President Donald Trump targeted federal hiring, including specific rules for the Internal Revenue Service, and the United States’ participation in the global tax framework being developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development among his flurry of executive orders signed on the first day of his second term in the Oval Office.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network is keeping beneficial reporting information reporting voluntary even though the Supreme Court has lifted the injunction that was put in place by a lower court to keep the BOI regulation from being enforced.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network is keeping beneficial reporting information reporting voluntary even though the Supreme Court has lifted the injunction that was put in place by a lower court to keep the BOI regulation from being enforced.

"In light of a recent federal court order, reporting companies are not currently required to file beneficial ownership information with FinCEN and are not subject to liability if they fail to do so while the order remains in force," the agency posted to its website on January 24, 2025. "However, reporting companies may continue to voluntarily submit beneficial ownership information reports."

The posting follows a Supreme Court order stating on January 23, 2025, that the injunction put in place by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on December 5, 2024, was removed.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson offered a dissenting opinion on lifting the injunction.

"However likely the Government’s success on the merits may be, in my view, emergency relief is not appropriate because the applicant has failed to demonstrate sufficient exigency to justify our interventions," Justice Jackson wrote, citing two reasons: the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has already expedited the hearing of the case and the government has deferred the implementation of the regulations on its own accord.

"The Government has provided no indication that injury of a more serious or significant nature would result if the Act’s implementation is further delayed while the litigation proceeds in the lower courts. I would therefore deny the application and permit the appellate process to run its course," Justice Jackson added.

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

The Treasury and IRS have issued final regulations that provide rules for classifying digital and cloud transactions. The rules apply for purposes of the international provisions of the Code.

The rules retain the overall approach of the proposed regulations (NPRM REG-130700-14, August 14, 2019), with some revisions.

The Treasury and IRS also issued proposed regulations that provide sourcing rules for cloud transactions.

The Treasury and IRS have issued final regulations that provide rules for classifying digital and cloud transactions. The rules apply for purposes of the international provisions of the Code.

The rules retain the overall approach of the proposed regulations (NPRM REG-130700-14, August 14, 2019), with some revisions.

The Treasury and IRS also issued proposed regulations that provide sourcing rules for cloud transactions.

Background

Reg. §1.861-18 provides rules for classifying cross-border transactions involving digitized information, specifically computer programs, broadly grouped into the following categories:

• the transfer of a copyright;
• the transfer of a copyrighted article;
• the provision of services for the development or modification of a computer program; and
• the provision of know-how relating to the development of a computer program.

The 1998 final regulations focus on the distinction between the transfer of the copyright itself and transfer of a copyrighted article, using a substance-over-form characterization approach and by examining the underlying rights granted to the transferee. Transfers of copyrights and copyrighted articles are further characterized as complete or partial transfers, resulting in the transfers being characterized as either sales or licenses, in the case of a copyrights, or sales or leases, in the case of a copyrighted articles.

2025 Final Regulations

The 2025 final regulations maintain the basic framework for characterizing transfers of content and extend the characterization framework to digital content. Digital content is generally defined as any computer program or other content protected by copyright law, not just transactions involving computer programs.

The categories of transactions include:

• the transfer of a copyright in the digital content;
• the transfer of a copy of the digital content (a copyrighted article);
• the provision of services for the development or modification of the digital content; and
• the provision of know-how relating to the development of digital content.

The 2025 final regulations also provide for cloud transactions and characterize the transactions as a provision of services.

Cloud transactions are generally defined as transactions through which a person obtains on-demand network access to computer hardware, digital content, or similar resources.

The 2025 final regulations replace the de minimis rule and the concept of arrangement with a predominant character rule that applies to both digital content transactions and cloud transactions. Under the rule, a transaction with multiple elements is characterized based on the predominant character of the transaction.

Request for Comments on 2025 Final Regulations

The Treasury and IRS are considering whether the characterization rules should apply to all provisions of the Code and have requested comments on any specific areas that would be affected, with examples if appropriate. Comments are also requested on any guidance that would be needed and the approach the guidance should take. In addition to general comments, the Treasury and IRS also request comments on the desirability and effect of applying the rules in specific areas and the guidance need.

Comments should be submitted 90 days after the Notice requesting comments is published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin, with consideration for comments submitted after that date that do not delay the guidance. Comments may be submitted electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal www.regulations.com or or by mail to: Internal Revenue Service, CC:PA:01:PR (Notice 2025-6, Room 5203, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, D.C., 20044.

Proposed Sourcing Rules for Cloud Transactions

Gross income from a cloud transaction is sourced as services. Under the Code, gross income from the performance of services is sourced to the place where the service is performed.

To determine the place of performance, the proposed regulations would take into account the location of the employees and assets, including both tangible and intangible assets, that contribute to the provision of cloud transactions. The sourcing rules would apply on a taxpayer-by-taxpayer basis.

The place of performance of a cloud transactions is established through a formula composed of a fraction that has three parts-the intangible property factor, the personnel factor, and the tangible property factor. The factors make up the denominator of the fraction. The numerator is the sum of each portion of each factor that is from sources within the United States. The gross income from a cloud transaction multiplied by the fraction is the U.S. source portion of the gross income.

T.D. 10022

Proposed Regulations, NPRM REG-107420-24

Notice 2025-6

The IRS has released final regulations implementing the clean hydrogen production credit under Code Sec. 45V, as well as the election to treat a clean hydrogen production facility as energy property for purposes of the energy investment credit under Code Sec. 48. The regulations generally apply to tax years beginning after December 26, 2023.

The IRS issued updates to frequently asked questions (FAQs) about the Energy Efficient Home Improvement Credit (Code Sec. 25C) and the Residential Clean Energy Property Credit (Code Sec. 25D). The former credit applies to qualifying property placed in service on or after January 1, 2023, and before January 1, 2033. The updates pertained to FS-2024-15. More information is available here.

The IRS issued updates to frequently asked questions (FAQs) about the Energy Efficient Home Improvement Credit (Code Sec. 25C) and the Residential Clean Energy Property Credit (Code Sec. 25D). The former credit applies to qualifying property placed in service on or after January 1, 2023, and before January 1, 2033. The updates pertained to FS-2024-15. More information is available here.

Energy Efficient Home Improvement Credit

The credit is limited to $2,000 per taxpayer per taxable year in the aggregate for electric or natural gas heat pump water heaters, electric or natural gas heat pumps, and biomass stoves or boilers.

Thus, a taxpayer could claim a total credit of $3,200 if they had sufficient expenditures in property categories (or a home energy audit) subject to the $1,200 limitation and in property categories subject to the $2,000 limitation.

Additionally, a taxpayer can claim the credit only for qualifying expenditures incurred for an existing home, or for an addition to or renovation of an existing home, but not for a newly constructed home.

Residential Clean Energy Property Credit

One of the FAQs mentions that this credit is a nonrefundable personal tax credit. A taxpayer claiming a nonrefundable credit can only use it to decrease or eliminate tax liability.

The credit is generally limited to 30 percent of qualified expenditures made for property placed in service between 2022 and 2032. However, the credit allowed for qualified fuel cell property expenditures is 30 percent of the expenditures, up to a maximum credit of $500 for each half kilowatt of capacity of the qualified fuel cell property.

FS-2025-1

IR-2025-17

The IRS has provided updated guidance on the implementation of section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-600), as amended, regarding controversies involving whether individuals are "employees" for employment tax purposes. Section 530 (which is not an Internal Revenue Code section) provides relief for employers who are involved in worker classification status disputes with the IRS and face large employment tax assessments as a result of the IRS’s proposed reclassifications of workers.

The IRS has provided updated guidance on the implementation of section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-600), as amended, regarding controversies involving whether individuals are "employees" for employment tax purposes. Section 530 (which is not an Internal Revenue Code section) provides relief for employers who are involved in worker classification status disputes with the IRS and face large employment tax assessments as a result of the IRS’s proposed reclassifications of workers.

Section 530 Safe Harbor

Section 530 provides that an employer will not be liable for federal employment taxes regarding an individual or class of workers if certain statutory requirements are met. Section 530 relief applies only if the taxpayer did not treat the individual as an employee for federal employment tax purposes for the period at issue, and meets each of the following requirements for that period:

• the taxpayer filed all required federal tax returns, including information returns, on a basis that is consistent with the taxpayer’s treatment of the individual as not being an employee (reporting consistency requirement);
• the taxpayer did not treat the individual or any individual holding a substantially similar position as an employee (substantive consistency requirement); and
• the taxpayer had a reasonable basis for not treating the individual as an employee (reasonable basis requirement).

Rev. Proc. 85-18, 1985-1 CB 518, provided instructions for implementing section 530 relating to the employment tax status of independent contractors and employees.

Updated Guidance

The updated guidance clarifies provisions in Rev. Proc. 85-18 regarding the definition of employee, the section 530 requirement for the filing of required returns, and the reasonable basis safe harbor rules. The updated guidance also includes new provisions that reflect certain statutory changes made to section 530 since 1986.

Among other things, the updated guidance amplifies guidelines in Rev. Proc. 85-18 which interpreted the word “treat” for purposes of determining whether a taxpayer did not treat an individual as an employee for section 530 purposes. Under the updated guidance, with respect to any individual, actions that indicate “treatment” of the individual as an employee for section 530 purposes include:

• withholding of income tax or FICA taxes from any payments made;
• filing of an original or amended employment tax return;
• filing or issuance of a Form W-2; and
• contracting with a third party to perform acts required of employers.

Provisions in Rev. Proc. 85-18 that explained how refunds, credits, abatements, and handling of claims applied to taxpayers who were under audit or otherwise involved in administrative or judicial processes with the IRS at the time of enactment of section 530 are no longer applicable and were not included in the updated guidance. Section 530 relief remains available at any stage in the administrative or judicial process if the requirements for relief are met.

Effect on Other Documents

Rev. Proc. 85-18, 1985-1 CB 518, is modified and superseded.

Rev. Proc. 2025-10

The IRS has issued final regulation identifying certain partnership related-party basis adjustment transactions as transactions of interest (TOI), a type of reportable transaction under Reg. §1.6011-4. Taxpayers that participate and material advisors to these transactions, and substantially similar transactions, are required to disclose as much to the IRS using Form 8886 and Form 8918, respectively, or be subject to penalties.

Regulations under Code Sec. 2801, which imposes a tax on covered gifts and covered bequests received by a citizen or resident of the United States from a covered expatriate, have been issued.

The IRS has issued a revenue ruling addressing the federal tax treatment of contributions and benefits under state-administered paid family and medical leave (PFML) programs. The ruling clarifies how these contributions and benefits are classified for income tax, employment tax, and reporting purposes, with distinctions drawn between employer and employee contributions.

The IRS has issued a revenue ruling addressing the federal tax treatment of contributions and benefits under state-administered paid family and medical leave (PFML) programs. The ruling clarifies how these contributions and benefits are classified for income tax, employment tax, and reporting purposes, with distinctions drawn between employer and employee contributions.

PFML Contributions

Mandatory contributions made by employers under PFML programs are classified as excise taxes deductible as ordinary and necessary business expenses under Code Sec. 164. These payments are deemed state-imposed obligations for the purpose of funding public programs and are not included in employees' gross income under Code Sec. 61. In contrast, mandatory contributions withheld from employees’ wages are treated as state income taxes under Code Sec. 164(a)(3). Employees may deduct these amounts on their federal tax returns if they itemize deductions, subject to the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap under Code Sec. 164(b)(6).

The ruling further specifies the treatment of benefits paid under PFML programs. Family leave benefits, which provide wage replacement during caregiving periods, are included in the recipient’s gross income under Code Sec. 61 but are not considered wages for federal employment tax purposes under Code Sec. 3121. By comparison, medical leave benefits attributable to employee contributions are excluded from gross income under Code Sec. 104(a)(3). However, medical leave benefits attributable to employer contributions are partially taxable under Code Sec. 105 and are subject to FICA taxes.

The ruling also addresses scenarios where employers voluntarily cover portions of employees’ contributions, referred to as "employer pick-ups." Such pick-ups are treated as additional compensation, included in employees’ gross income under Code Sec. 61, and are subject to federal employment taxes. Employers, however, may deduct these payments as ordinary business expenses under Code Sec. 162.

To ensure compliance, the IRS requires states and employers to report benefits exceeding $600 annually under Code Sec. 6041 using Form 1099. Additionally, benefits subject to employment taxes must be reported on Form W-2.

The ruling modifies prior guidance and includes a transition period for 2025 to allow states and employers to adjust their systems to meet reporting and compliance requirements. This clarification provides a framework for managing the tax implications of PFML programs, ensuring consistent treatment across jurisdictions.

Effective Date

This revenue ruling is effective for payments made on or after January 1, 2025. However, transition relief is provided to the states, the District of Columbia, and employers from certain withholding, payment, and information reporting requirements for state-paid medical leave benefits paid made during calendar year 2025.

Effect on Other Guidance

Rev. Rul. 81-194, Rev. Rul. 81-193, Rev. Rul. 81-192, and Rev. Rul. 81-191 are amplified to include the holdings in this revenue ruling that are applicable to the facts in those rulings. Rev. Rul. 72-191, as modified by Rev. Rul. 81-192, is further modified.

Rev. Rul. 2025-4

IR-2025-16

National Taxpayer Advocate Erin Collins identified the lengthy processing and uncertainty regarding the employee retention credit as being among the ten most serious problems facing taxpayers.

National Taxpayer Advocate Erin Collins identified the lengthy processing and uncertainty regarding the employee retention credit as being among the ten most serious problems facing taxpayers.

"Although the [Internal Revenue Service] has processed several hundred thousand claims in recent months, it was still sitting on a backlog of about 1.2 million claims as of October 26, 2024," Collins noted in her just released 2024 Annual Report to Congress. "Many claims have been pending for more than a year, and with the imminent start of the 2025 filing season, the IRS will shift its focus and resources to administering the filing season, resulting in even longer ERC processing delays."

Collins is calling on the IRS to provide more specific information with claims denials, more transparency on the timing of claims processing, and allowing taxpayers to submit documentation and seek an appeal before disallowing a claim that was not subject to an audit.

In addition to ERC processing, Collins identified delays in processing of tax returns as another serious problem taxpayers are facing, including delays associated with the more than 10 million paper 1040 returns and more than 75 million paper-filed returns and forms overall each year, as well as issues surrounding rejections of e-filed returns, most of which are valid returns. These delays end up delaying refunds and can be particularly hard on low-income filers who are receiving the Earned Income Tax Credit.

"We recommend the IRS continue to prioritize automating its tax processing systems, including by scanning all paper-filed tax returns in time for the 2026 filing season and processing amended tax returns automatically," the report states.

Another processing issue identified in the report deals with delays in processing and refunds for victims of identity theft.

Collins reported that the delays in addressing identity theft issues grew to 22 months in fiscal year 2024, affecting nearly 500,000 taxpayers.

"The IRS has advised us that it has begun to prioritize resolution of cases involving refunds over balance-due returns rather than following its traditional ‘first in, first out’ approach," the report states. "This is somewhat good news, but I strongly encourage the IRS to fix this problem once and for all during the coming year."

Other issues in the top 10 include:

• Taxpayer service is often not timely or adequate;
• The prevalence of tax-related scams;
• Employment recruitment, hiring, training, and retention challenges are hindering transformational change within the industry;
• The dependence on paper forms and manual document review in processing Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers is causing delays and potential security risks;
• Limited taxpayer financial and tax literacy;
• The IRS’s administration of civil tax penalties is often unfair, inconsistently deters improper behavior, fails to promote efficient administration, and thus discourages tax compliance; and
• Changes to the IRS’s criminal voluntary disclosure practice requirements may be reducing voluntary compliance and negatively impacting the tax gap.

Collins also called on Congress to ensure the IRS receives adequate funding specifically for taxpayer services and technology upgrades, noting that many improvements that are highlighted in the report were made possible by the Inflation Reduction Act, which provided supplemental funding to the agency.

"Much of the funding has generated controversy – namely, the funding allocated for enforcement," the report notes. "But some of the funding has received strong bipartisan support – namely, the funding allocated for taxpayer services and technology modernization."

She reported that telephone service has improved dramatically, correspondence processing has improved dramatically, and in-person has become more accessible following the IRA funding, as well as technology improvements including increased scanning and processing of paper-filed tax returns electronically; increases in electronic correspondence; expansion of secure messaging; the ability to submit forms from mobile phones; and increases in both chatbot and voicebot technology.

"I want to highlight this distinction so that if Congress decides to cut IRA funding, it does not inadvertently throw the baby out with the bathwater," she reports.

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

IR-2025-4

The IRS has urged taxpayers to e-file their returns and use direct deposit to ensure filing accurate tax returns and expedite their tax refunds to avoid a variety of pandemic-related issues. The filing season opened on February 12, 2021, and taxpayers have until April 15 to file their 2020 tax return and pay any tax owed.

The IRS has urged taxpayers to e-file their returns and use direct deposit to ensure filing accurate tax returns and expedite their tax refunds to avoid a variety of pandemic-related issues. The filing season opened on February 12, 2021, and taxpayers have until April 15 to file their 2020 tax return and pay any tax owed.

"The pandemic has created a variety of tax law changes and has created some unique circumstances for this filing season," said IRS Commissioner Chuck Rettig. "To avoid issues, the IRS urges taxpayers to take some simple steps to help ensure they get their refund as quickly as possible, starting with filing electronically and using direct deposit," he added.

The IRS has issued guidance clarifying that taxpayers receiving loans under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) may deduct their business expenses, even if their PPP loans are forgiven. The IRS previously issued Notice 2020-32 and Rev. Rul. 2020-27, which stated that taxpayers who received PPP loans and had those loans forgiven would not be able to claim business deductions for their otherwise deductible business expenses.

The IRS has issued guidance clarifying that taxpayers receiving loans under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) may deduct their business expenses, even if their PPP loans are forgiven. The IRS previously issued Notice 2020-32 and Rev. Rul. 2020-27, which stated that taxpayers who received PPP loans and had those loans forgiven would not be able to claim business deductions for their otherwise deductible business expenses.

The COVID-Related Tax Relief Act of 2020 ( P.L. 116-260) amended the CARES Act ( P.L. 116-136) to clarify that business expenses paid with amounts received from loans under the PPP are deductible as trade or business expenses, even if the PPP loan is forgiven. Further, any amounts forgiven do not result in the reduction of any tax attributes or the denial of basis increase in assets. This change applies to years ending after March 27, 2020.

Notice 2020-32, I.R.B. 2020-21, 83 and Rev. Rul. 2020-27, I.R.B. 2020-50, 1552 are obsoleted.

Whether for a day, a week or longer, many of the costs associated with business trips may be tax-deductible. The tax code includes a myriad of rules designed to prevent abuses of tax-deductible business travel. One concern is that taxpayers will disguise personal trips as business trips. However, there are times when taxpayers can include some personal activities along with business travel and not run afoul of the IRS.

Business travel

You are considered “traveling away from home” for tax purposes if your duties require you to be away from the general area of your home for a period substantially longer than an ordinary day's work, and you need sleep or rest to meet the demands of work while away. Taxpayers who travel on business may deduct travel expenses if they are not otherwise lavish or extravagant. Business travel expenses include the costs of getting to and from the business destination and any business-related expenses at that destination.

Deductible travel expenses while away from home include, but are not limited to, the costs of:

• Travel by airplane, train, bus, or car to/from the business destination.
• Fares for taxis or other types of transportation between the airport or train station and lodging, the lodging location and the work location, and from one customer to another, or from one place of business to another.
• Meals and lodging.
• Tips for services related to any of these expenses.
• Dry cleaning and laundry.
• Business calls while on the business trip.
• Other similar ordinary and necessary expenses related to business travel.

Business mixed with personal travel

Travel that is primarily for personal reasons, such as a vacation, is a nondeductible personal expense. However, taxpayers often mix personal travel with business travel. In many cases, business travelers may able to engage in some non-business activities and not lose all of the tax benefits associated with business travel.

The primary purpose of a trip is determined by looking at the facts and circumstances of each case. An important factor is the amount of time you spent on personal activities during the trip as compared to the amount of time spent on activities directly relating to business.

Let’s look at an example. Amanda, a self-employed architect, resides in Seattle. Amanda travels on business to Denver. Her business trip lasts six days. Before departing for home, Amanda travels to Colorado Springs to visit her son, Jeffrey. Amanda’s total expenses are $1,800 for the nine days that she was away from home. If Amanda had not stopped in Colorado Springs, her trip would have been gone only six days and the total cost would have been $1,200. According to past IRS precedent, Amanda can deduct $1,200 for the trip, including the cost of round-trip transportation to and from Denver.

Weekend stayovers

Business travel often concludes on a Friday but it may be more economical to stay over Saturday night and take advantage of a lower travel fare. Generally, the costs of the weekend stayover are deductible as long as they are reasonable. Staying over a Saturday night is one way to add some personal time to a business trip.

Foreign travel

The rules for foreign travel are particularly complex.  The amount of deductible travel expenses for foreign travel is linked to how much of the trip was business related.  Generally, an individual can deduct all of his or her travel expenses of getting to and from the business destination if the trip is entirely for business.

In certain cases, foreign travel is considered entirely for business even if the taxpayer did not spend his or her entire time on business activities. For example, a foreign business trip is considered entirely for business if the taxpayer was outside the U.S. for more than one week and he or she spent less than 25 percent of the total time outside the U.S. on non-business activities. Other exceptions exist for business travel outside the U.S. for less than one week and in cases where the employee did not have substantial control in planning the trip.

Foreign conventions are especially difficult, but no impossible, to write off depending upon the circumstances. The taxpayer may deduct expenses incurred in attending foreign convention seminar or similar meeting only if it is directly related to active conduct of trade or business and if it is as reasonable to be held outside North American area as within North American area.

Tax home

To determine if an individual is traveling away from home on business, the first step is to determine the location of the taxpayer’s tax home. A taxpayer’s tax home is generally his or her regular place of business, regardless of where he or she maintains his or her family home. An individual may not have a regular or main place of business. In these cases, the individual’s tax home would generally be the place where he or she regularly lives.  The duration of an assignment is also a factor. If an assignment or job away from the individual’s main place of work is temporary, his or her tax home does not change. Generally, a temporary assignment is one that lasts less than one year.

The distinction between tax home and family home is important, among other reasons, to determine if certain deductions are allowed. Here’s an example.

Alec’s family home is in Tucson, where he works for ABC Co. 14 weeks a year.  Alec spends the remaining 38 weeks of the year working for ABC Co. in San Diego. Alec has maintained this work schedule for the past three years. While in San Diego, Alec resides in a hotel and takes most of his meals at restaurants.  San Diego would be treated as Alec’s tax home because he spends most of his time there. Consequently, Alec would not be able to deduct the costs of lodging and meals in San Diego.

Accountable and nonaccountable plans

Many employees are reimbursed by their employer for business travel expenses. Depending on the type of plan the employer has, the reimbursement for business travel may or may not be taxable. There are two types of plans: accountable plans and nonaccountable plans.

An accountable plan is not taxable to the employee. Amounts paid under an accountable plan are not wages and are not subject to income tax withholding and federal employment taxes. Accountable plans have a number of requirements:

• There must be a business connection to the expenditure. The expense must be a deductible business expense incurred in connection with services performed as an employee. If not reimbursed by the employer, the expense would be deductible by the employee on his or her individual income tax return.

• There must be adequate accounting by the recipient within a reasonable period of time. Employees must verify the date, time, place, amount and the business purpose of the expenses.

• Excess reimbursements or advances must be returned within a reasonable period of time.

Amounts paid under a nonaccountable plan are taxable to employees and are subject to all employment taxes and withholding.  A plan may be labeled an accountable plan but if it fails to qualify, the IRS treats it as a nonaccountable plan. If you have any questions about accountable plans, please contact our office.

As mentioned, the tax rules for business travel are complex. Please contact our office if you have any questions.

As a result of recent changes in the law, many brokerage customers will begin seeing something new when they gaze upon their 1099-B forms early next year.  In the past, of course, brokers were required to report to their clients, and the IRS, those amounts reflecting the gross proceeds of any securities sales taking place during the preceding calendar year.

In keeping with a broader move toward greater information reporting requirements, however, new tax legislation now makes it incumbent upon brokers to provide their clients, and the IRS, with their adjusted basis in the lots of securities they purchase after certain dates, as well. While an onerous new requirement for the brokerage houses, this development ought to simplify the lives of many ordinary taxpayers by relieving them of the often difficult matter of calculating their stock bases.

When calculating gain, or loss, on the sale of stock, all taxpayers must employ a very simple formula. By the terms of this calculus, gain equals amount realized (how much was received in the sale) less adjusted basis (generally, how much was paid to acquire the securities plus commissions). By requiring brokers to provide their clients with both variables in the formula, Congress has lifted a heavy load from the shoulders of many.

FIFO

The new requirements also specify that, if a customer sells some amount of shares less than her entire holding in a given stock, the broker must report the customer's adjusted basis using the "first in, first out" method, unless the broker receives instructions from the customer directing otherwise. The difference in tax consequences can be significant.

Example.  On January 16, 2011, Laura buys 100 shares of Big Co. common stock for $100 a share. After the purchase, Big Co. stock goes on a tear, quickly rising in price to $200 a share, on April 11, 2011. Believing the best is still ahead for Big Co., Laura buys another 100 shares of Big Co. common on that date, at that price. However, rather than continuing its meteoric rise, the price of Big Co. stock rapidly plummets to $150, on May 8, 2011. At this point, Laura, tired of seeing her money evaporate, sells 100 of her Big Co. shares.

Since Laura paid $100 a share for the first lot of Big Co. stock that she purchased (first in), her basis in those shares is $100 per share (plus any brokerage commissions). Her basis in the second lot, however, is $200 per share (plus any commissions). Unless Laura directs her broker to use an alternate method, the broker will use the first in stock basis of $100 per share in its reporting of this first out sale. Laura, accordingly, will be required to report a short-term capital gain of $50 per share (less brokerage commissions). Had she instructed her broker to use the "last in, first out" method, she would, instead, see a short-term capital loss of $50 per share (plus commissions).

Dividend Reinvestment Plans

As their name would suggest, dividend reinvestment plans (DRPs) allow investors the opportunity to reinvest all, or a portion, of any dividends received back into additional shares, or fractions of shares, of the paying corporation. While offering investors many advantages, one historical drawback to DRPs has been their tendency to obligate participants to keep track of their cost bases for many small purchases of stock, and maintain records of these purchases, sometimes over the course of many years. Going forward, however taxpayers will be able to average the basis of stock held in a DRP acquired on or after January 1, 2011.

Applicability

The types of securities covered by the legislation include virtually every conceivable financial instrument subject to a basis calculation, including stock in a corporation, which become "covered" securities when acquired after a certain date. In the case of corporate stock, for example, the applicability date is January 1, 2011, unless the stock is in a mutual fund or is acquired in connection with a dividend reinvestment program (DRP), in which case the applicable date is January 1, 2012. The applicable date for all other securities is January 1, 2013.

Short Sales

In the past, brokers reported the gross proceeds of short sales in the year in which the short position was opened. The amendments, however, require that brokers report short sales for the year in which the short sale is closed.

The Complex World of Stock Basis

There are, quite literally, as many ways to calculate one's basis in stock as there are ways to acquire that stock. Many of these calculations can be nuanced and very complex. For any questions concerning the new broker-reporting requirements, or stock basis, in general, please contact our office.

Often, timing is everything or so the adage goes. From medicine to sports and cooking, timing can make all the difference in the outcome. What about with taxes? What are your chances of being audited? Does timing play a factor in raising or decreasing your risk of being audited by the IRS? For example, does the time when you file your income tax return affect the IRS's decision to audit you? Some individuals think filing early will decrease their risk of an audit, while others file at the very-last minute, believing this will reduce their chance of being audited. And some taxpayers don't think timing matters at all.

Often, timing is everything or so the adage goes. From medicine to sports and cooking, timing can make all the difference in the outcome. What about with taxes? What are your chances of being audited? Does timing play a factor in raising or decreasing your risk of being audited by the IRS? For example, does the time when you file your income tax return affect the IRS's decision to audit you? Some individuals think filing early will decrease their risk of an audit, while others file at the very-last minute, believing this will reduce their chance of being audited. And some taxpayers don't think timing matters at all.

What your return says is key

If it's not the time of filing, what really increases your audit potential? The information on your return, your income bracket and profession--not when you file--are the most significant factors that increase your chances of being audited. The higher your income the more attractive your return becomes to the IRS. And if you're self-employed and/or work in a profession that generates mostly cash income, you are also more likely to draw IRS attention.

Further, you may pique the IRS's interest and trigger an audit if:

• You claim a large amount of itemized deductions or an unusually large amount of deductions or losses in relation to your income;
• You have questionable business deductions;
• You are a higher-income taxpayer;
• You claim tax shelter investment losses;
• Information on your return doesn't match up with information on your 1099 or W-2 forms received from your employer or investment house;
• You have a history of being audited;
• You are a partner or shareholder of a corporation that is being audited;
• You are self-employed or you are a business or profession currently on the IRS's "hit list" for being targeted for audit, such as Schedule C (Form 1040) filers);
• You are primarily a cash-income earner (i.e. you work in a profession that is traditionally a cash-income business)
• You claim the earned income tax credit;
• You report rental property losses; or
• An informant has contacted the IRS asserting you haven't complied with the tax laws.

DIF score

Most audits are generated by a computer program that creates a DIF score (Discriminate Information Function) for your return. The DIF score is used by the IRS to select returns with the highest likelihood of generating additional taxes, interest and penalties for collection by the IRS. It is computed by comparing certain tax items such as income, expenses and deductions reported on your return with national DIF averages for taxpayers in similar tax brackets.

E-filed returns.  There is a perception that e-filed returns have a higher audit risk, but there is no proof to support it. All data on hand-written returns end up in a computer file at the IRS anyway; through a combination of a scanning and a hand input procedure that takes place soon after the return is received by the Service Center. Computer cross-matching of tax return data against information returns (W-2s, 1099s, etc.) takes place no matter when or how you file.

Early or late returns. Some individuals believe that since the pool of filed returns is small at the beginning of the filing season, they have a greater chance of being audited. There is no evidence that filing your tax return early increases your risk of being audited. In fact, if you expect a refund from the IRS you should file early so that you receive your refund sooner. Additionally, there is no evidence of an increased risk of audit if you file late on a valid extension. The statute of limitations on audits is generally three years, measured from the due date of the return (April 18 for individuals this year, but typically April 15) whether filed on that date or earlier, or from the date received by the IRS if filed after April 18.

Amended returns. Since all amended returns are visually inspected, there may be a higher risk of being examined. Therefore, weigh the risk carefully before filing an amended return. Amended returns are usually associated with the original return. The Service Center can decide to accept the claim or, if not, send the claim and the original return to the field for examination.