proposed to eliminate the estate tax entirely or, if not abolished, to retain the 35/$5 million amounts for decedents dying after 2012; the White House has proposed to reduce the exclusion amount to $3.5 million. 

Our office will monitor developments and keep you posted of any changes. If you have any questions about legislative developments, please contact our office.