Employer not required to obtain worker status determination before withholding taxes
Nino v. Ford Motor Company, DC MI, 102 AFTR 2d ¶2008-5215, Dkt. No. 07-13545, 8/8/08
A federal district court has dismissed an employee’s pro se (“for self”; non-attorney) complaint that he should not have had withholding deducted until his employer obtained a worker status determination from the IRS.
Ability to pay tax liability not relevant to determination of willfulness under Code Sec. 7202
U.S. v. Easterday (2008, CA9) 102 AFTR 2d ¶ 2008-5218
By a vote of two to one, a Ninth Circuit panel decision has upheld a district court’s ruling that a defendant’s ability to pay wasn’t relevant to the determination of whether he willfully failed to collect or pay over tax under Code Sec. 7202. In so doing, the Ninth Circuit effectively repudiated a decision it handed down over 30 years ago on the issue of willfulness.
IRS explains how to claim credit for qualified fuel cell and qualified microturbine property A new Notice carries interim guidance on the terms and conditions that must be met by taxpayers that want to claim the Code Sec. 48 credit for fuel cells and microturbines.
Background. A taxpayer may be eligible to claim (on Form 3468) a number of energy credits, including the following credits added by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58). In each case, the percentage is applied to the basis of eligible energy property placed in service during the year:
No credit is allowed for property unless it is depreciable or amortizable; its construction, reconstruction or erection is completed by the taxpayer or, if acquired by the taxpayer, its original use begins with the taxpayer; and it meets the official quality and performance standards in effect at the time of acquisition. (Code Sec. 48(a)(3))
To disclose or not to disclose, that is the question.
If It Seems Too Good to Be True, It Probably Is
Tiered discount allowed in real estate FLP gift tax case In Astleford, a memorandum decision, the Tax Court permitted a taxpayer to apply a tiered discount in the context of a family limited partnership owning interests in real estate.
Facts. On 8/1/96, Mrs. Astleford formed the Astleford Family Limited Partnership (“AFLP”) to facilitate the continued ownership, development, and management of various real estate investments and partnership interests she owned and to facilitate gifts that she intended to make to her three adult children. On the same day, Mrs. Astleford transferred to AFLP ownership of an elder care facility. Also on the same day, Mrs. Astleford gave each of her three children a 30% limited partner interest in AFLP and retained for herself a 10% general partner interest.
On 12/1/97, Mrs. Astleford made additional capital contributions to AFLP by transferring to AFLP a 50% interest in Pine Bend Development Co. (“Pine Bend”), a general partnership, and her interest in 14 other real estate properties. The Pine Bend general partnership agreement did not contain any provisions relating to the transfers of interests in Pine Bend or whether such transferred interests would be general partner or assignee interests. Pine Bend owned 3,000 acres of land of which 1,187 acres consisted of agricultural farmland (“Rosemount property”).
Deduction for cost of goods sold limited to negotiated discount price IRS concluded in this ILM that the step transaction doctrine applied to the repayment to companies of the difference between the full list price of merchandise and the negotiated discount price, and therefore the companies’ deduction for cost of goods sold (COGS) was limited to the negotiated price.
Facts. U.S. companies paid the full list price for merchandise and were reimbursed for the difference between the full list price and the negotiated discount price.
IRS analysis. The Service concluded that this transaction met all three tests applied by the courts in determining whether the step transaction doctrine should be invoked:
Beneficial owners can deduct home mortgage interest and taxes The Tax Court held that taxpayers were entitled to deduct mortgage interest and real estate taxes they paid on property owned by their son, because they were the beneficial owners of the property.
The taxpayers resided at the property for all of 2003. During that time, title to the property was in the name of their son, as was the mortgage on the property. Their son had obtained a mortgage loan and took title to the house to procure it for the taxpayers who were unable to secure a loan because of financial difficulties. The son did not live on the property, and the taxpayers paid for all maintenance of, and taxes on, the property. Mortgage payments from 2001 until the time of the trial were made through Camrock General Engineering, Co. Camrock was the taxpayers’ company; one taxpayer was its registered agent and the other its president. After the taxpayers moved from the residence, they served as landlords; they rented the property to a tenant and performed all services related to that tenancy
The taxpayers claimed on their 2003 federal income tax return deductions for home mortgage interest and real estate taxes of $3,522 and $3,194, respectively, on the residence property. The IRS contended that because the taxpayers had no legal obligation to make the mortgage payments and did not hold title to the property, they were not entitled to deduct the mortgage payments. The Service further argued that the taxpayers did not make the mortgage payments; the payments were made by Camrock.
USA & Malta sign new income tax treaty
[U.S. Treasury Press Release, 8/8/08]:
The U.S. Treasury Department has announced that a new income tax treaty between the United States and Malta was signed on Aug. 8, 2008 . The treaty will have withholding tax ramifications for U.S. citizens working in Malta and citizens of Malta working in the United States. The treaty has 29 articles. Article 2 states that the treaty applies to federal income taxes under the Internal Revenue Code, but excludes Social Security and unemployment taxes. Article 14 covers income from employment. Generally, income earned by a U.S. or Malta resident is exempt from income tax in the other treaty country if the resident was not in that country for more than 183 days of the taxable year.
IRS targets U.S. source income paid to foreign persons IRM 4.10.21, U.S. Withholding Agent Examinations – Form 1042
IRS has issued a new Internal Revenue Manual () section, IRM 4.10.21, U.S. Withholding Agent Examinations – Form 1042, on reporting and withholding requirements for U.S. source income that’s paid to foreign persons.
Tax Relief Blog