Wednesday, October 5, 2011


IRS releases draft version of Instructions to Form 8938 for foreign financial asset holders.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-dft/f8938--dft.pdf

IRS has released on its website a draft version of the 2011 Instructions to Form 8938, “Statement of Specified Foreign Financial Assets.” Form 8938 will be used by individuals to report an interest in one or more specified foreign financial assets under Code Sec. 6038D . The instructions indicate that under a transitional rule most taxpayers won't have to file the form until 2012.

Background. For tax years beginning after Mar. 18, 2010, the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act of 2010 (HIRE Act, P.L. 111-147 ) provides that individuals with an interest in a “specified foreign financial asset” during the tax year must attach a disclosure statement to their income tax return for any year in which the aggregate value of all such assets is greater than $50,000 (or a dollar amount higher than $50,000 as IRS may prescribe). ( Code Sec. 6038D(a) ) In addition, to the extent provided by IRS in regs or other guidance, Code Sec. 6038D applies to any domestic entity formed or availed of for purposes of holding, directly or indirectly, specified foreign financial assets, in the same manner as if the entity were an individual. ( Code Sec. 6038D(f) )

“Specified foreign financial assets” are: (1) depository or custodial accounts at foreign financial institutions, and (2) to the extent not held in an account at a financial institution, (a) stocks or securities issued by foreign persons, (b) any other financial instrument or contract held for investment that is issued by or has a counterparty that is not a U.S. person, and (c) any interest in a foreign entity. ( Code Sec. 6038D(b) )

Recent guidance. In Notice 2011-55, 2011-29 IRB 53 , IRS suspended the Code Sec. 6038D reporting requirements until it releases Form 8938. After new Form 8938 is released in its final form, individuals for whom the filing of Form 8938 was suspended for a tax year will have to attach the form for the suspended tax year to their next income tax return required to be filed with IRS.

Notice 2011-55 , further stated that the Code Sec. 6501(c)(8) limitations period for tax assessments for periods for which reporting is required under Code Sec. 6038D won't expire before three years after the date on which the IRS receives Form 8938.

In June of 2011, IRS released a draft version of Form 8938 without instructions  06/30/2011 .

Draft Instructions to Form 8938. The draft Instructions to Form 8938 (Draft as of 9/28/2011) provides that for tax years beginning after Mar. 18, 2010, taxpayers must use new Form 8938 to report their interest in specified foreign financial accounts if the total value of all the specified foreign financial assets in which they have an interest exceeds the appropriate reporting threshold. However, in a “Transitional rule for 2011,” the Instructions also take note of the relief in Notice 2011-55 , and state that an individual's obligation to file Form 8938 is deferred until 2012 if he or she: (1) had a tax year that began after Mar. 18, 2010; (2) was required to file Form 8938; and (3) filed an annual return (e.g., Form 1040, Form 1041, etc.) before Form 8938 was released.

The Instructions provide that individuals satisfy the reporting thresholds if they have specified foreign financial assets of more than $100,000 at any time during the year or if the total value of their specified foreign financial assets on the last day of the tax year is more than $50,000 for unmarried taxpayers living in U.S., $100,000 for married taxpayers filing a joint return and living in the U.S., and $50,000 for married taxpayers filing separate returns and living in the U.S.

The Instructions also provide the reporting threshold for taxpayers living abroad, i.e., taxpayers who are bona fide residents of a foreign country or countries for an uninterrupted period that includes the entire tax year, or are present in a foreign country or countries during at least 330 full days during any period of 12 consecutive months ending in the tax year. They satisfy the reporting threshold if they are not filing a joint return and the value of their specified foreign financial assets is more than $200,000 on the last day of the tax year or more than $400,000 at any time during the tax year.

The Instructions also caution that filing Form 8938 does not relieve a taxpayer of the requirement to file Form TD F 90-22.1, Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR), if he or she is otherwise required to file Form TD F 90-22.1.

Failure-to-file penalty. The Instructions explain that if an individual fails to file a correct and complete Form 8938, he or she may be subject to a penalty of $10,000. If this failure continues for more than 90 days after the day on which IRS mails a notice of the failure to the individual, he or she will be penalized $10,000 for each 30-day period (or fraction of the 30-day period) during which the failure continues after the expiration of the 90-day period. The penalty imposed for any failure can't exceed $50,000. For married taxpayers filing a joint return, the failure-to-file penalty applies as if the taxpayer and his or her spouse were a single person. However, the taxpayer's and spouse's liability for all penalties remains joint and several.

IRS also notes in the Instructions that if it determines that a taxpayer has an interest in one or more specified financial assets and it asks for information about the value of any asset, but the taxpayer fails to provide sufficient information for IRS to determine the value, the taxpayer is presumed to own specified foreign assets with a value of more than the applicable reporting threshold.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Any individual who, during the tax year, holds any interest in a “specified foreign financial asset” must attach to his or her income tax return for that tax year the “required information” for each specified foreign financial asset if the aggregate value of all the individual's specified foreign financial assets exceeds $50,000 (or a dollar amount higher than $50,000 as the IRS may prescribe). Code Sec. 6038D(a).

 Under the rules regarding reports of foreign bank and financial accounts (FBAR), a report must be made for each calendar year during any part of which the aggregate value of the accounts exceeds $10,000. Presumably, this means that if at any time the threshold is exceeded during the year, the requirement applies. Code Sec. 6038D(a) , which imposes the foreign asset reporting requirement discussed above, doesn't include the language "during any part of which." However, this is presumably Congress's intent, as opposed to a requirement that the threshold amount be exceeded for the entire year. Presumably, a technical correction will be enacted, or regs will be issued, making this clear.

IRS is developing guidance for filing the annual reports. IRS has announced that the annual reports will be filed on Form 8938 (Statement of Specified Foreign Assets), which will have to be attached to the individual's income tax return for the tax year. IRS has announced that the obligation to file Form 8938 is suspended for individuals who have to file an income tax return for a tax year before IRS releases Form 8938. Following the release of Form 8938, individuals for which the filing of Form 8938 was been suspended under these rules for a tax year (suspended tax year) will have to attach Form 8938 for the suspended tax year to their next income tax return that has to be filed with IRS. Notice 2011-55, 2011-29 IRB .

To the extent provided by the IRS in regs or other guidance, the Code Sec. 6038D reporting requirement discussed above and below applies to any domestic entity formed or availed of for purposes of holding, directly or indirectly, specified foreign financial assets, in the same manner as if the entity were an individual. Code Sec. 6038D(f) .

Specified foreign financial assets defined for purposes of the reporting requirement for individuals with foreign assets.

For purposes of the reporting requirement for individuals with foreign assets, a “specified foreign financial asset” is:

(1)    any “financial account” (as defined in Code Sec. 1471(d)(2) ) maintained by a “foreign financial institution” (as defined in Code Sec. 1471(d)(4) ), and

(2)    any of the following assets which are not held in an account maintained by a “financial institution” (as defined in Code Sec. 1471(d)(5) ):  any stock or security issued by a person other than a U.S. person, any financial instrument or contract held for investment that has an issuer or counterparty that is other than a U.S. person, and any interest in a “foreign entity” (as defined in Code Sec. 1473 ). Code Sec. 6038D(b) .

Thus, specified foreign financial assets are depository or custodial accounts at foreign financial institutions. Joint Comm Staff, Tech Expln of the Revenue Provisions Contained in Senate Amendment 3310, theHiring Incentives To Restore Employment Act, Under Consideration by the Senate (JCX-4-10), 2/23/2010, p. 60.

Information which must be reported under the reporting requirement for individuals with foreign assets.

For purposes of the reporting requirement for individuals with foreign assets (see above), the information that must be included in the required statement for any asset is:

(1) In the case of any account, the name and address of the financial institution in which the account is maintained and the number of the account.
(2) In the case of any stock or security, the name and address of the issuer, and whatever information is necessary to identify the class or issue of which the stock or security is a part.
(3) In the case of any other instrument, contract or interest:
whatever information is necessary to identify the instrument, contract or interest, and
the names and addresses of all issuers and counterparties with respect to the instrument, contract or interest.
(4) The maximum value of the asset during the tax year. Code Sec. 6038D(c) .
Although the nature of the information required under Code Sec. 6038D(c) , discussed above, is similar to the information disclosed on a report of foreign bank and financial accounts (FBAR), it's not identical. For example, a beneficiary of a foreign trust who isn't within the scope of the FBAR reporting requirements because his interest in the trust is less than 50% may nonetheless be required to disclose the interest in the trust with his tax return under Code Sec. 6038D(c) if the value threshold is met. Nothing in Code Sec. 6038D(c) is intended as a substitute for compliance with the FBAR reporting requirements, which are unchanged by Code Sec. 6038D(c) . Joint Comm Staff, Tech Expln of the Revenue Provisions Contained in Senate Amendment 3310, the Hiring Incentives To Restore Employment Act, Under Consideration by the Senate (JCX-4-10), 2/23/2010, p. 60 , see ¶60,38.

An individual isn't required under these rules to disclose interests that are held in a custodial account with a U.S. financial institution nor is an individual required to identify separately any stock, security instrument, contract, or interest in a foreign financial account disclosed under Code Sec. 6038D(c) . Joint Comm Staff, Tech Expln of the Revenue Provisions Contained in Senate Amendment 3310, the Hiring Incentives To Restore Employment Act, Under Consideration by the Senate (JCX-4-10), 2/23/2010, p. 61 .

Penalty for failure to disclose information required under the reporting requirement for individuals with foreign assets.

For purposes of the reporting requirement for individuals with foreign assets, if any individual fails to furnish the information described in Code Sec. 6038D(c)for any tax year at the time and in the manner described in Code Sec. 6038D(a) (see above), he or she must pay a penalty of $10,000. Code Sec. 6038D(d)(1) . If this failure continues for more than 90 days after the day on which the IRS mails notice of the failure to the individual, the individual will be penalized (in addition to the penalties imposed under Code Sec. 6038D(d)(1) , discussed above) $10,000 for each 30-day period (or fraction of the 30-day period) during which the failure continues after the expiration of the 90-day period. The penalty imposed for any failure can't exceed $50,000. Code Sec. 6038D(d)(2) .

The computation of the penalty is similar to that applicable to failures to file reports for certain foreign corporations under Code Sec. 6038 . Joint Comm Staff, Tech Expln of the Revenue Provisions Contained in Senate Amendment 3310, the Hiring Incentives To Restore Employment Act, Under Consideration by the Senate (JCX-4-10), 2/23/2010, p. 61 .

Example 1. An individual who is notified of his failure to disclose for a single tax year under Code Sec. 6038D(d)(2) and who takes remedial action on the 95th day after the notice is mailed incurs a penalty of $20,000 comprising the base amount of $10,000, plus $10,000 for the fraction (i.e., the five days) of a 30-day period following the lapse of 90 days after the notice of noncompliance was mailed. Joint Comm Staff, Tech Expln of the Revenue Provisions Contained in Senate Amendment 3310, the Hiring Incentives To Restore Employment Act, Under Consideration by the Senate (JCX-4-10), 2/23/2010, p. 61.

Example 2. An individual who postpones remedial action until the 181st day is subject to the maximum penalty of $50,000: the base amount of $10,000, plus $30,000 for the three 30-day periods, plus $10,000 for the one fraction (i.e., the single day) of a 30-day period following the lapse of 90 days after the notice of noncompliance was mailed. Joint Comm Staff, Tech Expln of the Revenue Provisions Contained in Senate Amendment 3310, the Hiring Incentives To Restore Employment Act, Under Consideration by the Senate (JCX-4-10), 2/23/2010, p. 61 , see ¶60,38D1.9 .
If:

the IRS determines that an individual has an interest in one or more specified foreign financial assets, and
the individual doesn't provide sufficient information to demonstrate the aggregate value of those assets,
the aggregate value of the assets is treated as being in excess of $50,000 (or any higher dollar amount as the IRS prescribes under Code Sec. 6038D(a) , see above) for purposes of assessing the penalties imposed under Code Sec. 6038D . Code Sec. 6038D(e) .
 OBSERVATION: Instead of Code Sec. 6038D , the reference immediately above presumably should have been to Code Sec. 6038D(d) ; i.e., “subsection (d) of this section” instead of “this section” .

Thus, to the extent the IRS determines that the individual has an interest in one or more foreign financial assets but he or she doesn't provide enough information to enable the IRS to determine the aggregate value of those assets, the aggregate value of those assets will be presumed to have exceeded $50,000 for purposes of assessing the penalty. Joint Comm Staff, Tech Expln of the Revenue Provisions Contained in Senate Amendment 3310, the Hiring Incentives To Restore Employment Act, Under Consideration by the Senate (JCX-4-10), 2/23/2010, p. 61 .

No penalty will be imposed by Code Sec. 6038D on any failure that is shown to be due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect. The fact that a foreign jurisdiction would impose a civil or criminal penalty on the taxpayer (or any other person) for disclosing the required information isn't reasonable cause. Code Sec. 6038D(g) .

For when the Code Sec. 6038D reporting requirement (and, thus, the penalty for failing to satisfy that requirement) applies, see above.

IRS authority to issue regs to carry out the purposes of the reporting requirement for individuals with foreign assets.

The IRS is directed to prescribe regs or other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of the Code Sec. 6038D reporting requirement for individuals with foreign assets (see above), including regs or other guidance which provide appropriate exceptions from the application of Code Sec. 6038D in the case of:

classes of assets identified by the IRS, including any assets as to which the IRS determines that disclosure under Code Sec. 6038D would duplicate other disclosures,
nonresident aliens, and bona fide residents of any possession of the U.S. Code Sec. 6038D(h) .
Thus, the regs can include exceptions for those assets that the IRS determines are subject to reporting requirements under Code provisions other than Code Sec. 6038D . In particular, Congress anticipates regulatory exceptions to avoid duplicative reporting requirements. Joint Comm Staff, Tech Expln of the Revenue Provisions Contained in Senate Amendment 3310, the Hiring Incentives To Restore Employment Act, Under Consideration by the Senate (JCX-4-10), 2/23/2010, p. 61 .

 Because the reporting requirements under Code Sec. 6038D are part of the Internal Revenue Code, and cover most of the same ground as the rules regarding reports of foreign bank and financial accounts (FBAR), the disclosure and enforcement problems discussed above should be for the most part eliminated. The same procedures that apply to other tax penalties apply to penalties imposed under Code Sec. 6038D , and IRS personnel responsible for enforcing Code Sec. 6038D will have access to other income tax return information.

Prior Law.

For tax years beginning before Mar. 19, 2010 ( Sec. 511(c), PL 111-147, 3/18/2010 ), the Code Sec. 6038D reporting requirements discussed above didn't apply.

Information reporting suspended for foreign financial asset holders & PFIC shareholders

Notice 2011-55, 2011-29 IRB

A new Notice suspends information reporting required under the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act (HIRE Act, P.L. 111-147 ), for certain individuals with an interest in a “specified foreign financial asset,” as well as for shareholders of a passive foreign investment company (PFIC). The information reporting is suspended until IRS issues the forms necessary to report the requisite information.

Once the requisite forms become available, affected taxpayers will have to disclose the information for the suspended period with their next income tax or information return.
Background. For tax years beginning after Mar. 18, 2010, the HIRE Act provides that individuals with an interest in a “specified foreign financial asset” during the tax year must attach a disclosure statement to their income tax return for any year in which the aggregate value of all such assets is greater than $50,000. ( Code Sec. 6038D(a) ) In addition, to the extent provided by IRS in regs or other guidance, Code Sec. 6038D will apply to any domestic entity formed or availed of for purposes of holding, directly or indirectly, specified foreign financial assets, in the same manner as if the entity were an individual. ( Code Sec. 6038D(f) )

“Specified foreign financial assets” are: (1) depository or custodial accounts at foreign financial institutions, and (2) to the extent not held in an account at a financial institution, (a) stocks or securities issued by foreign persons, (b) any other financial instrument or contract held for investment that is issued by or has a counterparty that is not a U.S. person, and (c) any interest in a foreign entity. ( Code Sec. 6038D(b) )

The HIRE Act also added new Code Sec. 1298(f) which, effective Mar. 18, 2010, requires U.S. persons who are shareholders of a PFIC to file an annual report containing such information as IRS may require. Before the enactment of Code Sec. 1298(f) , PFIC shareholders had to file Form 8621 (Return by a Shareholder of a Passive Foreign Investment Company or Qualified Electing Fund) under certain circumstances.

In Notice 2010-34, 2010-17 IRB 612 , IRS said that until it issued guidance on Code Sec. 1298(f) , those required to file Form 8621 before the enactment of Code Sec. 1298(f) should continue to file it as provided in the instructions (e.g., upon disposition of stock of a PFIC, or with respect to a qualified electing fund under Code Sec. 1293 ). IRS also said PFIC shareholders not otherwise required to file Form 8621 annually before Mar. 18, 2010, won't have to file an annual report as a result of Code Sec. 1298(f) for tax years beginning before Mar. 18, 2010.

Regs on the way. Notice 2011-55 says that IRS will issue:

... new regs on Code Sec. 6038D and Code Sec. 1298(f) ;
... new Form 8938, “Statement of Specified Foreign Financial Assets,” to be used to report an interest in one or more specified foreign financial assets under Code Sec. 6038D . Individuals will have to attach this form to their income tax return for the tax year; and
... a revised Form 8621 modified to reflect Code Sec. 1298(f) . Affected PFIC shareholders will be required to attach the revised Form 8621 to their income tax return or information return (e.g., Form 1065, “U.S. Return of Partnership Income”) for the tax year.
Filing suspended till forms become available. Notice 2011-55 suspends the Code Sec. 6038D reporting requirements until IRS releases Form 8938. Similarly, PFIC shareholders that would not be required to file Form 8621 under the current instructions to this form may, under Code Sec. 1298(f) , have to file an income tax return or information return (e.g., Form 1065) for a tax year beginning on or after Mar. 18, 2010, but before the IRS releases revised Form 8621. Pending the release of the revised Form 8621, the Code Sec. 1298(f) reporting requirement is suspended for tax years beginning on or after Mar. 18, 2010, for PFIC shareholders not otherwise required to file Form 8621. PFIC shareholders with Form 8621 reporting obligations as provided in the current instructions to Form 8621 (e.g., upon disposition of stock of a PFIC or with respect to a qualified electing fund under Code Sec. 1293 ) must continue to file the current Form 8621 with an income tax or information return filed before the release of revised Form 8621.

After new Form 8938 or revised Form 8621 is released, individuals and PFIC shareholders for which the filing of Form 8938 or 8621 is suspended for a tax year will have to attach Form 8938, Form 8621, or both, as appropriate, for the suspended tax year to their next income tax or information return required to be filed with the IRS.

When assessment period begins to run. Under Code Sec. 6501(c)(8) , the limitations period for tax assessments for periods for which reporting is required under sections Code Sec. 6038D or Code Sec. 1298(f) doesn't expire before three years after the date on which the IRS receives Form 8938 or 8621, as appropriate, for the tax year. A Form 8938 or 8621 filed for a suspended tax year with a timely filed income tax or information return (taking into account extensions) as required by Notice 2011-55 will be treated as having been filed on the date that the income tax or information return for the suspended tax year was filed. Failure to furnish Forms 8938 and 8621 for the suspended tax year may result in the extension of the limitations period for the suspended taxable year under Code Sec. 6501(c)(8) , and penalties may apply.

Notice 2011-55 reminds taxpayers that compliance with Code Sec. 6038D or Code Sec. 1298(f) doesn't relieve them of the responsibility to file Form TD F 90-22.1, “Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts,” (FBAR) if the FBAR is otherwise required to be filed.

References: For reporting requirement for individuals with foreign assets, see FTC 2d/FIN ¶  S-3650.1 ; United States Tax Reporter ¶  60,38D4 ; TaxDesk ¶  815,516 ; TG ¶  60613 . For annual information reporting by PFIC shareholders, see FTC 2d/FIN ¶  O-2201.1 ; United States Tax Reporter ¶  12,984 ; TG ¶  30301 .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
§ 6038D Information with respect to foreign financial assets.

 (a) In general.
Any individual who, during any taxable year, holds any interest in a specified foreign financial asset shall attach to such person's return of tax imposed by subtitle A for such taxable year the information described in subsection (c) with respect to each such asset if the aggregate value of all such assets exceeds $50,000 (or such higher dollar amount as the Secretary may prescribe).

 (b) Specified foreign financial assets.
For purposes of this section , the term “specified foreign financial asset” means—

(1) any financial account (as defined in section 1471(d)(2) ) maintained by a foreign financial institution (as defined in section 1471(d)(4) ), and

 (2) any of the following assets which are not held in an account maintained by a financial institution (as defined in section 1471(d)(5) )—

(A) any stock or security issued by a person other than a United States person,

 (B) any financial instrument or contract held for investment that has an issuer or counterparty which is other than a United States person, and
 (C)  any interest in a foreign entity (as defined in section 1473 ).

 (c) Required information.
The information described in this subsection with respect to any asset is:

(1)In the case of any account, the name and address of the financial institution in which such account is maintained and the number of such account.

 (2)In the case of any stock or security, the name and address of the issuer and such information as is necessary to identify the class or issue of which such stock or security is a part.

 (3) In the case of any other instrument, contract, or interest—

(A) such information as is necessary to identify such instrument, contract, or interest, and

 (B) the names and addresses of all issuers and counterparties with respect to such instrument, contract, or interest.

 (4) The maximum value of the asset during the taxable year.

 (d) Penalty for failure to disclose.

(1) In general.
If any individual fails to furnish the information described in subsection (c) with respect to any taxable year at the time and in the manner described in subsection (a) , such person shall pay a penalty of $10,000.

 (2) Increase in penalty where failure continues after notification.
If any failure described in paragraph (1) continues for more than 90 days after the day on which the Secretary mails notice of such failure to the individual, such individual shall pay a penalty (in addition to the penalties under paragraph (1) ) of $10,000 for each 30-day period (or fraction thereof) during which such failure continues after the expiration of such 90-day period. The penalty imposed under this paragraph with respect to any failure shall not exceed $50,000.

 (e)  Presumption that value of specified foreign financial assets exceeds dollar threshold.
If—

(1) the Secretary determines that an individual has an interest in one or more specified foreign financial assets, and

 (2) such individual does not provide sufficient information to demonstrate the aggregate value of such assets, then the aggregate value of such assets shall be treated as being in excess of $50,000 (or such higher dollar amount as the Secretary prescribes for purposes of subsection (a) ) for purposes of assessing the penalties imposed under this section .
 (f) Application to certain entities.
To the extent provided by the Secretary in regulations or other guidance, the provisions of this section shall apply to any domestic entity which is formed or availed of for purposes of holding, directly or indirectly, specified foreign financial assets, in the same manner as if such entity were an individual.

 (g) Reasonable cause exception.
No penalty shall be imposed by this section on any failure which is shown to be due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect. The fact that a foreign jurisdiction would impose a civil or criminal penalty on the taxpayer (or any other person) for disclosing the required information is not reasonable cause.

 (h) Regulations.
The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations or other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this section , including regulations or other guidance which provide appropriate exceptions from the application of this section in the case of—

(1) classes of assets identified by the Secretary, including any assets with respect to which the Secretary determines that disclosure under this section would be duplicative of other disclosures,

 (2) nonresident aliens, and

 (3) bona fide residents of any possession of the United States.



www.irstaxattorney.com 888-712-7690

Tuesday, October 4, 2011




THERESA M. KARAM, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent .
Case Information:

Code Sec(s):       6015
Docket:                Docket No. 14274-09.
Date Issued:       09/26/2011
Judge:   Opinion by HAINES
HEADNOTE

XX.

Reference(s): Code Sec. 6015

Syllabus

Official Tax Court Syllabus

Counsel

Stephen J. Dunn, for petitioner.
Alicia A. Mazurek, for respondent.

Opinion by HAINES

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

The issue for decision is whether petitioner is entitled to relief from joint and several liability under   section 6015(f) 1 for taxes reported on joint Federal income tax returns for 1999, 2000, and 2001 (years at issue).

FINDINGS OF FACT

Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts, together with the attached exhibits, is incorporated herein by this reference. At the time petitioner filed her petition, she resided in Michigan.

Petitioner has been married to James Karam (Dr. Karam) since 1980. Petitioner and Dr. Karam (together the Karams) have four sons: Joseph Karam, age 28; Paul Karam, age 26; Daniel Karam, age 22; and Mark Karam, age 19. Daniel and Mark Karam are undergraduates at Hope College in Holland, Michigan. Paul Karam is a graduate student at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Joseph Karam is a licensed attorney living at home with the Karams.

Dr. Karam is a self-employed dentist who has owned and operated his own dental practice since 1985. Petitioner is a college graduate who in or about 2003 earned a Ph.D. in educational psychology from Wayne State University. Petitioner has been employed by the Centerline Public Schools since February 1981. She is currently employed as director of special services and earns an annual salary of $102,000.

The Karams filed joint Federal income tax returns from the time of their marriage through 2001. For all tax years after 2001, petitioner filed her Federal income tax returns as married filing separately. 2

Dr. Karam hired Theodore C. Schumann, P.C., C.P.A. d.b.a. Dental Business Services, Inc. (Schumann firm), to prepare the Karams' Federal income tax returns for the years at issue. The Schumann firm prepared joint returns and delivered them to the Karams in 2002. Attached to each return was a Post-it note saying “sign here”. Petitioner followed the instructions on the Post-it notes and signed the returns. Aside from the Post-it notes, petitioner had no contact with the Schumann firm. The 1999 and 2000 returns were filed on September 23, 2002, and the 2001 return was filed on October 7, 2002.

The 1999 joint return reported a total tax of $79,328, a withholding credit of $11,495, and a tax liability of $69,833. The 2000 joint return reported a total tax of $75,229, a withholding credit of $13,151, and a tax liability of $64,907. The 2001 joint return reported a total tax of $74,346, a withholding credit of $14,106, and a tax liability of $62,562. The withholding credit listed on each return is an amount taken from petitioner's salary. The tax liability listed on each return is attributable to Dr. Karam's dental practice income.

Petitioner sued the Schumann firm for malpractice for failing to disclose the consequences of filing a joint tax return and obtained a judgment for $150,000. After the payment of expenses associated with the suit, petitioner was left with approximately $100,000 in net proceeds. Petitioner offered that $100,000 to respondent as part of an offer-in-compromise for her 1999, 2000, and 2001 tax liabilities. The offer-in-compromise included a $20,000 deposit. Respondent rejected the offer-in- compromise and kept the $20,000 to apply against petitioner's tax liabilities.

At the time petitioner signed the returns, she and Dr. Karam were paying a number of large expenses, including a monthly mortgage payment and private school tuition for all four of their children. Public school students in petitioner's community had scored well on tests, but it was important to petitioner that her sons attend private schools as the curricula at those schools promoted values that petitioner and her husband deemed important. The income from Dr. Karam's dental practice was used to pay the children's tuition, the mortgage, and household bills and to support Dr. Karam's aunt. Petitioner's salary was used to pay her Ph.D. expenses, support her mother, and pay various general household expenses.

On March 18, 2009, petitioner filed Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse Relief, with respondent seeking innocent spouse relief under   section 6015(b), (c), and (f) for 1999, 2000, and 2001. On May 18, 2009, respondent issued a notice of final determination denying petitioner's request for relief under   section 6015(b), (c), and (f). Petitioner timely filed a petition with this Court on June 11, 2009, for determination of whether petitioner qualifies for relief under   section 6015(f). Petitioner did not petition this Court for relief under   section 6015(b) or (c). Dr. Karam was notified of the pendency of this proceeding and of his right to intervene, but chose not to intervene.

OPINION

We must decide whether respondent erred in denying petitioner relief from unpaid joint tax liabilities for the years at issue. Petitioner argues that she believed her husband would pay their tax liabilities and that it is inequitable to hold her liable when the underpayments were attributable to her husband.

The Commissioner has the discretion to relieve a spouse of joint liability if, taking into account all the facts and circumstances, it is inequitable to hold that spouse liable for any deficiency or unpaid tax.   Sec. 6015(f);  sec. 1.6015-4(a), Income Tax Regs. This Court has jurisdiction to determine whether a taxpayer qualifies for relief under   section 6015(f).   Sec. 6015(e).

We begin with the scope of review, the standard of review, and the burden of proof. Respondent urges us to review the case for abuse of discretion. To do so, however, would be to reject our previous holdings that the scope of review and the standard Porter v. Commissioner,   132 T.C. 203 of review are de novo. (2009); Porter v. Commissioner,   130 T.C. 115 (2008). The spouse requesting relief generally bears the burden of proof. See Rule 142(a); Alt v. Commissioner,   119 T.C. 306, 311 (2002), affd.   101 Fed. Appx. 34 [93 AFTR 2d 2004-2561] (6th Cir. 2004).

The Commissioner has outlined procedures the Commissioner will follow in determining whether a requesting spouse qualifies for equitable relief under   section 6015(f). See   Rev. Proc. 2003-61, 2003-2 C.B. 296. The requesting spouse must meet seven threshold conditions before the Commissioner will consider a request for relief. Id. sec. 4.01, 2003-2 C.B. at 297. The parties agree that petitioner has met the preliminary requirements for relief. 3

I. Safe Harbor for   Section 6015(f) Relief We now turn to whether petitioner satisfies the three conditions of a safe harbor under   section 6015(f) that the See Gonce v. Commissioner, T.C. Commissioner has established. Memo. 2007-328; Billings v. Commissioner,   T.C. Memo. 2007-234 [TC Memo 2007-234];   Rev. Proc. 2003-61, sec. 4.02, 2003-2 C.B. at 298. Equitable relief will ordinarily be granted if the requesting spouse fulfills all three conditions of the safe harbor. The first condition is that the requesting spouse be no longer married to, or be legally separated from, the nonrequesting spouse at the time she filed the request for innocent spouse relief. Petitioner at the time she filed her innocent spouse relief request was still married to Dr. Karam. In fact, as of the time of trial petitioner remained married to Dr. Karam. Thus, petitioner does not satisfy this condition. Accordingly, petitioner does not qualify under the safe harbor, and we need not consider the other two conditions.

II. Balancing Test for Determining Whether   Section 6015(f) Equitable Relief Would Be Appropriate When a requesting spouse fails to satisfy the safe harbor conditions, the Commissioner may determine through a balancing test whether equitable relief is appropriate. The Commissioner has listed factors the Commissioner considers in determining whether a taxpayer qualifies for relief. See   Rev. Proc. 2003-61, sec. 4.03, 2003-2 C.B. at 298. The factors include whether the requesting spouse: (1) Is separated or divorced from the nonrequesting spouse, (2) would suffer economic hardship if relief were denied, (3) had knowledge or reason to know that the nonrequesting spouse would not pay the income tax liability, (4) received significant economic benefit from the unpaid income tax liability, (5) complied with income tax laws in years after the year at issue, (6) was abused by the nonrequesting spouse, and (7) was in poor health when signing the return or requesting relief; and whether the nonrequesting spouse had a legal Id. sec. obligation to pay the outstanding tax liability. 4.03(2). The list is nonexhaustive, and no single factor is determinative. Id. We address each of the factors in turn.

A. Marital Status

We first consider marital status. This factor weighs in favor of the requesting spouse if she is separated or divorced from the nonrequesting spouse. Id. sec. 4.03(2)(i). As of the time of trial, petitioner remained married to Dr. Karam. This factor weighs against relief.

       B.      Economic Hardship
The second factor is whether the requesting spouse would suffer economic hardship if relief were denied. A denial of   section 6015(f) relief imposes economic hardship if it prevents the requesting spouse from being able to pay her reasonable basic Butner v. Commissioner,   T.C. Memo. 2007-136 [TC Memo 2007-136]; living expenses.   sec. 301.6343-1(b)(4)(i), Proced. & Admin. Regs. Reasonable basic living expenses are based on the taxpayer's circumstances but do not include amounts needed to maintain a luxurious standard of living.   Sec. 301.6343-1(b)(4)(i), Proced. & Admin.

 Regs.      Relevant circumstances include the taxpayer's age, ability
 to earn an income, number of dependents, and status as a
 dependent.      Sec. 301.6343-1(b)(4)(ii)(A), Proced. & Admin. Regs.
The amount of property available to satisfy the taxpayer's expenses is also considered. Butner v. Commissioner, supra;   sec. 301.6343-1(b)(4)(ii)(D), Proced. & Admin. Regs.

Petitioner is the director of special services for the Centerline Public Schools, where she earns an annual salary of $102,000. Petitioner testified that she receives about $8,000 per month in gross income of which about $2,800 is withheld for taxes and another $160 is withheld for healthcare premiums. Petitioner also pays $1,300 per month in COBRA premiums to provide her two oldest sons with health care. The remainder of her income is used to pay for utilities, groceries, clothing, auto insurance, medical co-pays, doctor visits, and other living expenses for her children. What little money petitioner has remaining at the end of the month she sends to her children to help pay for gas and other expenses. Petitioner's husband pays the family's remaining living expenses, including the mortgage, cell phone bills, some groceries, some utilities, and the children's college tuition.

Petitioner failed to offer evidence to substantiate that her entire month salary was spent on reasonable basic living expenses. All this Court has to go on is petitioner's self- serving testimony that she has no money left at the end of the month to satisfy her tax liabilities. Even if we were to believe petitioner's testimony that she spends her entire monthly salary, we do not find that payment of petitioner's adult children's living expenses is a reasonable basic living expense.

Additionally, in 2008 petitioner received a $150,000 judgment against Theodore C. Schumann and the Schumann firm from a malpractice suit. Petitioner's net proceeds from the judgment amounted to $80,000. 4 Petitioner has failed to account for how the remaining $80,000 from her judgment was spent or is being spent.

We agree that petitioner may not have the means to pay all the tax liabilities at once. We believe, however, that she can meet her basic living expenses while making periodic payments against her tax liabilities. We find that petitioner has the means to make monthly payments to reduce the tax liabilities and that denying her claim for relief will not impose an economic hardship on her. This factor weighs against relief.

C. Knowledge or Reason To Know That Nonrequesting Spouse Would Not Pay Liability A third factor focuses on whether the requesting spouse knew or had reason to know that the nonrequesting spouse would not pay the tax liability.

Respondent argues that it was unreasonable for petitioner to think that Dr. Karam would pay the tax liabilities when she signed the returns at issue. We agree. From the beginning of her marriage until 2001, petitioner had filed joint returns with Dr. Karam. These joint returns would generally show taxes due and owing. For instance, the Karams' 1997 return showed tax due of $48,063 and their 1998 return showed tax due of $46,664. Petitioner testified that her husband always paid their tax liabilities and therefore she assumed he would do the same for the years at issue.

The Karams filed their 1999, 2000, and 2001 joint Federal income tax returns all in 2002. As a result of filing three returns in a single year, the Karams suddenly faced a very large total tax liability. The liabilities from these three returns totaled $197,352 plus interest and penalties. Given the large amount of taxes due in 2002 and petitioner's knowledge of the family finances, we find it unreasonable for her to have believed her husband would pay the liabilities.

Petitioner's testimony showed that she was very involved in the family's finances and was well aware of her husband's financial obligations and thus of his inability to pay a large tax bill. Petitioner and her husband each paid a portion of the family's expenses. Dr. Karam was responsible for paying major expenses, including the mortgage, the children's tuition, and the household bills. Moreover, Dr. Karam was helping to take care of his aunt. Petitioner's salary paid her Ph.D. expenses and certain household expenses. Petitioner also helped pay her mother's basic living expenses because her mother's income was limited and she did not qualify for State health insurance.

We have consistently found that a requesting spouse's knowledge of the couple's financial difficulties deprives the requesting spouse of reason to believe that her spouse will pay the tax liability. Stolkin v. Commissioner,  T.C. Memo. 2008-211 [TC Memo 2008-211]; Gonce v. Commissioner,   T.C. Memo. 2007-328 [TC Memo 2007-328]; Butner v. Commissioner,   T.C. Memo. 2007-136 [TC Memo 2007-136]. Petitioner's knowledge of the family finances and the family's obligations should have put her on notice that Dr. Karam would not pay the tax liabilities.

Petitioner relies on Wilson v. Commissioner,   T.C. Memo. 2010-134 [TC Memo 2010-134], in arguing that her lack of business sophistication contributed to her failure to know or have reason to know that the taxes in controversy would not be paid. Wilson is distinguishable from the instant case. Unlike the requesting spouse in Wilson who did not have an education beyond high school, petitioner is highly educated. At the time petitioner signed the 1999, 2000, and 2001 returns, she had obtained an undergraduate degree and was working on a Ph.D.

We find that petitioner had reason to know at the time she signed the returns that her husband would not pay the joint tax liabilities. This factor weighs against relief.

D. Nonrequesting Spouse's Legal Obligation To Pay Liability A fourth consideration is whether the nonrequesting spouse had a legal obligation to pay the tax liability. Dr. Karam does not have a legal obligation to pay the outstanding income tax liabilities pursuant to a divorce decree or other agreement. Therefore, respondent determined that this factor is neutral, and we have no information to find otherwise.

E. Economic Benefit From Items Giving Rise to Liability A fifth consideration is whether the requesting spouse received significant benefit from the unpaid income tax liability or item giving rise to the deficiency. A significant benefit for purposes of   section 6015(f) is any benefit in excess of normal support.   Sec. 1.6015-2(d), Income Tax Regs. A significant benefit may be direct or indirect. Id.

Petitioner sent her four children to expensive private elementary and high schools, even though public school students in her community scored well on tests. Having her sons attend private school was important to petitioner because of the values those schools promoted. The income from Dr. Karam's dental practice (i.e., the items which caused the tax liabilities) paid for the children's private school tuition. Additionally, Dr. Karam's dental practice income covered all household expenses other than the groceries and clothing paid for by petitioner. Having Dr. Karam pay the household expenses allowed petitioner to use her salary to pay her Ph.D. expenses. The facts and circumstances presented strongly suggest that petitioner received a significant benefit from the items giving rise to the income tax liabilities. This factor also weighs against relief.

F. Subsequent Compliance With Income Tax Laws A sixth consideration is whether the requesting spouse made a good faith effort to comply with income tax laws in subsequent years. Respondent stipulates that petitioner has been in compliance with the income tax laws since 2001. Therefore, this factors weighs in favor of relief.

G. Abuse by Nonrequesting Spouse

Petitioner did not allege that there was any abuse when she signed the returns. Therefore, respondent determined that this factor is neutral, and we have no information to find otherwise.

H. Poor Health When Signing Return or Requesting Relief Petitioner did not allege that she was in poor health when she signed the return or when she requested relief. Therefore, respondent determined that this factor is neutral, and we have no information to find otherwise.

III. Conclusion In summary, one factor weighs in favor of relief, four factors weigh against relief, and three factors are neutral. After weighing the testimony and evidence in this fact-intensive and nuanced case, we hold petitioner is not entitled to relief from joint and several liability for the joint income tax for each of the years at issue.

In reaching our holdings, we have considered all arguments made, and, to the extent not mentioned, we conclude that they are moot, irrelevant, or without merit.

To reflect the foregoing, Decision will be entered for respondent.

1
  Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended and in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar.
2
  Respondent stipulates that petitioner has been in compliance with the income tax laws since 2001.
3
  One of the seven threshold conditions requires that the requesting spouse apply for relief no later than 2 years after the date of the Service's first collection activity with respect to the requesting spouse.   Rev. Proc. 2003-61, sec. 4.01(3), 2003-2 C.B. 296, 297. Respondent in his opening brief argued that petitioner had failed to meet this threshold condition. On July 25, 2011, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued   Notice 2011-70, 2011-32 I.R.B. 135, stating that the IRS will no longer apply the 2-year limit to file for innocent spouse relief imposed by   sec. 1.6015-5(b)(1), Income Tax Regs. Further,   Notice 2011- 70, supra, stated that in any case in litigation in which the IRS has denied a request for innocent spouse relief under   sec. 6015(f) as untimely, the IRS will take appropriate action in the case as to the timeliness issue consistent with the position announced in the notice. We ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs discussing the effect of   Notice 2011-70, supra , on the current status of this case. Respondent filed a supplemental brief abandoning his argument regarding the untimeliness of petitioner's request for equitable relief under   sec. 6015(f).
4
  Petitioner's answering brief filed with this Court suggests that the net proceeds from petitioner's lawsuit amounted to $100,000. This amount was offered to respondent in an offer-in- compromise. As part of the offer-in-compromise, petitioner offered a $20,000 deposit. Respondent rejected the offer-in- compromise but kept the $20,000 deposit, leaving petitioner with $80,000 of net proceeds from the judgment.



www.irstaxattorney.com 888-712-7690

Monday, October 3, 2011


Internal Revenue Bulletin:  2011-37 

September 12, 2011 

T.D. 9538

Modifications of Certain Derivative Contracts


DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 1

AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION:

Final and temporary regulations.

SUMMARY:

This document contains final and temporary regulations that address when a transfer or assignment of certain derivative contracts does not result in an exchange to the nonassigning counterparty for purposes of §1.1001-1(a). The text of these temporary regulations also serves as the text of the proposed regulations (REG-109006-11) set forth in this issue of the Bulletin.

DATES:

Effective Date: These regulations are effective on July 22, 2011.
Applicability Date: For the date of applicability, see §1.1001-4T(d).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Andrea M. Hoffenson, (202) 622-3920 (not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 1001 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) provides rules for the computation and recognition of gain or loss from a sale or other disposition of property. For purposes of section 1001, §1.1001-1(a) of the Income Tax Regulations generally provides that gain or loss is realized upon an exchange of property for other property differing materially either in kind or in extent. As a general matter, the assignment of a notional principal contract is treated as a taxable disposition to a nonassigning counterparty if the resulting contract differs materially either in kind or in extent. See Cottage Savings Association v. Commissioner, 499 U.S. 554, 566 (1991) [1991-2 C.B. 34, 38] (“Under [the Court’s] interpretation of [section] 1001(a), an exchange of property gives rise to a realization event so long as the exchanged properties are ‘materially different’—that is, so long as they embody legally distinct entitlements.”). Section 1.1001-4(a) provides, however, that the substitution of a new party on a notional principal contract is not treated as a deemed exchange of the contract by the nonassigning party for purposes of §1.1001-1(a) if two conditions are satisfied: the assignment is between dealers in notional principal contracts and the terms of the contract permit the substitution.
Many notional principal contracts permit assignment of the contract only with the consent of the nonassigning counterparty. There has been some uncertainty as to whether a contract that requires the consent of the nonassigning counterparty as a condition to assignment will satisfy the second requirement of §1.1001-4(a) as described in the previous paragraph. In addition, commenters have suggested that the scope of §1.1001-4 is too narrow because it only applies to notional principal contracts. The need to amend §1.1001-4 has been increased by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111-203 (124 Stat 1376 (2010)) (Dodd-Frank), which in some cases will necessitate the movement of entire books of derivative contracts. In particular, there is a concern that the assignment of derivative contracts may create a taxable event for the nonassigning counterparties to the assigned contracts.
The IRS and the Treasury Department agree that §1.1001-4 should be amended and expanded to include derivative contracts other than notional principal contracts. These temporary regulations replace the current, final regulations of §1.1001-4.

Explanation of Provisions

These temporary regulations provide that there is no exchange to the nonassigning counterparty for purposes of §1.1001-1(a) solely because a dealer or a clearinghouse transfers or assigns a derivative contract to another dealer or clearinghouse, provided that the transfer or assignment is permitted by the terms of the contract. The derivative contracts to which these regulations apply are those described in sections 475(c)(2)(D), 475(c)(2)(E), 475(c)(2)(F), 475(e)(2)(B), 475(e)(2)(C), or 475(e)(2)(D), or §1.446-3(c)(1). In addition, these temporary regulations provide that transfers or assignments are permitted by the terms of the contract when consent of the nonassigning counterparty is required as well as those transfers or assignments that do not require consent. If consideration passes between the assignor and assignee in connection with the transfer or assignment, the consideration will not affect the treatment of the nonassigning counterparty for purposes of §1.1001-4. If any consideration is paid to or received by the nonassigning counterparty, however, the payment or receipt of the consideration is analyzed under the general principles of section 1001 to determine its effect on the nonassigning counterparty. In addition, any changes to the terms of the contract are analyzed under the general principles of section 1001 to determine whether there has been a sale or disposition of the contract by the parties.

Special Analyses

It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because the regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, these regulations have been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small businesses.

Amendments to the Regulations

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:

PART 1—INCOME TAXES

Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in part as follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Par. 2. Section 1.1001-4 is revised to read as follows:

§1.1001-4 Modifications of certain derivative contracts.

(a) through (d) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see §1.1001-4T(a) through (d).
Par. 3. Section 1.1001-4T is added to read as follows:

§1.1001-4T Modifications of certain derivative contracts (temporary).

(a) Certain assignments. For purposes of §1.1001-1(a), the transfer or assignment of a derivative contract is not treated by the nonassigning counterparty as a deemed exchange of the original contract for a modified contract that differs materially either in kind or in extent if—
(1) Both the party transferring or assigning its rights and obligations under the derivative contract and the party to which the rights and obligations are transferred or assigned are either a dealer or a clearinghouse;
(2) The terms of the derivative contract permit the transfer or assignment of the contract, whether or not the consent of the nonassigning counterparty is required for the transfer or assignment to be effective; and
(3) The terms of the derivative contract are not otherwise modified in a manner that results in a taxable exchange under section 1001.
(b) Definitions. (1) Dealer. For purposes of this section, a dealer is a taxpayer who meets the definition of a dealer in securities in section 475(c)(1) or is a dealer in commodities derivative contracts.
(2) Clearinghouse. For purposes of this section, a clearinghouse is a derivatives clearing organization (as such term is defined in section 1a of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1a)) or a clearing agency (as such term is defined in section 3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a))) that is registered, or exempt from registration, under each respective Act.
(3) Derivative contract. For purposes of this section, a derivative contract is a contract described in—
(i) Section 475(c)(2)(D), 475(c)(2)(E), or 475(c)(2)(F) without regard to the last sentence of section 475(c)(2) referencing section 1256;
(ii) Section 475(e)(2)(B), 475(e)(2)(C), or 475(e)(2)(D); or
(iii) Section 1.446-3(c)(1).
(c) Consideration for the assignment. Any consideration for the transfer or assignment that passes between the party transferring or assigning its rights and obligations under the contract and the party to which the rights and obligations are transferred or assigned will not affect the treatment of the nonassigning counterparty for purposes of this section.
(d) Effective/applicability date. This section applies to transfers or assignments of derivative contracts on or after July 22, 2011.
(e) Expiration date. The applicability of this section expires on or before July 21, 2014.
Steven T. Miller,
Deputy Commissioner for
Services and Enforcement.
Approved July 15, 2011.
Emily S. McMahon,
Assistant Secretary of
the Treasury (Tax Policy).

Note

(Filed by the Office of the Federal Register on July 21, 2011, 8:45 a.m., and published in the issue of the Federal Register for July 22, 2011, 76 F.R. 43892)

Drafting Information

The principal author of these regulations is Andrea M. Hoffenson, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Financial Institutions and Products). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development.
* * * * *

More Internal Revenue Bulletins



www.irstaxattorney.com 888-712-7690

Internal Revenue Bulletin:  2011-38 

September 19, 2011 


Notice 2011-72

Tax Treatment of Employer-Provided Cell Phones


PURPOSE

This notice provides guidance on the tax treatment of cellular telephones or other similar telecommunications equipment (hereinafter collectively “cell phones”) that employers provide to their employees primarily for noncompensatory business purposes.

BACKGROUND

Section 2043 of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-240, (the Act) removed cell phones from the definition of listed property for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2009. The Act did not otherwise alter the requirement that an employer-provided cell phone is a fringe benefit, the value of which must be included in the employee’s gross income, unless an exclusion applies, or the potential treatment of an employer-provided cell phone as an excludible fringe benefit. Since enactment of the Act, the IRS has received questions about the proper tax treatment of employer-provided cell phones. Accordingly, this notice addresses the treatment of employer-provided cell phones as an excludible fringe benefit.

Gross Income

Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) defines gross income as all income, from whatever source derived. Section 61(a)(1) provides that gross income includes compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items. A fringe benefit provided by an employer to an employee is presumed to be income to the employee unless it is specifically excluded from gross income by another section of the Code. See Income Tax Regulations § 1.61-21(a).

Working Condition Fringe Benefits

Section 132(a)(3) of the Code provides that gross income does not include any fringe benefit which qualifies as a working condition fringe. Section 132(d) provides that “working condition fringe” means any property or services provided to an employee of the employer to the extent that, if the employee paid for such property or services, such payment would be allowable as a deduction under §§ 162 or 167.
Section 1.132-5(a)(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Regulations (Regulations) provides that if, under section 274 or any other section, certain substantiation requirements must be met in order for a deduction under §§ 162 or 167 to be allowable, then those substantiation requirements apply when determining whether a property or service is excludable as a working condition fringe. See also Regulations § 1.132-5(c)(1).
Section 162(a) of the Code provides that a deduction is allowed for all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business. However, section 262(a) of the Code provides that, except as otherwise expressly provided, no deduction shall be allowed for personal, living, or family expenses.
In the case of certain listed property, as defined in section 280F(d)(4) of the Code, special heightened substantiation rules apply. Section 274(d)(4) of the Code provides that no deduction shall be allowed with respect to any listed property (as defined in § 280F(d)(4)), unless the taxpayer substantiates by adequate records or by sufficient evidence corroborating the taxpayer’s own statement (A) the amount of such expense or other item, (B) the use of the property, (C) the business purpose of the expense or other item, and (D) the business relationship to the taxpayer of persons using the property.
The Act removed cell phones from the definition of listed property for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2009. Because the Act removed cell phones from the definition of listed property, the heightened substantiation requirements that apply to listed property no longer apply to cell phones for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2009.

De Minimis Fringe Benefits

Section 132(a)(4) of the Code provides that gross income does not include any fringe benefit which qualifies as a de minimis fringe. Section 132(e) defines a de minimis fringe as any property or service the value of which is (after taking into account the frequency with which similar fringes are provided by the employer to the employer’s employees) so small as to make accounting for it unreasonable or administratively impracticable. Except as specifically provided (i.e., occasional meal money or local transportation fare and reimbursements for public transit passes), a cash fringe benefit is not excludable as a de minimis fringe. See Regulations §1.132-6(c).

Guidance Regarding Employer-Provided Cell Phones

Many employers provide their employees with cell phones primarily for noncompensatory business reasons. The value of the business use of an employer-provided cell phone is excludable from an employee’s income as a working condition fringe to the extent that, if the employee paid for the use of the cell phone themselves, such payment would be allowable as a deduction under section 162 for the employee.
An employer will be considered to have provided an employee with a cell phone primarily for noncompensatory business purposes if there are substantial reasons relating to the employer’s business, other than providing compensation to the employee, for providing the employee with a cell phone. For example, the employer’s need to contact the employee at all times for work-related emergencies, the employer’s requirement that the employee be available to speak with clients at times when the employee is away from the office, and the employee’s need to speak with clients located in other time zones at times outside of the employee’s normal work day are possible substantial noncompensatory business reasons. A cell phone provided to promote the morale or good will of an employee, to attract a prospective employee or as a means of furnishing additional compensation to an employee is not provided primarily for noncompensatory business purposes.
This notice provides that, when an employer provides an employee with a cell phone primarily for noncompensatory business reasons, the IRS will treat the employee’s use of the cell phone for reasons related to the employer’s trade or business as a working condition fringe benefit, the value of which is excludable from the employee’s income and, solely for purposes of determining whether the working condition fringe benefit provision in section 132(d) applies, the substantiation requirements that the employee would have to meet in order for a deduction under §162 to be allowable are deemed to be satisfied. In addition, the IRS will treat the value of any personal use of a cell phone provided by the employer primarily for noncompensatory business purposes as excludable from the employee’s income as a de minimis fringe benefit. The rules of this notice apply to any use of an employer-provided cell phone occurring after December 31, 2009. The application of the working condition and de minimis fringe benefit exclusions under this notice apply solely to employer-provided cell phones and should not be interpreted as applying to other fringe benefits.

EFFECTIVE DATE

This notice is effective for all taxable years after December 31, 2009.

CONTACT INFORMATION

The principal author of this notice is Joseph Perera of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt & Government Entities). For further information regarding this notice, contact Joseph Perera at (202) 622-6040 (not a toll-free call).



www.irstaxattorney.com 888-712-7690


Rev. Rul. 2011-21, 2011-40 IRB 458, 09/30/2011, IRC Sec(s).

Headnote:


Reference(s):

Full Text:

For purposes of the taxation of fringe benefits under   section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code,   section 1.61-21(g) of the Income Tax Regulations provides a rule for valuing noncommercial flights on employer-provided aircraft.   Section 1.61-21(g)(5) provides an aircraft valuation formula to determine the value of such flights. The value of a flight is determined under the base aircraft valuation formula (also known as the Standard Industry Fare Level formula or SIFL) by multiplying the SIFL cents-per-mile rates applicable for the period during which the flight was taken by the appropriate aircraft multiple provided in   section 1.61-21(g)(7) and then adding the applicable terminal charge. The SIFL cents-per-mile rates in the formula and the terminal charge are calculated by the Department of Transportation and are reviewed semi-annually.

The following chart sets forth the terminal charge and SIFL mileage rates:

Period During Which the Flight Is Taken               Terminal Charge              SIFL Mileage Rates
7/1/11 -12/31/11
$43.79
Up to 500 miles = $.2395 per mile


501-1500 miles = $.1826 per mile


Over 1500 miles = $.1756 per mile
Drafting Information

The principal author of this revenue ruling is Kathleen Edmondson of the Office of Division Counsel/Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt/Government Entities). For further information regarding this revenue ruling, contact Ms. Edmondson at (202) 622-0047 (not a toll-free call).


www.irstaxattorney.com 888-712-7690