In Program Manager Technical Advice PMTA 2018-008 the IRS discusses what are acceptable signatures for the business versions of Form 8453 (such as Form 8453C, 8453S, etc.).

In Notice 2007-79 the IRS allowed electronic return originators (EROs) to sign Form 8453, Form 8878, U.S. Individual Income Tax Declaration for an IRS e-file Return, Form 8878, IRS e-file Signature Authorization for Form 4868 or Form 2350; and Form 8879, IRS e-file Signature Authorization by specified alternative means.  These means were:

• Rubber stamp,
• Mechanical device (such as signature pen), or
• Computer software program.

Image copyright olegdudko / 123RF Stock Photo

The question of whether real estate was or was not a capital asset in the hands of the taxpayer became an issue in the case of Keefe v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2018-28.  While the issue can arise with other assets, real estate investments are generally large enough that the question of whether a gain or loss on sale is capital, §1231 or ordinary is often a very significant issue, with high stakes involved.

In this case, the taxpayer was looking at a seven-figure loss on the sale of a historic waterfront mansion they had acquired to restore and attempt to rent in Newport, Rhode Island.  The restoration ended up taking much longer than anticipated and was far costlier.  Although they talked with a real estate agent about renting out the property to wealthy individuals who were expected to pay $75,000 a month for the property during peak season, it was never actually rented out.

Image copyright jacquespalut / 123RF Stock Photo

In the case of Simonsen v. Commissioner, 150 TC No. 8, the Tax Court reaffirmed its previously stated position regarding a short sale when a nonrecourse debt is involved.  As well, for the first time the Court also addressed the reportable gain/loss on a property converted to rental use that was sold for less than its original cost but more than its date of conversion fair market value.

The couple in question had purchased a townhouse in San Jose in 2005 for $695,000.  They lived in that home for five years, during which the real estate crisis hit.  In 2010 they relocated to Southern California and began renting the townhouse.  At the time it was converted to a rental the fair value had declined to $495,000.

Image copyright damedeeso / 123RF Stock Photo

The IRS announced the publication of a set of questions and answers related to the tax imposed under IRC §965 under changes made by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in News Release IR-2018-53.  The questions and answers are published in the form of a frequently asked question document (FAQ) on the IRS website at:

https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/questions-and-answers-about-reporting-related-to-section-965-on-2017-tax-returns

Image copyright yupiramos / 123RF Stock Photo

How much should an employee recognize as income when his/her employer provides the employee with tax preparation services?  That was the question addressed by Chief Counsel Advice 201810007.

The employer in this case had U.S. citizens that were given work assignments in various other countries, with employees also being relocated from time to time.  As is often the case in such situations, the employer decided to provide a “tax equalization” program.  Under such a program, the employer agrees to compensation employees in such a fashion that their after-tax income will not fluctuate as they move from taxing regime to taxing regime.

Images copyright kenishirotie / 123RF Stock Photo

When taxpayers attempt to reconstruct their hours in activities from memory when they receive an exam notice to sustain their burden of proving qualification as a real estate professional, the result is rarely a successful defense of that assertion.  Many of the problems are illustrated in the case of Pourmirzaie v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2018-26.

The taxpayers did have several rental properties.  The Court listed them as follows:

• A four-unit residential property in San Jose, California (San Jose property);
• A single-family condominium in San Diego, California, in which petitioners owned a partial interest (San Diego property);
• A single-family residence in Tucson, Arizona (Tucson property);
• A single-family condominium in Bremerton, Washington (Bremerton property); and
• A single-family residence in Discovery Bay, California (Discovery Bay property).

The taxpayers did not maintain any sort of log or calendar of the work performed on these properties during the years in question.  Nevertheless, on their tax returns for the year in question they took the position that Mrs. Pourmirzaie was a real estate professional. 

Image copyright jarin13 / 123RF Stock Photo

His tenants’ inability to deal with taking out the trash appears to have been a key factor in allowing the taxpayer in Franco v. Commissioner, TC Summary Opinion 2018-9 to qualify as a real estate professional.

Jose Franco is a licensed architect and he ran a small architectural business for the year in question.  Normally this would create a significant issue for Mr. Franco to be classified as a real estate professional, since Mr. Franco was not contending that his architectural work was a real property trade or business. 

Image copyright ljupco / 123RF Stock Photo

The IRS issued guidance that may put at risk the ability of individuals in certain states to participate in health savings accounts (HSAs) beginning in 2020 in Notice 2018-12.

As Tax Analysts reported in covering this Notice, several states, including California, Illinois, Maryland, and Vermont, prohibit cost-sharing for insurance coverage of male sterilization and contraception services.  But only Vermont has a “carve-out” for HSA-qualified high deductible health plans (HDHPs).

Image copyright melpomen / 123RF Stock Photo

The Tax Court and U.S. District Court were considering the same basic issue for different years for the same taxpayers.  The courts came to opposite conclusions in the issue.  The United States District Court for the Western District of New York ruled in 2017 that the taxpayers in Perkins v. United States, No. 1:16-cv-00495, plausibly stated a claim for exemption from taxation for the 2010 sale of gravel based on two treaties between the United States and the Seneca Nation.  But in a case looking at the same two cases, the Tax Court decided in the case of Perkins v. Commissioner, 150 T.C. No. 6 that no exemption was available to the taxpayers under those treaties for sales of gravel in other years.

Alice Perkins is an enrolled member of the Seneca Nation and had received permission from the Seneca Nation to remove and sell gravel from lands held by Nation.  She and her husband lived on Seneca property.  For the years in question they sold gravel which they had mined from Seneca lands.

Image copyright aleutie / 123RF Stock Photo