Newsletters

In 2021, Congress passed the Corporate Transparency Act on a bipartisan basis. This law takes effect in 2024 and creates a new beneficial ownership information reporting requirement as part of the U.S. government’s efforts to make it harder for bad actors to hide or benefit from their ill-gotten gains through shell companies or other opaque ownership structures.

In 2021, Congress passed the Corporate Transparency Act on a bipartisan basis. This law takes effect in 2024 and creates a new beneficial ownership information reporting requirement as part of the U.S. government’s efforts to make it harder for bad actors to hide or benefit from their ill-gotten gains through shell companies or other opaque ownership structures.

Starting in 2024, the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) mandates certain entities (primarily small and medium-size businesses) created in or registered to do business in the United States report information about their beneficial owners—the individuals who ultimately own or control a company—to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”). Business entities formed prior to January 1, 2024, have until the end of 2024 to comply with reporting requirements. Business entities created on or after January 1, 2024, have 90 days from the date of formation to comply with the reporting requirements.  Entities created or registered on or after January 1, 2025, will have 30 calendar days from actual or public notice that the company’s creation or registration is effective to file their initial BOI reports with FinCEN. Please visit https://www.fincen.gov/boi-faqs for more information and to help determine your reporting requirements.

Proposition 19 (Prop 19) was passed in California in 2021, and contains two relevant changes in California property tax assessments that may impact your estate planning. To ensure that you are not unaware of or adversely impacted by these changes, here is a summary of relevant planning information for your review.

Proposition 19 (Prop 19) was passed in California in 2021 and contains two relevant changes in California property tax assessments that may impact your estate planning. To ensure that you are not unaware of or adversely impacted by these changes, below is a summary of relevant planning information for your review.

Changes to the Transfer of Taxable Value for Certain Property Owners

Prop 19 expands the class of people who qualify for a transfer of their taxable value (i.e., property tax assessed value) from their current home to a new property.

Under prior law, only homeowners over 55 years of age or certain disabled persons could make use of this benefit one time during their lifetime. And they could do so only if (1) their new home is in the same county as their old home or in a few other select counties, (2) the value of their new home is less than or equal to the value of their old home, and (3) the sale and new purchase were done within a two year period.

The new law, which took effect on April 1, 2021:

• Expands the class of homeowners who are able to transfer their taxable value to include victims of wildfire or other natural disasters, regardless of age or disability status;
• Permits homeowners to take advantage of this provision three times during their lifetime.
• Removes the restriction that the replacement home must be in the same county as the old home. Now such replacements must simply be in the state of California.
• Allows homeowners to buy a replacement home that is worth more than their old home, provided, however, that the increase in value is added to the transferred taxable value of the old home. For example, assume a homeowner is over 55. Her house has a taxable value of $500,000. She sells it for $3,000,000. If she buys a new home anywhere in California for $3,000,000 or less, she can transfer her $500,000 taxable value to the new home, and it will become its taxable value. However, if she wants to upgrade to a $5,000,000 home, her new home's taxable value will be $2,500,000 – the taxable value of her old home transferred ($500,000) plus the upgrade value ($5,000,000 - $3,000,000.)

The new law keeps the two-year window requirement.

Changes to the Parent-Child Exclusion

Prop 19 limits the availability of the parent-child exclusion for purposes of real estate tax assessments. This aspect of Prop 19 took effect on February 16, 2021.

Under prior law, when a parent (or grandparent) transfers ownership of his or her principal residence to a child, the property's value for tax assessment purposes is not reassessed, regardless of how the child uses the residence. In California, transferring a parent's home to one or more children is permissible under current law without triggering reassessment, and the child or children could use it as a vacation home or a rental property.

Prop 19 changed this by requiring that the child or children use the residence as their own principal residence, or it will be reassessed. Furthermore, even if the child uses the residence as his or her own, there is a cap of $1,000,000 on the exclusion, as explained below. Technically, the new and old rules apply where a child transfers the residence to a parent, but this is much less common.

If your home has increased in value significantly from its taxable value, Prop 19 adds certain limitations that could result in an increased assessment. This new rule will apply to outright transfers and to transfers in trusts, such as the QPRT transfer illustrated below. If the increase in value is less than or equal to $1,000,000, no adjustment is made. If the increase in value is more than $1,000,000, the increase in value after the first $1,000,000 is added to the tax assessed value. For example, assume a parent's home has a taxable value of $500,000. Because the parent purchased the home many years ago, its value is now $5,000,000. In other words, it has increased by $4,500,000. The new reassessed value if the parent gifts the home to her child will be $3,500,000. There are inflation adjustments that apply to the $1,000,000 increase limitation for subsequent years.

This change to the parent-child exclusion may also affect many common estate planning trusts that were established several years (or even decades) ago. For example, a qualified personal residence trust (QPRT) allows the transfer of a residence to a trust while that residence can still be occupied for a fixed number of years. The parent(s) continue to live in the residence as their primary residence, and at the end of the fixed number of years, the residence transfers to someone else (typically their children or a trust for their benefit). Most parents who establish QPRTs want to continue living in the house after the fixed term ends. They may do so, but they need to pay rent to the trust or to their children, depending on who owns the residence at the end of the fixed term.

Under prior law, when the children become the owners they would qualify for the parent-child exclusion. Now, however, the children need to use the residence as their primary residence or trigger reassessment. They could not rent it back to the parent, and if siblings are entitled to the residence at the end of the fixed term, they would need to move in together and share a household to qualify for the exemption – which perhaps is not ideal for most adult children. If parents have QPRTs whose fixed term ends on or after February 16, 2021, the value of their home may be reassessed to its current value. This could lead to a massive property tax increase, though it may be possible to mitigate this. A review of your estate planning documents is recommended.

Full text of Proposition is available at https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2020/general/pdf/topl-prop19.pdf

The American Institute of CPAs in a March 31 letter to House of Representatives voiced its “strong support” for a series of tax administration bills passed in recent days.

The American Institute of CPAs in a March 31 letter to House of Representatives voiced its “strong support” for a series of tax administration bills passed in recent days.

The four bills highlighted in the letter include the Electronic Filing and Payment Fairness Act (H.R. 1152), the Internal Revenue Service Math and Taxpayer Help Act (H.R. 998), the Filing Relief for Natural Disasters Act (H.R. 517), and the Disaster Related Extension of Deadlines Act (H.R. 1491).

All four bills passed unanimously.

H.R. 1152 would apply the “mailbox” rule to electronically submitted tax returns and payments. Currently, a paper return or payment is counted as “received” based on the postmark of the envelope, but its electronic equivalent is counted as “received” when the electronic submission arrived or is reviewed. This bill would change all payment and tax form submissions to follow the mailbox rule, regardless of mode of delivery.

“The AICPA has previously recommended this change and thinks it would offer clarity and simplification to the payment and document submission process,” the organization said in the letter.

H.R. 998 “would require notices describing a mathematical or clerical error be made in plain language, and require the Treasury Secretary to provide additional procedures for requesting an abatement of a math or clerical adjustment, including by telephone or in person, among other provisions,” the letter states.

H.R. 517 would allow the IRS to grant federal tax relief once a state governor declares a state of emergency following a natural disaster, which is quicker than waiting for the federal government to declare a state of emergency as directed under current law, which could take weeks after the state disaster declaration. This bill “would also expand the mandatory federal filing extension under section 7508(d) from 60 days to 120 days, providing taxpayers with additional time to file tax returns following a disaster,” the letter notes, adding that increasing the period “would provide taxpayers and tax practitioners much needed relief, even before a disaster strikes.”

H.R. 1491 would extend deadlines for disaster victims to file for a tax refund or tax credit. The legislative solution “granting an automatic extension to the refund or credit lookback period would place taxpayers affected my major disasters on equal footing as taxpayers not impacted by major disasters and would afford greater clarity and certainty to taxpayers and tax practitioners regarding this lookback period,” AICPA said.

Also passed by the House was the National Taxpayer Advocate Enhancement Act (H.R. 997) which, according to a summary of the bill on Congress.gov, “authorizes the National Taxpayer Advocate to appoint legal counsel within the Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS) to report directly to the National Taxpayer Advocate. The bill also expands the authority of the National Taxpayer Advocate to take personnel actions with respect to local taxpayer advocates (located in each state) to include actions with respect to any employee of TAS.”

Finally, the House passed H.R. 1155, the Recovery of Stolen Checks Act, which would require the Treasury to establish procedures that would allow a taxpayer to elect to receive replacement funds electronically from a physical check that was lost or stolen.

All bills passed unanimously. The passed legislation mirrors some of the provisions included in a discussion draft legislation issued by the Senate Finance Committee in January 2025. A section-by-section summary of the Senate discussion draft legislation can be found here.

AICPA’s tax policy and advocacy comment letters for 2025 can be found here.

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

The Tax Court ruled that the value claimed on a taxpayer’s return exceeded the value of a conversation easement by 7,694 percent. The taxpayer was a limited liability company, classified as a TEFRA partnership. The Tax Court used the comparable sales method, as backstopped by the price actually paid to acquire the property.

The Tax Court ruled that the value claimed on a taxpayer’s return exceeded the value of a conversation easement by 7,694 percent. The taxpayer was a limited liability company, classified as a TEFRA partnership. The Tax Court used the comparable sales method, as backstopped by the price actually paid to acquire the property.

The taxpayer was entitled to a charitable contribution deduction based on its fair market value. The easement was granted upon rural land in Alabama. The property was zoned A–1 Agricultural, which permitted agricultural and light residential use only. The property transaction at occurred at arm’s length between a willing seller and a willing buyer.

Rezoning

The taxpayer failed to establish that the highest and best use of the property before the granting of the easement was limestone mining. The taxpayer failed to prove that rezoning to permit mining use was reasonably probable.

Land Value

The taxpayer’s experts erroneously equated the value of raw land with the net present value of a hypothetical limestone business conducted on the land. It would not be profitable to pay the entire projected value of the business.

Penalty Imposed

The claimed value of the easement exceeded the correct value by 7,694 percent. Therefore, the taxpayer was liable for a 40 percent penalty for a gross valuation misstatement under Code Sec. 6662(h).

Ranch Springs, LLC, 164 TC No. 6, Dec. 62,636

State and local housing credit agencies that allocate low-income housing tax credits and states and other issuers of tax-exempt private activity bonds have been provided with a listing of the proper population figures to be used when calculating the 2025:

State and local housing credit agencies that allocate low-income housing tax credits and states and other issuers of tax-exempt private activity bonds have been provided with a listing of the proper population figures to be used when calculating the 2025:

• calendar-year population-based component of the state housing credit ceiling under Code Sec. 42(h)(3)(C)(ii);
• calendar-year private activity bond volume cap under Code Sec. 146; and
• exempt facility bond volume limit under Code Sec. 142(k)(5)

These figures are derived from the estimates of the resident populations of the 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, which were released by the Bureau of the Census on December 19, 2024. The figures for the insular areas of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands are the midyear population figures in the U.S. Census Bureau’s International Database.

Notice 2025-18

The value of assets of a qualified terminable interest property (QTIP) trust includible in a decedent's gross estate was not reduced by the amount of a settlement intended to compensate the decedent for undistributed income.

The value of assets of a qualified terminable interest property (QTIP) trust includible in a decedent's gross estate was not reduced by the amount of a settlement intended to compensate the decedent for undistributed income.

The trust property consisted of an interest in a family limited partnership (FLP), which held title to ten rental properties, and cash and marketable securities. To resolve a claim by the decedent's estate that the trustees failed to pay the decedent the full amount of income generated by the FLP, the trust and the decedent's children's trusts agreed to be jointly and severally liable for a settlement payment to her estate. The Tax Court found an estate tax deficiency, rejecting the estate's claim that the trust assets should be reduced by the settlement amount and alternatively, that the settlement claim was deductible from the gross estate as an administration expense (P. Kalikow Est., Dec. 62,167(M), TC Memo. 2023-21).

Trust Not Property of the Estate

The estate presented no support for the argument that the liability affected the fair market value of the trust assets on the decedent's date of death. The trust, according to the court, was a legal entity that was not itself an asset of the estate. Thus, a liability that belonged to the trust but had no impact on the value of the underlying assets did not change the value of the gross estate. Furthermore, the settlement did not burden the trust assets. A hypothetical purchaser of the FLP interest, the largest asset of the trust, would not assume the liability and, therefore, would not regard the liability as affecting the price. When the parties stipulated the value of the FLP interest, the estate was aware of the undistributed income claim. Consequently, the value of the assets included in the gross estate was not diminished by the amount of the undistributed income claim.

Claim Not an Estate Expense

The claim was owed to the estate by the trust to correct the trustees' failure to distribute income from the rental properties during the decedent's lifetime. As such, the claim was property included in the gross estate, not an expense of the estate. The court explained that even though the liability was owed by an entity that held assets included within the taxable estate, the claim itself was not an estate expense. The court did not address the estate's theoretical argument that the estate would be taxed twice on the underlying assets held in the trust and the amount of the settlement because the settlement was part of the decedent's residuary estate, which was distributed to a charity. As a result, the claim was not a deductible administration expense of the estate.

P.B. Kalikow, Est., CA-2

An individual was not entitled to deduct flowthrough loss from the forfeiture of his S Corporation’s portion of funds seized by the U.S. Marshals Service for public policy reasons. The taxpayer pleaded guilty to charges of bribery, fraud and money laundering. Subsequently, the U.S. Marshals Service seized money from several bank accounts held in the taxpayer’s name or his wholly owned corporation. 

An individual was not entitled to deduct flowthrough loss from the forfeiture of his S Corporation’s portion of funds seized by the U.S. Marshals Service for public policy reasons. The taxpayer pleaded guilty to charges of bribery, fraud and money laundering. Subsequently, the U.S. Marshals Service seized money from several bank accounts held in the taxpayer’s name or his wholly owned corporation. The S corporation claimed a loss deduction related to its portion of the asset seizures on its return and the taxpayer reported a corresponding passthrough loss on his return.

However, Courts have uniformly held that loss deductions for forfeitures in connection with a criminal conviction frustrate public policy by reducing the "sting" of the penalty. The taxpayer maintained that the public policy doctrine did not apply here, primarily because the S corporation was never indicted or charged with wrongdoing. However, even if the S corporation was entitled to claim a deduction for the asset seizures, the public policy doctrine barred the taxpayer from reporting his passthrough share. The public policy doctrine was not so rigid or formulaic that it may apply only when the convicted person himself hands over a fine or penalty.

Hampton, TC Memo. 2025-32, Dec. 62,642(M)