The American Institute of CPAs in a March 31 letter to House of Representatives voiced its “strong support” for a series of tax administration bills passed in recent days.

The American Institute of CPAs in a March 31 letter to House of Representatives voiced its “strong support” for a series of tax administration bills passed in recent days.

The four bills highlighted in the letter include the Electronic Filing and Payment Fairness Act (H.R. 1152), the Internal Revenue Service Math and Taxpayer Help Act (H.R. 998), the Filing Relief for Natural Disasters Act (H.R. 517), and the Disaster Related Extension of Deadlines Act (H.R. 1491).

All four bills passed unanimously.

H.R. 1152 would apply the “mailbox” rule to electronically submitted tax returns and payments. Currently, a paper return or payment is counted as “received” based on the postmark of the envelope, but its electronic equivalent is counted as “received” when the electronic submission arrived or is reviewed. This bill would change all payment and tax form submissions to follow the mailbox rule, regardless of mode of delivery.

“The AICPA has previously recommended this change and thinks it would offer clarity and simplification to the payment and document submission process,” the organization said in the letter.

H.R. 998 “would require notices describing a mathematical or clerical error be made in plain language, and require the Treasury Secretary to provide additional procedures for requesting an abatement of a math or clerical adjustment, including by telephone or in person, among other provisions,” the letter states.

H.R. 517 would allow the IRS to grant federal tax relief once a state governor declares a state of emergency following a natural disaster, which is quicker than waiting for the federal government to declare a state of emergency as directed under current law, which could take weeks after the state disaster declaration. This bill “would also expand the mandatory federal filing extension under section 7508(d) from 60 days to 120 days, providing taxpayers with additional time to file tax returns following a disaster,” the letter notes, adding that increasing the period “would provide taxpayers and tax practitioners much needed relief, even before a disaster strikes.”

H.R. 1491 would extend deadlines for disaster victims to file for a tax refund or tax credit. The legislative solution “granting an automatic extension to the refund or credit lookback period would place taxpayers affected my major disasters on equal footing as taxpayers not impacted by major disasters and would afford greater clarity and certainty to taxpayers and tax practitioners regarding this lookback period,” AICPA said.

Also passed by the House was the National Taxpayer Advocate Enhancement Act (H.R. 997) which, according to a summary of the bill on Congress.gov, “authorizes the National Taxpayer Advocate to appoint legal counsel within the Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS) to report directly to the National Taxpayer Advocate. The bill also expands the authority of the National Taxpayer Advocate to take personnel actions with respect to local taxpayer advocates (located in each state) to include actions with respect to any employee of TAS.”

Finally, the House passed H.R. 1155, the Recovery of Stolen Checks Act, which would require the Treasury to establish procedures that would allow a taxpayer to elect to receive replacement funds electronically from a physical check that was lost or stolen.

All bills passed unanimously. The passed legislation mirrors some of the provisions included in a discussion draft legislation issued by the Senate Finance Committee in January 2025. A section-by-section summary of the Senate discussion draft legislation can be found here.

AICPA’s tax policy and advocacy comment letters for 2025 can be found here.

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

The Tax Court ruled that the value claimed on a taxpayer’s return exceeded the value of a conversation easement by 7,694 percent. The taxpayer was a limited liability company, classified as a TEFRA partnership. The Tax Court used the comparable sales method, as backstopped by the price actually paid to acquire the property.

The Tax Court ruled that the value claimed on a taxpayer’s return exceeded the value of a conversation easement by 7,694 percent. The taxpayer was a limited liability company, classified as a TEFRA partnership. The Tax Court used the comparable sales method, as backstopped by the price actually paid to acquire the property.

The taxpayer was entitled to a charitable contribution deduction based on its fair market value. The easement was granted upon rural land in Alabama. The property was zoned A–1 Agricultural, which permitted agricultural and light residential use only. The property transaction at occurred at arm’s length between a willing seller and a willing buyer.

Rezoning

The taxpayer failed to establish that the highest and best use of the property before the granting of the easement was limestone mining. The taxpayer failed to prove that rezoning to permit mining use was reasonably probable.

Land Value

The taxpayer’s experts erroneously equated the value of raw land with the net present value of a hypothetical limestone business conducted on the land. It would not be profitable to pay the entire projected value of the business.

Penalty Imposed

The claimed value of the easement exceeded the correct value by 7,694 percent. Therefore, the taxpayer was liable for a 40 percent penalty for a gross valuation misstatement under Code Sec. 6662(h).

Ranch Springs, LLC, 164 TC No. 6, Dec. 62,636

State and local housing credit agencies that allocate low-income housing tax credits and states and other issuers of tax-exempt private activity bonds have been provided with a listing of the proper population figures to be used when calculating the 2025:

State and local housing credit agencies that allocate low-income housing tax credits and states and other issuers of tax-exempt private activity bonds have been provided with a listing of the proper population figures to be used when calculating the 2025:

• calendar-year population-based component of the state housing credit ceiling under Code Sec. 42(h)(3)(C)(ii);
• calendar-year private activity bond volume cap under Code Sec. 146; and
• exempt facility bond volume limit under Code Sec. 142(k)(5)

These figures are derived from the estimates of the resident populations of the 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, which were released by the Bureau of the Census on December 19, 2024. The figures for the insular areas of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands are the midyear population figures in the U.S. Census Bureau’s International Database.

Notice 2025-18

The value of assets of a qualified terminable interest property (QTIP) trust includible in a decedent's gross estate was not reduced by the amount of a settlement intended to compensate the decedent for undistributed income.

The value of assets of a qualified terminable interest property (QTIP) trust includible in a decedent's gross estate was not reduced by the amount of a settlement intended to compensate the decedent for undistributed income.

The trust property consisted of an interest in a family limited partnership (FLP), which held title to ten rental properties, and cash and marketable securities. To resolve a claim by the decedent's estate that the trustees failed to pay the decedent the full amount of income generated by the FLP, the trust and the decedent's children's trusts agreed to be jointly and severally liable for a settlement payment to her estate. The Tax Court found an estate tax deficiency, rejecting the estate's claim that the trust assets should be reduced by the settlement amount and alternatively, that the settlement claim was deductible from the gross estate as an administration expense (P. Kalikow Est., Dec. 62,167(M), TC Memo. 2023-21).

Trust Not Property of the Estate

The estate presented no support for the argument that the liability affected the fair market value of the trust assets on the decedent's date of death. The trust, according to the court, was a legal entity that was not itself an asset of the estate. Thus, a liability that belonged to the trust but had no impact on the value of the underlying assets did not change the value of the gross estate. Furthermore, the settlement did not burden the trust assets. A hypothetical purchaser of the FLP interest, the largest asset of the trust, would not assume the liability and, therefore, would not regard the liability as affecting the price. When the parties stipulated the value of the FLP interest, the estate was aware of the undistributed income claim. Consequently, the value of the assets included in the gross estate was not diminished by the amount of the undistributed income claim.

Claim Not an Estate Expense

The claim was owed to the estate by the trust to correct the trustees' failure to distribute income from the rental properties during the decedent's lifetime. As such, the claim was property included in the gross estate, not an expense of the estate. The court explained that even though the liability was owed by an entity that held assets included within the taxable estate, the claim itself was not an estate expense. The court did not address the estate's theoretical argument that the estate would be taxed twice on the underlying assets held in the trust and the amount of the settlement because the settlement was part of the decedent's residuary estate, which was distributed to a charity. As a result, the claim was not a deductible administration expense of the estate.

P.B. Kalikow, Est., CA-2

An individual was not entitled to deduct flowthrough loss from the forfeiture of his S Corporation’s portion of funds seized by the U.S. Marshals Service for public policy reasons. The taxpayer pleaded guilty to charges of bribery, fraud and money laundering. Subsequently, the U.S. Marshals Service seized money from several bank accounts held in the taxpayer’s name or his wholly owned corporation. 

An individual was not entitled to deduct flowthrough loss from the forfeiture of his S Corporation’s portion of funds seized by the U.S. Marshals Service for public policy reasons. The taxpayer pleaded guilty to charges of bribery, fraud and money laundering. Subsequently, the U.S. Marshals Service seized money from several bank accounts held in the taxpayer’s name or his wholly owned corporation. The S corporation claimed a loss deduction related to its portion of the asset seizures on its return and the taxpayer reported a corresponding passthrough loss on his return.

However, Courts have uniformly held that loss deductions for forfeitures in connection with a criminal conviction frustrate public policy by reducing the "sting" of the penalty. The taxpayer maintained that the public policy doctrine did not apply here, primarily because the S corporation was never indicted or charged with wrongdoing. However, even if the S corporation was entitled to claim a deduction for the asset seizures, the public policy doctrine barred the taxpayer from reporting his passthrough share. The public policy doctrine was not so rigid or formulaic that it may apply only when the convicted person himself hands over a fine or penalty.

Hampton, TC Memo. 2025-32, Dec. 62,642(M)

The IRS has responded to criticism from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration and the National Taxpayer Advocate, among others, that resolution of identity theft accounts takes too long by increasing its measures to flag suspicious tax returns, prevent issuance of fraudulent tax refunds, and to expedite identity theft case processing. As a result, the IRS's resolution time has experienced a moderate improvement from an average of 312 days, as TIGTA reported in September 2013, to an average of 278 days as reported in March 2015. (The 278-day average was based on a statistically valid sampling of 100 cases resolved between August 1, 2011, and July 31, 2012.) The IRS has recently stated that its resolution time dropped to 120 days for cases received in filing season 2013.

The IRS has responded to criticism from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration and the National Taxpayer Advocate, among others, that resolution of identity theft accounts takes too long by increasing its measures to flag suspicious tax returns, prevent issuance of fraudulent tax refunds, and to expedite identity theft case processing. As a result, the IRS's resolution time has experienced a moderate improvement from an average of 312 days, as TIGTA reported in September 2013, to an average of 278 days as reported in March 2015. (The 278-day average was based on a statistically valid sampling of 100 cases resolved between August 1, 2011, and July 31, 2012.) The IRS has recently stated that its resolution time dropped to 120 days for cases received in filing season 2013.

Even with a wait time of 120 days, taxpayers who find themselves victims of tax refund identity theft likely find the road to resolution a frustrating and time consuming process. This article seeks to explain the various pulleys and levers at play when communicating with the IRS about an identity theft case.

Initiating an ID theft case

A taxpayer may become aware that he or she is a victim of tax-related identity theft when the IRS rejects their tax return because someone has already filed a return using the taxpayer's name and/or social security number. A taxpayer may also receive correspondence directly from the IRS that informs them, prior to filing, that someone has filed a suspicious return under their information. In other cases, a taxpayer may have had his or her identity information compromised and wishes to alert the IRS as to the possibility that he or she may be targeted by an identity thief.

For all such cases, the IRS has created Form 14039, Identity Theft Affidavit. Taxpayers who are actual or potential victims of tax-related identity theft may complete and submit the Affidavit to ensure that the IRS flags the tax account for review of any suspicious activity. Taxpayers who have been victimized are asked to provide a short explanation of the problem and how they became aware of it.

The Identity Theft Affidavit may also be submitted by taxpayers that have not yet become victims of tax-related identity theft, but who have experienced the misuse of their personal identity information to obtain credit or who have lost a purse or wallet or had one stolen, who suspect they have been targeted by a phishing or phone scam, etc. The form asks these taxpayers to briefly describe the identity theft violation, the event of concern, and to include the relevant dates.

Once the Form 14039 has been completed and submitted, the taxpayer should expect to receive a Notice CP01S from the IRS by mail. The Notice CP01S simply acknowledges that the IRS has received the taxpayer's Identity Theft Affidavit and reminds the taxpayer to continue to file all federal tax returns.

IDVerify.irs.gov

The IRS has implemented a pre-screening procedure for suspicious tax returns. Rather than halt the refund process entirely, which can prevent a refund claimed on a legitimately filed return, the IRS has provided taxpayers with the opportunity to verify their identity.

Now when the IRS receives a suspicious return, it will send a Letter 5071C or Notice CP01B to the taxpayer requesting him or her to either visit idverify.irs.gov or call the toll-free number listed on the header of the letter (1-800-830-5084) within 30 days. When the taxpayer does this, the taxpayer will encounter a series of questions asking for personal information. If the taxpayer fails to respond to the verification request or responds and answers a question incorrectly the IRS will flag the return as fraudulent and follow the prescribed procedures for resolving identity theft cases.

Resolving the case

After a tax return has been flagged with the special identity theft processing code, the IRS will assign the case to a tax assistor. TIGTA reported that the IRS assigns each case priority based first on its age and then by case type—for example, with cases nearing the statute of limitations placed first, followed by cases claiming disaster relief, and then identity theft cases. However, TIGTA has reported that cases are frequently reassigned to multiple tax assistors, and there are often long lag times where no work is accomplished toward resolution. National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson also noted in her recent "Identity Theft Case Review Report" on a statistical analysis of 409 identity theft cases closed in June 2014 that a significant number of cases experience a period of inactivity averaging 78 days.

After resolution

The IRS has also created the Identity Protection Personal Identification Number (IP PIN) project, which is meant to prevent taxpayers from being victimized by identity thieves a second time after the IRS has resolved their cases and closed them. The IP PIN is a unique six-digit code that taxpayers must entered on their tax return instead

The IRS assigns an IP PIN to a taxpayer by sending him or her a Notice CP01A. Generally this Notice is issued in December in preparation for the upcoming filing season. The taxpayer then enters it into the appropriate box of his or her federal tax return (i.e. Forms 1040, 1040A, 1040EZ or 1040 PR/SS). On paper returns, this box is located on the second page, near the signature line. When e-filing, the tax software or tax return preparer will indicate where the taxpayer should enter the IP PIN, social security number or taxpayer identification number (TIN) at time they file their tax return. The IP PIN is only good for one tax year.

Taxpayers who have been assigned an IP PIN, but who have lost or misplaced it cannot electronically file their tax returns until they have located it. Previously such taxpayers had no way to retrieve their IP PIN and had to file on paper. Beginning on January 14, 2015, however, taxpayers who had lost their IP PINs were able to retrieve them by accessing their online accounts and providing the IRS with specific personal information and answer a series of questions to verify identity.

Latest breach

The IRS announced on May 26th that 100,000 taxpayers became victims of a new identity theft scheme discovered in mid-May 2015. Identity theft criminals used stolen personal identification information to access the IRS's online "Get Transcript" application and illegally download these taxpayers' tax transcripts. The IRS is concerned that the criminals intend to use taxpayers' past-year return information to file false tax returns claiming tax items and refunds that look legitimate and that do not trigger the IRS's filters for finding suspicious returns. 

Within this latest breach of security, identity thieves had attempted to download a total of 200,000 transcripts, but had only been successful half of the time, according to an announcement by IRS Commissioner John Koskinen. Because the IRS has yet to see how many taxpayers were actually victimized, the IRS may not provide IP PINs to all of these 200,000 taxpayers. However, the 100,000 taxpayers whose tax transcripts were downloaded will receive free credit monitoring services at the IRS's expense, Koskinen stated.