One of the longstanding “rules of thumb” of tax research is to be careful not to rely upon a single court decision that seems to be an “outlier,” especially when it comes from a U.S. District Court which is a court that does not specialize in tax law cases.  This turned out to be true in the case of Green v. United States where a decision from an Oklahoma District Court was reversed on appeal by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (Case No. 16-6371).

We had covered the District Court decision on the Current Federal Tax Developments website when the opinion was published in November of 2015.[1]  The IRS had several objections, including whether any deduction should be allowed.  But on appeal the IRS limited its objection to the amount of the contribution, not whether a contribution deduction should be allowed to the taxpayer.

Image copyright yayayoy / 123RF Stock Photo

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear South Dakota's appeal in the case of State of South Dakota v. Wayfair, SD SC, Case No. 28160. (Order Granting Certiorari, January 12, 2018)

South Dakota enacted a law that required out of state sellers who sell over $100,000 in a year and have 200 or more distinct transactions to collect and remit sale tax for the state of South Dakota regardless of whether or not the seller has nexus with the state of South Dakota.

Image copyright bbourdages / 123RF Stock Photo

The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has now posted a Staff Q&A that specifically outlines what private and not-for-profit entities who wish to apply the SEC guidance on deferred taxes found in Staff Accounting Bulletin 118 should do.

Image copyright lufimorgan / 123RF Stock Photo

The Joint Committee on Taxation has issued its annual report on expiring tax provisions (List of Expiring Federal Tax Provisions 2017-2027, JCX-1-18). 

This document provides a detailed list by year of expiring and expired provisions.  The list of most immediate interest contains the provisions that expired in 2016.  

Image copyright roxanabalint / 123RF Stock Photo

Previously we had discussed action by the Securities and Exchange Commission to deal with the changes to deferred taxes required by the law known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (see SEC Issues Interpretative Bulletin on Applying ASC 740 in Light of TCJA).  The SEC issued Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 118 that provided guidance to public companies on how to deal with issues arising from the difficulties in computing the proper deferred tax adjustments in time to report for December 31, 2017 financial statements.

The Financial Accounting Standards Board met on January 10, 2018 to discuss other implications of TCJA on reporting and measurement for deferred taxes under ASC 740.  Ken Tysiac of the Journal of Accountancy posted a report of that meeting on the Journal’s website (“FASB Addresses Financial Reporting Impacts of New Tax Law”, January 10, 2018 [1]).

Image copyright damedeeso / 123RF Stock Photo

He who hesitates is lost the saying goes, and in taxes that is often very true when facing statute of limitations to fix a problem.  But in Information Letter INFO 2017-0028 the IRS “solved” the taxpayer’s problem from 2006, largely by pointing it there really wasn’t the problem the taxpayer thought existed.

While we don’t know for sure why the taxpayer decided to look back at his actions in 2006 at this late date, he did so and contacted his Congressman who contacted the IRS.  The taxpayer in 2006 had rolled 401(k) funds from his employer’s plan to a traditional IRA.  However, the 401(k) included after-tax contributions and the taxpayer indicated he had “inadvertently” rolled those funds into a traditional IRA rather than a Roth IRA.  The taxpayer was asking how he could get credit for the taxes he had paid on those funds.

Image copyright mj007 / 123RF Stock Photo

Some partnerships will be authorized under the Centralized Partnership Audit Regime (CPAR) to elect to opt out of the centralized exams if they meet certain requirements.  Reg. 301.6221(b)-1 (TD 9829) provides the details for which partnerships can opt out and how they will go about doing so.

CPAR, which takes effect for returns filed for years beginning on or after January 1, 2018, represents a major change in how partnership returns will be examined.  By default, a tax will be determined and assessed at the partnership level (IRC §6221(a)).  In the alternative, a partnership subject to CPAR can elect to push out the adjustments to the partners in the year under review (IRC §6226).

Congress provided an option for some partnerships to elect out of CPAR and instead be taxed under traditional partnership exam rules (what were the small partnership examinations under the now repealed TEFRA rules).  Note that the election is an annual election, so electing to opt out of CPAR for 2018 does not require the partnership to opt out for 2019, nor will the partnership be opted out for 2019 unless the partnership both qualifies to make the election and files a timely election.

Image copyright stanciuc / 123RF Stock Photo

With the upcoming limitation to $10,000 annually for any deduction for state and local taxes on Schedule A, questions arose about being able to prepay taxes before the end of 2017 to obtain the unlimited deduction rather than face the $10,000 cap beginning in 2018.  Congress shut down any thought of prepaying 2018 income taxes, treating any payment of 2018 taxes made in 2017 as being paid in 2018 (IRC §164(b)(6) after revision by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act).

With prepaying income tax shut down, taxpayers began to think about prepaying property taxes, with a number of localities providing methods to advance pay taxes for 2018.  But if a tax has not yet been assessed or billed, can that tax be deemed “paid” under IRC §164(a)?

In response to these developments, the IRS issued News Release IR-2017-210, IRS Advisory: Prepaid Real Property Taxes May Be Deductible in 2017 if Assessed and Paid in 2017.  The news release provides information on the types of payments made before the end of 2017 that can be deducted on the 2017 return.

Image copyright happymay / 123RF Stock Photo

A package of films licensed by a taxpayer in the normal course of business can qualify as an item under Reg. §1.199-3(d)(1)(i) for purposes of the domestic production activity deduction under §199 per Revenue Ruling 2018-3.

The ruling looks at the following facts:

X Corporation (X) licenses a package of films (for example, a television channel) to customers for a fee in the normal course of its business. X's package contains films licensed to X by unrelated third parties and films produced by X. X pays license fees for distribution rights of the licensed films.

Image copyright artisticco / 123RF Stock Photo

The IRS has provided two general purpose safe harbors for claiming a casualty loss related to a personal residence and its contents (in Revenue Procedure 2018-8), as well as one tailored for the hurricanes that took place in 2017(Revenue Procedure 2018-9).

The general purpose ruling provided for safe harbor methods for claiming an amount of casualty loss using a simpler method than getting “before event” and “after event” appraisals.  One set of the general purpose relief provisions apply to any losses, while the second set only apply if the loss arises from a federally declared disaster.

Image copyright rastudio / 123RF Stock Photo

The IRS announced in Notice 2018-6 an extension of the due date for furnishing Form 1095-B, Health Coverage, and Form 1095-C, Employer Provided Health Insurance Offer and Coverage to individuals for 2017 from January 31, 2018 to March 2, 2018.

However, the date for filing copies of the forms with the IRS has not been extended this year, thus they will continue to be due on February 28, 2018 if not electronically with the IRS, and April 2, 2018 for those filing electronically.

Image copyright designer491 / 123RF Stock Photo