Taxpayers who seek deductions for employee business expenses will find the deduction barred if the taxpayer cannot show that he/she was not entitled to reimbursement from his/her employer for the expenses shown on the Form 2106.  This was the issue that tripped up the taxpayer in the case of Howard v. Commissioner, T.C. Summ. Op. 2017-65.

Employees are considered to be in a trade or business and thus are allowed a deduction for expenses incurred in pursuit of that trade or business if the expenses are “ordinary and necessary” expenses.[1]  However, if the employer offers to reimburse the expenses (such as via an expense reimbursement policy), but the employee does not take the employer up on the offer no deduction is allowed.  The expense in that case would not be “necessary” as the taxpayer had a source of reimbursement.

Image copyright  alexskopje / 123RF Stock Photo

In the case of Hann v. United States, Court of Federal Claims Case No. 15-20T, the taxpayer in question was seeking to claim an ordinary loss from aportion of the underwriting commissions paid when he elected to participate an initial public offering (IPO) of his employer’s stock. 

Under the terms of participation, Mr. Hann had to agree to dispose of the same proportion of all stock and stock rights he held as the primary shareholders were selling, which required him to exercise his vested and exercisable stock options to comply with that requirement if he wanted to participate. 

Image Copyright: flybird163 / 123RF Stock Photo

In the case of Owens v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2017-157, the issue to be decided involved a $9.5 million bad deduction claimed as a business bad debt an individual who took the position he was in the trade or business of lending money.  The IRS argued that he wasn’t in the business of lending money, that the debts in question were not actually debts and, even if they were, the loan did not become worthless in the year he claimed the loss.

Image copyright lopolo / 123RF Stock Photo

The IRS has announced that it will not acquiesce with regard to a Tax Court decision that dealt with reverse like-kind exchanges under Section 1031 in Action on Decision AOD 2017-06.

The decision in question involved the issue of whether the benefits and burdens test was appropriate to be applied to a Section 1031 exchange.  The case, Estate of George H. Bartell Jr. et al. v. Commissioner, 147 TC No. 5 was previously discussed on this site in an article dated August 11, 2016.

Benefits and Burdens Test Does Not Apply in Case of Reverse §1031 Exchange

Image copyright iimages / 123RF Stock Photo

The Eleventh Circuit panel hearing the appeal in the case of Kardash, Sr. v. Commissioner, Case No. 16-14254, CA11 agreed that Mr. Kardash was not a villain and, in many ways, was a victim along with the IRS of a “the fraud conducted by his friends and coworkers at FECP, Ralph Hughes and John Stanton.”

But the Court found that, ultimately, Mr. Kardash ended up with funds that rightly belonged to the IRS and that IRC §6109, relying on applicable Florida state law, required him to pay those funds over to the IRS under the law of transferee liability.

Image copyright aruba2000 / 123RF Stock Photo

In the case of Rutkoske, Sr. et al v. Commissioner, 149 TC No. 6, the Tax Court was asked to consider what types of income counted as “gross income from the trade or business of farming” for purposes of gaining access to the increased deduction for qualified conservation easements of property used in agriculture or livestock production under IRC §170(b)(1)(E)(iv).

Normally a deduction for a qualified conservation easement is limited to 50% of the taxpayer’s income after reduction for other charitable contributions.[1]  However, that limit rise to 100% for the contribution of property used in agriculture or livestock production by a qualified farmer or rancher.[2]

Image copyright 123rf.com / sandralise

In Private Letter Ruling 201730002 we find a situation where a taxpayer’s death instantly terminated the S corporation in which he owned a 100% interest.  The structure he created to hold the S corporation stock set up a situation in which the S election’s validity continued only so long as the shareholder remained alive.

Image copyright carmenbobo / 123RF Stock Photo

There was no question that the taxpayer in the case of Gowen v. Commissioner, TC Summ. Op. 2017-57 had defaulted on the loan he received from his former employer’s 401(k) plan and, as well, that he did not correct the default prior to the cure period allowed under the plan.  But the taxpayer argued that the actual deemed distribution did not take place in 2012, the year the deemed distribution was reported by the plan custodian on a Form 1099R, but rather at some point in 2013.

Image copyright jiripravda / 123RF Stock Photo

Even though it may appear to taxpayers that mileage and meals are clearly related to their job, only in limited circumstances may deductions be claimed for such items.  In the case of Wooten v. Commissioner, TC Summ. Op. 2017-58, the taxpayers discovered that none of the expenses they had claimed met the requirements to be deductible.

In this case the taxpayer was employed as a plumber/pipefitter for a contractor.  In his job he had to work at various locations, some in Gulfport or Biloxi, Mississippi, which were 20-25 miles from his home and two in Hattiesburg, Mississippi which was about 56 miles from his home.  Mr. Wooten kept logs of his travel to/from his home to these locations.  He claimed a deduction for this mileage, along with a deduction for meals he consumed at these locations.

Image copyright olesiabilkei / 123RF Stock Photo

The concept of a “claim-of-right” can be confusing for both taxpayers and tax professionals.  In the case of Yoklic v. Commissioner, TC Memo. 2017-143, a taxpayer did not include unemployment benefits received in 2012 in income because the state agency administering the benefits (Arizona’s Department of Economic Security (DES)) had determined he was not entitled to the benefits, and Mr. Yoklic repaid those benefits in 2013.

Image copyright carmenbobo / 123RF Stock Photo

The IRS in Notice 2017-40 again extended the time period, this time through 2021, that taxpayers may use the safe harbor method of reporting HFA mortgage relief originally granted in Notice 2011-14.  Notice 2015-77 had extended until the 2017 tax year the safe harbor method originally provided for in Notice 2013-7 of reporting payments made on a home mortgage that had received relief from a state housing agency from the Hardest Hit Fund (HFA Hardest Hit Fund). 

The new notice also extends relief from penalties related to information returns for mortgage services and state housing agencies due to payments made under the program.

Image copyright nito500 / 123RF Stock Photo