One of the “rules of thumb” for tax planning is that “smell counts” in any tax situation.  If the result just “looks bad” there’s a good chance that the courts will simply not allow it to stand.  This is doubly true with regard to §501(c)(3) charitable organizations that, while technically operated under principles that serve the public good, in reality always seem to benefit a very distinct, not so public, private group—like a single family.

That turned out to be the problem in the case of the Educational Assistance Foundation for the Descendants of Hungarian Immigrants in the Performing Arts, Inc., v. United States, 2015 TNT 128-15.

In the case of Levi v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2015-118 the question before the court was, effectively, whether the Levis had filed a valid return.  The issue arose because the return had been signed by an attorney retained by the couple to prepare their tax return.

Notice 2015-46 provides guidance to charitable hospitals on how to comply with the requirement in Reg. §1.501(r)‑4(b)(1)(iii)(F) that a hospital must include a provider list in its financial assistance policy (FAP).   The list must include all providers, other than the hospital itself, that deliver care in the facility and specify whether the individual providers are or are not covered by the FAP.

In the case of Greenberger, et al v. Commissioner, 115 AFTR2d ¶2015-844, US DC ND Ohio, No. 1:14-cv-01041 the issue is not whether the taxpayers had incurred a deductible loss—the IRS agreed that was so.  Rather the question was the nature of the loss.

Specifically the issue was whether the loss represented a theft loss (deductible as an ordinary loss under IRC §165 or was rather a capital loss that could only offset other capital gains or be slowly absorbed against $3,000 of other income each year.

The IRS has issued a memorandum that outlines relief available for taxpayers unable to comply with the electronic tax deposit requirements for taxes and thus are subject to a potential penalty of 10% of such taxes under IRC §6656.  In SBSE-04-0615-0045 the IRS has provided guidance to its employees regarding reasonable cause penalty relief for taxpayers unable to obtain a bank account in time to make the deposit.

With the temporary regulations on portability set to expire at the end of June, 2015, the IRS issued the final regulations on the portability election under IRC §2010 in TD 9725.  These regulations generally apply to estates of decedents dying on or after June 12, 2015 and gifts made on or after that date.

Generally the portability rules are one of the most significant developments in the area of estate taxation since the introduction of the unlimited marital deduction for transfer tax purposes in the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 and, when combined with the significantly increased unified credit, significantly modifies the issues to be decided when a couple establishes an estate plan. 

The IRS announced a change in policy regarding estate tax closing letters in their web pages.  On the page labeled “Frequently Asked Questions on Estate Taxes” (FAQ) the IRS announced that for estate returns filed on or after June 1, 2015 the IRS will no longer automatically issue closing letters.

For returns filed after June 1, 2015 the IRS will only provide closing letters if requested by the taxpayer.  The FAQ does not contain information about how taxpayers are to initiate such requests or details of the process, including whether the IRS plans to charge a user fee for obtaining such a letter.