The IRS has provided guidance on two exceptions to the 10 percent additional tax under Code Sec. 72(t)(1) for emergency personal expense distributions and domestic abuse victim distributions. These exceptions were added by the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022, P.L. 117-328, and became effective January 1, 2024. The Treasury Department and the IRS anticipate issuing regulations under Code Sec. 72(t) and request comments to be submitted on or before October 7, 2024.

The IRS has provided guidance on two exceptions to the 10 percent additional tax under Code Sec. 72(t)(1) for emergency personal expense distributions and domestic abuse victim distributions. These exceptions were added by the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022, P.L. 117-328, and became effective January 1, 2024. The Treasury Department and the IRS anticipate issuing regulations under Code Sec. 72(t) and request comments to be submitted on or before October 7, 2024.

Distributions for Emergency Personal Expenses

Code Sec. 72(t)(2)(I) provides an exception to the 10 percent additional tax for a distribution from an applicable eligible retirement plan to an individual for emergency personal expenses. The term "emergency personal expense distribution" means any distribution made from an applicable eligible retirement plan to an individual for purposes of meeting unforeseeable or immediate financial needs relating to necessary personal or family emergency expenses. The IRS specifically noted that emergency expenses could be related to: medical care; accident or loss of property due to casualty; imminent foreclosure or eviction from a primary residence; the need to pay for burial or funeral expenses; auto repairs; or any other necessary emergency personal expenses.

The IRS provides that a plan administrator or IRA custodian may rely on a written certification from the employee or IRA owner that they are eligible for an emergency personal expense distribution. Furthermore, the IRS provides that an emergency personal expense distribution is not treated as a rollover distribution and thus is not subject to mandatory 20% withholding. However, the distribution is subject to withholding, the IRS said. If the emergency personal expense distribution is repaid, it is treated as if the individual received the distribution and transferred it to an eligible retirement plan within 60 days of distribution.

If an otherwise eligible retirement plan does not offer emergency personal expense distributions, the IRS indicated that an individual may still take an otherwise permissible distribution and treat it as such on their federal income tax return. The individual claims on Form 5329 that the distribution is an emergency personal expense distribution, in accordance with the form’s instructions. The individual has the option to repay the distribution to an IRA within 3 years.

Distributions to Domestic Abuse Victims

Code Sec. 72(t)(2)(K) provides an exception to the 10 percent additional tax for an eligible distribution to a domestic abuse victim (domestic abuse victim distribution). The guidance defines a"domesticabusevictimdistribution" as any distribution from an applicable eligible retirement plan to a domestic abuse victim if made during the 1-year period beginning on any date on which the individual is a victim of domestic abuse by a spouse or domestic partner. "Domesticabuse" is defined as physical, psychological, sexual, emotional, or economic abuse, including efforts to control, isolate, humiliate, or intimidate the victim, or to undermine the victim’s ability to reason independently, including by means of abuse of the victim’s child or another family member living in the household.

As with distributions for emergency personal expenses, a retirement plan may rely on an employee’s written certification that they qualify for a domestic abuse victim distribution. Similarly, if an otherwise eligible retirement plan does not offer domestic abuse victim distributions, the IRS indicated that an individual may still take an otherwise permissible distribution and treat it as such on their federal income tax return. The individual claims on Form 5329 that the distribution is a domestic abuse victim distribution, in accordance with the form’s instructions. The individual has the option to repay the distribution to an IRA within 3 years.

Request for Comments

The Treasury Department and the IRS invite comments on the guidance, and specifically on whether the Secretary should adopt regulations providing exceptions to the rule that a plan administrator may rely on an employee’s certification relating to emergency personal expense distributions and procedures to address cases of employee misrepresentation. Comments should be submitted in writing on or before October 7, 2024, and should include a reference to Notice 2024-55.

On June 17, 2024, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service announced a new regulatory initiative focused on closing tax loopholes and stopping abusive partnership transactions used by wealthy taxpayers to avoid paying taxes.

On June 17, 2024, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service announced a new regulatory initiative focused on closing tax loopholes and stopping abusive partnership transactions used by wealthy taxpayers to avoid paying taxes.

Specifically targeted by this new tax compliance effort are partnership basis shifting transactions. In these transactions, a single business that operates through many different legal entities (related parties) enters into a set of transactions that manipulate partnership tax rules to maximize tax deductions and minimize tax liability. These basis shifting transactions allow closely related parties to avoid taxes.

The use of these abusive transactions grew during a period of severe underfunding for the IRS. As such, the audit rates for these increasingly complex structures fell significantly. It is estimated that these abusive transactions, which cut across a wide variety of industries and individuals, could potentially cost taxpayers more than $50 billion over a 10-year period, according to an IRS News Release.

"Using Inflation Reduction Act funding, we are working to reverse more than a decade of declining audits among the highest income taxpayers, as well as complex partnerships and corporations," IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel said during a press call discussing the new effort on June 14, 2024.

"This announcement signals the IRS is accelerating our work in the partnership arena, which has been overlooked for more than a decade and allowed tax abuse to go on for far too long," said IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel. "We are building teams and adding expertise inside the agency so we can reverse long-term compliance declines that have allowed high-income taxpayers and corporations to hide behind complexity to avoid paying taxes. Billions are at stake here".

This multi-stage regulatory effort announced by the Treasury and IRS includes the following guidance designed to stop the use of basis shifting transactions that use related-party partnerships to avoid taxes:

• proposed regulations under existing regulatory authority to stop related parties in complex partnership structures from shifting the tax basis of their assets amongst each other to take abusive deductions or reduce gains when the asset is sold;

• proposed regulation to require taxpayers and their material advisers to report if they and their clients are participating in abusive partnership basis shifting transactions; and

• a Revenue Rulingproviding that certain related-party partnership transactions involving basis shifting lack economic substance.

"Treasury and the IRS are focused on addressing high-end tax abuse from all angles, and the proposed rules released today will increase tax fairness and reduce the deficit," said U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Janet L. Yellen.

In the June 14, 2024, press call, Commissioner Danny Werfel also noted that there will be an increase in audits of large partnerships with average assets over $10 billion dollars and larger organizational changes taking place to support compliance efforts, including the creation of a new associate office that will focus exclusively on partnerships, S corporations, trusts, and estates.

By Catherine S. Agdeppa, Content Management Analyst

A savings account with the tax benefits of a health savings account or an educations savings account but without the singular restricted focus could be something that gains traction as Congress addresses the tax provision of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that expire in 2025.

A savings account with the tax benefits of a health savings account or an educations savings account but without the singular restricted focus could be something that gains traction as Congress addresses the tax provision of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that expire in 2025.

The concept was promoted by multiple witnesses testifying during a recent Senate Finance Committee hearing on the subject of child savings accounts and other tax advantaged accounts that would benefit children. It also is the subject of a recently released report from The Tax Foundation.

Rather than push new limited-use savings accounts, "policymakers may want to consider enacting a more comprehensive savings program such as a universalsavingsaccount," Veronique de Rugy, a research fellow at George Mason University, testified before the committee during the May 21, 2024, hearing. "Universalsavingsaccounts will allow workers to save in one simple account from which they would withdraw without penalty for any expected or unexpected events throughout their lifetime."

She noted that, like other more focused savings accounts, like health savings accounts, it would have "the benefit of sheltering some income from the punishing double taxation that our code imposes."

De Rugy added that universal savings accounts "have a benefit that they do not discourage savings for those who are concerned that the conditions for withdrawals would stop them from addressing an emergency in their family."

Adam Michel, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute, who also promoted the idea of universal savings accounts. He said these accounts "would allow families to save for their kids or any of life’s other priorities. The flexibility of these accounts make them best suited for lower and middle income Americans."

He also noted that they are promoting savings in countries that have implemented them, including Canada and United Kingdom.

"For example, almost 60 percent of Canadians own tax-free savingsaccounts," Michel said. "And more than half of those account holders earned the equivalent of about $37,000 a year. These accounts have helped increase savings and support the rest of the Canadian savings ecosystem."

De Rugy noted that in countries that have implemented it, they function like a Roth account in that money that has already been taxed can be put into it and not penalized or taxed upon withdrawal.

Michel also noted that the if the tax benefits extend to corporations as they do with deposits to employee health savings accounts, "to the extent that you lower the corporate income tax, you’re going to encourage a different additional investment into savings by those entities."

Simulating The Universal Savings Account Impact

The Tax Foundation in its report simulated how a universal savings account could work, based on how they are implemented in Canada. The simulation assumed the accounts could go active in 2025 for adults aged 18 years or older.

On a post-tax basis, individuals would be allowed to contribute up to $9,100 on a post-tax basis annually, with that cap indexed for inflation. Any unused "contribution room" would be allowed to be carried forward. Earnings would be allowed to grow tax-free and withdrawals would be allowed for any purpose without penalty or further taxation. Any withdrawal would be added back to that year’s contribution room and that would be eligible for carryover as well.

"The fiscal cost of this USA policy would be offset by ending the tax advantage of contributions to HSAs beginning in 2025," the report states. "As such, future contributions to HSAs would be given normal tax treatment, i.e. included in taxable income and subject to payroll tax with subsequent returns on contributions also included in taxable income."

In this scenario, the Tax Foundation report estimates that "this policy change would on net raise tax revenue by about $110 billion over the 10-year budget window."

As for the impact on taxpayers, the "after-tax income would fall by about 0.1 percent in 2025 and by a smaller amount in 2034, reflecting the net tax increase in those years," the report states. "Over the long run, and accounting for economic impacts, taxpayers across every quintile would see a small increase in after-tax income on average, but the top 5 percent of earners would continue to see a small decrease in after-tax income on average."

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

The Internal Revenue Service’s use of artificial intelligence in selecting tax returns for National Research Program audits that areused to estimate the tax gap needs more documentation and transparency, the U.S. Government Accountability Office stated.

The Internal Revenue Service’s use of artificial intelligence in selecting tax returns for National Research Program audits that areused to estimate the tax gap needs more documentation and transparency, the U.S. Government Accountability Office stated.

In a report issued June 5, 2024, the federal government watchdog noted that while the agency uses AI to improve the efficiency and selection of audit cases to help identify noncompliance, "IRS has not completed its documentation of several elements of its AI sample selection models, such as key components and technical specifications."

GAO noted that the IRS began using AI in a pilot in tax year 2019 for sampling tax returns for NRP audits. The current plan is to use AI to create a sample size of 4,000 returns to measure compliance and help inform tax gap estimates, although GAO expressed concerns about the accuracy of the estimates with that sample size.

"For example, NRP historically included more than 2,500 returns that claimed the Earned Income Tax Credit, but the redesigned sample has included less than 500 of these returns annually," the report stated.

IRS told GAO that it "is exploring ways to combine operational audit data with NRP audit data when developing its taxgapestimates. IRS officials also told us that if IRS can reliably combine these data for taxgap analysis, IRS might be better positioned to identify emerging trends in noncompliance and reduce the uncertainty of the estimates due to the small sample size."

The report also highlighted the fact that the agency "has multiple documents that collectively provide technical details and justifications for the design of the AI models. However, no set of documents contains complete information and IRS analyst could use to run or update the models, and several key documents are in draft form."

"Completing documentation would help IRS retain organizational knowledge, ensure the models are implemented consistently, and make the process more transparent to future users," the report stated.

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

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.