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 announced that the mandatory beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting requirement under the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) is back in effect. Because reporting companies may need additional time to comply with their BOI reporting obligations, FinCEN is generally extending the deadline 30 calendar days from February 19, 2025, for most companies.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has announced that the mandatory beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting requirement under the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) is back in effect. Because reporting companies may need additional time to comply with their BOI reporting obligations, FinCEN is generally extending the deadline 30 calendar days from February 19, 2025, for most companies.

FinCEN's announcement is based on the decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Tyler Division) to stay its prior nationwide injunction order against the reporting requirement (Smith v. U.S. Department of the Treasury, DC Tex., 6:24-cv-00336, Feb. 17, 2025). This district court stayed its prior order, pending appeal, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent order to stay the nationwide injunction against the reporting requirement that had been ordered by a different federal district court in Texas (McHenry v. Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., SCt, No. 24A653, Jan. 23, 2025).

Given this latest district court decision, the regulations implementing the BOI reporting requirements of the CTA are no longer stayed.

Updated Reporting Deadlines

Subject to any applicable court orders, BOI reporting is now mandatory, but FinCEN is providing additional time for companies to report:

• For most reporting companies, the extended deadline to file an initial, updated, and/or corrected BOI report is now March 21, 2025. FinCEN expects to provide an update before that date of any further modification of the deadline, recognizing that reporting companies may need additional time to comply.
• Reporting companies that were previously given a reporting deadline later than March 21, 2025, must file their initial BOI report by that later deadline. For example, if a company’s reporting deadline is in April 2025 because it qualifies for certain disaster relief extensions, it should follow the April deadline, not the March deadline.

Plaintiffs in National Small Business United v. Yellen, DC Ala., No. 5:22-cv-01448, are not required to report their beneficial ownership information to FinCEN at this time.

FinCEN Notice FIN-2025-CTA1

The IRS has issued Notice 2025-15, providing guidance on an alternative method for furnishing health coverage statements under Code Secs. 6055 and 6056. This method allows insurers and applicable large employers (ALEs) to comply with their reporting obligations by posting an online notice rather than automatically furnishing statements to individuals.

The IRS has issued Notice 2025-15, providing guidance on an alternative method for furnishing health coverage statements under Code Secs. 6055 and 6056. This method allows insurers and applicable large employers (ALEs) to comply with their reporting obligations by posting an online notice rather than automatically furnishing statements to individuals.

Under Code Sec. 6055, entities providing minimum essential coverage must report coverage details to the IRS and furnish statements to responsible individuals. Similarly, Code Sec. 6056 requires ALEs, generally those with 50 or more full-time employees, to report health insurance information for those employees. The Paperwork Burden Reduction Act amended these sections to introduce an alternative furnishing method, effective for statements related to returns for calendar years after 2023.

Instead of automatically providing statements, reporting entities may post a clear and conspicuous notice on their websites, informing individuals that they may request a copy of their statement. The notice must be posted by the original furnishing deadline, including any automatic 30-day extension, and must remain accessible through October 15 of the following year. If a responsible individual or full-time employee requests a statement, the reporting entity must furnish it within 30 days of the request or by January 31 of the following year, whichever is later.

For statements related to the 2024 calendar year, the notice must be posted by March 3, 2025. Statements may be furnished electronically if permitted under Reg. § 1.6055-2 for minimum essential coverage providers and Reg. § 301.6056-2 for ALEs.

This alternative method applies regardless of whether the individual shared responsibility payment under Code Sec. 5000A is zero. The guidance clarifies that this method applies to statements required under both Code Sec. 6055 and Code Sec. 6056. Reg. § 1.6055-1(g)(4)(ii)(B) sets forth the requirements for the alternative manner of furnishing statements under Code Sec. 6055, while the same framework applies to Code Sec. 6056 with relevant terminology adjustments. Form 1095-B, used for reporting minimum essential coverage, and Form 1095-C, used by ALEs to report health insurance offers, may be provided under this alternative method.

Notice 2025-15

The IRS has issued the luxury car depreciation limits for business vehicles placed in service in 2025 and the lease inclusion amounts for business vehicles first leased in 2025.

The IRS has issued the luxury car depreciation limits for business vehicles placed in service in 2025 and the lease inclusion amounts for business vehicles first leased in 2025.

Luxury Passenger Car Depreciation Caps

The luxury car depreciation caps for a passenger car placed in service in 2025 limit annual depreciation deductions to:

• $12,200 for the first year without bonus depreciation
• $20,200 for the first year with bonus depreciation
• $19,600 for the second year
• $11,800 for the third year
• $7,060 for the fourth through sixth year

Depreciation Caps for SUVs, Trucks and Vans

The luxury car depreciation caps for a sport utility vehicle, truck, or van placed in service in 2025 are:

• $12,200 for the first year without bonus depreciation
• $20,200 for the first year with bonus depreciation
• $19,600 for the second year
• $11,800 for the third year
• $7,060 for the fourth through sixth year

Excess Depreciation on Luxury Vehicles

If depreciation exceeds the annual cap, the excess depreciation is deducted beginning in the year after the vehicle’s regular depreciation period ends.

The annual cap for this excess depreciation is:

• $7,060 for passenger cars and
• $7,060 for SUVS, trucks, and vans.

Lease Inclusion Amounts for Cars, SUVs, Trucks and Vans

If a vehicle is first leased in 2025, a taxpayer must add a lease inclusion amount to gross income in each year of the lease if its fair market value at the time of the lease is more than:

• $62,000 for a passenger car, or
• $62,000 for an SUV, truck or van.

The 2025 lease inclusion tables provide the lease inclusion amounts for each year of the lease.

The lease inclusion amount results in a permanent reduction in the taxpayer’s deduction for the lease payments.

Rev. Proc. 2025-16

The leadership of the Senate Finance Committee have issued a discussion draft of bipartisan legislative proposals to make administrative and procedural improvements to the Internal Revenue Service.

A limited liability company (LLC) classified as a TEFRA partnership could not claim a charitable contribution deduction for a conservation easement because the easement deed failed to comply with the perpetuity requirements under Code Sec. 170(h)(5)(A) and Reg. § 1.170A-14(g)(6). The Tax Court determined that the language of the deed did not satisfy statutory requirements, rendering the claimed deduction invalid.

A limited liability company (LLC) classified as a TEFRA partnership could not claim a charitable contribution deduction for a conservation easement because the easement deed failed to comply with the perpetuity requirements under Code Sec. 170(h)(5)(A) and Reg. § 1.170A-14(g)(6). The Tax Court determined that the language of the deed did not satisfy statutory requirements, rendering the claimed deduction invalid.

Easement Valuation

The taxpayer asserted that the highest and best use of the property was as a commercial mining site, supporting a valuation significantly higher than its purchase price. However, the Court concluded that the record did not support this assertion. The Court found that the proposed mining use was not financially feasible or maximally productive. The IRS’s expert relied on comparable sales data, while the taxpayer’s valuation method was based on a discounted cash-flow analysis, which the Court found speculative and not supported by market data.

Penalties

The taxpayer contended that the IRS did not comply with supervisory approval process under Code Sec. 6751(b) prior to imposing penalties. However, the Court found that the concerned IRS revenue agent duly obtained prior supervisory approval and the IRS satisfied the procedural requirements under Code Sec. 6751(b). Because the valuation of the easement reported on the taxpayer’s return exceeded 200 percent of the Court-determined value, the misstatement was deemed "gross" under Code Sec. 6662(h)(2)(A)(i). Accordingly, the Court upheld accuracy-related penalties under Code Sec. 6662 for gross valuation misstatement, substantial understatement, and negligence.

Green Valley Investors, LLC, TC Memo. 2025-15, Dec. 62,617(M)

The Tax Court ruled that IRS Appeals Officers and Team Managers were not "Officers of the United States." Therefore, they did not need to be appointed under the Appointments Clause.

The Tax Court ruled that IRS Appeals Officers and Team Managers were not "Officers of the United States." Therefore, they did not need to be appointed under the Appointments Clause.

The taxpayer filed income taxes for tax years 2012 (TY) through TY 2017, but he did not pay tax. During a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing, the taxpayer raised constitutional arguments that IRS Appeals and associated employees serve in violation of the Appointments Clause and the constitutional separation of powers.

No Significant Authority

The court noted that IRS Appeals officers do not wield significant authority. For instance, the officers do not have authority to examine witnesses, unlike Tax Court Special Trial Judges (STJs) and SEC Administrative Law Judges (ALJs). The Appeals officers also lack the power to issue, serve, and enforce summonses through the IRS’s general power to examine books and witnesses.

The court found no reason to deviate from earlier judgments in Tucker v. Commissioner (Tucker I), 135 T.C. 114, Dec. 58,279); and Tucker v. Commissioner (Tucker II), CA-DC, 676 F.3d 1129, 2012-1 ustc ¶50,312). Both judgments emphasized the court’s observations in the current case. In Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (per curiam), the Supreme Court similarly held that Federal Election Commission (FEC) commissioners were not appointed in accordance with the Appointments Clause, and thus none of them were permitted to exercise "significant authority."

The taxpayer lacked standing to challenge the appointment of the IRS Appeals Chief, and said officers under the Appointments Clause, and the removal of the Chief under the separation of powers doctrine.

IRC Chief of Appeals

The taxpayer failed to prove that the Chief’s tenure affected his hearing and prejudiced him in some way, under standards in United States v. Smith, 962 F.3d 755 (4th Cir. 2020) and United States v. Castillo, 772 F. App’x 11 (3d Cir. 2019). The Chief did not participate in the taxpayer's CDP hearing, and so the Chief did not injure the taxpayer. The taxpayer's injury was not fairly traceable to the appointment (or lack thereof) of the Chief, and the Chief was too distant from the case for any court order pointed to him to redress the taxpayer's harm.

C.C. Tooke III, 164 TC No. 2, Dec. 62,610