In 2016 the IRS released Revenue Procedure 2016-47,[1] providing the ability for an individual to self-certify specific reasons why they had not been able to roll over an IRA or qualified plan distribution within 60-days, qualifying for late rollover relief so long as the holder was able to document the self-certified reason if later required to by the IRS.

The IRS has now reissued the relief[2] to add a new self-certification reason:

In response to requests from stakeholders, this revenue procedure modifies that list by adding a new reason: a distribution was made to a state unclaimed property fund.[3]

In CCA 202042015[1] the IRS decided that the amount a daily fantasy sports player pays to participate in a contest is a wagering expense subject to IRC §165(d)’s limitation on the deduction of gambling losses.

IRC §165(d) provides:

(d) Wagering losses

Losses from wagering transactions shall be allowed only to the extent of the gains from such transactions. For purposes of the preceding sentence, in the case of taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, and before January 1, 2026, the term “losses from wagering transactions” includes any deduction otherwise allowable under this chapter incurred in carrying on any wagering transaction.

The IRS has been issuing a large number of frequently asked questions pages (referred to as FAQs) to deal with tax law in recent years, particularly with regard to issues under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and later legislation. The agency, in the case of Scholl, et al v. Mnuchin, et al, USDC ND CA, Case No. No. 4:20-cv-05309[1] had argued, among other things, that these FAQs are not “final agency actions” and thus not subject to review by the courts under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) even in cases where the IRS is taking action directly related to the FAQ holdings.

The case involved the IRS FAQ, published on May 6, 2020, that in Q&A 15 took the position that incarcerated individuals were not eligible to receive an economic impact payment (EIP) under the CARES Act. The agency eventually took action to retrieve payments that had already been made to such individuals, asked any who had received them and not had them retrieved to send the money back and refused to issue any additional payments to such individuals.

The IRS has updated its FAQ on “Temporary procedures to fax certain Forms 1139 and 1045 due to COVID-19,”[1] to provide that the ability to fax claims for refund using Forms 1139 and 1045 will continue through December 31, 2020. After that date, the fax numbers can no longer be used for that purpose.

The FAQ, which we’ve discussed previously, allows those filing tentative refund claims under sections 2303 and 2305 of the CARES Act to fax the claims to the IRS rather than mailing the claims to the IRS.

The Tax Court sided with the IRS in the case of The Morning Star Packing Company, L.P. et al v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2020-142.[1] The Court found the taxpayers could not claim a tax deduction for certain accrued expenses, finding that not all events had taken place to establish the fact of the liabilities in question.

A taxpayer reporting on the overall accrual method of accounting must generally demonstrate two items in order to be able to claim a deduction on the current year’s return.

• Economic performance with regard to the item in question[2] and

• All events have occurred that determine the fact of a liability and the amount of that liability can be determined with reasonable accuracy.[3]

The IRS has issued a draft of the instructions[1] for Form 8995, Qualified Business Income Deduction Simplified Computation, for 2020, something that may not initially seem noteworthy. But it turns out that what is no longer found in the instructions may indicate an IRS change of view on the impact of charitable contributions on the calculation of qualified business income under IRC §199A.

Eric Yauch noted in an article published in Tax Notes Today Federal on October 14, 2020[2] that the revised instructions no longer contain a reference to, in at least some cases, reducing qualified business income (QBI) by charitable contributions.

Some concerns had been raised regarding the expiration date found on the various Forms 3508 to be used to apply for forgiveness under the PPP loan program. Ever since the first Form 3508 was released, the forms have shown an expiration date in the upper right corner of October 31, 2020.

The issue came into sharper focus when the SBA released the Form 3508S in October with that very same expiration date. Some expressed the concern that this might be the date by which borrowers would have to apply for forgiveness—and that date was rapidly approaching. But others noted nothing in the statute or other SBA guidance suggested that such a short deadline applied to the request for forgiveness.

In News Release IR-2020-233[1] the IRS announced that CP14 and CP14 IA notices of amounts due to the IRS will come with a QR code. These codes will enable taxpayers to navigate the IRS website to deal with the matter at hand.

The SBA published an additional interim final rule on PPP loan forgiveness on October 8, 2020.[1] The October 8, 2020 IFR which provides:

• Additional guidance concerning the forgiveness and loan review processes for PPP loans of $50,000 or less and

• For PPP loans of all sizes, lender responsibilities with respect to the review of borrower documentation of eligible costs for forgiveness in excess of a borrower’s PPP loan amount.[2]

The SBA has added a question and answer[1] to the Paycheck Protection Program Loans Frequently Asked Questions to clarify how the extension of the deferral period in the Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act affected loans that were already in place when the PPPFA was enacted.

The original loans were written for the original six-month period for deferral of payments of all principal, interest and fees on PPP loans. When the PPPFA extended that period through the date that forgiveness is granted on the PPP loan as long as an application for forgiveness is made during the 10 months following end of the covered period, the key question was whether those PPP notes already signed before passage of the PPPFA had to be modified?

Life can be unfair, and the tax law even more so. In the case of Koopman, et al v. United States[1] the taxpayers found the law left them no recourse when they never received amounts on which they had previously paid Medicare taxes due to the bankruptcy of United Airlines.

In Revenue Ruling 2020-21 the IRS has announced the rates and terminal charges for noncommercial flights for the second half of 2020. These numbers may be used under IRC §1.61-21(g)(5) to determine the value of such flights on employer-provided aircraft for compensation purposes.

The Small Business Administration has issued guidance related to PPP loans when there is a change in ownership of the borrowing business.[1] The notice provides for the required procedures when there is a change in ownership.

The notice defines a change in ownership as when any of the following take place:

• At least 20 percent of the common stock or other ownership interest of a PPP borrower (including a publicly traded entity) is sold or otherwise transferred, whether in one or more transactions, including to an affiliate or an existing owner of the entity,

• The PPP borrower sells or otherwise transfers at least 50 percent of its assets (measured by fair market value), whether in one or more transactions, or

• A PPP borrower is merged with or into another entity.[2]

This came out a few weeks ago, but since I’ve been asked to talk about it in another setting, I’ve posted the write-up of the issue here.

In Notice 2020-69[1] the IRS outlined items that will be contained in to be issued proposed regulations related to S corporations with accumulated earnings and profits impacted by IRC §§951 and 951A. The revisions are meant to address the proposed and then modified final regulations on GILTI and FDII issued by the IRS previously. The IRS’s change of direction from handling the S corporation as an entity for GILTI to treating it under an aggregate approach can lead to problems in getting shareholders the cash to pay the tax if the S corporation has accumulated earnings and profits. The Notice and eventual regulations seeks to address that issue.

Another set of final regulations[1] have been issued by the IRS on bonus depreciation under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). These regulations make final, with revisions, proposed regulations issued in 2019 (REG-106808-19).

Selected items highlighted by the IRS in the preamble related to areas that received comments from the proposed regulations or were revised from what was in those regulations are discussed below.

The IRS has issued the final regulations dealing with the post-TCJA treatment of excess deductions on termination in TD 9918.[1]

Previously Reg. §1.642(h)-2 had treated excess deductions on the termination of an estate or trust as miscellaneous itemized deductions for the beneficiary. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) added IRC §67(g), effective for tax years beginning in 2018, that provided individuals would no longer receive a deduction for miscellaneous itemized deductions.

In Notice 2018-61 the IRS indicated that the agency was considering whether the treatment of such items as miscellaneous itemized deductions was appropriate following the effective date of IRC §67(g). In May of 2020 the IRS released proposed regulations (REG-113295-18) that would provide that the nature of such deductions would be determined by their treatment at the trust level. The final regulations adopt the proposed regulations with some modifications.

The IRS has granted relief related to the CCH electronic filing software outage that took place on September 15, 2020.[1]

CCH suffered an outage in their online systems that began in the afternoon of October 15, 2020 and continued throughout the evening. CPAs that used their systems found themselves unable to submit tax returns electronically on the last day to timely file extended partnership income tax returns.

The Tax Court determined that Clinton Deckard did not own shares in Waterfront Fashion Week, Inc., and, as such, the corporation could not make a late S election. Mr Decker was barred from claiming losses from that corporation on his personal return.[1]