Record Retention for Tax Returns and Supporting Documents

According to the IRS Publication 583, you should retain any records that support an income item or deduction on a tax return until the time when the return can no longer be amended to claim a credit or refund or the IRS can assess additional tax. 

Period of Limitations

Above Table from IRS Publication 583 (1/2007), Starting a Business and Keeping Records & IRS Publication 552 (4/2005), Recordkeeping for Individuals

Before discarding any documents, ask yourself these questions.

1.       Is this document connected to an asset?  If the document does relate to property that you still have, you should keep the document for depreciation, amortization, or depletion deduction purposes as well as aiding you in figuring gain or loss on the sale or disposition of the property.  If you no longer have the asset, you should keep the records for that asset until the period of limitations expires for the year in which you disposed of the asset.

2.      Is this document needed for other non-tax purposes?  You may be required by a creditor or insurance company to retain a document long after the IRS retention period.

OSHA Documents – 5 years

·        Log of all occupational illnesses/accidents

·        Other OSHA records

IRS/SSA/FUTA documents – 4 years

·        Duplicate copies of tax returns/tax deposits

·        Returned copies of Form W-2

·        Canceled/voided checks

·        Employee’s name/address/occupation/social security number

·        Amount/date of payments for wages, annuities, pensions, tips; fair market value of wages-in-kind

·        Record of allocated tips

·        Amount of wages subject to withholding

·        Taxes withheld (and date if different from pay date)

·        Copies of Form W-4 (for at least four years after the date the last return was filed using the information on the Form W-4)

·        Agreements to withhold additional amounts

·        Dates when employee was absent due to injury and received payments; amount/rate of such payments (by employer or third party)

·        Copies of Forms 941, 940, W-2, W-3, Schedule A, Schedule B, and other returns filed on magnetic media

FLSA/INRCA Record Retention – 3 years

·        Name of employee/address/occupation/birth date/sex

·        Hours worked each day/week

·        Amount and date of payment

·        Amounts earned for straight time and overtime/additions to and deductions from wages

·        Collective bargaining agreements

·        Sales and purchase records

·        Immigration Reform and Control Act, Form I-9-three years after date of hire or one year after date of termination (whichever is later)

FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE Record-Keeping Requirements - 3 years

The following records must be kept for at least three years, in any format, and made available no more frequently than once every 12 months for Department of Labor inspection.

·        Name, address, occupation rate of pay, daily and weekly hours worked per pay period

·        Additions to and deductions from wages, total compensation

·        Dates of FMLA leave (or hours if taken in increments of less than one day)

·        Copies of written notices of intention to take FMLA leave provided by employee

·        Copies of general and specific notices provided to employees

·        Plan descriptions/policies and procedures dealing with unpaid and paid leaves

·        Premium payments for employee benefits

·        Records of any disputes

SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD RETENTION – 2 years

·        Time cards

·        Wage rate tables

·        Work time schedules

·        Order/shipping/billing records

·        Records of additions to or deductions from wages

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)

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.

Lawmakers are scheduled to return to work after the November elections for the so-called "lame-duck" Congress. Despite what is expected to be a short session, there is likely to be movement on important tax bills.

Lawmakers are scheduled to return to work after the November elections for the so-called "lame-duck" Congress. Despite what is expected to be a short session, there is likely to be movement on important tax bills.

Tax extenders

Every two years, like clockwork, the same scenario seems to play-out in Congress. Many popular but temporary tax incentives expire and lawmakers debate whether to extend them, make them permanent or abolish them. This year is no exception. The new filing season is fast approaching and many tax breaks are, at this time, unavailable because they expired after 2013.

The expired tax breaks are known as "tax extenders." Included within this catch-call category are a variety of tax incentives for individuals and businesses. Some are widely-claimed and are often inadvertently believed by taxpayers to be permanent...they are not. Individuals who claimed the state and local sales tax deduction, higher education tuition deduction, residential energy property credit, and others, in past years cannot claim them on their 2014 returns, unless the incentives are extended. The same is true for many business tax breaks, such as bonus depreciation, enhanced Code Sec. 179 small business expensing and the research tax credit. All of these incentives expired after 2013.

Congressional logjam

The last extension of the extenders was in the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012. At that time, many lawmakers wanted to discontinue the practice of renewing the extenders every two years and make some permanent while eliminating others. However, the House and Senate have taken different approaches. The Senate Finance Committee approved the EXPIRE Act (S. 2260) earlier this year. The bill extends the expired tax breaks two years. The House, on the other hand, has voted to make permanent only some of the extenders, such as bonus depreciation and Code Sec. 179 expensing.

It is unclear how lawmakers will proceed before year-end. The EXPIRE Act, while approved by committee, has yet to get a vote on the Senate floor. House GOP leaders, who endorsed the piece-meal approach to making permanent some of the extenders, have not said if they will support another comprehensive temporary extension like the EXPIRE Act. It is possible that lawmakers will punt the extenders to the new Congress that meets in January. In that case, a delayed start to the filing season is almost guaranteed. Our office will keep you posted of developments.

More tax bills

Some stand-alone tax-related bills could be passed before year-end. The ABLE Act (S. 313) enjoys bipartisan support. The ABLE Act would create new tax-free savings accounts for individuals with disabilities. Funds in the accounts could be used for qualified medical, transportation, housing, and education expenses. The Don’t Forget Our Fallen Public Safety Heroes Act (S. 2912) passed the Senate in September and could be approved by the House before year-end. The bill would exclude from income certain benefits paid to the family of a public safety officer who dies in the line of duty.

IRS funding

The federal government, including the IRS, is currently operating under a stop-gap spending bill. The temporary spending bill is scheduled to expire in December. The lame-duck Congress is expected to approve an omnibus spending bill to keep the government open. Earlier this year, appropriators in the House and Senate reached very different conclusions on funding for the IRS in 2015. House appropriators voted to cut funding; Senate appropriators voted to increase funding. The IRS has been operating under tight budgetary restraints for several years and that pattern is expected to continue into 2015.

Tax technical corrections

Congress may also take up a package of tax technical corrections. These bills are not new tax laws but are corrections to language in existing laws. For example, lawmakers may have intended that a certain language be included in a final bill and that language was left out. Frequently, these corrections are clerical. These corrections are intended to facilitate the administration of law.

If you have any questions about the extenders or year-end tax legislation, please contact our office.

In certain cases, moving expenses may be tax deductible by individuals. Three key criteria must be satisfied: the move must closely-related to the start of work; a distance test must be satisfied and a time test also must be met.

In certain cases, moving expenses may be tax deductible by individuals. Three key criteria must be satisfied: the move must closely-related to the start of work; a distance test must be satisfied and a time test also must be met.

Closely-related to the start of work

The move must be closely-related to the start of work at a new location. Moving for non-work related reasons is not relevant. The closely-related requirement encompasses both a time threshold and a place threshold. The IRS has explained that closely-related in time generally means an individual can consider moving expenses incurred within one year from the date he or she first reported to work at the new location as closely related in time to the start of work. Closely-related in place generally means that the distance from the individual's new home to the new job location is not more than the distance from his or her former home to the new job location.

Distance

An individual's move satisfies the distance test if his or her new main location is at least 50 miles farther from his or her former home than the old main job location was from the former home. Note that the distance test takes into account only the location of the individual's former home. An individual's main job location is the location where he or she spends most of his or her working hours. Individuals may have more than one job. In that case, the IRS has explained that an individual's main job location depends on the facts in each case. Among the factors to take into account are the total time the individual spends at each place; the amount of work performed at each place and the amount of wages earned at each place. If an individual previously had no employment, or had experienced a period of unemployment, the new job location must be at least 50 miles from the individual's old home.

Time

Time for purposes of the moving deduction looks at an individual's hours of work and where that work is performed. An individual who is a wage earner (employed by another) must work full-time for at least 39 weeks during the first 12 months immediately following his or her arrival in the general area of the new job location. Self-employed individuals must work full time for at least 39 weeks during the first 12 months and for a total of at least 78 weeks during the first 24 months immediately following their arrival in the general area of the new work location.

Special rules apply to members of the U.S. Armed Forces as well as employees who are seasonal workers, individuals who have temporary absences from work, and others.

If you have any questions about the moving deduction, please contact our office.

The IRS continues to ramp-up its work to fight identity theft/refund fraud and recently announced new rules allowing the use of abbreviated (truncated) personal identification numbers and employer identification numbers. Instead of showing a taxpayer's full Social Security number (SSN) or other identification number on certain forms, asterisks or Xs replace the first five digits and only the last four digits appear. The final rules, however, do impose some important limits on the use of truncated taxpayer identification numbers (known as "TTINs").

The IRS continues to ramp-up its work to fight identity theft/refund fraud and recently announced new rules allowing the use of abbreviated (truncated) personal identification numbers and employer identification numbers. Instead of showing a taxpayer's full Social Security number (SSN) or other identification number on certain forms, asterisks or Xs replace the first five digits and only the last four digits appear. The final rules, however, do impose some important limits on the use of truncated taxpayer identification numbers (known as "TTINs").

Note. A TTIN typically appears as XXX-XX-1234 or ***-**-1234.

Identity theft/refund fraud

The IRS has more than 3,000 employees working identity-theft related issues. They are investigating refund fraud and assisting taxpayers - both individuals and businesses - that have been victims of identity theft. The IRS has also upgraded its filters that screen tax returns for indications of refund fraud. Between 2011 and 2014, the IRS reported that it prevented more than $50 billion in fraudulent refunds.

Protecting personal information from disclosure is one important tool in the IRS's toolshed to fight identity theft. IRS data systems contain personal information, such as SSNs, EINs, individual taxpayer identification numbers (ITINs) and adoption taxpayer identification numbers (ATINs) on millions of taxpayers. To thwart potential identity thieves, the agency launched a pilot program in 2009 to allow the use of TTINs. The goal of the pilot program was to reduce the risk of identity theft that could result from the inclusion of a taxpayer's entire identifying number on a payee statement or other document.

Proposed regulations

The IRS viewed the pilot program as a success and issued proposed regulations in 2013. Under the proposed regulations, TTINs would be available as an alternative to using a taxpayer's SSN, ITIN, or ATIN. The proposed regulations also permitted the use of TTINs to electronic payee statements as well as paper payee statements.

Expanded use

In July, the IRS announced that it was finalizing the proposed TTIN rules. The final rules also expand the use of TTINs to:

• Employer identification numbers. The final rules allow the use of abbreviated employer identification numbers (EINs) in certain cases.
• More documents. The final regulations permit the use of TTINs on any federal tax-related payee statement or other document required to be furnished to another person unless specifically prohibited.

Voluntary

The IRS encourages the use of TTINs but did not make use of TTINs mandatory. The IRS also explained that use of a TTIN will not result in any penalty for failure to include a correct taxpayer identifying number on any payee statement or other document.

Limitations

The final regulations (officially known as TD 9765) place some limits on TTINs. A TTIN may not be used on a return filed with the IRS. This includes Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. A TTIN also may not be used if a statute or regulation specifically requires use of an SSN, ITIN, ATIN, or EIN. Additionally, employers cannot use a TTIN on an employee's Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement.

If you have any questions about TTINs or identity theft/refund fraud, please contact our office.

U.S. taxpayers with foreign financial accounts must file an FBAR (Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts) if the aggregate value of their accounts exceeds $10,000 at any time during the calendar year. The FBAR must be filed by June 30 of the current year to report the taxpayer's financial accounts for the prior year.

U.S. taxpayers with foreign financial accounts must file an FBAR (Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts) if the aggregate value of their accounts exceeds $10,000 at any time during the calendar year. The FBAR must be filed by June 30 of the current year to report the taxpayer's financial accounts for the prior year.

A U.S. taxpayer must report the account not only if the taxpayer has a financial interest in the account, but also if the taxpayer has signature authority over the account. The account must be reported even if it produces no income, and whether or not the taxpayer receives any distributions from the account.

FinCEN

Reporting is required by the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), not by the Internal Revenue Code. Taxpayers submit the proper form to Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), not the IRS. The form is not submitted with a tax return. However, FinCEN has delegated FBAR enforcement authority to the IRS.

New Form 114

In the past, taxpayers reported their accounts on Form TD F 90-22.1. However, effective for 2014 and subsequent years, taxpayers must report their accounts on new FinCEN Form 114. The June 30 deadline is firm; there is no extension for filing the form late. However, persons who belatedly discover the need to file an FBAR for a previous year can file on Form 114.

In the past, too, taxpayers reported their accounts on a paper form, but Form 114 is only available online, through the BSA E-Filing System website. Paper Form TD F 90-22.1 has been discontinued. This BSA E-Filing System allows the taxpayer to designate the year being reported, so taxpayers may use the same form to file late reports for a prior year. In addition, persons can now authorize a tax professional, such as an attorney, CPA, or enrolled agent, to file on their behalf, by designating an agent on BSA Form 114a.

If two persons jointly maintain an account, each must file an FBAR. However, spouses now qualify for an exception, and can file only one FBAR, provided the nonfiling spouse only owns accounts jointly with the filing spouse. The couple can complete a Form 114a, to authorize one spouse to file for the other, because the electronic system only accepts one signature for an FBAR.

Signature authority

Signature authority is authority to control the disposition of assets held in a foreign financial account. A person with a power of attorney over a foreign account must file an FBAR, even if the person never exercises the power of attorney.

FinCEN has considered amending the rules regarding signature authority. In the meantime, because there is some uncertainty about the meaning of signature authority, FinCEN has deferred FBAR filing by certain individuals that only have signature authority over, but no financial interest in, foreign financial accounts of their employer or a closely related entity. FinCEN Notice 2011-1 first provided an extension for these persons. In Notice 2013-1, FinCEN extended the due date for these persons to file, to June 30, 2015, while FinCEN further considers changes to the rules.

One of the most complex, if not the most complex, provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is the employer shared responsibility requirement (the so-called "employer mandate") and related reporting of health insurance coverage. Since passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, the Obama administration has twice delayed the employer mandate and reporting. The employer mandate and reporting will generally apply to applicable large employers (ALE) starting in 2015 and to mid-size employers starting in 2016. Employers with fewer than 50 employees, have never been required, and continue to be exempt, from the employer mandate and reporting.

Employer mandate

The employer mandate under Code Sec. 4980H and employer reporting under Code Sec. 6056 are very connected. Code Sec. 4980H generally provides that an ALE is required to pay a penalty if it fails to offer minimum essential coverage and any full-time employee receives cost-sharing or the Code Sec. 36B premium assistance tax credit. An ALE would also pay a penalty if it offers coverage and any full-time employee receives cost-sharing or the Code Sec. 36B credit.

To receive the Code Sec. 36B credit, an individual must have obtained coverage through an Affordable Care Act Marketplace. The Marketplaces will report the names of individuals who receive the credit to the IRS. ALEs must report the terms and conditions of health care coverage provided to employees (This is known as Code Sec. 6056 reporting). The IRS will use all of this information to determine if the ALE must pay a penalty.

ALEs

Only ALEs are subject to the employer mandate and must report health insurance coverage under Code Sec. 6056. Employers with fewer than 50 employees are never subject to the employer mandate and do not have to report coverage under Code Sec. 6056.

In February, the Obama administration announced important transition rules for the employer mandate that affects Code Sec. 6056 reporting. The Obama administration limited the employer mandate in 2015 to employers with 100 or more full-time employees. ALEs with fewer than 100 full-time employees will be subject to the employer mandate starting in 2016. At all times, employers with fewer than 50 full-time employees are exempt from the employer mandate and Code Sec. 6056 reporting.

Reporting

The IRS has issued regulations describing how ALEs will report health insurance coverage. The IRS has not yet issued any of the forms that ALEs will use but has advised that ALEs generally will report the requisite information to the agency electronically.

ALEs also must provide statements to employees. The statements will describe, among other things, the coverage provided to the employee.

30-Hour Threshold

A fundamental question for the employer mandate and Code Sec. 6056 reporting is who is a full-time employee. Since passage of the Affordable Care Act, the IRS and other federal agencies have issued much guidance to answer this question. The answer is extremely technical and there are many exceptions but generally a full-time employee means, with respect to any month, an employee who is employed on average at least 30 hours of service per week. The IRS has designed two methods for determining full-time employee status: the monthly measurement method and the look-back measurement method. However, special rules apply to seasonal workers, student employees, volunteers, individuals who work on-call, and many more. If you have any questions about who is a full-time employee, please contact our office.

Form W-2 reporting

The Affordable Care Act also requires employers to disclose the aggregate cost of employer-provided health coverage on an employee's Form W-2. This requirement is separate from the employer mandate and Code Sec. 6056 reporting. The reporting of health insurance costs on Form W-2 is for informational purposes only. It does not affect an employee's tax liability or an employer's liability for the employer mandate.

Shortly after the Affordable Care Act was passed, the IRS provided transition relief to small employers that remains in effect today. An employer is not subject the reporting requirement for any calendar year if the employer was required to file fewer than 250 Forms W-2 for the preceding calendar year. Special rules apply to multiemployer plans, health reimbursement arrangements, and many more.

Please contact our office if you have any questions about ALEs, the employer mandate or Code Sec. 6056 reporting.

The IRS's final "repair" regulations became effective January 1, 2014. The regulations provide a massive revision to the rules on capitalizing and deducting costs incurred with respect to tangible property. The regulations apply to amounts paid to acquire, produce or improve tangible property; every business is affected, especially those with significant fixed assets.

The IRS's final "repair" regulations became effective January 1, 2014. The regulations provide a massive revision to the rules on capitalizing and deducting costs incurred with respect to tangible property. The regulations apply to amounts paid to acquire, produce or improve tangible property; every business is affected, especially those with significant fixed assets.

Required and elective changes

There is a lot of work ahead for most taxpayers to comply with the new rules. There are three categories of changes under the regulations:

• Changes that are required and are retroactive, with full adjustments under Code Sec. 481(a), in effect applying the regulations to previous years;
• Required changes with modified or prospective Code Sec. 481(a) adjustment beginning in 2014; and
• Elective changes that do not require any adjustments under Code Sec. 481.

Required changes with full adjustments include unit of property changes, deducting repairs (including the routine maintenance safe harbor), deducting dealer expenses that facilitate the sale of property, the optional method for rotable spare parts, capitalizing improvements and capitalizing certain acquisition or production costs. Elective changes can include capitalizing repair and maintenance costs of they are capitalized for financial accounting purposes.

Rev. Proc. 2014-16

The IRS issued Rev. Proc. 2014-16, granting automatic consent to taxpayers to change their accounting methods to comply with the final regulations. Rev. Proc. 2014-16 applies to all the significant provisions in the final regulations, such as repairs and improvements; materials and supplies, including rotable and temporary spare parts; and costs that have to be capitalized as improvements. Rev. Proc. 2014-16 supersedes Rev. Proc. 2012-19, which applied to changes made under the temporary and proposed repair regulations issued at the end of 2011.

There are 14 automatic method changes provided by Rev. Proc. 2014-16 for the repair regulations. Taxpayers may file for automatic consent on a single Form 3115, even if they are making changes in more than area. The normal scope limitations on changing accounting methods do not apply to a taxpayer making one or more changes for any tax year beginning before January 1, 2015. Scope changes would normally apply if the taxpayer is under examination, is in the final year of a trade or business, or is changing the same accounting method it changed in the previous five years.

Filing deadlines

For past years, taxpayers can apply the 2011 proposed and temporary (TD 9564) regulations or the 2013 final regulations to either 2012 or 2013, and can do this on a section-by-section basis. Taxpayers that decide to apply the final or temporary regulations to 2013 must file for an automatic change of accounting method (Form 3115) by September 15, 2014. Taxpayers applying the regulations to 2014 must file for an automatic change by September 15, 2015. (Both dates apply to calendar-year taxpayers.) The government has indicated it is unlikely to postpone the effective date of the regulations.

Dispositions

Rev. Proc. 2014-16 does not apply to dispositions of tangible property. The government issued reproposed regulations in this area (NPRM REG-110732-13). Although these regulations may not be finalized until later in 2014, the IRS expects to issue Rev. Proc. 2014-17 before then to allow taxpayers to make automatic accounting method changes under the proposed regulations. The procedure will provide some relief by allowing taxpayers to revoke general asset account elections that they made under the temporary regulations. No comments were submitted on these proposed regulations; it is likely the final regulations will not have any significant changes.