Articles Posted in Tax Controversy

New IRS Commissioner Shulman airs his philosophy to ABA audience:

The question of whether IRS will focus on services or enforcement poses a false choice, IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, who became the 47th Commissioner of Internal Revenue on March 24, 2008, told an American Bar Association audience on May 9.

The agency must do both of these and do them very well, he said. “Stated another way, IRS should do everything possible to make it as seamless and easy as possible for those taxpayers who are trying to pay the right amount of taxes to navigate our organization, get their questions answered, pay their taxes and get their way,” Shulman said. “But for those who understand their federal tax obligation, but fail to comply, we must have an aggressive enforcement program,” he added.

IRS clarifies ruling allowing drug manufacturers to subtract Medicaid rebates from gross receipts

Rev Rul 2008-26, 2008-21 IRB

In a revenue ruling that clarifies an earlier one issued in 2005 on the same subject, IRS concludes that Medicaid Rebates that a pharmaceutical manufacturer pays to State Medicaid Agencies are adjustments to the sales price in calculating gross receipts rather than ordinary and necessary business expenses that are deductible from gross income under Code Sec. 162.

    Observation: In lieu of the foregoing conclusion, the earlier ruling (Rev Rul 2005-28, 2005-19 IRB 997) stated that Medicaid Rebates incurred by a pharmaceutical manufacturer are purchase price adjustments that are subtracted from gross receipts in determining gross income. Also, unlike Rev Rul 2005-28, the current ruling specifically states that its holding is limited to Medicaid Rebates that a pharmaceutical manufacturer pays pursuant to the Medicaid Rebate Program established by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990.

Which tax-free and tax-favored fringe benefits are passthrough owners entitled to?

Partnerships, LLCs treated as partnerships, and S corporations have distinct tax and nontax advantages. However, entrepreneurs considering these forms of business should be aware that fewer tax-free and tax-favored fringe benefits are available to owner-entrepreneurs of passthroughs than to shareholder-employees of C corporations. This Practice Alert reviews which fringe benefits can be made available on a tax-preferred basis to partners, members of LLCs taxed as partnerships, and more-than-2% S shareholder-employees. It helps practitioners advise clients who are thinking of operating a business as a passthrough, or are operating as a passthrough and are looking for ways to maximize their tax-free compensation.

Note that the statutory rules allowing or denying fringe benefits to passthrough owners are stated explicitly only in the context of partners and partnerships. However, under the default classification rules of Reg. § 301.7701-3(b)(1)(i), a domestic eligible entity with two or more members automatically is treated as a partnership unless it elects to be taxed as an association (i.e., as a corporation). And under Code Sec. 1372 , for fringe-benefit purposes, more-than-2% S corporation shareholder-employees are subject to the rules that apply to partners, and S corporations are treated as partnerships. As a result, unless otherwise noted, the tax consequences of fringes for members of LLCs taxed as partnerships and for more-than-2% S shareholder-employees are the same as they are for partners.

Working condition fringe benefits. Property or services supplied by an employer to an employee are tax-free working condition fringe benefits (WCFBs) if the employee would be entitled to a business expense deduction under Code Sec. 162 or Code Sec. 167 for the item had he paid for it himself. (Reg. § 1.132-5(a)(1)(i)) For WCFB purposes, the term “employee” includes partners who perform services for the partnership. (Reg. § 1.132-1(b)(2)(ii)) Thus, partners may receive the following WCFBs tax-free:

    • Business-related use of a company auto, if properly substantiated. (Reg. § 1.132-5(a)(1)) The personal-use value of the auto must, however, be treated as compensation income. (Reg. § 1.61-21(a)(1))
    • The business-use portion of company paid country club dues, even though the dues are completely nondeductible. (Reg. § 1.132-5(s))
    • Job-related education expenses paid by the firm. (Reg. § 1.132-1(f))
    • Job placement assistance. (Rev Rul 92-69, 1992-2 CB 51)

    De minimis fringe benefits. For purposes of the tax-free de minimis fringe benefit rules, “employees” include any recipient of a fringe benefit. (Reg. § 1.132-1(b)(4)) So partners are entitled to get tax-free supper or supper money or local transportation fare if provided on an occasional basis in connection with overtime work. (Reg. § 1.132-6(d)(2)(i)) Other de minimis fringes include:

    Transfers to LLC were not includable in decedent’s estate
    Estate of Mirowski, TCMemo 2008-74


    The Tax Court has held that assets the decedent transferred to a family limited liability company (LLC) shortly before she died were not includable in her gross estate under Section 2036(a).

    Facts. The decedent’s husband was a cardiologist who developed an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) device to prevent people who suffered from ventricular fibrillation from dying because they were not in a hospital near an external defibrillator. The husband died in 1990, and, pursuant to his will, his interest under the ICD patents license passed to the decedent. Sales of ICDs increased significantly after the husband’s death, and royalties received under the ICD patents license increased dramatically from thousands of dollars a year to millions of dollars a year.

    Innocent spouse relief granted despite ex-husband’s objection Bishop, TC Summary Opinion 2008-33


    The Tax Court agreed with the IRS and, over the objection of the taxpayer’s ex-husband, held that the taxpayer was entitled to equitable relief under Section 6015(f) from her husband’s tax underpayments.

    Facts. The taxpayer married in 1982, and the couple had two children. The husband was previously a revenue agent who conducted income tax audits for the IRS. However, in 1995, he pled guilty to the charge of bribing a public official and was sentenced to 28 months in prison. He was released from prison in 1997 and rejoined his family. Thereafter, he began working as an auditor for a state agency. The taxpayer was employed as a claims processor for a health insurance company. The couple separated in 2003 and were divorced in 2004.

    New bill seeks to reduce worker misclassifications

    H.R. 5804, 4/15/08 [Taxpayer Responsibility, Accountability, and Consistency Act of 2008]
    Rep. James McDermott (D-Wash) has introduced legislation that would revise employee vs. independent contractor rules and increase information reporting penalties The legislation is called the “Taxpayer Responsibility, Accountability, and Consistency Act of 2008,” and it primarily focuses on Section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978. Under Section 530, employers that meet the following three requirements are protected from potentially large employment tax assessments, even though they incorrectly categorized a worker as an independent contractor: (1) reasonable basis, (2) substantive consistency, and (3) reporting consistency. An employer can meet the “reasonable basis” requirement if judicial precedent, IRS rulings, a past IRS audit, or industry practice supports the classification of a worker as an independent contractor. An employer meets the substantive consistency requirement if it (and any predecessor business) consistently treated the workers in question as independent contractors. The reporting consistency requirement is met if the employer has not classified the workers as employees on any required federal tax returns, including information returns.

    New Rules. The new legislation would repeal Section 530 and replace it with a new Code section, IRC §3511, that would make it more difficult for employers to avoid employment tax liability if they misclassified a worker as an independent contractor. IRC §3511 would generally require employers to have a “reasonable basis” for classifying a worker as an independent contractor. The “reasonable basis” standard is met only if:

      (1) The employer classified the worker as an independent contractor based on: (i) a written determination (as defined in IRC §6110(b)(1)) that it received addressing the employment status of either the worker in question, or another individual holding a substantially similar position with the employer; or (ii) an employment tax examination of the worker, or another individual holding a substantially similar position with the employer, that did not conclude that the worker should be treated as an employee; and

      (2) The employer (or a predecessor) has not treated any other individual holding a substantially similar position as an employee for employment tax purposes for any period beginning after Dec. 31, 1977.

    <span [Audit Report No. 2008-30-095]:

    Fiscal year 2007 marked another period of improvement in IRS’s compliance activities, continuing an eight-year period of upward trends in such endeavors, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) said in a new audit.

    Many enforcement activities continued to increase despite a slight reduction in the staffing of the Collection and Examination functions, the audit said, adding that both functions plan to hire enforcement personnel during FY 2008. The Collection and Examination Enforcement budget was flat for FY 2006 through FY 2008, but President Bush’s budget proposal for FY 2009 calls for an 8% increase, the audit noted. The amount of enforcement revenue collected increased by almost 74% in the last five years.

    Tax Problem Solver – Why You Need Professional Help

    Tax problems come in different forms; IRS tax problems, State tax problems, and Sales tax problems. Tax authorities are constantly increasing their tax enforcement efforts through tax collection and tax audit.

    When taxpayers receive the dreaded tax notice that their tax return or their business is going to be audited and examined, the first thing they should do is seek professional tax advice. Same thing when taxpayers receive collection letters threatening levying and garnishing their wages or paychecks, or the tax levy letter for their bank account, taxpayers should seek professional tax advice to resolve their tax problems.

    badge
    badge
    badge
    badge
    badge
    badge
    Contact Information