Published Tax Court decisions look at new and novel issues that have not previously been decided by the Court—and, in the case of Lipnick v. Commissioner, 153 TC No. 1,[1] the Court was looking at just such case. 

The issue was fairly simple.  A partner received a debt-financed distribution from a partnership.  He used those funds to buy investment assets and, under Reg. §1.163-8T and Notice 89-35, he treated the debt-financed distribution interest expense reported to him by the partnership as investment interest.  However, later he gifted a portion of his interest in the partnership to his son who, of course, was now seeing such debt-financed distribution interest show up on his K-1. 

In 2016 we noted an unsuccessful attempt by a religious order to get a coffeehouse the organization planned to operate treated as a §501(c)(3) exempt organization.[1]  Now, in PLR 201934008,[2] we have another attempt, this time for a coffeehouse that “will act as both a fundraising organization for nonprofits that serve your community and act as a community launch point and gathering venue featuring local art and music.”[3]

In the case of McMillan v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2019-108,[1] the taxpayer was arguing that her loss from her horse business.  The IRS had challenged Ms. McMillan regarding this business in five prior Tax Court cases, but this time, she faced a unique challenge—her last horse had died two years previously.[2]  So she was arguing for the unique proposition that a horse breeding/showing business did not require a horse.

Unfortunately, the Tax Court did not accept this view.

Formalizing a change of view by the agency noted on its website in July,[1] the IRS has issued an LB&I, SB/SE directive on the ability of taxpayers who pay two French taxes to claim a foreign tax credit.[2]

The taxes imposed by France that the IRS now agrees are eligible for foreign tax credit treatment are:

• Contribution sociale généralisée (CSG) and

• Contribution pour le remboursement de la dette sociale (CRDS).

In the case of King Solarman, Inc. v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2019-103[1] the key issue was whether the taxpayer was reporting on the cash or accrual overall method of accounting and, even if the business was on the cash method of accounting, it was nevertheless required to use the overall accrual method of accounting for tax purposes.

Taxpayers are generally eligible to use the overall cash or accrual method of accounting or another method permitted under the Code or regulations.[2]  However, once a taxpayer has chosen an overall method of accounting, the taxpayer must obtain the IRS’s permission to change that method.[3]

A U.S. magistrate judge has recommended that the government be granted summary judgment in a suit to collect a willful failure to file FBAR reports penalty in the case of United States v. Said, USDC Middle District Florida, Case No. 8:17-cv-00826.[1]

The Court outlined the standard to be used to determine if there was willfulness in the context of failure to file the FBAR reports:

In the FBAR context, willfulness “may be proven ‘through inference from conduct meant to conceal or mislead sources of income or other financial information,’ and it ‘can be inferred from a conscious effort to avoid learning about reporting requirements.’” Williams, 489 Fed. App’x at 658 (quoting United States v. Sturman, 951 F.2d 1466, 1476 (6th Cir. 1991))...[2]

The IRS has announced that the agency will be sending out refunds to over 400,000 taxpayers who are eligible for relief previously announced from the IRS related to estimated tax penalties in IRS News Release IR-2019-144.[1] The checks will be issued to taxpayers who were eligible for relief the IRS announced on January 16 and March 22 but who either did not take advantage on that relief on their return or filed their return before the relief was announced and have not filed a claim for refund.

The IRS lowered the threshold for the application of the penalty for underpayment of estimated income taxes from its standard 90% of the current year’s tax to 80% of the tax being paid in via withholdings and estimated taxes.

Not cashing a check received from a retirement plan before year does not change the requirement to report that distribution as income in the year the payment is made per Revenue Ruling 2019-19.[1]

The tolling of the statute of limitations for filing a claim for refund due to financial disability under IRC §6511(h) does not apply to estates, per a ruling from the US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama in the case of Carter v. United States, US DC ND Alabama, Case No. 5:18-cv-01380.[1]

IRC §6511(h) was enacted by Congress to provide relief for a case where a taxpayer fails to file a claim for refund within the time period provided otherwise by that section due to a financial disability. The provision provides “an individual is financially disabled if such individual is unable to manage his financial affairs by reason of a medically determinable physical or mental impairment of the individual which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.”[2]

The Wall Street Journal reported that genetic testing service 23andMe has received a private letter ruling from the IRS that allows a portion of the payment made to the entity to be treated as a medical expense.[1]  A redacted copy of the ruling has been posted by the company on its website.[2]  The Wall Street Journal article noted that the IRS will publish the standard redacted PLR in August.[3]