Issues related to privilege for documents prepared related to a tax strategy were the issue decided in the case of United States v. Microsoft Corp. et al., US DC WD Washington, Case No. 2:15-cv-00102.[1]  The case involved Microsoft’s tax liabilities for 2004-2006 and a program that was being considered and then implemented to offset an expected increase in taxes.

In Chief Counsel Advice 202003004[1] the IRS Chief Counsel’s office looked at the impact of the burden of proof imposed on the agency when it asserts that payments are to disallowed under IRC §165(c) as illegal kickbacks, bribes, and the like.

Tax advisers who work with small partnerships have long been aware of the late filing relief provided by Revenue Procedure 84-35.  But some have wondered that since the procedure refers to a provision removed from the Internal Revenue Code by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2018, does it continue to apply?

In Program Manager Technical Advice 2020-01[1] the Chief Counsel’s office addressed that question, determining Revenue Procedure 84-35 still is available for taxpayers to use to obtain relief from partnership late filing penalties under IRC §6698.

The IRS announced an expansion of relief to additional individuals who borrowed funds to attend school and later had that debt cancelled in Revenue Procedure 2020-11.[1]

The IRS had previously granted relief to those who attended schools owned by Corinthian College, Inc. (CCI) or American Career Institutes, Inc. (ACI) and had their loans discharged by the Department of Education under the “Closed School” or “Defense to Repayment” programs.  This relief was limited to those who had attended schools owned by CCI or ACI.[2]

Online tax discussion groups, many of which are sponsored by state CPA societies for their members, offer useful places to discuss tax issues and become aware of what is going on in taxes.  It was when participating in such a group discussion that I became aware of a theory being proposed to allow working around the state and local tax deduction cap based on the proposed regulations[1] issued by the IRS in December regarding payments to charitable organizations not treated as charitable contributions under Proposed Reg. §1.162-15.

A topic that regularly comes up year after year in Tax Court cases is the issue of whether a document meets the requirements for protection under the timely mailed, timely filed rule found in IRC §7502(a).  In the case of Seely v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2020-6,[1] we have one of the infrequent taxpayer victories when faced with such a challenge.

A series of problems led to the Tax Court agreeing with the IRS that an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) and trust (ESOT) were not qualified in the case of Ed Thielking Inc. v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2020-5.[1]

The Tax Court issued its third decision in two days dealing primarily with penalties, and the second published case on the matter, in the case of Frost v. Commissioner, 154 TC No. 2.[1]

The case generally is a rather standard case where the taxpayer fails to have records to back up deductions claimed on his Schedule C, as well as failing to show he had basis in the partnership in which he had claimed losses.

After announcing the start of business electronic filing on a Friday, the IRS came back from the weekend on Monday to give taxpayers the date when individual returns will be accepted.[1] However, while the announcements may have come only three days apart, the actual starting dates are much further apart.

While business returns will be accepted by the IRS on January 7,[2] the agency will not begin accepting individual returns until January 27, 2020.[3]

In the case of United States v. Kohls, Case No. 3:18-cv-00225, US DC SD Ohio[1] the executor of the estate argued that the IRS had failed to file its action timely.  The IRS was looking to collect over $320,000 in unpaid estate taxes, penalties and interest due on the estate tax return.  The issue turns on the date when the tax had been assessed, and whether the IRS was still within the time period imposed under IRC §6502(a)(1) to collect the tax following assessment.

The IRS has posted on their website that the agency will begin accepting electronically filed business returns on Tuesday, January 7, 2020.[1]  CPAs will need to watch their tax software to determine when their vendor has updated their software to be able to handle the filings.

The site still lists the beginning date for individual returns as to be determined early in 2020. Very likely the problem for individual returns involves modifications that will need to be taken into account due to the law changes made by Congress late in 2019.

The IRS quietly added more guidance in the virtual currency arena to their frequently asked questions (FAQ), this time adding new questions and answers related to how charities should deal with the receipt of a virtual currency donation, as well as how the donor deals with the donation.[1]

On the last day of 2019, the IRS released the updated auto mileage rates for 2020 in Notice 2020-05.[1]

The standard mileage rates for 2020 are:

• Business use: 57.5 cents per mile;

• Charitable mileage rate: 14 cents per mile; and

• Medical care and limited cases where moving expenses are still deductible: 17 cents per mile.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Tax Court’s 2017 decision in the case of Messina et ux. et al. v. Commissioner.[1] The appellate decision explains why the IRS is allowed to argue substance over form for a transaction, but that argument will not generally be helpful for the taxpayer—as it failed to be in this case.