Shareholder distributions versus salary payments may raise similar issues. For federal employment tax purposes, a corporate officer is considered an employee, unless the officer performs no services or only minor services to the corporation and neither receives nor is entitled to payment for these services. The form of payment is immaterial, the only relevant factor being whether the payments were actually received as compensation for employment. Distributions to shareholders may be reclassified as wages subject to FICA and FUTA taxes where compensation appears to be insufficient. Determining the range of reasonableness of compensation for your business where shareholder compensation should fall within that range depends upon many variables. With proper planning, we hope that you and your business can avoid similar scrutiny.

Please contact our office to review and discuss your corporation’s compensation structure.

Horvath & Giacin, P.C.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has removed the requirement that U.S. companies and U.S. persons must report beneficial ownership information (BOI) to FinCEN under the Corporate Transparency Act.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has removed the requirement that U.S. companies and U.S. persons must report beneficial ownership information (BOI) to FinCEN under the Corporate Transparency Act. This interim final rule is consistent with the Treasury Department's recent announcement that it was suspending enforcement of the CTA against U.S. citizens, domestic reporting companies, and their beneficial owners, and that it would be narrowing the scope of the BOI reporting rule so that it applies only to foreign reporting companies.

The interim final rule amends the BOI regulations by:

• changing the definition of "reporting company" to mean only those entities that are formed under the law of a foreign country and that have registered to do business in any U.S. State or Tribal jurisdiction by filing of a document with a secretary of state or similar office (these entities had formerly been called "foreign reporting companies"), and
• exempting entities previously known as "domestic reporting companies" from BOI reporting requirements.

Under the revised rules, all entities created in the United States (including those previously called "domestic reporting companies") and their beneficial owners are exempt from the BOI reporting requirement, including the requirement to update or correct BOI previously reported to FinCEN. Foreign entities that meet the new definition of "reporting company" and do not qualify for a reporting exemption must report their BOI to FinCEN, but are not required to report any U.S. persons as beneficial owners. U.S. persons are not required to report BOI with respect to any such foreign entity for which they are a beneficial owner.

Reducing Regulatory Burden

On January 31, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14192, which announced an administration policy "to significantly reduce the private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations to secure America’s economic prosperity and national security and the highest possible quality of life for each citizen" and "to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens" on the American people.

Consistent with the executive order and with exemptive authority provided in the CTA, the Treasury Secretary (in concurrence with the Attorney General and the Homeland Security Secretary) determined that BOI reporting by domestic reporting companies and their beneficial owners "would not serve the public interest" and "would not be highly useful in national security, intelligence, and law enforcement agency efforts to detect, prevent, or prosecute money laundering, the financing of terrorism, proliferation finance, serious tax fraud, or other crimes."The preamble to the interim final rule notes that the Treasury Secretary has considered existing alternative information sources to mitigate risks. For example, under the U.S. anti-money laundering/countering the financing of terrorism regime, covered financial institutions still have a continuing requirement to collect a legal entity customer's BOI at the time of account opening (see 31 CFR 1010.230). This will serve to mitigate certain illicit finance risks associated with exempting domestic reporting companies from BOI reporting.

BOI reporting by foreign reporting companies is still required, because such companies present heightened national security and illicit finance risks and different concerns about regulatory burdens. Further, the preamble points out that the policy direction to minimize regulatory burdens on the American people can still be achieved by exempting foreign reporting companies from having to report the BOI of any U.S. persons who are beneficial owners of such companies.

Deadlines Extended for Foreign Companies

When the interim final rule is published in the Federal Register, the following reporting deadlines apply:

• Foreign entities that are registered to do business in the United States before the publication date of the interim final rule must file BOI reports no later than 30 days from that date.
• Foreign entities that are registered to do business in the United States on or after the publication date of the interim final rule have 30 calendar days to file an initial BOI report after receiving notice that their registration is effective.

Effective Date; Comments Requested

The interim final rule is effective on the date of its publication in the Federal Register.

FinCEN has requested comments on the interim final rule. In light of those comments, FinCEN intends to issue a final rule later in 2025.

Written comments must be received on or before the date that is 60 days after publication of the interim final rule in the Federal Register.

Interested parties can submit comments electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, comments may be mailed to Policy Division, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, P.O. Box 39, Vienna, VA 22183. For both methods, refer to Docket Number FINCEN-2025-0001, OMB control number 1506-0076 and RIN 1506-AB49.

FinCEN Interim Final Rule RIN 1506-AB49

FinCEN News Release

Melanie Krause, the IRS’s Chief Operating Officer, has been named acting IRS Commissioner following the retirement of Doug O’Donnell. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent acknowledged O’Donnell’s 38 years of service, commending his leadership and dedication to taxpayers.

Melanie Krause, the IRS’s Chief Operating Officer, has been named acting IRS Commissioner following the retirement of Doug O’Donnell. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent acknowledged O’Donnell’s 38 years of service, commending his leadership and dedication to taxpayers. O’Donnell, who had been acting Commissioner since January, will retire on Friday, expressing confidence in Krause’s ability to guide the agency through tax season. Krause, who joined the IRS in 2021 as Chief Data & Analytics Officer, has since played a key role in modernizing operations and overseeing core agency functions. With experience in federal oversight and operational strategy, Krause previously worked at the Government Accountability Office and the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General. She became Chief Operating Officer in 2024, managing finance, security, and procurement. Holding advanced degrees from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Krause will lead the IRS until a permanent Commissioner is appointed.

A grant disbursement to a corporation to be used for rent payments following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center was not excluded from the corporation's gross income. Grants were made to affected businesses with funding provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The corporation's grant agreement required the corporation to employ a certain number of people in New York City, with a portion of those people employed in lower Manhattan for a period of time. Pursuant to this agreement, the corporation requested a disbursement as reimbursement for rent expenses.

A grant disbursement to a corporation to be used for rent payments following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center was not excluded from the corporation's gross income. Grants were made to affected businesses with funding provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The corporation's grant agreement required the corporation to employ a certain number of people in New York City, with a portion of those people employed in lower Manhattan for a period of time. Pursuant to this agreement, the corporation requested a disbursement as reimbursement for rent expenses.

Exclusions from Gross Income

Under the expansive definition of gross income, the grant proceeds were income unless specifically excluded. Payments are only excluded under Code Sec. 118(a) when a transferor intends to make a contribution to the permanent working capital of a corporation. The grant amount was not connected to capital improvements nor restricted for use in the acquisition of capital assets. The transferor intended to reimburse the corporation for rent expenses and not to make a capital contribution. As a result, the grant was intended to supplement income and defray current operating costs, and not to build up the corporation's working capital.

The grant proceeds were also not a gift under Code Sec. 102(a). The motive for providing the grant was not detached and disinterested generosity, but rather a long-term commitment from the company to create and maintain jobs. In addition, a review of the funding legislation and associated legislative history did not show that Congress possessed the requisite donative intent to consider the grant a gift. The program was intended to support the redevelopment of the area after the terrorist attacks. Finally, the grant was not excluded as a qualified disaster relief payment under Code Sec. 139(a) because that provision is only applicable to individuals.

Accuracy-Related Penalty

Because the corporation relied on Supreme Court decisions, statutory language, and regulations, there was substantial authority for its position that the grant proceeds were excluded from income. As a result, the accuracy-related penalty was not imposed.

CF Headquarters Corporation, 164 TC No. 5, Dec. 62,627

The parent corporation of two tiers of controlled foreign corporations (CFCs) with a domestic partnership interposed between the two tiers was not entitled to deemed paid foreign tax credits under Code Sec. 902 or Code Sec. 960 for taxes paid or accrued by the lower-tier CFCs owned by the domestic partnership. Code Sec. 902 did not apply because there was no dividend distribution. Code Sec. 960 did not apply because the Code Sec. 951(a) inclusions with respect to the lower-tier CFCs were not taken into account by the domestic corporation.

The parent corporation of two tiers of controlled foreign corporations (CFCs) with a domestic partnership interposed between the two tiers was not entitled to deemed paid foreign tax credits under Code Sec. 902 or Code Sec. 960 for taxes paid or accrued by the lower-tier CFCs owned by the domestic partnership. Code Sec. 902 did not apply because there was no dividend distribution. Code Sec. 960 did not apply because the Code Sec. 951(a) inclusions with respect to the lower-tier CFCs were not taken into account by the domestic corporation.

Background

The parent corporation owned three CFCs, which were upper-tier CFC partners in a domestic partnership. The domestic partnership was the sole U.S. shareholder of several lower-tier CFCs.

The parent corporation claimed that it was entitled to deemed paid foreign tax credits on taxes paid by the lower-tier CFCs on earnings and profits, which generated Code Sec. 951 inclusions for subpart F income and Code Sec. 956 amounts. The amounts increased the earnings and profits of the upper-tier CFC partners.

Deemed Paid Foreign Tax Credits Did Not Apply

Before 2018, Code Sec. 902 allowed deemed paid foreign tax credit for domestic corporations that owned 10 percent or more of the voting stock of a foreign corporation from which it received dividends, and for taxes paid by another group member, provided certain requirements were met.

The IRS argued that no dividends were paid and so the foreign income taxes paid by the lower-tier CFCs could not be deemed paid by the entities in the higher tiers.

The taxpayer agreed that Code Sec. 902 alone would not provide a credit, but argued that through Code Sec. 960, Code Sec. 951 inclusions carried deemed dividends up through a chain of ownership. Under Code Sec. 960(a), if a domestic corporation has a Code Sec. 951(a) inclusion with respect to the earnings and profits of a member of its qualified group, Code Sec. 902 applied as if the amount were included as a dividend paid by the foreign corporation.

In this case, the domestic corporation had no Code Sec. 951 inclusions with respect to the amounts generated by the lower-tier CFCs. Rather, the domestic partnerships had the inclusions. The upper- tier CFC partners, which were foreign corporations, included their share of the inclusions in gross income. Therefore, the hopscotch provision in which a domestic corporation with a Code Sec. 951 inclusion attributable to earnings and profits of an indirectly held CFC may claim deemed paid foreign tax credits based on a hypothetical dividend from the indirectly held CFC to the domestic corporation did not apply.

Eaton Corporation and Subsidiaries, 164 TC No. 4, Dec. 62,622

Other Reference:

• Code Sec. 960

An appeals court affirmed that payments made by an individual taxpayer to his ex-wife did not meet the statutory criteria for deductible alimony. The taxpayer claimed said payments were deductible alimony on his federal tax returns.

An appeals court affirmed that payments made by an individual taxpayer to his ex-wife did not meet the statutory criteria for deductible alimony. The taxpayer claimed said payments were deductible alimony on his federal tax returns.

The taxpayer’s payments were not deductible alimony because the governing divorce instruments contained multiple clear, explicit and express directions to that effect. The former couple’s settlement agreement stated an equitable division of marital property that was non-taxable to either party. The agreement had a separate clause obligating the taxpayer to pay a taxable sum as periodic alimony each month. The term “divorce or separation instrument” included both divorce and the written instruments incident to such decree.

Unpublished opinion affirming, per curiam, the Tax Court, Dec. 62,420(M), T.C. Memo. 2024-18.

J.A. Martino, CA-11

As an individual or business, it is your responsibility to be aware of and to meet your tax filing/reporting deadlines. This calendar summarizes important federal tax reporting and filing data for individuals, businesses and other taxpayers for the month of June 2014.

As an individual or business, it is your responsibility to be aware of and to meet your tax filing/reporting deadlines. This calendar summarizes important federal tax reporting and filing data for individuals, businesses and other taxpayers for the month of June 2014.

June 4
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates May 28-30.

June 6
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates May 31-June 3.

June 10
Employees who work for tips. Employees who received $20 or more in tips during May must report them to their employer using Form 4070.

June 11
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates June 4-6.

June 13
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates June 7-10.

June 16
Individuals. Individuals, partnerships, passthrough entities and corporations make the second installment of 2014 estimated quarterly tax payments.

Individuals. U.S. citizens or resident aliens living and working (or on military duty) outside the United States and Puerto Rico must file Form 1040 and pay any tax, interest, and penalties due.

June 18
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates June 11-13.

June 20
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates June 14-17.

June 25
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates June 18-20.

June 27
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates June 21-24.

June 30
Foreign Assets. FinCEN Form 114, Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) (formerly Form TD F 90-22.1) due. FinCEN Notice 2013-1 extended the due date for filing FBARs by certain individuals with signature authority over, but no financial interest in, foreign financial accounts of their employer or a closely related entity, to June 30, 2015.

July 2
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates June 25-27.

July 7
Employers. Semi-weekly depositors must deposit employment taxes for payroll dates June 28-30.

Retired employees often start taking benefits by age 65 and, under the minimum distribution rules, must begin taking distributions from their retirement plans when they reach age 70 ½. According to Treasury, a 65-year old female has an even chance of living past age 86, while a 65-year old male has an even chance of living past age 84. The government has become concerned that taxpayers who normally retire at age 65 or even age 70 will outlive their retirement benefits.

The government has found that most employees want at least a partial lump sum payment at retirement, so that some cash is currently available for living expenses. However, under current rules, most employer plans do not offer a partial lump sum coupled with a partial annuity. Employees often are faced with an “all or nothing” decision, where they would have to take their entire retirement benefit either as a lump sum payment when they retire, or as an annuity that does not make available any immediate lump-sum cash cushion. For retirees who live longer, it becomes difficult to stretch their lump sum benefits.

Longevity solution

To address this dilemma, the government is proposing new retirement plan rules to allow plans to make available a partial lump sum payment while allowing participants to take an annuity with the other portion of their benefits. Furthermore, to address the problem of employees outliving their benefits, the government would also encourage plans to offer “longevity” annuities. These annuities would not begin paying benefits until ages 80 or 85. They would provide you a larger annual payment for the same funds than would an annuity starting at age 70 ½. Of course, one reason for the better buy-in price is that you or your heirs would receive nothing if you die before the age 80 or 85 starting date. But many experts believe that it is worth the cost to have the security of knowing that this will help prevent you from “outliving your money.”

To streamline the calculation of partial annuities, the government would allow employees receiving lump-sum payouts from their 401(k) plans to transfer assets into the employer’s existing defined benefit (DB) plan and to purchase an annuity through the DB plan. This would give employees access to the DB plans low-cost annuity purchase rates.

According to the government, the required minimum distribution (RMD) rules are a deterrent to longevity annuities. Because of the minimum distribution rules, plan benefits that could otherwise be deferred until ages 80 or 85 have to start being distributed to a retired employee at age 70 ½. These rules can affect distributions from 401(k) plans, 403(b) tax-sheltered annuities, individual retirement accounts under Code Sec. 408, and eligible governmental deferred compensation plans under Code Sec. 457.

Tentative limitations

The IRS proposes to modify the RMD rules to allow a portion of a participant’s retirement account to be set aside to fund the purchase of a deferred annuity. Participants would be able to exclude the value of this qualified longevity annuity contract (QLAC) from the account balance used to calculate RMDs. Under this approach, up to 25 percent of the account balance could be excluded. The amount is limited to 25 percent to deter the use of longevity annuities as an estate planning device to pass on assets to descendants.

Coming soon

Many of these changes are in proposed regulations and would not take effect until the government issues final regulations. The changes would apply to distributions with annuity starting dates in plan years beginning after final regulations are published, which could be before the end of 2012. Our office will continue to monitor the progress of this important development.

A consequence of the economic downturn for many investors has been significant losses on their investments in retirement accounts, including traditional and Roth individual retirement accounts (IRAs). This article discusses when and how taxpayers can deduct losses suffered in Roth IRAs and traditional IRAs ...and when no deduction will be allowed.

Traditional IRAs

Losses on investments held in a traditional IRA, funded only by contributions that you deducted when you made them, are never deductible. Even when you cash out the IRA after retirement, losses cannot be deducted. The theory behind this rule is that you already received a tax benefit in your deduction for making contributions and any loss lowers the amount of taxable income you must realize when you make retirement withdrawals. The technical explanation is that you are presumed to have a zero basis in your account.

On the other hand, if you make nondeductible traditional IRA contributions, and liquidate all of the investments in your traditional IRA, a loss can be recognized if the amounts distributed are less than the remaining unrecovered basis in the traditional IRA. You claim a loss in a traditional IRA on Schedule A, Form 1040, as a miscellaneous itemized deduction subject to the two percent AGI floor.

Example. During 2008, you made $2,000 in nondeductible contributions to a traditional IRA. Your basis in the IRA at the end of 2008 is $2,000. During 2008, the IRA earned $400 in dividend income and you withdrew $600 from the account. As a result, at the end of 2008 the value of your IRA was $1,800 ($2,000 contributed plus $400 dividends minus $600 withdrawal). You compute and report the taxable portion of your $600 withdrawal and your remaining basis on Form 8606, Nondeductible IRA.

In 2009, the year you retired, your IRA lost $500 in value. At the end of 2009, your IRA balance was $1,300 ($1,800 balance at the end of 2008 minus the $500 loss). Your remaining basis at that time in your IRA is $1,500 ($2,000 nondeductible contributions minus the $500 basis in the prior withdrawal). You withdraw the $1,300 balance remaining in the IRA. You can claim a loss of $200 (your $1,500 basis minus the $1,300 withdrawn) on Form 1040, Schedule A. The allowable loss is further subject to the two percent adjusted gross income (AGI) floor on miscellaneous itemized deductions.

If you made significant nondeductible contributions to an IRA over the last few years, and may be considering withdrawing the entire balance in all of your traditional IRAs before the end of the year in order to recognize a loss, keep in mind doing so will mean losing the opportunity to defer gain if the value of your investments in the accounts increases. Those withdrawn amounts cannot be recontributed at a later date.

Roth IRA losses

When you experience losses on Roth IRA investments, you can only recognize the loss for income tax purposes, if and when all the amounts in the Roth IRA accounts have been distributed and the total distributions are less than your basis (e.g. regular and conversion contributions).

To report a loss in a Roth IRA, all the investments held in your Roth IRA (but not traditional IRAs) must be liquidated. Moreover, the loss is an ordinary loss for income tax purposes, not a capital loss, and can only be claimed as a miscellaneous itemized deduction subject to the two percent of AGI floor that applies to miscellaneous itemized deductions on Form 1040, Schedule A.

Since all Roth IRAs must be completely liquidated to generate a loss deduction, it generally provides only a small comfort to investments gone sour. Closing all your Roth IRAs generally forgoes future appreciation on that amount.

In order to be tax deductible, compensation must be a reasonable payment for services. Smaller companies, whose employees frequently hold significant ownership interests, are particularly vulnerable to IRS attack on their compensation deductions.

In order to be tax deductible, compensation must be a reasonable payment for services. Smaller companies, whose employees frequently hold significant ownership interests, are particularly vulnerable to IRS attack on their compensation deductions.

Reasonable compensation is generally defined as the amount that would ordinarily be paid for like services by like enterprises under like circumstances. This broad definition is supplemented, for purposes of determining whether compensation is deductible as an ordinary and necessary expense, by a number of more specific factors expressed in varying forms by the IRS, the Tax Court and the Circuit Courts of Appeal, and generally relating to the type and extent of services provided, the financial concerns of the company, and the nature of the relationship between the employee and the employer.

Why IRS Is Interested

A chief concern behind the IRS's keen interest in what a company calls "compensation" is the possibility that what is being labeled compensation is in fact a constructive dividend. If employees with ownership interests are being paid excessive amounts by the company, the IRS may challenge compensation deductions on the grounds that what is being called deductible compensation is, in fact, a nondeductible dividend.

Another area of concern for the IRS is the payment of personal expenses of an employee that are disguised as businesses expenses. There, the business is trying to obtain a business expense deduction without the offsetting tax paid by the employee in recognizing income. In such cases, a business and its owners can end up with a triple loss after an IRS audit: taxable income to the individual, no deduction to the business and a tax penalty due from both parties.

Factors Examined

The factors most often examined by the IRS in deciding whether payments are reasonable compensation for services or are, instead, disguised dividend payments, include:

1. The salary history of the individual employee
2. Compensation paid by comparable employers to comparable employees
3. The salary history of other employees of the company
4. Special employee expertise or efforts
5. Year-end payments
6. Independent inactive investor analysis
7. Deferred compensation plan contributions
8. Independence of the board of directors
9. Viewpoint of a hypothetical investor contemplating purchase of the company as to whether such potential investor would be willing to pay the compensation.

Failure to pass the reasonable compensation test will result in the company's loss of all or part of its deduction. Analysis and examination of a company's compensation deductions in light of the relevant listed factors can provide the company with the assurance that the compensation it pays will be treated as reasonable -- and may in the process prevent the loss of its deductions.

Note: In the case of publicly held corporations, a separate $1 million dollar per person cap is also placed on deductible compensation paid to the CEO and each of the four other highest-paid officers identified for SEC purposes. (Certain types of compensation, including performance-based compensation approved by outside directors, are not included in the $1 million limitation.)

The S Corp Enigma

The opposite side of the reasonable compensation coin is present in the case of some S corporations. By characterizing compensation payments as dividends, the owners of these corporations seek to reduce employment taxes due on amounts paid to them by their companies. In these cases, the IRS attempts to recharacterize dividends as salary if the amounts were, in fact, paid to the shareholders for services rendered to the corporation.

Caution. In the course of performing the compensation-dividend analysis, watch out for contingent compensation arrangements and for compensation that is proportional to stock ownership. While not always indicators that payments are distributions of dividends instead of compensation for services, their presence does suggest the possibility. Compensation plans should not be keyed to ownership interests. Contingent and incentive arrangements are also scrutinized by the IRS. The courts have frequently ruled that a shareholder has a built-in interest in seeing that the company is successful and rewarding him for increasing the value of his own property is inappropriate. Similar to the reasonable compensation test, however, this rule is not hard and fast. Accordingly, the rules followed in each jurisdiction will control there.

Conclusions

Determining whether a shareholder-employee's compensation is reasonable depends upon many variables, such as the contributions that employee makes to your business, the compensation levels within your industry, and whether an independent investor in your company would accept the employee's compensation as reasonable.

Please call our office for a more customized analysis of how your particular compensation package fits into the various rules and guidelines. Further examination of your practices not only may help your business better sustain its compensation deductions; it may also help you take advantage of other compensation arrangements and opportunities.