Newsletters
The IRS released its annual Dirty Dozen list of tax scams for 2025, cautioning taxpayers, businesses and tax professionals about schemes that threaten their financial and tax information. The IRS iden...
The IRS has expanded its Individual Online Account tool to include information return documents, simplifying tax filing for taxpayers. The first additions are Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, and F...
The IRS informed taxpayers that Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) accounts allow individuals with disabilities and their families to save for qualified expenses without affecting eligibility...
The IRS urged taxpayers to use the “Where’s My Refund?” tool on IRS.gov to track their 2024 tax return status. Following are key details about the tool and the refund process:E-filers can chec...
The IRS has provided the foreign housing expense exclusion/deduction amounts for tax year 2025. Generally, a qualified individual whose entire tax year is within the applicable period is limited to ma...
The District of Columbia has provided additional information regarding new electronic filing requirements for specific income taxpayers for the 2025 tax year. The regulation requires taxpayers, who ex...
Proposed tax changes in the Budget Reconciliation and Financing Act of 2025 (H.B. 352/S.B. 321), part of Maryland Governor Wes Moore's legislative agenda, include the following:Personal income tax pro...
The Virginia interest rates for the second quarter of 2025 will remain at 9% for tax underpayments (assessments) and 9% for tax overpayments (refunds). For the purpose of computing the addition for un...
The Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) was enacted January 1, 2021, as part of the National Defense Authorization Act, representing the most significant reformation of the Bank Secrecy Act and related anti–money laundering rules since the U.S. Patriot Act. The CTA is intended to address and guard against money laundering, terrorism financing, and other forms of illegal financing by mandating certain entities (primarily small and medium size businesses) to report “beneficial owner” information to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”).
The Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) was enacted January 1, 2021, as part of the National Defense Authorization Act, representing the most significant reformation of the Bank Secrecy Act and related anti–money laundering rules since the U.S. Patriot Act. The CTA is intended to address and guard against money laundering, terrorism financing, and other forms of illegal financing by mandating certain entities (primarily small and medium size businesses) to report “beneficial owner” information to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”). The CTA authorizes FinCEN, a bureau of the U.S. Treasury Department, to collect, protect, and disclose this information to authorized governmental authorities and to financial institutions in certain circumstances. Our firm is sending you this communication to provide you with some general information regarding the new reporting rules, as well as initial steps you should take to address the implications of the CTA to your organization. We strongly encourage you to reach out as soon as possible to legal counsel with expertise in this area to assist your organization with the steps you need to take to ensure compliance with the CTA, if applicable. What entities are subject to the new CTA reporting requirements?Entities required to comply with the CTA (“Reporting Companies”) include corporations, limited liability companies (LLCs), and other types of companies that are created by a filing with a Secretary of State (“SOS”) or equivalent official. The CTA also applies to non-U.S. companies that register to do business in the U.S. through a filing with an SOS or equivalent official. Since the definition of a domestic entity under the CTA is extremely broad, additional entity types could be subject to CTA reporting requirements based on individual state law formation practices. There are a number of exceptions to who is required to file under the CTA. Many of the exceptions are entities already regulated by federal or state governments, and as such already disclose their beneficial ownership information to governmental authorities. Another notable exception is for “large operating companies” defined as companies that meet all the following requirements: · Employ at least 20 full-time employees in the U.S. · Gross revenue (or sales) over $5 million on the prior year’s tax return · An operating presence at a physical office in the U.S. Who is considered a “beneficial owner” of a Reporting Company?A beneficial owner is any individual who, directly or indirectly, exercises “substantial control” or owns or controls at least 25% of the company’s ownership interests. An individual exercises “substantial control” if the individual (i) serves as a senior officer of the company; (ii) has authority over the appointment or removal of any senior officer or a majority of the board; or (iii) directs, determines, or has substantial influence over important decisions made by the Reporting Company. Thus, senior officers and other individuals with control over the company are beneficial owners under the CTA, even if they have no equity interest in the company. In addition, individuals may exercise control directly or indirectly, through board representation, ownership, rights associated with financing arrangements, or control over intermediary entities that separately or collectively exercise substantial control. CTA regulations provide a much more expansive definition of “substantial control” than in the traditional tax sense, so many companies may need to seek legal guidance to ultimately determine who are deemed beneficial owners within their organization. Phase-in of reporting requirementsAs currently promulgated, the CTA’s reporting requirements will be phased-in in two stages: · All new Reporting Companies — those formed (or, in the case of non-U.S. companies, registered) on or after January 1, 2024 — must report required information within 901 days after their formation or registration. · All existing Reporting Companies — those formed or registered before January 1, 2024 — must report required information no later than January 1, 2025. How to prepare for the CTAWith the CTA introducing a new and expansive reporting regime, now is the time to assess the new rules’ implications on your organization. Some questions and comments for your company to consider now, although not meant to be all-inclusive, include: · Is your company subject to the CTA, or do you qualify for any of the exemptions? · If your company is not exempt, how should you calculate percentages of “ownership interests” to determine whether any owners meet the 25%-ownership threshold? In many companies with simple capital structures, the answer will be obvious. It may be much less obvious, however, for companies with complicated capital structures (given the expansive definition of “ownership interest”), or companies in which some ownership interests are held indirectly — for example, through upper-tier investment entities, holding companies, or trusts. · How do you assess and determine each person who exercises “substantial control” over the company? There may well be multiple people who qualify, given the expansiveness (and vagueness) of the “substantial control” definition. 1 FinCEN issued a final rule on November 29, 2023, extending the deadline for companies created or registered in 2024 to file initial beneficial ownership information (BOI) reports to 90 calendar days after their formation or registration (was originally 30 days). · What new processes and procedures should the company put in place to monitor future changes in its beneficial owners and reportable changes on existing beneficial owners that will require timely updated reports to FinCEN? Note that the types of information that must be provided to FinCEN (and kept current) for these beneficial owners include the owner’s legal name, residential address, date of birth, and unique identifier number from a non-expired passport, driver’s license, or state identification card (including an image of the unique-identifier documentation). A word of caution, this is going to be a trap for Reporting Companies, as you will need to rely on beneficial owners to timely update you on reportable changes to their information (e.g., ownership changes, moves, marriages, divorces, etc.). As a result, a company’s operative documents may need to be revised to include provisions related to the CTA such as representations, covenants, indemnifications, and consent clauses. For example, the operating agreement may require: · A representation by each shareholder, member or partner, as applicable, that it will be in compliance with or exempt from the CTA; · A covenant by each shareholder, member or partner, as applicable, requiring continued compliance with and disclosure under the CTA or to provide evidence of exemption from its requirements; · An indemnification by each shareholder, member or partner, as applicable, to the company and its other shareholders, members or partners, as applicable, for its failure to comply with the CTA or for providing false information; and · A consent by each disclosing party for the company to disclose identifying information to FinCEN, to the extent required by law. Take immediate action now!As the CTA is not a part of the tax code, the assessment and application of many of the requirements set forth in the regulations, including but not limited to the determination of beneficial ownership interest, may necessitate the need for legal guidance and direction. As such, since we are not attorneys, our firm is not able to provide you with any legal determination whether an exemption applies to the nature of your entity or whether legal relationships constitute beneficial ownership. Since the filing of the Beneficial Ownership Report is a legal matter, we will not provide services in the area. We strongly encourage you to reach out as soon as possible to legal counsel with expertise in this area to assist your organization with the steps you need to take to ensure compliance with the CTA, if applicable.
Note that penalties for willfully violating the CTA’s reporting requirements include (1) civil penalties of up to $5912 per day that a violation is not remedied, (2) a criminal fine of up to $10,000, and/or (3) imprisonment of up to two years.
2 The penalties for BOI reporting violations have been inflation adjusted and are increased to $591 a day from $500, effective January 25, 2024.
For additional information regarding the beneficial ownership reporting requirements under the CTA, refer to FinCEN’s Frequently Asked Questions document at https://www.fincen.gov/boi-faqs.
Sincerely, Bishop, Farmer & Co., LLP |
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has removed the requirement that U.S. companies and U.S. persons must report beneficial ownership information (BOI) to FinCEN under the Corporate Transparency Act.
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has removed the requirement that U.S. companies and U.S. persons must report beneficial ownership information (BOI) to FinCEN under the Corporate Transparency Act. This interim final rule is consistent with the Treasury Department's recent announcement that it was suspending enforcement of the CTA against U.S. citizens, domestic reporting companies, and their beneficial owners, and that it would be narrowing the scope of the BOI reporting rule so that it applies only to foreign reporting companies.
The interim final rule amends the BOI regulations by:
- changing the definition of "reporting company" to mean only those entities that are formed under the law of a foreign country and that have registered to do business in any U.S. State or Tribal jurisdiction by filing of a document with a secretary of state or similar office (these entities had formerly been called "foreign reporting companies"), and
- exempting entities previously known as "domestic reporting companies" from BOI reporting requirements.
Under the revised rules, all entities created in the United States (including those previously called "domestic reporting companies") and their beneficial owners are exempt from the BOI reporting requirement, including the requirement to update or correct BOI previously reported to FinCEN. Foreign entities that meet the new definition of "reporting company" and do not qualify for a reporting exemption must report their BOI to FinCEN, but are not required to report any U.S. persons as beneficial owners. U.S. persons are not required to report BOI with respect to any such foreign entity for which they are a beneficial owner.
Reducing Regulatory Burden
On January 31, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14192, which announced an administration policy "to significantly reduce the private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations to secure America’s economic prosperity and national security and the highest possible quality of life for each citizen" and "to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens" on the American people.
Consistent with the executive order and with exemptive authority provided in the CTA, the Treasury Secretary (in concurrence with the Attorney General and the Homeland Security Secretary) determined that BOI reporting by domestic reporting companies and their beneficial owners "would not serve the public interest" and "would not be highly useful in national security, intelligence, and law enforcement agency efforts to detect, prevent, or prosecute money laundering, the financing of terrorism, proliferation finance, serious tax fraud, or other crimes."The preamble to the interim final rule notes that the Treasury Secretary has considered existing alternative information sources to mitigate risks. For example, under the U.S. anti-money laundering/countering the financing of terrorism regime, covered financial institutions still have a continuing requirement to collect a legal entity customer's BOI at the time of account opening (see 31 CFR 1010.230). This will serve to mitigate certain illicit finance risks associated with exempting domestic reporting companies from BOI reporting.
BOI reporting by foreign reporting companies is still required, because such companies present heightened national security and illicit finance risks and different concerns about regulatory burdens. Further, the preamble points out that the policy direction to minimize regulatory burdens on the American people can still be achieved by exempting foreign reporting companies from having to report the BOI of any U.S. persons who are beneficial owners of such companies.
Deadlines Extended for Foreign Companies
When the interim final rule is published in the Federal Register, the following reporting deadlines apply:
- Foreign entities that are registered to do business in the United States before the publication date of the interim final rule must file BOI reports no later than 30 days from that date.
- Foreign entities that are registered to do business in the United States on or after the publication date of the interim final rule have 30 calendar days to file an initial BOI report after receiving notice that their registration is effective.
Effective Date; Comments Requested
The interim final rule is effective on the date of its publication in the Federal Register.
FinCEN has requested comments on the interim final rule. In light of those comments, FinCEN intends to issue a final rule later in 2025.
Written comments must be received on or before the date that is 60 days after publication of the interim final rule in the Federal Register.
Interested parties can submit comments electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, comments may be mailed to Policy Division, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, P.O. Box 39, Vienna, VA 22183. For both methods, refer to Docket Number FINCEN-2025-0001, OMB control number 1506-0076 and RIN 1506-AB49.
Melanie Krause, the IRS’s Chief Operating Officer, has been named acting IRS Commissioner following the retirement of Doug O’Donnell. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent acknowledged O’Donnell’s 38 years of service, commending his leadership and dedication to taxpayers.
Melanie Krause, the IRS’s Chief Operating Officer, has been named acting IRS Commissioner following the retirement of Doug O’Donnell. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent acknowledged O’Donnell’s 38 years of service, commending his leadership and dedication to taxpayers. O’Donnell, who had been acting Commissioner since January, will retire on Friday, expressing confidence in Krause’s ability to guide the agency through tax season. Krause, who joined the IRS in 2021 as Chief Data & Analytics Officer, has since played a key role in modernizing operations and overseeing core agency functions. With experience in federal oversight and operational strategy, Krause previously worked at the Government Accountability Office and the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General. She became Chief Operating Officer in 2024, managing finance, security, and procurement. Holding advanced degrees from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Krause will lead the IRS until a permanent Commissioner is appointed.
A grant disbursement to a corporation to be used for rent payments following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center was not excluded from the corporation's gross income. Grants were made to affected businesses with funding provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The corporation's grant agreement required the corporation to employ a certain number of people in New York City, with a portion of those people employed in lower Manhattan for a period of time. Pursuant to this agreement, the corporation requested a disbursement as reimbursement for rent expenses.
A grant disbursement to a corporation to be used for rent payments following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center was not excluded from the corporation's gross income. Grants were made to affected businesses with funding provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The corporation's grant agreement required the corporation to employ a certain number of people in New York City, with a portion of those people employed in lower Manhattan for a period of time. Pursuant to this agreement, the corporation requested a disbursement as reimbursement for rent expenses.
Exclusions from Gross Income
Under the expansive definition of gross income, the grant proceeds were income unless specifically excluded. Payments are only excluded under Code Sec. 118(a) when a transferor intends to make a contribution to the permanent working capital of a corporation. The grant amount was not connected to capital improvements nor restricted for use in the acquisition of capital assets. The transferor intended to reimburse the corporation for rent expenses and not to make a capital contribution. As a result, the grant was intended to supplement income and defray current operating costs, and not to build up the corporation's working capital.
The grant proceeds were also not a gift under Code Sec. 102(a). The motive for providing the grant was not detached and disinterested generosity, but rather a long-term commitment from the company to create and maintain jobs. In addition, a review of the funding legislation and associated legislative history did not show that Congress possessed the requisite donative intent to consider the grant a gift. The program was intended to support the redevelopment of the area after the terrorist attacks. Finally, the grant was not excluded as a qualified disaster relief payment under Code Sec. 139(a) because that provision is only applicable to individuals.
Accuracy-Related Penalty
Because the corporation relied on Supreme Court decisions, statutory language, and regulations, there was substantial authority for its position that the grant proceeds were excluded from income. As a result, the accuracy-related penalty was not imposed.
CF Headquarters Corporation, 164 TC No. 5, Dec. 62,627
The parent corporation of two tiers of controlled foreign corporations (CFCs) with a domestic partnership interposed between the two tiers was not entitled to deemed paid foreign tax credits under Code Sec. 902 or Code Sec. 960 for taxes paid or accrued by the lower-tier CFCs owned by the domestic partnership. Code Sec. 902 did not apply because there was no dividend distribution. Code Sec. 960 did not apply because the Code Sec. 951(a) inclusions with respect to the lower-tier CFCs were not taken into account by the domestic corporation.
The parent corporation of two tiers of controlled foreign corporations (CFCs) with a domestic partnership interposed between the two tiers was not entitled to deemed paid foreign tax credits under Code Sec. 902 or Code Sec. 960 for taxes paid or accrued by the lower-tier CFCs owned by the domestic partnership. Code Sec. 902 did not apply because there was no dividend distribution. Code Sec. 960 did not apply because the Code Sec. 951(a) inclusions with respect to the lower-tier CFCs were not taken into account by the domestic corporation.
Background
The parent corporation owned three CFCs, which were upper-tier CFC partners in a domestic partnership. The domestic partnership was the sole U.S. shareholder of several lower-tier CFCs.
The parent corporation claimed that it was entitled to deemed paid foreign tax credits on taxes paid by the lower-tier CFCs on earnings and profits, which generated Code Sec. 951 inclusions for subpart F income and Code Sec. 956 amounts. The amounts increased the earnings and profits of the upper-tier CFC partners.
Deemed Paid Foreign Tax Credits Did Not Apply
Before 2018, Code Sec. 902 allowed deemed paid foreign tax credit for domestic corporations that owned 10 percent or more of the voting stock of a foreign corporation from which it received dividends, and for taxes paid by another group member, provided certain requirements were met.
The IRS argued that no dividends were paid and so the foreign income taxes paid by the lower-tier CFCs could not be deemed paid by the entities in the higher tiers.
The taxpayer agreed that Code Sec. 902 alone would not provide a credit, but argued that through Code Sec. 960, Code Sec. 951 inclusions carried deemed dividends up through a chain of ownership. Under Code Sec. 960(a), if a domestic corporation has a Code Sec. 951(a) inclusion with respect to the earnings and profits of a member of its qualified group, Code Sec. 902 applied as if the amount were included as a dividend paid by the foreign corporation.
In this case, the domestic corporation had no Code Sec. 951 inclusions with respect to the amounts generated by the lower-tier CFCs. Rather, the domestic partnerships had the inclusions. The upper- tier CFC partners, which were foreign corporations, included their share of the inclusions in gross income. Therefore, the hopscotch provision in which a domestic corporation with a Code Sec. 951 inclusion attributable to earnings and profits of an indirectly held CFC may claim deemed paid foreign tax credits based on a hypothetical dividend from the indirectly held CFC to the domestic corporation did not apply.
Eaton Corporation and Subsidiaries, 164 TC No. 4, Dec. 62,622
Other Reference:
An appeals court affirmed that payments made by an individual taxpayer to his ex-wife did not meet the statutory criteria for deductible alimony. The taxpayer claimed said payments were deductible alimony on his federal tax returns.
An appeals court affirmed that payments made by an individual taxpayer to his ex-wife did not meet the statutory criteria for deductible alimony. The taxpayer claimed said payments were deductible alimony on his federal tax returns.
The taxpayer’s payments were not deductible alimony because the governing divorce instruments contained multiple clear, explicit and express directions to that effect. The former couple’s settlement agreement stated an equitable division of marital property that was non-taxable to either party. The agreement had a separate clause obligating the taxpayer to pay a taxable sum as periodic alimony each month. The term “divorce or separation instrument” included both divorce and the written instruments incident to such decree.
Unpublished opinion affirming, per curiam, the Tax Court, Dec. 62,420(M), T.C. Memo. 2024-18.
J.A. Martino, CA-11