The Treasury and IRS have issued final regulations excepting certain partnership-related items from the centralized partnership audit regime created by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA), providing alternative examination rules for the excepted items, conforming the existing centralized audit regime regulations to Internal Revenue Code changes, and clarifying the existing audit regime rules.

The Treasury and IRS have issued final regulations excepting certain partnership-related items from the centralized partnership audit regime created by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA), providing alternative examination rules for the excepted items, conforming the existing centralized audit regime regulations to Internal Revenue Code changes, and clarifying the existing audit regime rules. The regulations finalize with revisions 2020 proposed regulations ( REG-123652-18).

Centralized Partnership Audit Regime

The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA, P.L. 114-74) replaced the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA, P.L. 97-248) partnership procedures with a centralized partnership audit regime for making partnership adjustments and tax determinations, assessments, and collections at the partnership level. These changes were further amended by the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act, P.L. 114-113) and the Tax Technical Corrections Act of 2018 (TTCA, P.L. 115-141). The centralized audit regime, as amended, generally applies to returns filed for partnership tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. A partnership with no more than 100 partners may generally elect out of the centralized audit regime if all the partners are eligible partners.

Under the post-2017 centralized partnership audit regime, the IRS examines “partnership-related items” of all domestic and foreign partnerships and their partners. A "partnership-related item" is any item relevant to the determination of the income tax liability of any person. However, Code Sec. 6241(11), added by the BBA, authorizes Treasury to except “special enforcement matters” from the centralized partnership audit regime and to issue regulations providing alternative assessment and collection rules for those matters. The 2020 proposed regulations and these final regulations implement Code Sec. 6241(11) and make changes to previously issued final regulations pertaining to the centralized partnership audit regime.

Special Enforcement Matters

Code Sec. 6241(11) sets forth six categories of "special enforcement matters":

• (1) failures to comply with the requirements for a partnership partner or S corporation partner to furnish statements or compute and pay an imputed underpayment;
• (2) assessments relating to termination assessments of income tax or jeopardy assessments of income, estate, gift, and certain excise taxes;
• (3) criminal investigations;
• (4) indirect methods of proof of income;
• (5) foreign partners or partnerships; and
• (6) other matters identified in IRS regulations.

The final regulations add three new types of special enforcement matters:

• partnership-related items underlying non-partnership-related items;
• relationship of a partner to the partnership under the Code Sec. 267(b) or Code Sec. 707(b) related-party rules and extensions of the partner’s period of limitations; and
• penalties and taxes imposed on the partnership under chapter 1.

The final regulations also require the IRS to provide written notice of most special enforcement matters to taxpayers to whom the adjustments are being made.

In addition, the final regulations clarify that the IRS may adjust partnership-level items for a partner or indirect partner without regard to the centralized audit regime if the adjustment relates to termination and jeopardy assessments, the partner is under criminal investigation, or the adjustment is based on an indirect method of proof of income.

However, the final regulations provide that a determination about partnership-related items made outside of the centralized partnership regime is not binding on any person who is not a party to that proceeding. The final regulations clarify that neither the partnership nor the other partners are bound by a determination regarding a partnership-related item from a partner-level examination and that neither the partnership nor the other partners need to adjust their returns.

In addition, the special-enforcement-matter rules do not apply to the extent a partner can demonstrate that adjustments to partnership-related items in the deficiency or an adjustment by the IRS were (i) previously taken into account under the centralized audit regime by the person being examined or (ii) included in an imputed underpayment paid by a partnership (or pass-through partner) for any tax year in which the partner was a reviewed-year partner (but only if the amount exceeds the amount reported by the partnership to the partner that was either reported by the partner or included in the deficiency or adjustment).

Imputed Underpayments

The IRS and Treasury believe that a mechanism must exist for including adjustments from a centralized-regime audit in the partnership’s imputed underpayment, even if the partnership elects to “push out” the adjustment to its partners.

Under existing regulations for calculating imputed underpayments, an adjustment to a non-income item (that is, an item that is not an item of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit) that is related to, or results from, an adjustment to an item of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit is generally treated as zero. The final regulations require a partnership to take into account an adjustment to a non-income item on its adjustment-year return by adjusting the item to be consistent with the adjustment, but only to the extent the item would appear on that return without regard to the adjustment. If the item already appeared on the partnership’s adjustment-year return as a non-income item or the item appeared as a non-income item on any return of the partnership for a tax year between the reviewed year and the adjustment year, the partnership does not create a new item on the partnership’s adjustment-year return.

The final regulations provide that if the partnership is required to adjust its basis in an asset, the partnership does so in the adjustment year; however, the partnership only recognizes income and gain as a result of the basis adjustment in situations in which income or gain would be recognized. The final regulations also demonstrate how adjustments to liabilities are taken into account when they do not result in an imputed underpayment, and how an amended return should reflect adjustments to non-income items.

The final regulations follow the proposed regulations in allowing either the IRS or the partnership to treat an adjustment to a non-income item as zero. The final regulations also permit a partnership to treat such an adjustment as zero if the adjustment is related to, or results from, another adjustment to a non-income item. The partnership may not, however, treat such an adjustment as zero if one adjustment is positive and the other is negative.

Partnership Ceasing to Exist

Code Sec. 6241 states that if a partnership ceases to exist before any partnership adjustments take effect, the former partners of the partnership must take the adjustments into account in the manner prescribed in regulations. The final regulations clarify that even if a partnership has ceased to exist, it may make the election to push out the adjustments, request modification of the imputed underpayment, or pay the imputed underpayment within ten days of notice and demand for payment.

A section of the proposed regulations that would define "former partners" is not included in the final regulations and remains proposed.

Effective and Applicability Dates

The final regulations, which are effective December 8, 2022, apply to tax years ending on or after November 20, 2020 (except that final Reg. § 301.6241-7(b) applies to tax years beginning after December 20, 2018).

An IRS Notice provides guidance on the prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 ( P.L. 117-169) added to several new and amended tax credits and deductions.

An IRS Notice provides guidance on the prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 ( P.L. 117-169) added to several new and amended tax credits and deductions. The IRS also anticipates issuing proposed regulations and other guidance with respect to the prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements.

These requirements generally apply if construction of a qualified facility, or installation of qualified property in an energy efficient commercial building, begins on or after the date that is 60 days after the IRS publishes guidance. This notice serves as the guidance that starts the 60-day clock. Thus, these rules apply when a qualified facility begins construction or the installation of qualified property begins on or after January 29, 2023.

The notice also provides guidance for determining the beginning of construction of a facility for certain credits, and the beginning of installation of certain property with respect to the energy efficient commercial buildings deduction.

The notice includes examples to illustrate these rules.

Prevailing Wage Requirements

For purposes of the credits, a taxpayer must satisfy the prevailing wage requirements with respect to any laborer or mechanic employed in the construction, alteration, or repair of a facility, property, project, or equipment by the taxpayer and the taxpayer’s contractors and subcontractors. The taxpayer must also maintain and preserve sufficient records to establish compliance, including books of account or records for work performed by contractors or subcontractors.

The prevailing wage rate is generally the one published by the Secretary of Labor on www.sam.gov for the geographic area and type of construction applicable to the facility, including all labor classifications for the construction, alteration, or repair work that will be done on the facility by laborers or mechanics.

If the Secretary has not published a prevailing wage rate for the geographic area or the particular type of work, the taxpayer may request a wage determination or wage rate from the Wage and Hour Division. The taxpayer must follow prescribed procedures in order to rely on the provided wage or rate.

Similarly, for purposes of the deduction for energy efficient commercial buildings, the prevailing wage rate for installation of energy efficient commercial building property, energy efficient building retrofit property, or property installed pursuant to a qualified retrofit plan, is determined with respect to the prevailing wage rate for construction, alteration, or repair of a similar character in the locality in which the property is located, as most recently determined by the Secretary of Labor.

Apprenticeship Requirements

A taxpayer satisfies the apprenticeship requirements if:

1. The taxpayer satisfies the Apprenticeship Labor Hour Requirements, subject to any applicable Apprenticeship Ratio Requirements;
2. The taxpayer satisfies the Apprenticeship Participation Requirements; and
3. The taxpayer maintains sufficient records.

Under the Good Faith Effort Exception, the taxpayer will be considered to have made a good faith effort in requesting qualified apprentices if the taxpayer requests qualified apprentices from a registered apprenticeship program in accordance with usual and customary business practices for registered apprenticeship programs in a particular industry.

Beginning of Construction or Installation

The beginning of construction is determined under the Physical Work Test and the Five-Percent Safe Harbor established in Notice 2013-29. The Continuity Safe Harbor established by Notice 2016-31 also applies.

The IRS has notified taxpayers, above the age of 72 years, that they can delay the withdrawal of the required minimum distributions (RMD) from their retirement plans and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRA), until April 1, following the later of the calendar year that the taxpayer reaches age 72 or, in a workplace retirement plan, retires.

The IRS has notified taxpayers, above the age of 72 years, that they can delay the withdrawal of the required minimum distributions (RMD) from their retirement plans and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRA), until April 1, following the later of the calendar year that the taxpayer reaches age 72 or, in a workplace retirement plan, retires. The Service also reminded taxpayers that they must meet the deadlines to avoid penalties and that such RMDs may not be rolled over to another IRA or retirement plan. The Service also informed taxpayers that not taking a required distribution, or not withdrawing enough, could mean a 50% excise tax on the amount not distributed.

The deadlines for the different RMDs are as follows:

• Taxpayers holding traditional IRAs , and SEP, SARSEP, and SIMPLE IRA should take their first RMD, even if they’re still working, by April 1, 2023, and the second RMD by Dec. 31, 2023, and each year thereafter.
• For taxpayers with retirement plans, the first RMD is due by April 1 of the later of the year they reach age 72, or the participant is no longer employed. A 5% owner of the employer must begin taking RMDs at age 72.
• An IRA trustee, or plan administrator, must either report the amount of the RMD to the IRA owner or offer to calculate it. They may be able to withdraw the total amount from one or more of the IRAs. However, RMDs from workplace retirement plans must be taken separately from each plan.

An RMD may be required for an IRA, retirement plan account or Roth IRA inherited from the original owner. A 2020 RMD that qualified as a coronavirus-related distribution may be repaid over a 3-year period or the taxes due on the distribution may be spread over three years. A 2020 withdrawal from an inherited IRA could not be repaid to the inherited IRA but may be spread over three years for income inclusion.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would implement the beneficial ownership information provisions of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) that govern access to and protection of beneficial ownership information.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would implement the beneficial ownership information provisions of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) that govern access to and protection of beneficial ownership information. The proposed regulations address the circumstances under which beneficial ownership information may be disclosed to certain governmental authorities and financial institutions, and how that information must be protected.

The proposed regulations would—

• specify how government officials would access beneficial ownership information in support of law enforcement, national security, and intelligence activities;
• describe how certain financial institutions and their regulators would access that information to fulfill customer due diligence requirements and conduct supervision; and
• set high standards for protecting this sensitive information, consistent with CTA goals and requirements.

The NPRM also proposes amendments to the final reporting rule issued on September 30, 2022, effective January 1, 2024, to specify when reporting companies may report FinCEN identifiers associated with entities.

Limiting Access to Beneficial Ownership Information

The NPRM follows the final reporting rule which requires most corporations, limited liability companies, and other similar entities created in or registered to do business in the United States, to report information about their beneficial owners to FinCEN. Per CTA requirements, the proposed regulations limit access to beneficial ownership information to—

• federal agencies engaged in national security, intelligence, or law enforcement activities;
• state, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies, if authorized by a court of competent jurisdiction;
• financial institutions with customer due diligence requirements, and federal regulators supervising them for compliance with those requirements;
• foreign law enforcement agencies, judges, prosecutors, central authorities, and other agencies that meet specific criteria, and whose requests are made under an international treaty, agreement, or convention, or via law enforcement, judicial, or prosecutorial authorities in a trusted foreign country; and
• U.S. Treasury officers and employees whose official duties require beneficial ownership information inspection or disclosure, or for tax administration.

The proposed regulation would subject each authorized recipient category to unique security and confidentiality protocols that align with the scope of the access and use provisions.

Proposed Effective Date

FinCEN is proposing an effective date of January 1, 2024, to align with the date when the final beneficial ownership information reporting rule becomes effective.

Request for Comments

Interested parties can submit written comments on the NPRM by or before February 14, 2023 (60 days following publication in the Federal Register). Comments may be submitted by the Federal E-rulemaking Portal ( regulations.gov), or by mail to Policy Division, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, P.O. Box 39, Vienna, VA 22183. Refer to Docket Number FINCEN-2021-0005 and RIN 1506-AB49/AB59.

The IRS and the Treasury Department have released final regulations that provide some clarity and relief with regards to certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act ( P.L. 111-148), including the definition of minimum essential coverage under Code Sec. 5000A and reporting requirements for health insurance issuers and employers under Code Secs. 6055 and 6056. The final regulations finalize 2021 proposed regulations with some clarifications ( REG-109128-21).

The IRS and the Treasury Department have released final regulations that provide some clarity and relief with regards to certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act ( P.L. 111-148), including the definition of minimum essential coverage under Code Sec. 5000A and reporting requirements for health insurance issuers and employers under Code Secs. 6055 and 6056. The final regulations finalize 2021 proposed regulations with some clarifications ( REG-109128-21).

The final regulations provide that the term "minimum essential coverage" does not include Medicaid coverage limited to COVID-19 testing and diagnostic services provided under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act ( P.L. 116-127). If an individual qualifies solely for this coverage, then it does not prevent them from claiming the premium tax credit under Code Sec. 36B. This amendment to Reg.§ 1.5000A-2 applies for months beginning after September 28, 2020.

The final regulations also provide:

• An automatic 30-day extension of time under Code Sec. 6056 for "applicable large employers" (generally employers with 50 or more full-time employees, including full-time equivalent employees) to furnish statements relating to health insurance that the applicable large employers offer to their full-time employees; ·
• An automatic 30-day extension of time under Code Sec. 6055 for providers of minimum essential coverage (such as health insurance issuers) that would provide an automatic extension of time for furnishing statements to responsible individuals; and
• An alternative method for reporting entities to furnish statements to their insured members when their shared responsibility payment is zero. The regulations under Reg.§1.6055-1(g)(4)(ii)(B) provide sample language for furnishing these statements.

The regulations under Reg. §§1.6055-1 and 301.6056-1 apply for years beginning after December 31, 2021.

The final regulations affect some taxpayers who claim the premium tax credit; health insurance issuers, self-insured employers, government agencies, and other persons that provide minimum essential coverage to individuals; and applicable large employers.

A theme running through the recent Internal Revenue Service Independent Office of Appeals Focus Guide for fiscal year 2023 is moving on past the issues created by the COVID-19 pandemic and getting back to helping taxpayers through the appeals process.

A theme running through the recent Internal Revenue Service Independent Office of Appeals Focus Guide for fiscal year 2023 is moving on past the issues created by the COVID-19 pandemic and getting back to helping taxpayers through the appeals process.

"It's time, as we leave some of those pandemic issues behind us, to focus more on our core mission in appeals, which is the quality resolution of taxpayer cases," Independent Office of Appeals Chief Andy Keyso said in a recent interview with Federal Tax Daily. "I think that's the theme you see throughout the focus guide," which was issued November 4, 2022.

To that end, Keyso highlighted two key areas that will enable the office to meet that core mission – staffing and technology upgrades.

Rebuilding Staff

On the staffing side, Keyso noted that 10 years ago, the Appeals staff was at 2,100 employees, but in that window dropped to a low of about 1,100.

"We have made a big push to restack, using any kind of approval we could get here internally, and we currently are sitting at about 1,500 employees," he said, adding that the office currently has about 1,500 employees, with a goal in 2023 to get up to 1,725.

Keyso noted that the office is different from other parts of the IRS that have an exam or a collections function.

"If you don’t have the number of people you’d like to have, you just do fewer collection actions or you do fewer audits," Keyso said. "In Appeals, we have unique challenges. We’ve got to work every case that comes in the door. We can’t say, ‘We don’t have enough people, so we are not going to work your case.’ So for us, hiring is particularly an acute issue and recruiting and hiring will be one of our focus areas for this year."

He added that the staffing targets are based on the IRS’ set budget for 2023 and do not include potential increases that could come with the additional funding provided by the Inflation Reduction Act.

Improving Technology

Like the rest of the agency, the Office of Appeals is working through its own technology issues and is in need of upgrades.

In particular, Keyso highlighted the need to get away from paper.

"I think we learned during the pandemic a few things about technology and how paper can really be our Achilles heel when you have to move paper case files," he said. "That was a particular issue during the pandemic when you didn’t have all of your people in the office to ship case files around."

Moving to a more paperless environment is a "continuing challenge," Keyso said, not only for communicating between Appeals employees, but between staff and taxpayers. "Should we really be mailing things back and forth through the U.S. Postal Service? Or is there a better way to communicate with taxpayers that’s faster and maybe preferable to taxpayers?"

As part of the technology challenges, the Independent Office of Appeals also is looking to continue to use video conferencing, something that gained traction during the pandemic.

"With the service wide return to the office, we are again offering in person conferences, which is something Appeals is very excited about," Amy Giuliano, senior advisor to the Chief and Deputy Chief in the Office of Appeal, said. "But we want video conferences to remain a permanent option to alongside in person. We requested comments in August … for people to submit input on experiences they had with video conferences with appeals that should inform our longer term guidelines. And we've received a lot of positive feedback that video conferences, when they're managed effectively, are a great way for a taxpayer to present their case to appeals."

She applauded the fact that video conferences have the benefits of a face-to-face conference in that one can see the IRS agent they are dealing with, but they avoid the logistical issues with traveling to an IRS office to conduct the meeting. It makes things more accessible, especially if the taxpayer has medical or other mobility issues.

"That's why it's so important that it remain an option going forward alongside in person and alongside telephone," she said.

Improving Overall Access

Keyso also noted that a key area of focus going forward is improving the overall access to the Independent Office of Appeals now that access has been codified into law through the Taxpayer First Act of 2019. Treasury is currently working on regulations that will implement the law.

"Our position in the Appeals Office is, you know, we want the broadest access to appeals possible for us to hear controversies or disputes between IRS and taxpayer," Keyso said. "So we will continue to push for broad access to taxpayers to appeals."

Giuliano added that "enhancing the taxpayer experience is really what sort of animates and informs everything else that we're doing."

Keyso also mentioned that Appeals is planning on continuing convening practitioner panels, during which the office invites practitioners to talk about issues they are facing as they deal with the appeals process. He noted that it was through these panels that the office made changes to letters that went out to taxpayers and their representatives that included more contact information on managers so taxpayers and their representatives have it handy if they need to escalate a situation.

Audits by the Internal Revenue Service in 2017 and 2019 were not conducted to target specific individuals, according to a new report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.

Audits by the Internal Revenue Service in 2017 and 2019 were not conducted to target specific individuals, according to a new report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.

The report, dated November 29, 2022, but released December 1, found that "key decisions and information related to the tax return selection process for Tax Years 2017 and 2019 were determined prior to the start of each year’s respective filing season and prior to the selection of any returns," the Treasury watchdog said in a statement. "TIGTA also confirmed that the computer program used to select tax returns worked as designed and di not included any malicious code that would force the selection of specific taxpayers for an NRP [National Research Program] audit."

TIGTA conducted the analysis of the audit selection process following a July 2022 media report that suggested the selection for those tax years may not have been random. To answer the allegations, TIGTA hired a contractor that, according to the report, "replicated the process. Specifically, the contractor replicated each week’s original sample selection file through April 2018 and July 2020 for TYs 2017 and 2019, respectively."

Once replicated, a return-by-return comparison of the replicated files and the original sample selection was conducted to verify the files matched.

"They concluded that the tax returns in the original samples were the same tax returns selected when the process was replicated using the respective seed numbers," the report states. "TIGTA also compared the contractor’s replicated weekly output files to the original weekly output files, and same as the IRS, TIGTA determined they matched."

The report noted that a line-by-line review of the original source code was conducted "to determine whether information (i.e., TIN) was improperly coded in the program that would result in a specific taxpayer being selected for an NRP audit. The contractor concluded that no specific taxpayer information was included in the original source code."

In recent years, Congress has used the Tax Code to encourage individuals to make energy-efficient improvements to their homes.  The credit is very popular. The Treasury Department estimates that more than 6.8 million individuals claimed over $5.8 billion in residential energy tax credits in 2009.

The nonrefundable Code Sec. 25C tax credit was originally enacted on a temporary basis. Most recently, Congress renewed and modified the residential energy property tax credit in the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010 (2010 Tax Relief Act) through 2011.  

2011 rules

Under current law, the Code Sec. 25 tax credit provides a 10 percent credit for the purchase of qualified energy efficiency improvements to existing homes. A qualified energy efficiency improvement is any energy efficiency building envelope component:

• Meeting or exceeding criteria for the component established by the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code or, in the case of certain windows, skylights and doors, and metal roofs, meeting Energy Star requirements;

• Installed in or on a dwelling located in the United States and owned and used by the taxpayer as the taxpayer's principal residence;

• Original use of which commences with the taxpayer; and

• The qualified energy-efficient improvement reasonably can be expected to remain in use for at least five years.

Examples of energy-efficient improvements include, but are not limited to, qualified electric heat pumps, certain furnaces, metal roofs meeting certain criteria, certain types of exterior windows and doors. In some cases, only the cost of the energy-efficient improvement is eligible for the Code Sec. 25C tax credit; installation costs are ineligible. For example, the costs associated with installing a qualified electric heat pump are eligible for the Code Sec. 25C tax credit but costs associated with installing a qualified metal roof are ineligible. 

Lifetime limits

The 2010 Tax Relief Act set the maximum Code Sec. 25C credit allowable is $500 over the lifetime of the taxpayer. The $500 amount must be reduced by the aggregate amount of previously allowed credits the taxpayer received in 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2010.  This provision can complicate planning for the Code Sec. 25C credit because Congress made changes to the credit before and after 2009, particularly regarding the lifetime limit.

Let’s look at an example.  Amanda qualified for a $400 Code Sec. 25C tax credit in 2006. The maximum credit allowable is $500 over her lifetime. This means that Amanda can get an additional Code Sec. 25C tax credit of up to $100 in 2011.

Under the 2010 Tax Relief Act, no more than $200 of the Code Sec. 25C credit may be attributable to expenditures on exterior windows and skylights. Taxpayers must reduce the $200 amount by the aggregate amount of previously allowed credits for windows and skylights that the taxpayer received in 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2010.

Dollar limits

Additionally, certain dollar limitations apply to various improvements. For property placed in service in 2011, the dollar limits are $300 for any item of qualified energy-efficient property; $50 for an advanced main air circulating fan; and $150 for any qualified natural gas, propane or oil furnace or hot water boiler.

Energy standards

Moreover, the qualified energy-efficient property must meet standards set by the by the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). The 2010 Tax Relief Act treats exterior windows, skylights and exterior doors are qualified energy efficiency improvements if they meet the Energy Star Program requirements in 2011.

Certification statements

Many energy-efficient improvements come with a manufacturer’s certification statement.  The statement indicates if the improvement qualifies for the tax credit.  It is not necessary to submit a copy of the manufacturer’s certification statement with the individual’s tax return, but taxpayers should keep a copy of the certification statement for their records.

Another credit

The Code Sec. 25D tax credit also is intended to reward taxpayers for making certain energy-efficient improvements. The Code Sec. 25C tax credit covers items such as geothermal heat pumps, solar water heaters, solar panels, and small wind energy systems. Many of the rules for the Code Sec. 25D tax credit are similar to the Code Sec. 25C tax credit but there are some differences. For example, the Code Sec. 25D credit has no lifetime limit. If you are considering making one of these improvements, please contact our office for more details about this tax credit.

Form 5695

Taxpayers claim the Code Sec. 25C tax credit on Form 5695, Residential Energy Credits. The IRS has identified some abuses of the Code Sec. 25C tax credit and it intends to make revisions to Form 5695 to curb fraudulent claims and verify eligibility for the credit. These changes are expected to appear on the Form 5695 that taxpayers will file in 2012.

If you have any questions about the Code Sec. 25C tax credit, please contact our office.

The IRS has announced that it will discontinue the high-low method used by taxpayers in a trade or business to substantiate travel expenses incurred while away from home.  The method, developed by the IRS, applies to travel expenses for meals, lodging and incidental expenses. It not only has provided a short-cut method for employers to cover the paperwork required to substantiate business travel deductions but in the past it has also helped the IRS streamline certain audits.

Background

Under the high-low method, the IRS provides optional per diem allowances that employers and employees are deemed to have substantiated.  The method can be used in lieu of substantiating actual travel-related expenses. The per diem amounts also satisfy the requirement that employees provide the employer with an adequate accounting of meal and lodging expenses.

The IRS publishes a list of localities classified as high-cost areas under the high-low method.  All other localities in the continental United States (CONUS) are classified as low-cost areas. The maximum per diem rate for high-cost areas is $233 for travel on or after October 1, 2010.  This represents $168 for lodging and $65 for meals and incidental expenses (M&IE).  The per diem rate for low-cost areas on or after October 1, 2010, is $160, which represents $108 for lodging and $52 for M&IE.

Waning interest

The IRS requested comments in 2010 on whether to continue the method and received no comments. The IRS interpreted such lack of interest as the deciding reason to discontinue the method.  It also reportedly has found the collection of data, as well as the politics that went into designating an area as “high cost,” growing more difficult when compared to the value of continuing the method in an environment in which digitized travel receipts are now so easily available. Taxpayers currently using the high-low method, however, can anticipate continuing to use it through 2011.

More guidance to come

Later in 2011, the IRS promises to issue a new revenue procedure, without the high-low method, that will provide general rules and procedures for substantiating lodging, meals and incidental expenses incurred in business travel away from home.  It is unlikely that the IRS will issue high-low rates for 2012.

Government employers use the per diem method widely, practitioners report.  Private industry, however, generally prefers to reimburse employees based on actual receipts and, therefore, only a small percentage of private businesses will expected to miss using the high-low method to substantiate travel expenses.

Taxpayers that place new business assets other than real property in service through 2012 may claim a "bonus" depreciation deduction. Although the bonus depreciation deduction is generally equal to 50 percent of the cost of qualified property, the rate has been increased by recent legislation to 100 percent for new business assets acquired after September 8, 2010 and placed in service before January 1, 2012. Thus, the entire cost of such 100 percent rate property is deducted in a single tax year rather than over the three- to 20-year depreciation period that is normally assigned to the property based on its type or the business activity in which it is used.

Every business should consider taking advantage of 100 percent bonus depreciation while it is available this year. Ironically, the benefits of 100 percent bonus depreciation are so favorable that some of the regular tax rules standing guard under normal circumstances to prevent abuses are being unintentionally triggered. The IRS has now come to the rescue with a few clarifications, elections and workarounds, in the form of Rev. Proc. 2011-26.

The most important clarifications/elections provide:

--A taxpayer is deemed to acquire qualified property when it pays or incurs the cost of the property.

--Bonus depreciation may be claimed at the 100 percent rate even though a pre-September 9, 2010 binding acquisition contract was in effect provided the contract was not in effect before January 1, 2008.

--Qualified property that a taxpayer manufactures, constructs, or produces is considered acquired by the taxpayer when the taxpayer begins constructing, manufacturing, or producing that property.

--A taxpayer may elect to claim 100 percent bonus depreciation on a component of a larger property if the component is acquired after September 8, 2010 even though manufacture, construction, or production of the larger property began before September 9, 2010.

--A taxpayer may elect the 50 percent rate in place of the 100 percent rate but only in a tax year that includes September 9, 2010.

Election Procedures for 2009/2010 FY Taxpayers

Special procedures that mainly affect fiscal-year (FY) 2009-2010 taxpayers who filed returns prior to the reinstatement of bonus depreciation for the 2010 calendar year explain how to claim or not claim the bonus deduction on property placed in service in 2010.

"Safe Harbor" Enhances Bonus Depreciation for Cars

The guidance also provides an important benefit to taxpayers who purchase a new automobile in 2010 or 2011 that is eligible for the 100 percent bonus rate but which is subject to annual depreciation caps because the vehicle has a gross vehicle weight rating of 6000 pounds or less. The benefit comes in the form of a "safe harbor method of accounting," which allows a taxpayer to claim depreciation deductions in each year of the vehicle's depreciation period.

If this safe harbor method of accounting is not adopted, a taxpayer may only claim a depreciation deduction in the tax year that the vehicle is purchased and that deduction is limited to the amount of the first-year depreciation cap ($11,060 for cars and $11,160 for trucks and vans placed in service in 2010).

If the safe harbor method is adopted, a taxpayer may claim the amount of the first-year depreciation cap in the year the vehicle is purchased plus additional amounts in each of the next five tax years of the vehicle's regular depreciation period.

In most cases, the amount of depreciation allowed in each year of a vehicle's recovery period under the safe harbor method is the same amount that could have been claimed if the 50 percent bonus rate applied.