Transfer of property incident to a divorce that is covered by IRC §1041 is a nonrecognition transaction, with each spouse getting a carryover basis, even if the transaction otherwise appears to be a sale. The taxpayer in the case of Belot v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2016-113 argued that this nonrecognition provision should apply in his case.

IRC §1041(a) provides:

(a) General rule

No gain or loss shall be recognized on a transfer of property from an individual to (or in trust for the benefit of)—

(1) a spouse, or

(2) a former spouse, but only if the transfer is incident to the divorce.

PLR 201624003 reminds us that when it comes to S corporations, the “check the box” regulations can be more complicated than they first appear.

Under the check the box provisions found at Reg. §301.7701-3 an entity that is not automatically classified as a corporation is allowed to elect whether to be treated as a corporation or, if it has one owner, a disregarded entity or, with two or more owners, a partnership. Since, once an entity elects to be treated as a corporation under check the box it is treated as a corporation for the entire IRC (IRC §7701 applies “for purposes of this title” which means the entire Internal Revenue Code found at Title 26 of the United States Code), if the entity is otherwise eligible it may elect to be treated as an S corporation.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned a decision of the Federal Court of Claims in the case of Nacchio et ux v. Commissioner, Nos. 2015-5114, 2015-5115 and held that the taxpayer was barred from either claiming a credit under §1341 (the claim of right section) or a deduction under IRC §165 for repayment of gains received due to insider trading.

He had paid tax on a gain of over $44 million on the sale of stock of a public company of which he was the CEO. He was indicated on charges of insider trading with regard to these sales and eventually was convicted of the charges. In addition to paying a $19 million fine he was required to forfeit the net proceeds of his insider trading on which he had earlier paid tax.

In CCA 201624021 the IRS considered whether the success-based fee safe harbor election under Revenue Procedure 2011-29 is available to a taxpayer to allocate success-based fees between actions that facilitate a transaction (expenses which must be capitalized) and those that do not (and may be currently be expensed) when the taxpayer elects to treat a stock sale as an asset sale under IRC §338(h)(10).

The election under IRC §338(h)(10) treats an acquisition of the stock of a target corporation as the purchase of the underlying assets from the acquired corporation, with the acquired corporation recognizing a gain immediately before the transaction. 

The IRS finalized regulations (TD 9771) that were issued in proposed form back in 2011(Proposed Reg. §1.108-9, REG-154159-09,  4/13/11) regarding cancellation of debt relief provisions for bankruptcy and insolvency found in IRC §108 as they relate to grantor trusts and disregarded entities (generally single member LLCs).

The IRS had indicated when the proposed regulations were issued that some taxpayers had attempted to interpret the provisions granting relief to taxpayers who had a discharge of indebtedness involving insolvency or bankruptcy as applying at the disregarded entity level rather than at the level of the taxpayer treated as the owner of the disregarded entity.

The tax laws are complicated and, at times, the results are not what a taxpayer might like. The combination of these two facts cause some taxpayers to start “opinion shopping” when they receive an answer they don’t like. In the case of Mallory v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2016-110, the taxpayers ended up casting about for someone who would tell them what they wanted to hear.

The Mallories had purchased a single premium variable life insurance policy on Mr. Mallory for $87,500 in 1987. The policy provided that Mr. Mallory could borrow from the carrier and the loan would be secured by the policy, with any unpaid interest on the loan being added to the loan amount. Beginning in 1991 Mr. Mallory took advantage of this “tax free” source of funds, eventually taking out cash of over $133,000 by the end of 2001.

The IRS has released a Revenue Procedure (Revenue Procedure 2016-33) that outlines how organizations will apply for Certified Professional Employer Organization (CPEO) status. The CPEO status, added by the Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2014, is meant to address an issue that arises when PEOs collect payroll taxes from employers but fail to pay those taxes over to the government.

Normally in such a situation the organization that hired the PEO remains on the hook for the payroll taxes, even if they were the victim of a fraud perpetrated by the PEO to walk off with payroll taxes. See the case of City Wide Transit, Inc. v. Commissioner, CA2, 2013-1 U.S.T.C. ¶50,211, reversing TC Memo 2011-279, 3/1/13.

The taxpayer in the case of Udeobong v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2016-109 complained that the IRS was assessing tax on income he had previously reported.  But, as the Tax Court noted, while that might be true it wasn’t going to be relevant in his case.

The taxpayer in this case had received payments from Cigna before 2005 for Medicaid reimbursement payments in his Schedule C business and had paid tax on those payments.  Later (but before 2010), a dispute arose with Cigna regarding whether the taxpayer was entitled to certain payments and he returned the payments to Cigna.

In the case of Garalnik v. Petitioner, 145 TC No. 15 the question was a simple one at this point—had Felix managed to file his petition with the Tax Court to challenge the IRS’s Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Actions in a timely manner.  While this issue involved a court filing, the same basic rules govern timely filing in other contexts.

The issue involves the “timely mailing” rule of IRC §7502 and/or the simple timely delivery requirement for his petition under IRC §6330(d)(1).  In the end, Felix did not meet the requirements of the timely mailing but, due to a storm that rendered actual delivery impossible on the actual due date, the Court allowed the filing was timely under Tax Court Rule 25(a).  

The IRS argued that a pattern of fraud they claimed to see in a preparer’s clients returns indicated that the preparer should be subject to the fraud penalty for understatements on his own return in the case of Ericson v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2016-107.  However, the Tax Court was not impressed with the IRS’s evidence in the case, though it did find the taxpayer liable for the general accuracy related penalty.

In Revenue Procedure 2015-31 the IRS has made permanent, with some changes, the pilot program it created in Revenue Procedure 2014-32 for a late reporting relief program for certain retirement plans not eligible to participate in the Department of Labor’s Delinquent Filer Voluntary Compliance (“DFVC”) program.  Generally these plans are “one-participant” and foreign plans.

Under Reg. §301.7701-3(c)(1)(iv) an LLC that makes an election to change its classification may not, without IRS approval, change its classification again within 60 months of that change of classification.  However, this rule does not apply to the entity’s initial classification.  In that case, the organization could change its classification to an acceptable alternative at any time without IRS approval, even if that was less than 60 months after the initial classification.

In PLR 201622020 the situation involved an LLC that was formed but which sat dormant from its formation until it finally acquired assets at a later date.  This LLC now wished to be taxed as an organization taxed as a corporation, but asked the IRS to allow it to treat this election as an initial election and not a change of classification that would trigger the 60 month waiting period before a change of classification could be undertaken without IRS approval.

As a tax-exempt organization it’s a bad situation to lose your exemption for a failure to file the required tax forms for three consecutive years.  But, as the association that requested reinstatement of their status as a §501(c)(6) organization discovered in PLR 201622033, it’s worse to discover that the IRS believes you never really were qualified to be treated as such an organization.

Whether or not certain payments made to employees who participated in an employer’s wellness program was discussed in CCA 201622031.

The memorandum was looking at programs that attempted to differentiate themselves from the program described in Revenue Ruling 2002-3.

In Revenue Procedure 2016-32 the IRS announced a reduction in the 2016 user fee for certain exempt organization applications effective July 1, 2016.

The fee for organizations filing Form 1023-EZ, Streamlined Application for Recognition of Exemption Under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code will be reduced from $400 to $275.