Issue Number 41 CCHGroup.com October 10, 2013

Route to:

Inside this IssueU.S. Supreme Court Grants Certiorari In Dispute Over FICA Treatment Of Severance Pay◆Supreme Court Order List, October 1,

2013, 12-408

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to resolve a split among the circuit courts of appeal on the FICA tax

treatment of severance pay. The Supreme Court announced that it will review In re Quality Stores, 2012-2 ustc ¶50,551, in which the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals found that supplemental unemployment benefits (SUB) payments are not wages for purposes of FICA taxation.

CCH Take Away: After the Sixth Circuit announced its deci-sion, the expectation was that the Supreme Court would take up the case because of the split among the Circuits, Adam Lambert, CPA, Man-aging Director, National Practice Leader - Employment Tax Services, Grant Thornton LLP, New York, told CCH. As of now, there is a lack of uniformity in the FICA treatment of severance pay in two Circuits, with the potential for more inconsistency without a decision by the Supreme Court, Lambert explained.

Comment. In CSX v. U.S., 2008-1 ustc ¶50,218, the Federal Circuit followed the IRS’s approach in Rev. Rul. 90-72 where the IRS determined that SUB payments would generally be subject to FICA taxes. The Sixth Circuit was not persuaded by Rev. Rul. 90-72 and declined to imbue Rev. Rul. 90-72 (or any revenue ruling and private letter ruling) with greater signifi-

cance than the Congressional intent expressed in the applicable statutes and legislative histories.

BackgroundThe taxpayer operated a chain of retail stores. After its business slowed down, the taxpayer closed many of its stores and ter-minated some employees. Business did not rebound and the taxpayer eventually sought bankruptcy protection. All of its remaining employees were discharged.

The taxpayer made severance payments under two separate plans to the employees whose employment was involuntarily ter-minated. Under the terms of the Pre-Petition Severance Plan, severance pay was based on job grade and management level in the organization. The Post-Petition Severance Plan was designed to encourage employees to defer their job searches and dedicate their efforts and attention to the company by assur-ing them that they would receive severance pay if their jobs were eliminated. Under the Post-Petition Severance Plan, on average, salaried employees received 5.2 weeks of severance pay, while hourly employees re-ceived 3.1 weeks of severance pay.

The taxpayer reported the payments as wages on Forms W-2, withheld federal income tax, paid the employer's share of FICA tax, and withheld each employee's share of FICA tax. However, the taxpayer subsequently requested refunds of the FICA taxes, taking the position that the payments were SUB payments and exempt from FICA taxation. The Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of

Continued on page 478

U.S. Supreme Court Grants Certiorari To Quality Stores FICA Case ...........477

IRS Shutdown Enters Second Week; Filing Deadline Looms ....................478

Promise To Pay Related Estate Tax Reduces Value Of Gifts ..................479

Sequestration Reduces FY 2014 Whistleblower Awards .....................479

Limitations Period Not Extended Since No Intent To Evade Tax ..........480

Switzerland, U.S. Amend FATCA Agreement To Reflect Delay .............480

Musician’s Schedule A Travel And Expense Deductions Allowed ...........481

District Court Holds IRS Can Use Taxpayer Information For FBAR Investigation ...............................481

IRS Chief Counsel Applies Seven-Year Useful Life To Player Contracts ......482

Bike-Sharing Program Does Not Qualify As Pre-Tax Benefit ...............482

IRS Reminds Taxpayers Of Code Sec. 36B Premium Assistance Tax Credit ...483

Plans Maintained By Religious School Are Church Plans .................483

Tax Briefs .........................................484

Practitioners’ Corner: Sample Client Letter On Third Quarter Tax Developments ...........................485

Washington Report ...........................486

478 October 10, 2013

Issue 41

Reference KeyFED references are to Standard Federal Tax ReporterUSTC references are to U.S. Tax CasesCCH Dec references are to Tax Court ReportsTRC references are to Tax Research Consultant

the taxpayer and the government petitioned the Supreme Court to review the case.

Sixth Circuit’s decisionThe Sixth Circuit first found that a SUB payment is an amount paid to an employee; under an employer's plan; because of an employee's involuntary separation from employment, whether temporary or per-manent; resulting directly from a reduction in force, the discontinuance of a plant or operation, or other similar conditions; and included in the employee's gross income. The payments made by the taxpayer satis-fied these requirements, the court found.

Comment. The Sixth Circuit noted that SUB payments do not

need to be tied to an employee's receipt of state unemployment compensation benefits, nor is there any distinction between periodic payments or one-time payments made in a lump sum.

Comment. Under the definition that Quality Stores put forth in its argument, the FICA treatment would apply to many downsizings and closings where severance pay-ments are made, Lambert observed.

The Sixth Circuit further found that Con-gress has defined wages for FICA purposes, with certain exceptions, as all remuneration for employment, including the cash value of all remuneration. Employment means any service performed by an employee for the person employing him or her. The definition of wages for federal income tax withhold-ing, the court found, is nearly identical to

the definition of wages for FICA purposes.Additionally, the Sixth Circuit found that

Congress has expressly provided that any payment that meets the statutory definition of a SUB payment is treated as if it were a payment of wages. According to the court, Congress did not consider SUB payments to be wages but allowed their treatment as wages to facilitate federal income tax withholding. The Sixth Circuit concluded that the pay-ments the taxpayer made (under the Pre- and Post-Petition Plans) were SUB payments.

Certiorari grantedThe government petitioned the Supreme Court to review the case in June. The gov-ernment emphasized that with thousands of refund claims and cases worth a combined total of more than $1 billion currently in the lower courts, the importance of the is-sue and the Circuit conflict clearly call for the Supreme Court’s review. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on October 1, 2013.

Comment. If the IRS does not prevail in the Supreme Court, Congress may be motivated to take action, Lambert said.

Reference: TRC PAYROLL: 3,178.

U.S. Supreme CourtContinued from page 477

IRS Shutdown Enters Second Week As October 15 Filing Deadline Looms ◆IR-2013-80

At press time, the IRS shutdown has entered its second week with no reso-lution in sight. Since October 1, the

agency has operated with minimal staffing and many functions are unavailable as the October 15 deadline for filers on extension approaches.

CCH Take Away. “The IRS stated generally that the shutdown does not operate as an extension of any deadlines so we are making sure the IRS receives filings on time, with full knowledge that no one is there to review our filings,” Daniel Gottfried, partner, Hinckley, Allen & Snyder LLP, Hartford, Conn., told CCH. “In cases where an extension to a particu-lar deadline would be helpful, there is typically no one to contact to request such an extension.”

Comment. The IRS reported that, as of October 8, many of the more than 12 million individuals who requested an automatic six-month extension earlier this year had yet to file their Form 1040 for 2012.

IRS operationsThe IRS has instructed taxpayers to file and pay taxes as normal during the lapse in appropriations. All tax deadlines cover-ing individuals, corporations, partnerships and employers remain in effect. The regular payroll tax deadlines are unaffected by the shutdown.

Comment. Automated notices are still going out but IRS personnel are not available to answer questions from taxpayers, Melinda Garvin, EA, RTRP, member, education committee, Ohio Chapter of the National Associa-

tion of Tax Professionals (NATP), told CCH. Communicating with the IRS before the shutdown was challeng-ing because of lengthy wait times, Garvin, president and co-owner of Foos-Garvin Accounting, Inc, Galion, Ohio, noted. “What will happen with the backlog when the IRS resumes normal operations,” she questioned.

October 15Taxpayers who requested an automatic six-month extension of time to file 2012 returns should file by October 15, 2013, either electronically or by mail, the IRS instructed. The IRS encouraged taxpayers to file their returns electronically. The processing of paper returns is delayed but pay-ments accompanying paper tax returns are being accepted as the IRS receives them. Refunds will not be issued until normal government operations resume, the IRS reported on its website.

Federal Tax Weekly

FEDERAL TAX WEEKLY, 2013 No. 41. FEDERAL TAX WEEKLY is also published as part of CCH Tax Research Consultant by CCH, a part of Wolters Kluwer, 4025 W. Peterson Avenue, Chicago, IL 60646-6085. Editorial and Publication Office, 1015 15th St., NW, Washington, DC 20005. ©2013 CCH Incorporated. All Rights Reserved.

479

©2013 CCH Incorporated. All Rights Reserved.

CCHGroup.com

Value Of Gifts To Adult Children May Be Reduced By Their Promise To Pay Related Estate Tax, Court Finds ◆Steinberg, 141 TC No. 8

Rejecting an IRS motion for sum-mary judgment, the Tax Court has concluded that the value of

a mother’s gift for tax purposes can be reduced by the value of her daughters’ (the donees) promises to pay the estate tax liability that could result. The court found that it was a factual issue whether the do-nees’ assumption of the donor’s potential estate tax liability had any value.

CCH Take Away. The Tax Court reversed its prior holding in McCord, CCH Dec. 55,149 (2003), based on the Fifth Cir-cuit’s opinion on the appeal of McCord, 2006-2 ustc ¶60,530. The court found that the value of the obligation assumed by the daughters was not barred as a matter of law from being treated as monetary consideration that reduced the value of the gift.

Comment. Several judges filed concurring opinions, and one judge dissented.

BackgroundThe donor, a mother of 89 years old, entered into a net gift agreement with her four adult daughters (the donees). The mother agreed to make gifts of cash and securities to the daughters. The value of the property transferred was $77.4 million.

The donees agreed to pay any federal gift tax liability from the gifts. The donees also agreed to pay any federal or state estate tax liability that could be imposed under Code Sec. 2035(b) if the donor died within three years of the gifts.

Comment. Code Sec. 2035(b) requires that the gross estate be increased by the gift taxes paid on any gift made by the decedent within three years of death.

An independent appraiser determined that the value of the net gift was $71.6 million, and that the value of the donees’ assump-tion of the potential estate tax liability was $4 million. The taxpayer reported taxable gifts of $71.6 million for 2007.

Gift taxCode Sec. 2512(b) applies the gift tax to the value of the property transferred less the value of any monetary consideration received, otherwise known as the net gift. The fundamental question was the fair market value of the property rights transferred under the net gift agreement. Fair market value is the price at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller. The IRS claimed that the donees’ assump-tion of the potential estate tax liability was worthless and should not reduce the amount of the gift for gift tax purposes.

Court’s analysisThe Tax Court noted that the donees’ agreement to assume the donor’s gift tax liability clearly had value, since it relieved the donor of an immediate and definite liability. The court also found that the donees’ assumption of the potential estate tax could have value and could reduce the amount of the gift.

The donees’ agreement to assume the potential estate tax liability was contin-

gent on a future event that was specu-lative (the death of the donor within three years). To determine whether this agreement had value, it was necessary to decide whether the contingency was too speculative to have any value.

The court concluded that it was possible for the contingency to have value and to reduce the amount of the gift, and that the contingency was not too speculative as a matter of law. Furthermore, whether the contingency actually had value was a factual issue that should not be resolved on a motion for summary judgment.

The court found that the donees’ as-sumption of potential estate tax liabil-ity may provide a tangible benefit to the donor’s estate and could meet the requirements of the estate depletion theory. Under this theory, a promise has value if it would replenish the donor’s assets. Here, the assumption of potential liability may be quantifiable and reduc-ible to monetary value.

References: CCH Dec. 59,654; TRC ESTGIFT: 3,070.

Sequestration Reduces FY 2014 Whistleblower Awards

The IRS has announced on its website that whistleblower awards issued under Code Sec. 7623 during fiscal year (FY) 2014 will be reduced because of sequestration (across-the-board spending cuts). The IRS previously reduced whistleblower awards for part of FY 2013 because of sequestration.

Background. The IRS is authorized to pay awards to whistleblowers. In some cases, awards are discretionary (under Code Sec. 7623(a); in other cases awards are mandatory (under Code Sec. 7623(b). The Budget Control Act of 2011 and sub-sequent legislation impose across-the-board spending cuts on all federal agencies, including the IRS, unless the agency is exempt.

Reduced FY 2014 awards. The IRS explained in a posting on its website that every award payment made to a whistleblower under Code Sec. 7623 on or after October 1, 2013, and on or before September 30, 2014, will be reduced by the FY 2014 sequestra-tion rate of 7.2 percent. The IRS will compute the award that would have been paid, and then apply the sequestration reduction. Whistleblowers will be advised of the reduction because of sequestration, the IRS added. The FY 2014 reduction rate will be applied unless sequestration is cancelled or modified, the IRS explained.

www.irs.gov, TRC IRS: 63,060.05.

480 October 10, 2013

Issue 41

Federal Claims Court Finds Limitations Period Not Extended; Taxpayers Had No Intent To Evade Tax◆BASR Partnership, FedCl, September

30, 2013

The IRS failed to timely issue a final partnership administrative adjust-ment (FPAA), the Federal Court of

Claims has found. The normal three-year limitations period applied because the IRS never contended that the taxpayers them-selves had any intent to evade tax despite fraudulent returns.

CCH Take Away. According to the Federal Claims Court, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals conducts a factual inquiry into whether a tax attorney’s fraud is secondary or remote to fraudulent returns. However, this approach is not binding on the Federal Claims Court and it has not been adopted by the Federal Circuit.

BackgroundIn 1999, a general partnership was orga-nized (the May 24 partnership) and it was

composed of four limited liability com-panies (LLCs). The sole members of the LLCs were a business owner, his spouse and two trusts. The partners contributed cash and short positions in U.S. Treasury Notes to the general partnership and they took the position that this increased the partners’ outside bases in the general partnership by $6.6 million. The partners subsequently contributed 99 percent of their interests in the general partnership as a capital contribution to a corporation. This resulted in termination of the May 24 general partnership and the creation of a new general partnership to which the business owner, his spouse and the two trusts contributed stock of their family business. The general partnership then sold the stock and received a promissory note from the buyer of the stock in the amount of $2 million.

The business owner, in his capacity as the Tax Matters Partner, filed the general partnership return for the year ended June

12, 1999, and general partnership return for the year ended December 12, 1999. The IRS commenced an audit of those returns and on January 20, 2010 issued an FPAA.

Court’s analysisThe Claims Court found that the Federal Circuit has held that Code Sec. 6501 and Code Sec. 6229(a) should be read together, so that Code Sec. 6501 provides a three-year base-line statute of limitations, while Code Sec. 6229(a) provides a minimum period for assessments of partnership items. Code Secs. 6501 and 6229 operate in tandem to provide a single limitations period. When an assessment of tax involves a partnership item or an affected item, Code Sec. 6229 can extend the time period that the IRS otherwise has available.

In this case, the returns at issue were filed and received by the IRS in 2000. Therefore, for the IRS to be able to assess federal taxes after 2003, the court found that the return must be false or fraudulent with the intent to evade tax.

Code Sec. 6501(a) defines return as the return filed by the taxpayer. The court further found that the fraudulent intent in Code Sec. 6501(c) is by implication limit-ed to fraud by the taxpayer. Therefore, the IRS is bound by the standard three-year limitations period in Code Sec. 6501(a) unless the taxpayer possesses fraudulent intent, or unless Code Sec. 6229 applies, which includes a special rule in case of fraud. The text of this rule uses the term false return which is defined as one where any partner has, with the intent to evade tax, signed or participated directly or in-directly in the preparation of a partnership return that includes a false or fraudulent item, the court found.

The court concluded that the partnership return included false or fraudulent items. However, the IRS did not contend that the taxpayers themselves intended to evade tax. As a result, the three-year assessment period applied.

References: 2013-2 ustc ¶50,527; TRC PENALTY: 6,102.10.

Switzerland, U.S. Amend FATCA Agreement To Reflect Delay In Application

The Swiss Federal Department of Finance reported September 30, 2013, that Switzerland and the United States have amended their Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) agreement to reflect the six-month delay in FATCA implementation that was previously announced by the IRS and the U.S. Treasury Department. The Swiss authorities noted that the agreement assures Swiss financial institutions of the same implementation deadlines as institutions in other countries.

Background. The IRS issued final FATCA regs in January 2013, with a Janu-ary 1, 2014 effective date. The final regs provided for a phased implementation of FATCA beginning January 1, 2014, and continuing through 2017. Under the revised schedule announced in IRS Notice 2013-43, withholding agents will generally be required to begin withholding on withholdable payments made after June 30, 2014. Many of FATCA’s account due diligence requirements will also not take effect until July 1, 2014.

Agreement. The U.S. and Switzerland entered into their FATCA agreement in February 2013. The agreement implemented the parties’ mutual obligations to obtain and exchange information on reportable accounts—generally foreign accounts or assets with U.S. owners.

Switzerland Finance Department News Release; TRC INTL: 18,150.

Federal Tax Weekly

481

©2013 CCH Incorporated. All Rights Reserved.

CCHGroup.com

Musician’s Schedule A Travel And Expense Deductions Allowed; Accuracy-Related Penalties Imposed ◆Scully, TC Memo. 2013-229

The Tax Court has allowed a tax-payer’s Form 1040, Schedule A deductions for unreimbursed em-

ployee expenses incurred while traveling to rehearsal and performance activities related to his skills as a professor of music. The taxpayer substantiated the expenses and showed that they were ordinary and necessary expenses deductible under Code Sec. 162.

CCH Take Away. The Tax Court found that the taxpayer could have claimed his mileage costs as either deductible business expenses or as deductible unreimbursed employee expenses. However, by reporting the expenses on Schedule A, the taxpayer indicated he considered the expenses to be in furtherance of his trade or business as a college professor pursuing an advanced degree in music rather than as expenses incurred in the trade or business of a musician.

BackgroundThe taxpayer was a professor and musician. He engaged in frequent travel to rehearsals and performances. He kept mileage logs for many years but a flood destroyed them. The taxpayer used one log that survived to reconstruct earlier logs.

Court’s analysisThe taxpayer’s travel expenses were de-ductible on Schedule A as unreimbursed business expenses, the Tax Court held. The taxpayer had met his burden of proving that he was entitled to a deduction under Code Sec. 162 by showing his claimed expenses were directly and proximately related to the skills required in his business as a col-lege professor. The taxpayer’s travel was to performance activities that enabled him to maintain his musical skills, knowledge, and relationships with well-known musicians. He used this to create “unique and specific teaching content” for his college students.

Even though the taxpayer enjoyed his performances, which were not in his job

description, the Tax Court found that Code Sec. 162 did not require activities resulting in business expenses to be unenjoyable, only that they be ordinary and necessary. Furthermore, the deductions were not of the type for which the taxpayer was en-titled to reimbursement. The taxpayer was eligible to be reimbursed for expenses only where petitioner requested and received a leave of absence.

However, the taxpayer failed to sub-stantiate certain expenses for parking, tolls, meals and entertainment. The Tax Court also denied a deduction for union dues that the taxpayer had claimed on

Schedule A because it had already been allowed on Schedule C.

PenaltiesAlthough the taxpayer filed returns for the four tax years at issue, he did not timely file them. Because the taxpayer filed late and because he negligently claimed deductions to which he was not entitled, the Tax Court upheld the impo-sition of additions to tax under Code Sec. 6651(a)(1) and Code Sec. 6662 accuracy related penalties.

References: CCH Dec. 59,656(M); TRC BUSEXP: 12,066.

District Court Holds IRS Can Use Taxpayer Information For FBAR Investigation

◆Hom, DC-Calif, September 30, 2013

The IRS may use taxpayer information to undertake a Foreign Bank Ac-count Report (FBAR) investigation,

a federal district court has found. Code Sec. 6103(h)(1) provides that return information may be disclosed in the interest of tax admin-istration and an FBAR investigation is within the scope of tax administration.

CCH Take Away. Generally, returns and return information are considered confidential and can-not be disclosed unless specifically authorized. Under one exception to the general rule of confidentiality, re-turns and return information can be disclosed to the extent necessary for certain tax administration purposes.

BackgroundAt some point, the IRS conducted an inves-tigation of the taxpayer’s returns. The IRS subsequently opened an FBAR investiga-tion under 31 USC 5314 after discovering the taxpayer’s online gambling activity and use of foreign bank accounts. According to the taxpayer, his return information was inappropriately disclosed for the purpose of the FBAR investigation.

Court’s analysisThe court found that Code Sec. 6103(h)(1) provides that returns and return informa-tion can, without written request, be open to inspection by or disclosure to officers and employees of the Department of the Treasury whose official duties require such inspection or disclosure for tax administra-tion purposes. Further, tax administration encompasses the administration, manage-ment, conduct, direction, and supervision of the execution and application of the internal revenue laws or related statutes and includes assessment, collection, enforce-ment, litigation, publication, and statistical gathering functions. Here, the court found that the IRS’s use of the taxpayer’s return information was authorized.

The court also found that 31 USC 5314 is a related statute under Code Sec. 6103. Congress intended for Section 5314 to fall under tax administration. The legislative history showed that Congress believed that improving compliance with this reporting requirement is important to sound tax ad-ministration. Therefore, disclosures were lawful, the court concluded.

References: 2013-2 ustc ¶50,529; TRC IRS: 9,352.

482 October 10, 2013

Issue 41

IRS Chief Counsel Applies Seven-Year Useful Life To Minor League Baseball Player Contracts ◆Field Attorney Advice 20133901F

IRS Chief Counsel, in Advice to IRS Exam, concluded that a professional baseball team can amortize bonuses

paid to its minor league baseball players over seven years. Chief Counsel determined the useful life as the seven-year period in the contract over which the player is obli-gated to provide services to the team.

CCH Take Away. The team claimed that the average useful life of its minor league contracts was shorter than seven years. Chief Counsel re-lied on the terms of the contract itself.

BackgroundThe taxpayer, a professional baseball team, is affiliated with several minor league teams. The taxpayer pays the payroll costs and certain operating costs for all its affiliates.

The taxpayer often pays a signing bonus when a player signs a contract to play for one of its teams. The taxpayer capitalizes and amortizes the signing bonuses over the life of the contracts, which it based on the average actual life of the contracts disposed of during the years under audit. The team furnished two disposal reports showing that the average life of its minor league con-tracts was a term of years less than seven.

Chief Counsel noted that a player is required to provide services to the team for seven years and that the contract continues for that period unless terminated as provided. The player cannot terminate the contract unless the team fails to pay the player or perform other con-tractual obligations. The team may terminate the contract on various grounds. After seven years, the player becomes a minor league free agent and can sign with another team.

IRS AnalysisA baseball player contract is intangible property eligible for amortization under Code Sec. 167(a). Under Rev. Rul. 67-379, a signing bonus paid to a player subject to the reserve clause was amortizable over the useful life of the contract. Because of the reserve clause, the revenue ruling con-cluded that a player contract had a useful life substantially beyond its one-year term.

Chief Counsel stated that the useful life of a baseball player’s contract is the period over which the team controls the player’s ability to sign with another team. Since a minor league player is bound to the team for seven years, the contract’s useful life is

seven years. Chief Counsel noted that under Rodeway Inns, TC (1974), the useful life of a contract is the period over which the contract would have been useful to the taxpayer if the contract were not terminated.

Reference: TRC DEPR: 15,162.80.

IRS Determines Bike-Sharing Program Does Not Qualify As Pre-Tax Benefit ◆INFO 2013-0032

In an Information Letter, the IRS ex-plained that a bike-sharing program would not qualify as a pre-tax benefit

under Code Sec. 132. Congress would need to revise Code Sec. 132 to provide the treatment requested by the taxpayer, the IRS added.

CCH Take Away. In 2008, Con-gress provided that employees may exclude from income up to $20 per month received from their employer to reimburse their costs of commut-ing by bicycle. The $20 amount is not adjusted for inflation.

Comment. For months beginning in 2013, the monthly inflation-adjust-ed aggregated amount an employee can exclude as a qualified transporta-tion fringe benefit for van pooling and transit passes is $245. Transit benefits parity will expire after 2013 unless extended by Congress.

BackgroundThe taxpayer requested that the IRS adopt bike share as a “qualifier for the Trans-portation (Commuting) Benefits program under the Fringe Benefit Exclusion Rules for transit.” Additional details about the bike share program were not provided but apparently the program would be an employer-provided program.

IRS analysisThe IRS explained that under Code Sec. 132(a)(5), employers that provide their employees with transportation benefits can exclude the benefits from their employees’ gross incomes if the benefits are qualified

transportation fringes. A qualified fringe includes any qualified bicycle commuting reimbursement.

A qualified bicycle commuting reim-bursement is, with respect to any calendar year, any employer reimbursement during the 15-month period beginning with the first day of such calendar year for reason-able expenses incurred by the employee during the calendar year for the purchase of a bicycle and bicycle improvements, re-pair and storage, if the bicycle is regularly used for travel between the employee's residence and place of employment. How-ever, expenses incurred in using a bike share program are not expenses for the purchase of a bicycle or bicycle improve-ments, repair or storage.

Additionally, the IRS noted that quali-fied bicycle commuting reimbursements cannot be excluded if employers provide them in place of pay. Code Sec. 132(f)(4), which permits employees to reduce their taxable compensation to receive reimbursements for transit expenses on a pre-tax basis, does not apply to qualified bicycle commuting reimbursements. The IRS concluded that allowing bike share programs to qualify as a pre-tax benefit under Code Sec. 132 would require leg-islative action by Congress.

Comment. Under Code Sec. 132(f)(1)(B), a qualified transpor-tation fringe includes any transit pass, which is defined as any pass, token, farecard, voucher, or simi-lar item The IRS explained that a bike share program is not a mass transit facility.

Reference: TRC COMPEN: 36,358.

Federal Tax Weekly

483

©2013 CCH Incorporated. All Rights Reserved.

CCHGroup.com

IRS Reminds Taxpayers Of Code Sec. 36B Premium Assistance Tax Credit ◆www.irs.gov, updated September 30,

2013

Just before curtailing operations due to the government shutdown, the IRS reminded taxpayers about the refund-

able Code Sec. 36B premium assistance tax credit. The IRS highlighted how tax-payers will apply for the credit, and limits on household income and family size, in updated frequently asked questions (FAQs) on its website.

CCH Take Away. Marketplaces are not affected by the lapse in ap-propriations and launched October 1, 2013 (see article in this week’s newsletter). Qualified individuals may now enroll for coverage begin-ning January 1, 2014.

Applying for the creditThe Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) created the Code Sec. 36B premium credit to help offset the cost of health insurance coverage obtained through a Marketplace. When taxpayers apply for coverage in a Marketplace, the Marketplace will estimate the amount of the Code Sec. 36B credit that the taxpayer may be able to claim for the tax year. Based upon the estimate made by the Market-place, the individual can decide if he or she wants to have all, some, or none of the estimated credit paid in advance directly to the insurance company to be applied to monthly premiums. Taxpayers who do not opt for advance payment may claim the credit when they file their federal income tax return for the year.

Comment. Individuals who choose to have some or all of their Code Sec. 36B credit paid in ad-vance will be required to reconcile on their federal income tax return the amount of advance payments sent on their behalf with the credit that they may claim based on actual household income and family size, the IRS explained. The Marketplace will send taxpayers an information statement showing the amount of premiums and advance credit pay-

ments by January 31 of the year following the year of coverage.

FPLAmong other requirements, the Code Sec. 36B credit is linked to household income in relation to the federal poverty line (FPL). Generally, taxpayers whose household in-come for the year is between 100 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty line for their family size may be eligible for the credit, the IRS explained. The credit for 2014 is based on the 2013 FPL guidelines.

Comment. For 2013, for resi-dents of one of the 48 contiguous states or Washington, D.C., the following illustrates when house-hold income would be between 100 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty line: $11,490 (100%) up to $45,960 (400%) for one individual; $15,510 (100%)

up to $62,040 (400%) for a fam-ily of two; and $23,550 (100%) up to $94,200 (400%) for a fam-ily of four.

Household incomeHousehold income for purposes of the Code Sec. 36B credit is modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) plus that of every other in-dividual in the taxpayer’s family for whom the taxpayer can properly claim a personal exemption deduction and who is required to file a federal income tax return. MAGI, the IRS explained, is the adjusted gross in-come on the taxpayer’s federal income tax return plus any excluded foreign income, nontaxable Social Security benefits (includ-ing tier 1 railroad retirement benefits), and tax-exempt interest received or accrued during the tax year. It does not include Supplemental Security Income (SSI).

Reference: TRC INDIV: 58,150.

Plans Maintained By Religious School Are Church Plans, IRS Rules ◆LTR 201339004

The IRS has ruled that a tax-sheltered annuity plan and a medical benefits plan maintained by a church-run

school are church plans under Code Sec. 414(e). Therefore, the plans do not have to meet certain requirements under the Tax Code and ERISA that would apply to similar plans maintained by non-church organizations.

CCH Take Away. The IRS stated that an organization that is not itself a church or associa-tion of churches can maintain a church plan if: the organization’s employees are deemed to be employees of a church; the orga-nization’s principal purpose is to administer or fund the plan; and the organization is controlled by or associated with a church. The IRS concluded that the school satisfied these requirements.

BackgroundThe school is a nonprofit school founded by a religious congregation and established as a Church school. The school is committed to promoting a Christian environment and to providing students with a spiritual foundation for developing Christian values. The school is listed in the official directory of the Church.

The head of the school is selected by and reports to a board of directors comprised of persons within the religious congregation. The board is ultimately controlled by the Members, who are four sisters and one priest. The school is required to abide by Canon law and the rules and regulations of the Church.

The school maintains two plans for school employees. One plan is a tax-sheltered an-nuity arrangement intended to satisfy Code Sec. 403(b). The other plan, intended to satisfy Code Sec. 419, is a health and welfare arrangement that provides medical, dental, long-term disability, group life, and accident

Continued on page 484

484 October 10, 2013

Issue 41

coverage. The plans are administered by a committee appointed by and reporting to the school’s officers and directors.

AnalysisAn organization that is not itself a church or association of churches can have a qualified church plan if it establishes that its employees are deemed employees of a church or associa-

tion because of the organization’s control by a church. The IRS concluded that the school is associated with a church or convention under Code Sec. 414(e)(3)(D) and that the employ-ees are deemed employees of the Church under Code Sec. 414(e)(3)(B). The IRS cited the common religious bonds between the school and the Church, the inclusion of the school in the church directory, and the indirect control of the school by the Church through the religious congregation.

Reference: TRC RETIRE: 69,302.

Internal Revenue ServiceThe IRS will waive certain limitations for proj-ects financed with low-income housing tax credits or exempt facility bonds so that owners and operators of these facilities anywhere in the nation can provide housing to victims of severe storms, flooding, landslides and mud-slides in Colorado that began Sept. 11, 2013. Due to the widespread devastation to housing caused by storms and flooding, the IRS will temporarily suspend certain limitations for qualified low-income housing projects that house people displaced by the storms and flooding. This will expand the availability of housing for disaster victims and their families.

IR-2013-79, FED ¶46,533; Notice 2013-63, FED ¶46,534; Notice 2013-64, FED ¶46,535;

TRC BUSEXP: 57,302.20

IncomeA practicing attorney had unreported income for the year at issue. He submitted a late return listing income amounts as indicated on a notice of deficiency and never argued that the income he reported on the return was incorrect. He was not entitled to any deduc-tions, credits or a net operating loss carryback, beyond the amounts allowed in the deficiency notice. He was liable for the addition to tax for failure to timely file a tax return and r the addition to tax for failure to pay estimated tax.

Kornhauser, TC, CCH Dec. 59,657(M), FED ¶48,175(M);

TRC FILEIND: 15,208.

Anti-Injunction Act The Anti-Injunction Act barred an indi-vidual’s suit seeking a temporary restrain-ing order (TRO) preventing the IRS from garnishing her bank account or levying her social security benefits; therefore, her complaint was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Peterson, DC Fla., 2013-2 ustc ¶50,525; TRC LITIG: 9,056.

Liens and LeviesAn ex-wife’s claim for a refund of

income taxes, penalties and interest she paid for her ex-husband in order to remove a tax lien on the property she received in her divorce settlement was dismissed. The individual’s refund claim was untimely because it was filed more than 120 days after the IRS issued the certificate of discharge.

McGinley, DC N.J., 2013-2 ustc ¶50,531; TRC IRS: 48,204.

An individual’s federal tax assessments were reduced to judgment and federal tax liens against her property, which was held by two “corporation sole” as her nominees, were foreclosed. The govern-ment established that the entities were the individual’s nominees and, therefore, had no interest in the liened property.

Berryman, DC Colo., 2013-2 ustc ¶50,528; TRC IRS: 27,202.

Constitutional IssuesAn action brought against various IRS employees alleging violation of their First Amendment rights and claiming damages for the IRS’s alleged unauthor-ized disclosure of their tax information was dismissed. The individuals failed to show how the government’s seizure and retention of the documents constituted a First Amendment violation or that the alleged disclosure was unauthorized, was made knowingly or by reason of negligence and that the disclosure was in violation of Code Sec. 6103.

Halliday v. Spjute, DC Calif., 2013-2 ustc ¶50,530;

TRC IRS: 9,354.

Tax AccountingA corporation, which operated as a custom home builder, was subject to the uniform capitalization (UNICAP) rules. The IRS changed its accounting procedures because the corporation’s accounting procedure was not consistent with Code Sec. 263A. It was not permitted to change its accounting procedures to deduct, rather than capitalize, its carrying costs. Its claim for relief under the mitigation provisions was premature because the case was not yet final.Frontier Custom Builders, Inc., TC, CCH Dec.

59,658(M), FED ¶48,176(M); TRC ACCTNG: 15,058.15.

Civil Fraud ActionsAn individual’s action for damages

against the trustees of her deceased boy-friend’s trust, claiming they committed tax fraud by filing false Forms 1099-Misc, was properly rejected. Her com-plaint failed to show that the 1099-MISC forms, which stated that the individual received non-employee compensation from the trust, amounted to willfully filing false information returns.

Vandenheede v. Vecchio, CA-6, 2013-2 ustc ¶50,526;

TRC LITIG: 3,052.

Church PlansContinued from page 483

Federal Tax Weekly

485

©2013 CCH Incorporated. All Rights Reserved.

CCHGroup.com

Sample Client Letter On 2013 Third Quarter Federal Tax Developments

The third quarter of 2013 brought many tax developments from Washington, the IRS and the courts.

CCH has prepared a Third Quarter 2013 Federal Tax Developments client letter. Practitioners can email this letter to clients to alert them to some of these important recent developments.

This letter includes references to CCH’s Federal Tax Weekly. Practitioners can refer to CCH Federal Tax Weekly for more information about these developments but should delete the CCH references in their communications with clients.

Re: Important 2013 Third Quarter Fed-eral Tax Developments

Dear Client:During the third quarter of 2013, there were many important federal tax developments. This letter highlights some of the more sig-nificant developments for you. As always, contact our office if you have any questions.

IRS shutdownOn October 1, IRS offices across the country emptied as most of the agency’s employees were furloughed following a lapse in ap-propriations. Nearly 90 percent of the IRS’s 90,000 employees were furloughed on Octo-ber 1 after Congress failed to pass legislation to keep the IRS and other federal agencies operating after the end of the government’s fiscal year (FY) 2013. The IRS explained that some functions would continue dur-ing the government shutdown, including the processing of tax payments, criminal investigations and some litigation. The IRS reminded taxpayers that the underlying tax law remains in effect, as do their tax obliga-tions during the shutdown. CCH Federal Tax Weekly No. 40, October 3, 2013.

Employer mandateIn July, the White House announced a one-year delay in the employer shared responsibil-ity payment and employer/insurer reporting under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act). The Afford-able Care Act generally requires applicable large employers to pay an assessable payment if, among other circumstances, the employer fails to offer full-time employers and their dependents the opportunity to enroll in

minimum essential coverage. The Affordable Care Act also requires large employers and many insurers to file annual returns reporting minimum essential coverage. After the White House’s announcement, the IRS issued transi-tion relief and proposed regulations. The IRS reported that it is exploring simplification of employer/insurer reporting. CCH Federal Tax Weekly No. 28, July 11, 2013.

Individual mandateThe IRS issued final regulations on the Afford-able Care Act’s individual shared responsibil-ity requirements in August. The individual mandate generally requires individuals to car-ry minimum essential health coverage after 2013 unless they qualify for an exemption. An individual who does not carry minimum essential coverage and does not qualify for an exception must pay a penalty. CCH Federal Tax Weekly No. 36, September 5, 2013.

Repair regulationsIn September, the IRS issued long-awaited final regulations on the treatment

of costs to acquire, produce or improve tangible property. The final regulations impact any industry that uses tangible property, real or personal, the IRS ex-plained. In the final regulations, the IRS added many taxpayer-friendly provisions, including a revised de minimis safe har-bor, a routine maintenance safe harbor for buildings and new safe harbors for small taxpayers. Taxpayers will apply the final regulations to determine whether they

can deduct costs as repairs or if they must capitalize the costs and recover them over a period of years. CCH Federal Tax Weekly No. 38, September 19, 2013.

Same-sex marriage/domestic partnersFollowing the U.S. Supreme Court’s deci-sion to strike down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (E.S. Windsor, June 28, 2013), the IRS issued guidance for taxpayers and tax professionals in August. The IRS announced a general rule recogniz-ing same-sex marriage nationwide. Same-sex married couples are treated as married for all federal tax purposes, including income and estate taxes, the IRS explained.

However, the IRS’s treatment of mar-ried same-sex couples does not extend to domestic partners. The IRS explained that domestic partners are not considered mar-ried for federal tax purposes because they are not married under state law. CCH Fed-eral Tax Weekly No. 36, September 5, 2013.

“The third quarter of 2013 brought many tax developments from Washington, the IRS and the courts.”

Continued on page 487

486 October 10, 2013

Issue 41

by the CCH Washington News Bureau

Government, IRS shutdown continuesAs of press time, the Treasury Department, the IRS and many other federal agencies are closed as the federal government’s shutdown continues without resolution. On October 1, the IRS furloughed nearly 90 percent of its approximately 90,000 employees. Many IRS functions have halted during the lapse in ap-propriations and other functions are operating with limited staffing. See article in this week’s newsletter for more details about the IRS’s activities during the government shutdown.

Lawmakers propose repeal of medical device excise taxTwo House lawmakers recently proposed to repeal the 2.3 percent medical device excise tax to help reach an agreement over funding the federal government for fiscal year (FY 2014). The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) created the medical device excise tax. Starting in 2013, an excise tax is imposed on any manufacturer, producer or im-porter of certain medical devices that is equal to 2.3 percent of the price for which the medi-cal device is sold. Sales of eyeglasses, contact lenses, and hearing aids are exempt from the excise tax as are items generally purchased by the public at retail for individual use.

In an October 2 letter to House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Rep. Charles Dent, R-Pa., and Rep. Ron Kind, R-Wisc., urged repeal of the medical device tax as part of an overall funding agreement. .

House panel hears pros and cons of wind energy incentivesA House panel considered the future of the tax incentives for wind energy production facilities on October 2. At a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Health Care and Entitlements, lawmakers discussed how much longer the renewable wind energy

industry would need federal tax incentives before companies can reach self-sustaining profitability. Eligibility for the Code Sec. 45 production tax credit and the Code Sec. 48 investment tax credit is scheduled to sunset as of January 1, 2014, for qualified wind facilities. A representative of the American Wind Energy Association testified that allow-ing the credit to expire will harm consumers, lower domestic manufacturing and stop job-creating investments around the nation. A representative for the Institute for Energy Research suggested to lawmakers that the federal government should limit its support to direct allocations for research, rather than a tax incentive based on production volume.

Senators shares concerns about veterans’ groups with WerfelSen. Jerry Moran, R-Kansas, recently met with IRS Principal Deputy Commissioner Daniel Werfel to discuss the agency’s over-sight of veteran service organizations. Earlier this year, Moran had questioned potential IRS audits of veteran service organizations. According to Moran, Werfel agreed that there are discrepancies between the Internal Revenue Manual and other materials. “I am pleased to hear that the IRS is not making a concerted effort to target veteran service organizations. I believe the IRS must provide greater clarification,” Moran said in a state-ment after meeting with Werfel.

ABA comments on proposed hikes in user feesThe American Bar Association Section of Taxation has recommended that the IRS adopt a full waiver of the user fee for installment agreements for lower-income taxpayers. Earlier this year, the IRS pro-posed to increase user fees for installment agreements and offers in compromise. “User fees are a barrier and discourage lower-income taxpayers from voluntary tax compliance,” the Taxation Section told the

IRS. The IRS cancelled an October 1 hear-ing on the proposal to increase these user fees because of the government shutdown.

TEI has questions about OECD transfer pricing white paperThe Tax Executives Institute (TEI) reported on September 30 that it welcomes publica-tion of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) White Paper On Transfer Pricing Documentation. TEI called the White Paper a good first step in the OECD’s effort to standardize and sim-plify burdensome and costly transfer pricing documentation requirements. “Tax authori-ties have much to gain from standardization, which would allow taxpayers to focus on providing qualitative information to tax authorities rather than meeting often incon-sistent formal requirements,” TEI explained.

TEI noted that the White Paper recommends that tax authorities collect global information that is not easily available to taxpayers. TEI also observed that the White Paper recom-mends that tax authorities collect competi-tively sensitive information. OECD should urge tax administrations maintain strict confidentiality over the data, TEI reported.

Experts highlight production tax creditTax and accounting experts at the KPMG Global Energy Institute on October 3 dis-cussed some of the new IRS guidelines for the production tax credit (PTC) for wind, biomass, geothermal and other renewable energy resources. On September 20, the IRS issued additional guidance in Notice 2013-60, after the American Taxpayer Relief Act (ATRA) revised the PTC. Ac-cording to speakers at the event, a number of issues remain unclear or unresolved, including whether multiple units are to be treated as a single project and purchases from a vendor’s inventory count toward the safe harbor.

Federal Tax Weekly

487

©2013 CCH Incorporated. All Rights Reserved.

CCHGroup.com

Net investment income tax

The Affordable Care Act imposes a 3.8 percent surtax on qualified net investment income under new Code Sec. 1411, generally effective for tax years beginning after Decem-ber 31, 2012. In August, the IRS released a draft version of Form 8960, Net Investment Income Tax. The IRS is expected to finalize Form 8960 before the start of the 2014 filing season. The IRS is also expected to issue final regulations about the net investment income surtax before year-end to clarify many ques-tions about the scope of the surtax. CCH Federal Tax Weekly No. 33, August 15, 2013.

Tax reformThe leaders of the House and Senate tax writing committee launched a nationwide tax reform tour during the summer of 2013. Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich. and Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., visited several cities to promote comprehensive tax reform. At the same time, President Obama proposed to eliminate some business tax preferences in exchange for a reduction in the corporate tax rate. President Obama also proposed to tax carried interest as ordinary income. CCH Federal Tax Weekly No. 32, August 8, 2013; CCH Federal Tax Weekly No. 34, August 22, 2013.

Tax extendersAfter 2013, many popular but temporary tax incentives (known as extenders) are scheduled to expire. They include the state and local sales tax deduction, the teacher’s classroom expense deduction, the research tax credit, transit benefits parity, and many more. Some lawmakers in Congress have proposed to include the extenders in year-end comprehen-sive tax reform legislation, but leaders in the House and Senate have been cool to this idea. More likely, these incentives will be extended for one or two years in a year-end stand-alone bill or linked to other legislation. Our office will keep you posted of developments on the fate of these valuable tax incentives. CCH Federal Tax Weekly No. 33, August 15, 2013.

S corpsIn August, the IRS announced exclusive sim-plified methods for taxpayers to request late S corporation elections. The IRS consolidated

and expanded earlier guidance for taxpayers requesting late S corporation elections, late Electing Small Business Trust elections, late Qualified Subchapter S Trust Elections, Quali-fied Subchapter S Subsidiary elections, and cer-tain late corporate classification elections. CCH Federal Tax Weekly No. 34, August 22, 2013.

Small employer health insurance tax creditQualified small employers may be eligible for the Code Sec. 45R tax credit that is designed to help offset the cost of providing health insurance to their employees. In August, the IRS issued proposed reliance regulations on the credit. In tax years beginning after 2013, a qualified small employer must participate in the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) to take advantage of the credit. In September, the White House announced a delay in the start of SHOP. CCH Federal Tax Weekly No. 35, August 29, 2013; CCH Federal Tax Weekly No. 40, October 3, 2013.

Per diem ratesThe IRS announced in September that the simplified per diem rates that taxpayers can use to reimburse employees for expenses incurred during travel after September 30, 2013. The high-cost area per diem increases from $242 to $251 and the low-cost area in-creases from $163 to $170. In 2012, the IRS did not increase the per diem rates, reflecting a directive from the White House to federal agencies to curb rising travel costs. CCH Federal Tax Weekly No. 40, October 3, 2013.

Innocent spouseThe IRS updated its equitable innocent spouse relief procedures in September. The IRS explained that the updated procedures are intended to give greater deference to the presence of abuse in a relationship. Some of the factors that the IRS uses to weigh a request for equitable innocent spouse relief were also made more taxpayer-friendly. CCH Federal Tax Weekly No. 39, September 26, 2013.

Worker classificationThe Tax Court held in August that it lacks jurisdiction to review an IRS determination of worker status. The case arose from a request for the IRS to determine a worker’s status. The Tax Court found there was no audit or examination as the IRS was simply

responding to the taxpayer’s request. CCH Federal Tax Weekly No. 34, August 22, 2013.

Collection due process casesTaxpayers subject to IRS levy are generally entitled to a pre-levy hearing (a collection due process (CDP) hearing or an equivalent hear-ing). The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) reported in Septem-ber that it had discovered some concerns about the handling of CDP cases by the IRS. TIGTA discovered delays in the initial processing of requests for CDP hearings. CCH Federal Tax Weekly No. 40, October 3, 2013.

LILO/SILO transactionsIn a case of first impression, the Tax Court applied the substance-over-form doctrine and found that an insurance company’s lease-in, lease-out (LILO) and sale-in, sale-out (SILO) transactions were not leases (John Hancock Life Insurance Co. (USA), 141 TC No. 1). The Tax Court held that the taxpayer could not deduct depreciation, rental expenses, interest expenses, and transactional costs connected with the transactions. CCH Federal Tax Weekly No. 33, August 15, 2013.

Domestic production activities deduction Code Sec. 199 provides a deduction for quali-fied domestic production activities. In August, the IRS determined that a taxpayer could claim the Code Sec. 199 deduction for in-store photo production activities. However, the taxpayer could not claim the deduction where it only transferred a customer’s photos onto DVDs because those activities were a service and not the manufacturing of a product. CCH Federal Tax Weekly No. 35, August 29, 2013.

IRS administrationPresident Obama has proposed John Koski-nen to serve as the next Commissioner of Internal Revenue. If confirmed by the Sen-ate, Koskinen would replace IRS Principal Deputy Commissioner Daniel Werfel. Koskinen previously served in leadership roles with the Federal Home Loan Mort-gage Corporation (Fannie Mae). CCH Federal Tax Weekly No. 32, August 8, 2013.If you have any questions about these or other federal tax developments that may impact you or your business, please contact our office. Sincerely yours

Practitioners’ CornerContinued from page 485

488 October 10, 2013

Issue 41

The cross references at the end of the articles in CCH Federal Tax Weekly (FTW) are text references to CCH Tax Research Consultant (TRC). The following is a table of TRC text references to developments reported in FTW since the last release of New Developments.

October 11Employers deposit Social Security, Medi-care, and withheld income tax for October 5, 6, 7, and 8.

October 15Individuals who received an automatic 6-month extension to file a 2012 calendar year income tax return must file and pay tax, interest and any penalties due.

Taxpayers who sustained losses resulting from Hurricane Sandy must make their election under Code Sec. 165(i) to deduct disaster losses for the preceding year (2011)

October 17Employers deposit Social Security, Medi-care, and withheld income tax for October 9, 10, and 11.

October 18Employers deposit Social Security, Medi-care, and withheld income tax for October 12, 13, 14, and 15.

October 23Employers deposit Social Security, Medi-care, and withheld income tax for October 16, 17, and 18.

The IRS reopened its offshore voluntary compliance initiative (OVDI). Has the IRS announced a

termination date for the reopened OVDI?

No. When the IRS announced in early 2012 that it was reopening the OVDI, the agency explained that the

2009 and 2011 programs were temporary and required taxpayers to participate by certain deadlines. The reopened OVDI has no deadline. However, the terms of the reopened program can change at any point, the IRS cautioned. See TRC FILE-BUS: 9,104.

Is an self-employed individual eligible to obtain health insurance through the Affordable Care Act’s

Small Business Health Option Program (SHOP) for 2014?

No. Individuals who are self-em-ployed with no employers are not considered to be employers for

purposes of the Affordable Care Act’s Small Business Health Option Program (SHOP). These taxpayers can use the Af-fordable Care Act’s Marketplaces to obtain coverage.

A taxpayer sold all of the stock of a wholly-owned subsidiary to an unrelated third-party. The parties

agreed to a sales price but did not have a contract regarding the effective date of the sale. When does the sale occur?

State law generally determines the acquisition and disposition dates, based on the date that legal title is

transferred. However, the critical determi-nation is the time when the benefits and burdens of ownership are transferred. See TRC SALES: 15,152.05.

The following questions have been an-swered recently by our “CCH Tax Research Consultant” Helpline (1-800-344-3734).

ACCTNG 3,052.05 409ACCTNG 3,052.05 458ACCTNG 33,204.15 433ACCTNG 36,162.05 410BUSEXP 6,160.20 407BUSEXP 9,080 441BUSEXP 12,066 481BUSEXP 24,912.05 466BUSEXP 54,552.15 459BUSEXP 55,850 405BUSEXP 57,054 472CCORP 3,158 435CCORP 27,200 433CCORP 36,358 482CCORP 39,304.10 431COMPEN 45,236.10 429COMPEN 46,068 446DEPR 3,550 441DEPR 12,200 443DEPR 15,162.80 482DEPR 21,308 431ESTGIFT 3,070 479EXEMPT 3,102 422EXEMPT 3,200 408EXEMPT 21,306 411

FILEBUS 3,202 417FILEBUS 9,108 457FILEBUS 9,320 430FILEBUS 12,302 423FILEBUS 12,302.20 407FILEBUS 15,104.05 467FILEBUS 15,110 460FILEIND 15,054.05 443FILEIND 18,056.10 455INDIV 6,354 471INDIV 18,054.20 453INDIV 42,558 419INDIV 51,364.45 468INDIV 57,302 435INTL 15,156 420INTL 18,150 480INTLOUT 3,120.05 434INTLOUT 9,550 456IRS 3,050 478IRS 3,204.30 468IRS 9,254.50 396IRS 9,352 481IRS 12,200 456IRS 12,350 436IRS 24,108 451

IRS 30,152.20 397IRS 42,100 419IRS 48,058 469IRS 51,056 467IRS 58,150 483IRS 63,060.05 479LITIG 7,060 399PART 27,058 421PART 60,450 445PAYROLL 3,178 477PAYROLL 9,102 444PAYROLL 9,352 455PENALTY 3,104.05 458PENALTY 3,108 469PENALTY 3,150 409PENALTY 6,102.10 480RETIRE 69,302 483RIC 12,202 447SALES 3,154 470SALES 3,154 410SALES 15,212 447SALES 48,152.15 432SALES 51,552.20 445SCORP 156 398SCORP 404.05 422

Federal Tax Weekly