In the case of Weiderman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020-109,[1] the taxpayer found that simply using a loan to purchase a residence isn’t sufficient to make it into qualified principal residence indebtedness. The taxpayer was looking to claim an exclusion from cancellation of indebtedness income under IRC §108(a)(1)(E).

The IRS has finalized regulations to set the PTIN fee at $21 plus a $14.95 third-party contractor fee as the agency begins to resume collection of this annual fee from paid tax preparers.[1] The final regulations retain the same fees as were found in the proposed regulations originally announced on April 15, 2020.

The IRS had ceased collection of the PTIN user fee following an initial loss in the US District Court for the District of Columbia in the case of Steele v. United States, 260 F. Supp. 3d 52 (D.D.C. 2017)[2] that found the IRS did not have the authority to charge such a fee. However, the Court of Appeals for District of Columbia found that the IRS did have the authority to charge such a fee, reversing that earlier decision of the lower court in Montrois v. United States, 916 F.3d 1056 (D.C. Cir. 2019).[3]

In the case of Duffy v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2020-108,[1] the Tax Court gave its view of what impact a state’s law had on whether a debt in question was recourse or nonrecourse.

Short Sales: Recourse vs. Nonrecourse Debts

In this case the issue was key because the taxpayers had entered into a short sale of a residence that had total outstanding debt secured by the property in excess of its fair market value.

Petitioners sold the Gearhart property in March 2011 for $800,000. JPMorgan Chase agreed to accept $750,841 of the proceeds in full satisfaction of the mortgage loan that encumbered the property. The documents which the parties stipulated regarding petitioners’ sale of the Gearhart property do not include any judicial filings by JPMorgan Chase and make no reference to judicial proceedings to enforce petitioners’ obligation to the bank.[2]

The $750,841 that JPMorgan Chase accepted in full payment was $626,046 less than the unpaid principal balance of that mortgage at the time.[3]

The IRS has issued a flowchart outlining the processes in a Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 partnership examination in Publication 5388, Bipartisan Budget Act (BBA) Roadmap for Taxpayers.[1]

The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 repealed the prior TEFRA partnership audit regime and added a new fully centralized partnership regime. The flowchart outlines the process once an examination gets underway, including elections available to the taxpayer once the IRS has issued the Notice of Proposed Partnership Adjustment.

The IRS released a very short FAQ to provide two answers related to the taxation of provider relief payments from the Provider Relief Fund created by the CARES Act.[1]

The web page describes the program as follows:

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), enacted on March 27, 2020, appropriated $100 billion for the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund (Provider Relief Fund). The Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act, enacted on April 24, 2020, appropriated an additional $75 billion to the Provider Relief Fund. This funding will be used to reimburse eligible health care providers for health care-related expenses or lost revenues that are attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic. See https://www.hhs.gov/provider-relief/index.html for more information about the Provider Relief Fund.

Taxpayers who receive these funds may wonder about their tax status—are these payments taxable income or not?

In Memorandum AM 2020-006[1] the IRS looked at a marketed charitable remainder annuity trust structure which claimed to allow a taxpayer to completely avoid paying tax on large capital gains. The IRS was not impressed with the marketing materials they reviewed, finding the program failed to accomplish the goal implied by the materials.