A recent Arkansas U.S. District Court case involved the court resolving a number of not often raised in court questions regarding the interaction of the passive activity rules, the real estate professional classification, S corporations and stock provided to an employee that was subject to restrictions triggering treatment under IRC §83(b).  The case in question is the case of Stanley v. United States, 116 AFTR2d ¶2015-5419, Case No. 5:14-CV-05236, U.S.D.C. Western District of Arkansas.

The issues arose regarding Mr. and Mrs. Stanley's claimed deductions for losses on Schedule E that arose from real estate related activities.  Mr. Stanley took the position that he qualified as a real estate professional and that all of the various items reported on Schedule E were properly classified as a single activity under the passive activity rules.

The issue of whether a taxpayer was justified in writing off the balance of a purchased intangible was the matter at issue in the case of Steinberg, et al v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2015-222.

The taxpayers in this case had acquired a towing contract as part of the acquisition of the assets of a business in 2005.  The contract, which provided the taxpayers the sole and exclusive right to operate “Official Police Garages” in a portion of Los Angeles.  The contract had an expiration date on June 27, 2009 and the city of Los Angeles had the exclusive option to extend the term for an additional five years.

In Revenue Procedure 2015-56 the IRS provided a safe-harbor method that may be used by certain taxpayers operating a retail establishment or restaurant for remodel-refresh costs.

One key restriction is that this safe harbor may only be used by taxpayers that have applicable financial statements (AFP) as referred to in the tangible property regulations that took effect in 2014. Such statements are defined at Reg. §1.263(a)-1(f)(4)—and many small businesses will not have a statement.

In the case of Green v. United States, 116 AFTR 2d ¶ 2015-5394, US District Court, Western District of Oklahoma, Case No. CIV-13-1237-D the court was asked to decide the application of the charitable contribution provisions applicable to trusts and estates under IRC §642 and a donation of appreciated property.

In Chief Counsel Email 201545025 the issue involved whether the use of an approved private delivery service was acceptable for delivery to the IRS of notices of non-judicial sales.

IRC §7425 deals with the IRS’s rights when the service obtains a lien on property.  Generally such a lien is not impacted by any judicial proceeding to which the IRS is not a party.  A limited exception occurs in certain cases described in IRC §7425(b) if the IRS is properly notified of the proceeding.

In Chief Counsel Advice 201545017 the IRS looked at whether an amended return was timely filed where an attempt was made to file it electronically prior to the expiration of the statute, the return was rejected and then a paper return was filed without contacting the e-Help desk to make a waiver request to file on paper. 

In TAM 201544025 the IRS decided that a foundation's weekly sales bazaar income is not substantially related to its tax exempt purpose, nor does it qualify for the rental exception for rental of real property under IRC §512(b).

The IRS National Office determined that the proper life for amortization of an acquired domain name is 15 years in Chief Counsel Advice 201543014.  That was true whether the domain name was a generic domain name (one that doesn’t refer to a specific company or product name, say “dogfood.com”) or a non-generic domain name (one that is associated with a specific company, product or service name, such as “microsoft.com”).

The cost of doing tax preparation business decreased in a minor amount due to new temporary regulations issued by the IRS (TD 9742).

In the case of The Howard Hughes Company, LLC v. Commissioner, 142 TC No. 20, the Tax Court clarified the limit of its decision in Shea Homes, Inc. v. Commissioner, 142 TC No.3, denying the completed contract method to a developer that did not actually construct homes in this case.  On appeal, the Fifth Circuit accepted the Tax Court’s analysis (The Howard Hughes Company, LLC v. Commissioner, CA5, Nos. 14-60915, 14-60921, AFTR 2d ¶ 2015-5368).

The summer of 1972 had the break-in at the Watergate office complex in Washington DC on June 17.  While that event is now the subject of history books, an event that took place just over a month later just recently was the featured issue in tax litigation.  In the case of Estate of Redstone v. Commissioner, 145 TC No. 11 the issue became whether or not a gift had taken place back in 1972, a gift the IRS now sought to collect gift tax on.  Since no gift tax return had been filed, the statute remained open for the IRS to assess and attempt to collect the tax it claimed was due.

The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 at Title XI provides for changes to be made to partnerships.  The most significant is a major change in how examinations of partnerships will be handled by default, while a second change attempts to clarify the family partnership provisions of the IRC.

An estate argued that it should be excused from late filing penalties because it had relied on the advice of an attorney—but the court in the case of West, et al v. Koskinen, 2015 TNT 203-11 (USDC Eastern District Virginia) determined that, in fact, there had been no advice received from the attorney on this matter.