Newsletters

In 2021, Congress passed the Corporate Transparency Act on a bipartisan basis. This law takes effect in 2024 and creates a new beneficial ownership information reporting requirement as part of the U.S. government’s efforts to make it harder for bad actors to hide or benefit from their ill-gotten gains through shell companies or other opaque ownership structures.

In 2021, Congress passed the Corporate Transparency Act on a bipartisan basis. This law takes effect in 2024 and creates a new beneficial ownership information reporting requirement as part of the U.S. government’s efforts to make it harder for bad actors to hide or benefit from their ill-gotten gains through shell companies or other opaque ownership structures.

Starting in 2024, the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) mandates certain entities (primarily small and medium-size businesses) created in or registered to do business in the United States report information about their beneficial owners—the individuals who ultimately own or control a company—to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”). Business entities formed prior to January 1, 2024, have until the end of 2024 to comply with reporting requirements. Business entities created on or after January 1, 2024, have 90 days from the date of formation to comply with the reporting requirements.  Entities created or registered on or after January 1, 2025, will have 30 calendar days from actual or public notice that the company’s creation or registration is effective to file their initial BOI reports with FinCEN. Please visit https://www.fincen.gov/boi-faqs for more information and to help determine your reporting requirements.

Proposition 19 (Prop 19) was passed in California in 2021, and contains two relevant changes in California property tax assessments that may impact your estate planning. To ensure that you are not unaware of or adversely impacted by these changes, here is a summary of relevant planning information for your review.

Proposition 19 (Prop 19) was passed in California in 2021 and contains two relevant changes in California property tax assessments that may impact your estate planning. To ensure that you are not unaware of or adversely impacted by these changes, below is a summary of relevant planning information for your review.

Changes to the Transfer of Taxable Value for Certain Property Owners

Prop 19 expands the class of people who qualify for a transfer of their taxable value (i.e., property tax assessed value) from their current home to a new property.

Under prior law, only homeowners over 55 years of age or certain disabled persons could make use of this benefit one time during their lifetime. And they could do so only if (1) their new home is in the same county as their old home or in a few other select counties, (2) the value of their new home is less than or equal to the value of their old home, and (3) the sale and new purchase were done within a two year period.

The new law, which took effect on April 1, 2021:

• Expands the class of homeowners who are able to transfer their taxable value to include victims of wildfire or other natural disasters, regardless of age or disability status;
• Permits homeowners to take advantage of this provision three times during their lifetime.
• Removes the restriction that the replacement home must be in the same county as the old home. Now such replacements must simply be in the state of California.
• Allows homeowners to buy a replacement home that is worth more than their old home, provided, however, that the increase in value is added to the transferred taxable value of the old home. For example, assume a homeowner is over 55. Her house has a taxable value of $500,000. She sells it for $3,000,000. If she buys a new home anywhere in California for $3,000,000 or less, she can transfer her $500,000 taxable value to the new home, and it will become its taxable value. However, if she wants to upgrade to a $5,000,000 home, her new home's taxable value will be $2,500,000 – the taxable value of her old home transferred ($500,000) plus the upgrade value ($5,000,000 - $3,000,000.)

The new law keeps the two-year window requirement.

Changes to the Parent-Child Exclusion

Prop 19 limits the availability of the parent-child exclusion for purposes of real estate tax assessments. This aspect of Prop 19 took effect on February 16, 2021.

Under prior law, when a parent (or grandparent) transfers ownership of his or her principal residence to a child, the property's value for tax assessment purposes is not reassessed, regardless of how the child uses the residence. In California, transferring a parent's home to one or more children is permissible under current law without triggering reassessment, and the child or children could use it as a vacation home or a rental property.

Prop 19 changed this by requiring that the child or children use the residence as their own principal residence, or it will be reassessed. Furthermore, even if the child uses the residence as his or her own, there is a cap of $1,000,000 on the exclusion, as explained below. Technically, the new and old rules apply where a child transfers the residence to a parent, but this is much less common.

If your home has increased in value significantly from its taxable value, Prop 19 adds certain limitations that could result in an increased assessment. This new rule will apply to outright transfers and to transfers in trusts, such as the QPRT transfer illustrated below. If the increase in value is less than or equal to $1,000,000, no adjustment is made. If the increase in value is more than $1,000,000, the increase in value after the first $1,000,000 is added to the tax assessed value. For example, assume a parent's home has a taxable value of $500,000. Because the parent purchased the home many years ago, its value is now $5,000,000. In other words, it has increased by $4,500,000. The new reassessed value if the parent gifts the home to her child will be $3,500,000. There are inflation adjustments that apply to the $1,000,000 increase limitation for subsequent years.

This change to the parent-child exclusion may also affect many common estate planning trusts that were established several years (or even decades) ago. For example, a qualified personal residence trust (QPRT) allows the transfer of a residence to a trust while that residence can still be occupied for a fixed number of years. The parent(s) continue to live in the residence as their primary residence, and at the end of the fixed number of years, the residence transfers to someone else (typically their children or a trust for their benefit). Most parents who establish QPRTs want to continue living in the house after the fixed term ends. They may do so, but they need to pay rent to the trust or to their children, depending on who owns the residence at the end of the fixed term.

Under prior law, when the children become the owners they would qualify for the parent-child exclusion. Now, however, the children need to use the residence as their primary residence or trigger reassessment. They could not rent it back to the parent, and if siblings are entitled to the residence at the end of the fixed term, they would need to move in together and share a household to qualify for the exemption – which perhaps is not ideal for most adult children. If parents have QPRTs whose fixed term ends on or after February 16, 2021, the value of their home may be reassessed to its current value. This could lead to a massive property tax increase, though it may be possible to mitigate this. A review of your estate planning documents is recommended.

Full text of Proposition is available at https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2020/general/pdf/topl-prop19.pdf

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