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)

This year marks the 5th Annual National Tax Security Awareness Week-a collaboration by the IRS, state tax agencies and the tax industry. The IRS and the Security Summit partners have issued warnings to all taxpayers and tax professionals to beware of scams and identity theft schemes by criminals taking advantage of the combination of holiday shopping, the approaching tax season and coronavirus concerns. The 5th Annual National Tax Security Awareness Week coincided with Cyber Monday, the traditional start of the online holiday shopping season.

This year marks the 5th Annual National Tax Security Awareness Week-a collaboration by the IRS, state tax agencies and the tax industry. The IRS and the Security Summit partners have issued warnings to all taxpayers and tax professionals to beware of scams and identity theft schemes by criminals taking advantage of the combination of holiday shopping, the approaching tax season and coronavirus concerns. The 5th Annual National Tax Security Awareness Week coincided with Cyber Monday, the traditional start of the online holiday shopping season.

The following are a few basic steps which taxpayers and tax professionals should remember during the holidays and as the 2021 tax season approaches:

• use an updated security software for computers and mobile phones;
• the purchased anti-virus software must have a feature to stop malware and a firewall that can prevent intrusions;
• don't open links or attachments on suspicious emails because this year, fraud scams related to COVID-19 and the Economic Impact Payment are common;
• use strong and unique passwords for online accounts;
• use multi-factor authentication whenever possible which prevents thieves from easily hacking accounts;
• shop at sites where the web address begins with "https" and look for the "padlock" icon in the browser window;
• don't shop on unsecured public Wi-Fi in places like a mall;
• secure home Wi-Fis with a password;
• back up files on computers and mobile phones; and
• consider creating a virtual private network to securely connect to your workplace if working from home.

In addition, taxpayers can check out security recommendations for their specific mobile phone by reviewing the Federal Communications Commission's Smartphone Security Checker. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has issued warnings about fraud and scams related to COVID-19 schemes, anti-body testing, healthcare fraud, cryptocurrency fraud and others. COVID-related fraud complaints can be filed at the National Center for Disaster Fraud. Moreover, the Federal Trade Commission also has issued alerts about fraudulent emails claiming to be from the Centers for Disease Control or the World Health Organization. Taxpayers can keep atop the latest scam information and report COVID-related scams at www.FTC.gov/coronavirus.

The IRS has released guidance on its website for employers and employees regarding deferral of employee Social Security tax under Notice 2020-65, I.R.B. 2020-38, 567.

The IRS has released guidance on its website for employers and employees regarding deferral of employee Social Security tax under Notice 2020-65, I.R.B. 2020-38, 567.

In August, the IRS issued Notice 2020-65 in response to a Presidential Memorandum that allowed deferral of the withholding, deposit, and payment of certain employee payroll tax obligations. The Notice allows employers the option to defer the employee portion of Social Security tax from September 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020, for eligible employees who earn less than $4,000 per bi-weekly pay period (or the equivalent threshold amount with respect to other pay periods) on a pay period-by-pay period basis.

To pay the deferred amount, an employer that chooses deferral will ratably withhold the amount of deferred tax from the employees' paychecks from January 1, 2021, through April 30, 2021.

Employers
The guidance provides the following instructions to employers that deferred the employee portion of Social Security tax under Notice 2020-65:

When reporting total Social Security wages paid to an employee on Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, the employer should include any wages for which it deferred withholding and payment of employee Social Security tax in box 3 (Social security wages) and/or box 7 (Social security tips). The employer should not include in Box 4 (Social security tax withheld) any amount of deferred tax that has not been withheld.

Employee Social Security tax deferred in 2020 that is withheld in 2021 and not reported on the 2020 Form W-2 should be reported in box 4 (Social security tax withheld) on Form W-2c, Corrected Wage and Tax Statement. On Form W-2c, the employer should enter tax year 2020 in box c and adjust the amount previously reported in box 4 (Social security tax withheld) of the Form W-2 to include the deferred amounts that were withheld in 2021. The employer should file all Forms W-2c with the Social Security Administration (along with Form W-3c, Transmittal of Corrected Wage and Tax Statements) as soon as possible after the employer has finished withholding the deferred amounts. The employer should also furnish Forms W-2c to employees. (More information on completing and filing Forms W-2c and W-3c will be published in the 2021 General Instructions for Forms W-2 and W-3, in January 2021.)

There is similar guidance for employers that deferred withholding and payment of the employee Social Security tax equivalent of Tier 1 Railroad Retirement Tax Act (RRTA) tax.

Employees
There is also guidance for employees whose employers deferred the employee portion of Social Security tax (or the RRTA equivalent tax) under Notice 2020-65:

If an employee had only one employer during 2020 and his or her Form W-2c for 2020 only shows a correction to box 4 (or to box 14 for employees who pay RRTA tax) to account for the tax that was deferred in 2020 and withheld in 2021, no further steps are required.

If an employee had two or more employers in 2020 and the Form W-2c for 2020 shows a correction to box 4 (or to box 14 for employees who pay RRTA tax) to account for the tax that was deferred in 2020 and withheld in 2021, the employee should use the amount of Social Security (or Tier 1 RRTA) tax withheld reported on the Form W-2c to determine whether he or she had excess Social Security tax (or Tier 1 RRTA tax) on wages (or compensation) paid in 2020.

If the corrected amount in box 4 of the Form W-2c for 2020 causes the total amount of employee Social Security tax (or equivalent portion of the Tier 1 RRTA tax) withheld by all of the employee’s employers to exceed the maximum amount of tax owed ($8,537.40 for 2020), or increases an already existing excess amount of employee Social Security tax (or Tier 1 RRTA tax) withheld, the employee should file Form 1040-X, Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, to claim a credit for the excess tax withheld.

Additional Information
Additional information can be found here.

For 2021, the Social Security tax wage cap will be $142,800, and Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits will increase by 1.3 percent. These changes reflect cost-of-living adjustments to account for inflation.

For 2021, the Social Security tax wage cap will be $142,800, and Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits will increase by 1.3 percent. These changes reflect cost-of-living adjustments to account for inflation.

2021 Wage Cap
The Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax on wages is 7.65 percent each for the employee and the employer. FICA tax has two components:

• a 6.2 percent Social Security tax, also known as Old Age, Survivors, And Disability Insurance (OASDI); and
• a 1.45 percent Medicare tax, also known as hospital insurance (HI).

For self-employed workers, the Self-Employment tax is 15.3 percent, consisting of:

• a 12.4 percent OASDI tax; and
• a 2.9 percent HI tax.

OASDI tax applies only up to a wage base, which includes most wages and self-employment income up to the annual wage cap.

For 2021, the wage base is $142,800. Thus, OASDI tax applies only to the taxpayer’s first $142,800 in wages or net earnings from self-employment. Taxpayers do not pay any OASDI tax on earnings that exceed $142,800.

There is no wage cap for HI tax.

Maximum Social Security Tax for 2021
For workers who earn $142,800 or more in 2021:

• an employee will pay a total of $8,853.60 in social security tax ($142,800 x 6.2 percent);
• the employer will pay the same amount; and
• a self-employed worker will pay a total of $17,707.20 in social security tax ($142,800 x 12.4 percent).

Additional Medicare Tax
Higher-income workers may have to pay an Additional Medicare tax of 0.9 percent. This tax applies to wages and self-employment income that exceed:

• $250,000 for married taxpayers who file a joint return;
• $125,000 for married taxpayers who file separate returns; and
• $200,000 for other taxpayers.

The annual wage cap does not affect the Additional Medicare tax.

Benefits Increase for 2021
Finally, a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) will increase social security and SSI benefits for 2019 by 1.3 percent. The COLA is intended to ensure that inflation does not erode the purchasing power of these benefits.

The Treasury and IRS have issued guidance on the recent order by President Trump to defer certain employee payroll tax obligations on wages paid from September 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020. Under the guidance:

The Treasury and IRS have issued guidance on the recent order by President Trump to defer certain employee payroll tax obligations on wages paid from September 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020. Under the guidance:

• the due date for the withholding and payment of the employee’s portion of the 6.2-percent old-age, survivors and disability insurance (OASDI) tax (Social Security tax) under Code Sec. 3101(a), and the employee’s portion of the Railroad Retirement Tax Act (RRTA) Tier 1 tax that is attributable to the 6.2-percent Social Security tax under Code Sec. 3201, on applicable wages is postponed until the period beginning on January 1, 2021, and ending on April 30, 2021; and
• the deferred taxes must be withheld and paid from wages and compensation paid between January 1, 2021, and April 30, 2021.

The guidance states that it does not separately postpone the deposit obligation for employee Social Security tax. This is because the deposit obligation does not arise until the tax is withheld, so by postponing the time for withholding the employee Social Security tax, the deposit obligation is delayed by operation of the tax regulations.

7508A Relief
In light of the coronavirus (COVID-19) disaster, President Trump issued a memorandum on August 8, 2020, directing the Treasury Secretary to use his Code Sec. 7508A authority to defer the withholding, deposit, and payment of the employee’s portion of Social Security tax, and the employee’s portion of the RRTA equivalent tax, on wages and compensation paid from September 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020. The deferral is available only for employees whose biweekly, pre-tax pay is less than $4,000, or a similar amount where a different pay period applies.

The Treasury Secretary has determined that employers required to withhold and pay the employee share of the Social Security tax under Code Sec. 3102(a) or the RRTA tax equivalent under Code Sec. 3202(a) are affected by the COVID-19 emergency for purposes of the relief described in the presidential memorandum.

Applicable Wages
The deferral applies to wages under Code Sec. 3121(a) or compensation under Code Sec. 3231(e) paid to an employee on a pay date during the period beginning on September 1, 2020, and ending on December 31, 2020 (collectively "applicable wages"), but only if the amount of wages or compensation paid for a biweekly pay period is less than $4,000, or the equivalent threshold amount with respect to other pay periods.

Applicable wages are determined on a pay period-by-pay period basis. If the amount of wages or compensation payable to an employee for a pay period is less than the corresponding pay period threshold amount, then that amount is considered applicable wages for the pay period. In that case, the relief provided in the guidance applies to the wages or compensation paid to that employee for that pay period, irrespective of the amount of wages or compensation paid to the employee for other pay periods.

Paying Deferred Taxes
An affected employer must withhold and pay the total applicable taxes that it has deferred ratably from wages and compensation paid between January 1, 2021, and April 30, 2021. Interest, penalties, and additions to tax will begin to accrue on May 1, 2021, on any unpaid deferred taxes.

If necessary, the employer can make arrangements to otherwise collect the total deferred taxes from the employee.

The IRS has released the 2020-2021 special per diem rates. Taxpayers use the per diem rates to substantiate the amount of ordinary and necessary business expenses incurred while traveling away from home. These special per diem rates include the special transportation industry meal and incidental expenses (M&IEs) rates, the rate for the incidental expenses only deduction, and the rates and list of high-cost localities for purposes of the high-low substantiation method. Taxpayers using the rates and list of high-cost localities provided in the guidance must comply with Rev. Proc. 2019-48, I.R.B. 2019-51, 1390.

The IRS has released the 2020-2021 special per diem rates. Taxpayers use the per diem rates to substantiate the amount of ordinary and necessary business expenses incurred while traveling away from home. These special per diem rates include the special transportation industry meal and incidental expenses (M&IEs) rates, the rate for the incidental expenses only deduction, and the rates and list of high-cost localities for purposes of the high-low substantiation method. Taxpayers using the rates and list of high-cost localities provided in the guidance must comply with Rev. Proc. 2019-48, I.R.B. 2019-51, 1390.

The guidance is effective for per diem allowances for lodging, meal and incidental expenses, or for meal and incidental expenses only, that are paid to any employee on or after October 1, 2020, for travel away from home on or after October 1, 2020. For computing the amount allowable as a deduction for travel away from home, the guidance is effective for M&IEs or for incidental expenses only paid or incurred on or after October 1, 2020.

Transportation Industry Rates
The special M&IE rates for taxpayers in the transportation industry are:

• $66 for any locality of travel in the continental United States (CONUS), and
• $71 for any locality of travel outside the continental United States (OCONUS).

Incidental Expenses Only Rate
The rate is $5 per day for any CONUS or OCONUS travel for the incidental expenses only deduction.

High-Low Substantiation Method
For purposes of the high-low substantiation method, the per diem rates in lieu of the rates described in Notice 2019-55 (the per diem substantiation method) are:

• $292 for travel to any high-cost locality, and
• $198 for travel to any other locality within CONUS.

The amount of these rates that is treated as paid for meals, and the per diem rates in lieu of the rates described in Notice 2019-55 (the M&IE only substantiation method), are:

• $71 for travel to any high-cost locality, and
• $60 for travel to any other locality within CONUS

The guidance provides a list of localities that have a federal per diem rate of $245 or more, and are high-cost localities for a specified portion of the calendar year. The list differs from the high-cost locality list in Notice 2019-55:

• Added to the list: Los Angeles, California; San Diego, California; Gulf Breeze, Florida; Kennebunk/Kittery/Sanford, Maine; Virginia Beach, Virginia.
• Localities that have changed the portion of the year in which they are high-cost localities: Sedona, Arizona; Monterey, California; Santa Barbara, California; District of Columbia; Naples, Florida; Jekyll Island/Brunswick, Georgia; Boston/Cambridge, Massachusetts; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Jamestown/Middletown/Newport, Rhode Island; Charleston, South Carolina.
• Removed from the list: Midland/Odessa, Texas; Pecos, Texas.