Proposed regulations spell out the critical mineral and battery component requirements of the new clean vehicle credit, while also clarifying several other components of the credit. The proposed regs, along with modified Frequently Asked Questions on the IRS website, largely adopt previous IRS guidance, including Rev. Proc. 2022-42, Notice 2023-1, and Notice 2023-16. 

Proposed regulations spell out the critical mineral and battery component requirements of the new clean vehicle credit, while also clarifying several other components of the credit. The proposed regs, along with modified Frequently Asked Questions on the IRS website, largely adopt previous IRS guidance, including Rev. Proc. 2022-42, Notice 2023-1, and Notice 2023-16. Similarly, the critical minerals and battery component regs largely adopt the White Paper the Treasury Department released last December.

However, the proposed regs also:

• detail the income and price limits on the credit,
• prohibit multiple taxpayers from dividing the credit for a single vehicle, and
• coordinate the credit with other credits.

The regs are generally proposed to apply to vehicles placed in service after April 17, 2023, but taxpayers may rely on them for vehicles placed in service before that date. Comments are requested.

Critical Minerals Requirement

For purposes of the $3,750 credit for a qualified vehicle that satisfies the critical minerals requirement, the proposed regs provide a three-step process for determining the percentage of the value of the applicable critical minerals in a battery:

• 1. Determine the procurement chain for each critical mineral.
• 2. Identify qualifying critical minerals.
• 3. Calculate qualifying critical mineral content.

The proposed regs define relevant terms, including "procurement chain," "criticalminerals," "criticalmineral content," "extraction," "processing," "constituent materials," "recycling," and "value added."

For vehicles placed in service in 2023 and 2024, the proposed regs consider a critical mineral to meet the test if at least 50 percent of the value added by extracting, processing or recycling the mineral is due to extraction, processing or recycling in the U.S. or a country with which the U.S. has a free trade agreement in effect. The proposed regs identify the following countries as ones with a free trade agreement in effect with the U.S.: Australia, Bahrain, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Israel, Jordan, Korea, Mexico, Morocco, Nicaragua, Oman, Panama, Peru, and Singapore. The regs also propose criteria for identifying additional countries, such as the factors that are part of the Critical Minerals Agreement (CMA) the U.S. recently entered into with Japan.

Battery Component Requirement

For purposes of the $3,750 credit for a qualified vehicle that satisfies the battery components requirement, the proposed regs provide a four-step process for determining the percentage of the value of the battery components in a battery:

• 1. Identify components that are manufactured or assembled in North America.
• 2. Determine the incremental value of each battery component and North American battery component.
• 3. Determine the total incremental value of battery components.
• 4. Calculate the qualifying battery component.

MAGI Limit

The credit does not apply if the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) for the credit year or, if less, the previous year exceeds a limit based on filing status. The proposed regs clarify that if the taxpayer’s filing status changes during this two-year period, this test applies the MAGI limit for each year based on the taxpayer's filing status for that year.

The proposed regs also clarify that the MAGI limit does not apply to a corporation or any other taxpayer that is not an individual for which AGI is computed under Code Sec. 62.

MSRP Limits

A vehicle does not qualify for the credit if the manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP) exceeds $80,000 for a van, sport utility vehicle (SUV), or pickup truck; or $55,000 for any other vehicle. The proposed regs adopt the vehicle classification system the IRS announced in Notice 2023-16. This is the vehicle classification that appears on the vehicle label and on the website FuelEconomy.gov. The regs also provide a more detailed definition of "MSRP" using information reported on the label affixed to the vehicle’s windshield or side window.

Vehicle with Multiple Owners

The proposed regs generally prohibit any allocation or proration of the credit if multiple taxpayers place a vehicle in service. However, a partnership or S corporation that places a vehicle in service may allocate the credit among its partners or shareholders. The MAGI limits on the credit apply separately to each individual partner or shareholder. The seller’s report for the vehicle lists the entity’s name and TIN.

Final Assembly in North America

To qualify for the credit, the final assembly of a new clean vehicle must occur in North America. The proposed regs reiterate earlier guidance on this requirement, but they also provide more detailed definitions of "final assembly" and "North America." Taxpayers may rely on the vehicle’s plant of manufacture as reported in the vehicle identification number (VIN), or the final assembly point reported on the label affixed to the vehicle. Taxpayers may also continue to rely on the information in the "VIN decoder sites" at https://afdc.energy.gov/laws/electric-vehicles-for-tax-credit and https://www.nhtsa.gov/vin-decoder.

Coordination with Other Credits

While the new vehicle credit is generally a nonrefundable personal credit, the credit for a depreciable vehicle is treated as part of the general business credit. If the taxpayer’s business use of a qualified vehicle is less than 50 percent of its total use, the proposed regs require the taxpayer to apportion the credit. Only the portion of the credit that corresponds to the percentage of the taxpayer’s business use of the vehicle is part of the general business credit; the rest of the credit remains a nonrefundable personal credit.

The proposed regs clarify that when the new clean vehicle credit is allowed for a particular vehicle, a subsequent buyer in a later tax year may still claim the used clean vehicle credit. However, a subsequent buyer cannot claim the commercial clean vehicle credit.

Effective Dates

Taxpayers may rely on the proposed regulations before they are published as final regs, provided the taxpayer follows them in their entirety and in a consistent manner. The regs are generally proposed to apply to new clean vehicles placed in service after April 17, the date the regs are scheduled to be published in the Federal Register.

Comments Requested

The IRS requests comments on the proposed regs. Comments may be mailed to the IRS, or submitted electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov (indicate IRS and REG-120080-22). Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by June 16, 2023.

In particular, the IRS seeks comments on the following issues:

• 1. the critical mineral and battery component requirements, including the distinction between processing of applicable critical minerals and manufacturing and assembly of battery components, and related definitions;
• 2. the 50-percent value added test for critical minerals, and the best approach for adopting a more stringent test after 2024;
• 3. the list of countries with which the United States has free trade agreements in effect, proposed criteria for identifying other such countries, and other potential approaches; and
• 4. whether rules similar to those provided for partnerships and S corporation should apply to trusts and similar entities that place a qualified clean vehicle in service.

The IRS is obsoleting Rev. Rul. 58-74, 1958-1 CB 148, as of July 31, 2023. Rev. Rul. 58-74 generally allows a taxpayer that adopted the expense method for research and experimental (R&E) expenses to use a refund claim or amend a return to deduct R&E expenses that the taxpayer failed to deduct when they were paid or accrued.

The IRS is obsoleting Rev. Rul. 58-74, 1958-1 CB 148, as of July 31, 2023. Rev. Rul. 58-74 generally allows a taxpayer that adopted the expense method for research and experimental (R&E) expenses to use a refund claim or amend a return to deduct R&E expenses that the taxpayer failed to deduct when they were paid or accrued.

Rev. Rul. 58-74 conflicts with current procedures for accounting method changes.

TCJA Changes for R&E Expenses

The decision to obsolete Rev. Rul. 58-74 is unrelated to the changes made by the Tax Cut and Jobs Act (TCJA) (P.L. 115-97), even though the ruling relates to pre-TCJA accounting methods for R&E expenses.

Taxpayers could elect to amortize R&E expenses paid or incurred in tax years beginning before 2022, or deduct them currently. If the taxpayer did not make either election, the expenses had to be capitalized. A taxpayer that elected the expense method had to use it for all qualifying expenses unless the IRS consented to a different method for some or all of the expenses.

TCJA ended the expense election for R&E expenses paid or incurred in tax year beginning after 2021. Instead, the expenses must be amortized over five years (15 years for foreign expenses).

Rev. Rul. 57-74 and Change of Accounting Method Procedures

The IRS is obsoleting Rev. Rul. 58-74 because it includes insufficient facts to properly analyze whether the taxpayer’s failure to deduct certain R&E expenditures, such as the cost of obtaining a patent, when it deducted other R&E expenditures, constituted a method of accounting or an error.

For example, Rev. Rul. 58-74 does not explain whether the taxpayer consistently treated the costs of obtaining a patent in determining its taxable income. It also fails to describe the cause and extent of the deviation in the treatment of certain R&E expenditures that were not deducted.

In addition, filing an amended return, refund claim, or administrative adjustment request (AAR) under Rev. Rul. 58-74 is inconsistent with the IRS position that a taxpayer may not, without prior consent, retroactively change from an erroneous to a permissible method of accounting by filing amended returns. Rev. Rul. 58-74 is also inconsistent with the procedures for accounting method changes that qualify for automatic IRS consent.

Prospective Application of Decision to Obsolete Rev. Rul. 58-74

A taxpayer may rely on Rev. Rul. 58-74 if the taxpayer:

However, eligibility to rely on Rev. Rul. 58-74 does not imply that the IRS will grant the refund, deduction, or AAR. Instead, the IRS will continue to challenge the applicability of Rev. Rul. 58-74 when appropriate. For example, the IRS might challenge reliance on Rev. Rul. 58-74 when the taxpayer’s facts are distinguishable from Rev. Rul. 58-74, including where the taxpayer failed to adopt the expense method under pre-TCJA law.

The IRS has issued safe harbor deed language that may be used to amend eligible easement deeds intended to qualify for conservation contribution deductions under Code Sec. 170(f)(3)(B)(iii), to comply with changes to the law created by section 605(d) of the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022.

The IRS has issued safe harbor deed language that may be used to amend eligible easement deeds intended to qualify for conservation contribution deductions under Code Sec. 170(f)(3)(B)(iii), to comply with changes to the law created by section 605(d) of the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022. If a donor substitutes the prescribed safe harbor deed language for the corresponding language in the original eligible easement deed, and the amended deed is then signed by the donor and donee and recorded on or before July 24, 2023, the amended eligible easement deed will be treated as effective for purposes of Code Sec. 170 and section 605(d)(2) of the SECURE 2.0 Act. If these requirements are met, the amendment must be treated as effective from the date of the recording of the original easement deed.

The following are not considered an"eligible easement deed" for purposes of this safe harbor - any easement deed relating to any contribution:

• which is not treated as a qualified conservation contribution by reason of Code Sec. 170(h)(7);
• which is part of a reportable transaction under Code Sec. 6707A(c)(1), or is described in Notice 2017-10;
• if a deduction under Code Sec. 170 has been disallowed, the donor has contested such disallowance, and a case is docketed in federal court to resolve this dispute scheduled on a date before the date the amended deed is recorded by the donor; or
• if a claimed contribution deduction under Code Sec. 170 resulted in an underpayment penalty under either Code Sec. 6662 or 6663, and such penalty has been finally determined administratively or by final court decision.

If the safe harbor language is substituted according to the requirements spelled out in this Notice, the amended eligible easement deed will be treated as effective as of the date the eligible easement deed was originally recorded for federal purposes, regardless of whether the amended eligible easement deed is effective retroactively under the relevant state law.

The IRS closed out the 2023 Dirty Dozen campaign with a warning for taxpayers to beware of promoters peddling tax avoidance schemes. These schemes are primarily targeted at high income individuals seeking to reduce or eliminate their tax obligation. The IRS advice taxpayers to seek services from an independent, trusted tax professional and to avoid promotres focused on aggressively marketing and pushing questionable transactions.

The IRS closed out the 2023 Dirty Dozen campaign with a warning for taxpayers to beware of promoters peddling tax avoidance schemes. These schemes are primarily targeted at high income individuals seeking to reduce or eliminate their tax obligation. The IRS advice taxpayers to seek services from an independent, trusted tax professional and to avoid promotres focused on aggressively marketing and pushing questionable transactions.

The IRS has compiled a list of 12 scams and schemes that put taxpayers and tax professionals at risk. Some of them are:

• micro-captive insurance arrangements: is an insurance company whose owners elect to be taxed on the captive's investment income only;
• syndicated conservation easements: are arrangements wherein they attempt to game the system with grossly inflated tax deductions;
• offshore accounts & digital assets: unscrupulous promoters lure taxpayers into placing their asssets in offshore accounts under the pretense of being untraceable by the IRS;
• maltese individual retirement arrangements misusing treaty: are arrangements wherein the taxpayers attempt to avoid tax by contributing to foreign individual retirement arrangements in Malta; and
• puerto rican and other foreign captive insurance: are transactions wherein the business owners of closely held entities participate in a purported insurance arrangement with a Puerto Rican or other foreign corporation in which they have a financial interest.

Taxpayers are adviced to to rely on reputable tax professionals they know and trust to avoid such schemes. The IRS has also created the Office of Fraud Enforcement (OFE) and Office of Promoter Investigations (OPE) to coordinate service-wide enforcement activities against taxpayers committing tax fraud and promoters marketing and selling abusive tax avoidance transactions and schemes to effectuate tax evasion.

As part of the Dirty Dozen awareness effort, the IRS encourages people to report taxpayers who promote improper and abusive tax schemes as well as tax return preparers who deliberately prepare improper returns. To report an abusive tax scheme or a tax return preparer, taxpayers should mail or fax a completed and any supporting materials to the IRS Lead Development Center in the Office of Promoter Investigations. The postal address is: Internal Revenue Service Lead Development Center Stop MS5040 24000 Avila Road Laguna Niguel, California 92677-3405 Fax: 877-477-9135.

As part of the annual Dirty Dozen tax scams effort, the IRS and the Security Summit partners have urged taxpayers to be on the lookout for spearphishing emails. Through these emails, scammers try to steal client data, tax software preparation credentials and tax preparer identities with the goal of getting fraudulent tax refunds. These requests can range from an email that looks like it’s from a potential new client to a request targeting payroll and human resource departments asking for sensitive Form W-2 information.

As part of the annual Dirty Dozen tax scams effort, the IRS and the Security Summit partners have urged taxpayers to be on the lookout for spearphishing emails. Through these emails, scammers try to steal client data, tax software preparation credentials and tax preparer identities with the goal of getting fraudulent tax refunds. These requests can range from an email that looks like it’s from a potential new client to a request targeting payroll and human resource departments asking for sensitive Form W-2 information.

Cyber Security Tips to Prevent Spearphishing

Spearphishing is a tailored phishing attempt to a specific organization or business and usually begins with a suspicious email that may appear as a tax preparation application or another e-service or platform. Some scammers will even use the IRS logo and claim something like "Action Required: Your account has now been put on hold." Often these emails stress urgency and will ask tax pros or businesses to click on links to input or verify information.

How to prevent spearphishing:

• Never click suspicious links.
• Double check the requests with the original sender.
• Be vigilant year-round, not just during filing season.

The IRS and its Security Summit partners continue to see spearphishing attempts that impersonate a new potential client, known as the New Client scam. Lastly, taxpayers should never respond to tax-related phishing or spearfishing or click on the URL link. Instead, the scams should be reported by sending the email or a copy of the text/SMS as an attachment to phishing@irs.gov.

The American Institute of CPAs is recommending the Internal Revenue Service place a greater emphasis on service as the agency works on its strategic plan for the $80 billion in additional appropriations provided to the IRS in the Inflation Reduction Act.

The American Institute of CPAs is recommending the Internal Revenue Service place a greater emphasis on service as the agency works on its strategic plan for the $80 billion in additional appropriations provided to the IRS in the Inflation Reduction Act.

"Given the historic low levels of IRS taxpayer services, we are concerned that there was an insufficient allocation of funding to improve taxpayer services to appropriate levels" the AICPA March 28, 2023, letter to the IRS and the Department of the Treasury states, noting that the COVID-19 pandemic "made it painfully clear that the IRS was not funded to accomplish all its responsibilities."

AICPA argued that the agency’s service deficiencies "prevent taxpayers from complying with their tax obligations and hamper our members’ ability to as professional advisors to do their jobs, which is to help these taxpayers comply."

And despite funds being targeted toward enforcement and a stated goal of ensuring that wealthy individuals and corporations are paying their fair share of taxes, AICPA states that "enforcement actions must be in balance with the services the IRS provides to taxpayers."

The Inflation Reduction Act allocates $45.6 billion to enforcement activities and only $3.1 billion to service, and the AICPA suggested that more money be focused on service-related issues, including allocating sufficient funds for employee training to help replace the institutional knowledge that is expected to be lost in the coming years as the aging workforce retires.

AICPA is also calling on the IRS to develop a comprehensive customer service strategy, including creating more empowered employees; better access to timely information; and access to tailored resources, including resources designed specifically for tax professionals.

Additionally, the organization recommended that the agency develop a comprehensive plan to redesign the agency, including adopting a more customer-focused culture; integrating its technical infrastructure so the disparate legacy systems can communicate with each other; and creating a practitioner services division "that would centralize and modernize its approach to all practitioners."

Finally, AICPA recommended that IRS continue with its business systems modernizations initiatives.

"Currently, the IRS has two of the oldest information systems in the federal government making the information technology functions one of the biggest constraints overall for the IRS" the letter states. "Without modern infrastructure, the IRS is unable to timely and efficiently meet the needs of taxpayers and practitioners. … We recommend that the IRS more fully explore options to allocate IRA enforcement funding to BSM issues."

Automated Collection Notices To Resume

Another area that the organization recommends the funds be used for is the ongoing effort by the agency to reduce the backlog of unprocessed paper tax returns and other paper correspondence.

AICPA acknowledged the work done to reduce levels after the backlog spiked during the pandemic, but stated that "more needs to be done to ensure that taxpayers and practitioners are not faced at any time in 2023 with yet another year with significant levels of unprocessed returns, leading to additional delays in processing and incorrect notices and penalties."

And while this is going on, the organization recommends that the IRS "continue the suspension of certain automated collection notices until it is prepared to devote the necessary resources for a proper and timely resolution of matters. Until the IRS can respond to taxpayer replies to notices in a timely manner, these collection notices should not be restarted."

According to the letter, the agency is planning on restarting automated collection notices in June 2023, even though "this June date has not been widely publicized. The IRS should communicate the stat date of automated collection action to the public, specifically identifying what actions will be part of this process and providing resources for taxpayers on dealing with these actions."

Additionally, the organization is calling for "a streamlined reasonable cause penalty waiver without requiring a written request, similar to the procedures of the FTA administrative waiver, based solely on the pandemic’s effects on both the taxpayer and the practitioner."

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

National Taxpayer Advocate Erin Collins offered both praise and criticism of the Internal Revenue Service’s Strategic Operating Plan outlining how it will spend the additional $80 billion allocated to the agency as part of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

National Taxpayer Advocate Erin Collins offered both praise and criticism of the Internal Revenue Service’s Strategic Operating Plan outlining how it will spend the additional $80 billion allocated to the agency as part of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

"This is a game changer to transform how the U.S. government administers the tax laws in a more helpful and efficient manner while focusing on providing the service taxpayers deserve,"Collins wrote in an April 6, 2023, blog post about the plan.

However, she reiterated criticism over how the funds would be allocated throughout the next 10 years. The IRA allocates only $3.2 billion going to taxpayer services and $4.8 billion allocated to business system modernization, two areas that are in need of funding to help improve the service the agency provides to taxpayers.

"Combined, that’s just ten percent of the total," she noted. "By contrast, 90 percent was allocated for enforcement ($45.6 billion) and operations support ($25.3 billion). The additional long-term funding provided by the IRA, while appreciated and welcomed, is disproportionately allocated for enforcement activities, and I believe Congress should reallocate IRS funding to achieve a better balance with taxpayer services and IT modernization."

Collins also cited the report in stating that the funds allocated for taxpayer services will be depleted within four years and cautioned that the agency needs to ensure that funds are continually being allocated for this specific purpose beyond that point.

"Although I share the long-term vision of the SOP, I want to caution that the IRS should not lose sight of its core mission and its immediate challenge of reducing the large backlog of amended returns and taxpayer correspondence."

Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

On April 4, 2023, the Internal Revenue Service released the Strategic Operating Plan, which details the agency’s plans to use Inflation Reduction Act resources to transform the administration of the tax system and services provided to taxpayers.

On April 4, 2023, the Internal Revenue Service released the Strategic Operating Plan, which details the agency’s plans to use Inflation Reduction Act resources to transform the administration of the tax system and services provided to taxpayers.

The goal of the changes outlined in the Strategic Operating Plan is to "provide taxpayers with world-class customer service" and reduce the deficit by "hundreds of billions by pursuing tax evasion by wealthy individuals, big corporations, and complex partnerships," said Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Wally Adeyemo.

The Strategic Operating Plan is organized around five key objectives:

• Dramatically improve services to help taxpayers meet their obligations and receive the tax incentives for which they are eligible.
• Quickly resolve taxpayer issues when they arise.
• Focus expanded enforcement on taxpayers with complex tax filings and high-dollar noncompliance to address the tax gap.
• Deliver cutting-edge technology, data, and analytics to operate more effectively.
• Attract, retain, and empower a highly skilled, diverse workforce and develop a culture that is better equipped to deliver results for taxpayers.

The plan outlines a series of initiatives and projects aligned to each objective, including 42 key initiatives, 190 key projects, and more than 200 specific milestones designed to achieve the objectives set forth by the IRS.

Improved customer service, compliance efforts, and technology updates are also essential to achieving the goals set forth in the Strategic Operating Plan.

With long-term funding in place, the IRS has hired more than 5,000 phone assisters, increased walk-in service availability, and added new digital tools, according to IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel.

"In the first five years of the 10-year plan, taxpayers will be able to securely file documents and respond to notices online," said Werfel. Taxpayers will also be able securely access and download account data and account history. "For the first time, the IRS will help taxpayers identify potential mistakes before filing, quickly fix errors that could delay their refunds, and more easily claim credits and deductions they may be eligible for," he said.

The Strategic Operating Plan also includes targeted efforts to ensure fair tax law enforcement and compliance with existing laws. The plan focuses on "areas where compliance has eroded the most," specifically compliance issues involving "wealthy individuals, complex partnerships, and large corporations," said Werfel. The IRS will increase hiring efforts for experienced accountants and attorneys to ensure enforcement "at the top." Werfel further noted that the IRS does not intend to increase the audit rate for small businesses or households making less than $400,000.

Finally, the Strategic Operating Plan utilizes Inflation Reduction Act funding to modernize the agency’s technology infrastructure to protect taxpayer data. In the first five years of the 10-year plan, the IRS aims to eliminate paper backlogs that have delayed taxpayer refunds by digitizing forms and returns when they are received and transitioning to fully digital correspondence processes.

"This plan is only the beginning of our work," Werfel said. "This is a unique opportunity for the IRS and the nation, and we will continue to work closely with our partners as this effort moves forward. This investment in the IRS is already helping taxpayers this tax season, and this plan shows that historic changes are coming."

The American Institute of CPAs is calling on the Internal Revenue Service to issue guidance related to how digital asset losses affect tax obligations.

The American Institute of CPAs is calling on the Internal Revenue Service to issue guidance related to how digital asset losses affect tax obligations.

"With the complexities and recent bankruptcies involved with digitalasset exchanges, taxpayers and practitioners are facing many issues with the taxtreatment of losses of digitalassets and need guidance," Eileen Sherr, AICPA Director for Tax Policy & Advocacy, said in a statement. "Taxpayers and their advisors need clear guidance to accurately calculate their losses and properly meet their tax obligations and we urge the IRS to adopt our recommendations and provide this guidance."

In an April 14, 2023, letter to the agency, AICPA said it hopes the submission of the comments that the "IRS will provide additional guidance to clarify how digitalassetlosses are handled in various scenarios. Such guidance will provide greater certainty to taxpayers and their preparers in confidently and properly complying with their overall reporting requirements for digitalassets, and better ensure consistent application of the tax law among taxpayers."

The organization offers a range of recommendations on a number of topics related to the tax treatment of digital asset losses, with a focus on losses incurred by an individual investor rather than a trade or business.

One scenario highlighted by the AICPA is the determination of worthlessness of a digital asset. The organization notes that Chief Counsel Advice (CAA) 20230211 "states that ‘a loss may be sustained…if the cryptocurrency becomes worthless resulting in an identifiable event that occurs during the tax year for purposes of section 165(a),"’ adding that the advice notes that cryptocurrency can be valued at less than one cent but still greater than zero because it can still be traded and "that could potentially create future value."

AICPA wrote that if "the position of Treasury and the IRS s that a cryptocurrency is listed on an exchange and has liquidating value greater than absolute zero, we recommend that Treasury and IRS state this in binding guidance (published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin)."

Another topic covered by the comments was the question of when, if ever, might digital assets be securities for tax purposes.

"Authoritative guidance is needed on when, if ever, the section 156(g) worthless security capital losstreatment applies to cryptocurrency and other digitalassets," AICPA wrote. "Binding guidance should also be provided on basis determination for digitalassets (currently the special options are only in non-binding FAQs), as this is a matter relevant to measuring gains and losses."

AICPA also stated that guidance "is needed on the treatment of lending of virtual currency other digital asses under sections 162 such as if the taxpayer is in a business of ‘lending’ digitalassets), 165, 166, 469, 1001, and 1058, and possibly other provisions. This guidance should cover not only losses from ‘lending’ virtual currency and other digitalassets, but the categorization of the income generated (portfolio, business or other) and related expenses."

Other topics covered by the comment letter include:

• What facts indicate abandonment of a digital asset?
• In the case of theft of a digital asset, does the Ponzi loss guidance apply beyond Ponzi-losses to other fraudulent arrangements, including digital asset losses from certain digital asset exchange activities?
• When would section 1234A apply to termination of a digital asset?
• How should a taxpayer report digital asset activity if they are unable to access their records due to bankruptcy of an exchange?
• Is a digital asset considered disposed of by transferring the investor’s interest in a bankruptcy proceeding? Must there be proof of transfer of the underlying digital asset?

This and other tax policy and advocacy comment letters filed by the AICPA can be found here.

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

The upcoming filing season is expected to be challenging for taxpayers and the IRS as new requirements under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act kick-in. Taxpayers, for the first time, must make a shared responsibility payment if they fail to carry minimum essential health care coverage or qualify for an exemption. At the same time, there is growing uncertainty over one of the key elements of the Affordable Care Act: the Code Sec. 36B premium assistance tax credit as litigation makes its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The upcoming filing season is expected to be challenging for taxpayers and the IRS as new requirements under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act kick-in. Taxpayers, for the first time, must make a shared responsibility payment if they fail to carry minimum essential health care coverage or qualify for an exemption. At the same time, there is growing uncertainty over one of the key elements of the Affordable Care Act: the Code Sec. 36B premium assistance tax credit as litigation makes its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Individual shared responsibility payment

Individuals who are not exempt from the individual mandate and who do not carry minimum essential coverage in 2014 must make a shared responsibility payment. The payment is due when the individual files his or her 2014 tax return in 2015. In November, the IRS’s national ACA coordinator said that the agency will work with individuals who owe a shared responsibility payment and may not have the resources to make the payment when they file their return. Keep in mind that the IRS will apply any refund to a taxpayer’s unpaid shared responsibility payment. The IRS cannot, however, use its lien and levy power to collect an unpaid shared responsibility payment.

Note. For 2014, the shared responsibility payment amount generally is the greater of: One percent of the person's household income that is above the tax return threshold for their filing status; or a flat dollar amount, which is $95 per adult and $47.50 per child, limited to a maximum of $285. The individual shared responsibility payment, however, does not stay at this level after 2014. By 2016, the payment grows significantly.

In November, the IRS clarified when Medicaid coverage qualifies as minimum essential coverage and when it may not. The IRS also clarified how employer contributions to a cafeteria plan impact minimum essential coverage. Final regulations exclude employer contributions to a cafeteria plan from an employee’s household income for purposes of determining minimum essential coverage,

Exemptions

The IRS reminded individuals in November that they may be exempt from the requirement to carry minimum essential coverage. There are nine main exemptions: religious conscience; health care sharing ministries; members of federally recognized Native American nations; individuals whose income is below the minimum return filing threshold; individuals with a short coverage gap; hardship cases; affordability cases; incarcerated individuals; and individuals not lawfully present in the U.S.

Some exemptions are obtained through the Marketplaces, some through the filing process, and some either way. The exemptions for members of federally recognized Native American nations, members of health care sharing ministries and individuals who are incarcerated are available either from the Marketplace or claiming the exemption as part of filing a federal income tax return. The exemptions for lack of affordable coverage, a short coverage gap, and household income below the filing threshold and individuals who are not lawfully present in the U.S. may be claimed only as part of filing a federal income tax return. In November, the IRS removed references to specific hardships and streamlined the process for obtaining an exemption because of a hardship.

Code Sec. 36B litigation

The Code Sec. 36B premium assistance tax credit helps offset the cost of health insurance obtained through the ACA Marketplace. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), more than two-thirds of enrollees in Marketplace coverage were eligible for the credit in 2014. IRS regulations for the credit, however, have come under fire for being contrary to the ACA. The regulations allow enrollees in state-run Marketplaces and federal-facilitated Marketplaces to claim the credit. 

In July, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down the IRS regulations in Halbig, 2014-2 USTC ¶50,366. The D.C. Circuit found that the plain language of the Affordable Care Act limits the credit to enrollees in state-run Marketplaces. In contrast, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the regulations in King, 2014-2 USTC ¶50,367. The Fourth Circuit found that it could not say definitively that Congress intended to limit the Code Sec. 36B credit to individuals who obtain insurance through state-run Marketplaces.

The U.S. Supreme Court announced in November that it will hear an appeal of King. The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments about the IRS regulations in early 2015. A decision will likely be announced in June 2015. Our office will keep you posted of developments.

Open enrollment

The ACA Marketplace opened for enrollment for 2015 coverage on November 15 and runs through February 15, 2015. HHS explained that it has streamlined application procedures for individuals who are renewing coverage and who are applying for coverage for the first time. The Small Business Health Option Program (SHOP) also opened on November 15. Small employers (employers with 50 or fewer full-time equivalent employees) may enroll qualified employees in health coverage through SHOP.

Please contact our office if you have any questions about the Affordable Care Act and the new requirements.

As most people know, a taxpayer can take a distribution from an IRA without being taxed if the taxpayer rolls over (contributes) the amount received into an IRA within 60 days. This tax-free treatment does not apply if the individual rolled over another distribution from an IRA within the one-year period ending on the day of the second distribution.

As most people know, a taxpayer can take a distribution from an IRA without being taxed if the taxpayer rolls over (contributes) the amount received into an IRA within 60 days. This tax-free treatment does not apply if the individual rolled over another distribution from an IRA within the one-year period ending on the day of the second distribution.

Taxpayers and the IRS both believed that this one-rollover-per-year limit was applied separately to each IRA owned by the individual. If an individual owned two IRAs, for example, the taxpayer could do two rollovers in the appropriate period - one from each IRA. The IRS applied this interpretation in proposed regulations and in Publication 590, IRAs.

One rollover per taxpayer

In Bobrow, TC Memo. 2014-21, CCH Dec. 59,823(M), issued in January 2014, the Tax Court concluded that a taxpayer could make only one nontaxable rollover between IRAs within a one-year period, regardless of how many IRAs the taxpayer maintained. Thus, the one-per-year limit applied to the taxpayer, not to each separate IRA owned by the taxpayer.

In Notice 2014-15 and Announcement 2014-32, the IRS indicated that it would follow the Bobrow interpretation. It withdrew the proposed regulations, and will issue a new Publication 590-A, Contributions to IRAs, that applies the Bobrow interpretation.

Transition rule

In the notice and the announcement, the IRS provided a transition rule that it will not apply the new interpretation of the limit on permissible IRA rollovers until January 1, 2015. A distribution from an IRA in 2014 that is rolled over to another IRA will be disregarded in applying the new rule to 2015 distributions, provided that the 2015 distribution is from a different IRA that was included in the 2014 rollover.

Exceptions

The IRS noted that there are several types of rollovers that that are not subject to the Bobrow rule: a rollover from a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA; a rollover to or from a qualified plan; and trustee-to-trustee transfers. The IRS stated that trustees can accomplish a trustee-to-trustee transfer by transferring amounts directly between IRAs, or by providing the IRA owner with a check made payable to the trustee of the receiving IRA.

However, a rollover between Roth IRAs would preclude a separate rollover within the one-year period between the individual's traditional IRAs; similarly, a rollover between traditional IRAs would preclude a rollover between Roth IRAs with the one-year period.

The Affordable Care Act—enacted nearly five years ago—phased in many new requirements affecting individuals and employers. One of the most far-reaching requirements, the individual mandate, took effect this year and will be reported on 2014 income tax returns filed in 2015. The IRS is bracing for an avalanche of questions about taxpayer reporting on 2014 returns and, if liable, any shared responsibility payment. For many taxpayers, the best approach is to be familiar with the basics before beginning to prepare and file their returns.

The Affordable Care Act—enacted nearly five years ago—phased in many new requirements affecting individuals and employers. One of the most far-reaching requirements, the individual mandate, took effect this year and will be reported on 2014 income tax returns filed in 2015. The IRS is bracing for an avalanche of questions about taxpayer reporting on 2014 returns and, if liable, any shared responsibility payment. For many taxpayers, the best approach is to be familiar with the basics before beginning to prepare and file their returns.

Individual mandate

Beginning January 1, 2014, the Affordable Care Act requires individuals (and their dependents) to have minimum essential health care coverage or make a shared responsibility payment, unless exempt. This is commonly called the "individual mandate."

Employer reporting

Nearly all employer-provided health coverage is treated as minimum essential coverage. This includes self-insured plans, COBRA coverage, and retiree coverage. Large employers will provide employees with new Form 1095-C, Employer-Provided Health Insurance Coverage and Offer, which will report the type of coverage provided. The IRS has encouraged employers to voluntarily report starting in 2015 for the 2014 plan year. Mandatory reporting begins in 2016 for the 2015 plan year.

Marketplace coverage

Coverage obtained through the Affordable Care Act Marketplace is also treated as minimum essential coverage. Marketplace enrollees should expect to receive new Form 1095-A, Health Insurance Marketplace Statement, from the Marketplace. Individuals with Marketplace coverage will indicate on their returns that they have minimum essential coverage. Because so many individuals with Marketplace coverage also qualify for a special tax credit, they will also likely need to complete new Form 8962, Premium Tax Credit (discussed below).

Medicare, Medicaid and other government coverage

Medicare, TRICARE, CHIP, Medicaid, and other government health programs are treated as minimum essential coverage. There are some very narrow exceptions but overall, most government-sponsored coverage is minimum essential coverage.

Exemptions

Some individuals are expressly exempt under the Affordable Care Act from making a shared responsibility payment. There are multiple categories of exemptions. They include:

• Short coverage gap
• Religious conscience
• Federally-recognized Native American nation
• Income below income tax return filing requirement

The short coverage gap applies to individuals who lacked minimum essential coverage for less than three consecutive months during 2014. They will not be responsible for making a shared responsibility payment. Individuals who are members of a religious organization recognized as conscientiously opposed to accepting insurance benefits also are exempt from the individual mandate. Similarly, members of a federally-recognized Native American nation are exempt. If a taxpayer’s income is below the minimum threshold for filing a return, he or she is exempt from making a shared responsibility payment.

The IRS has developed new Form 8965, Health Coverage Exemptions. Taxpayers exempt from the individual mandate will file Form 8965 with their federal income tax return.

Shared responsibility payment

All other individuals - individuals without minimum essential coverage and who are not exempt - must make a shared responsibility payment when they file their 2014 return. For 2014, the payment amount is the greater of: One percent of the person’s household income that is above the tax return threshold for their filing status; or a flat dollar amount, which is $95 per adult and $47.50 per child, limited to a maximum of $285. The individual shared responsibility payment is capped at the cost of the national average premium for the bronze level health plan available through the Marketplace in 2014. Taxpayers will report the amount of their individual shared responsibility payment on their 2014 Form 1040.

The IRS has cautioned that it will offset a taxpayer’s refund if he or she fails to make a shared responsibility payment if required. However, the Affordable Care Act prevents the IRS from using its lien and levy authority to collect an unpaid shared responsibility payment.

Code Sec. 36B credit

Only individuals who obtain coverage through the Marketplace are eligible for the Code Sec. 36B premium assistance tax credit. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has reported that more than two-thirds of Marketplace enrollees are eligible for the credit and many enrollees have received advance payment of the credit.

All advance payments of the credit must be reconciled on new Form 8962, which will be filed with the taxpayer’s income tax return. Taxpayers will calculate the actual credit they qualified for based on their actual 2014 income. If the actual premium tax credit is larger than the sum of advance payments made during the year, the individual will be entitled to an additional credit amount. If the actual credit is smaller than the sum of the advance payments, the individual’s refund will be reduced or the amount of tax owed will be increased, subject to a sliding scale of income-based repayment caps.

A change in circumstance, such as marriage or the birth/adoption of a child, could increase or decrease the amount of the credit. Individuals who are receiving an advance payment of the credit should notify the Marketplace of any life changes so the amount of the advance payment can be adjusted if necessary. Please contact our office if you have any questions about the Code Sec. 36B credit.

IRS officials have told Congress that the agency is ready for the new filings and reporting requirements. Our office will keep you posted of developments.

Businesses generally want to write off costs more quickly, to reduce their taxable income and their tax burden. One mechanism for accomplishing this is to deduct the costs of depreciable property rather than capitalizing them. Under Code Sec. 179, taxpayers can expense a prescribed amount of their costs for tangible depreciable property, even if the ordinary accounting treatment would be to capitalize the costs.

Businesses generally want to write off costs more quickly, to reduce their taxable income and their tax burden. One mechanism for accomplishing this is to deduct the costs of depreciable property rather than capitalizing them. Under Code Sec. 179, taxpayers can expense a prescribed amount of their costs for tangible depreciable property, even if the ordinary accounting treatment would be to capitalize the costs.

Code Sec. 179 applies primarily to personal property, but can apply to some real property. In recent years (through 2013), the expensing limit has been as high as $500,000 a year. However, for 2014, the expensing deduction limit is $25,000. (Congress could raise the limit for 2014 but has not done so.)

Because of the dramatic reduction in the Code Sec. 179 expensing limits, taxpayers may want to consider using the de minimis safe harbor in the final "repair" regulations as an alternative means of deducting costs that they would otherwise have to capitalize. The IRS issued final repair regulations in 2013 on the treatment of costs incurred with respect to depreciable property. The regulations are effective for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2014 and provide guidance on whether to expense or capitalize relevant costs.

The safe harbor

The de minimis safe harbor applies to smaller priced items used in the business. The safe harbor can apply in the following situation: a taxpayer with a $500 per item expensing policy buys 1,000 calculators for $100 each. If the taxpayer elects the safe harbor, the taxpayer can deduct the entire cost of the calculators in the year paid or incurred. The total deduction is $100,000, much greater than the $25,000 limit under Code Sec. 179 for 2014.

The safe harbor is an election, not an accounting method. It can be applied for any year (or not) as determined by the taxpayer. The taxpayer can make an election for 2014, for example. The deadline is the extended due date of the taxpayer’s original income tax return. An election statement must be attached to the return. The election is irrevocable.

Two alternatives

There are two alternative de minimis safe harbors. The primary safe harbor, for use by any taxpayer but primarily for larger entities, allows taxpayers to deduct items that cost $5,000 or less (per item or invoice). The items must be deductible under the taxpayer’s financial accounting procedures and in accordance with the company’s applicable financial statement (AFS). An AFS is a financial statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission or another government agency, or a certified audited financial statement. The taxpayer must also have a written accounting policy, put into effect at the beginning of the year, to treat the cost of the items as an expense.

Similar requirements apply to smaller business taxpayers who do not have an AFS, with the following two differences: the accounting policy does not have to be in writing; and the amount paid for the property may not exceed $500 per invoice or per item. If the cost of the items exceeds $500 per item, the taxpayer must capitalize the cost. The taxpayer cannot avoid the $500 (or $5,000) threshold by breaking an item into components whose separate cost is below the limit. For example, the taxpayer could not split the cost of a truck into separate components such as the engine, cab, and chassis.