The IRS issued proposed regulations on disguised sales of property to or by a partnership under Sec. 707 and the treatment of partnership liabilities under Sec. 752.
The IRS issued proposed regulations providing guidance on the application of Sec. 704(c)(1)(C) added by the American Jobs Creation Act and the amendments to the mandatory basis adjustment rules of Sec. 743 in the AJCA.
When information disclosing income that should have been included in the taxpayer’s return is provided to the IRS after the return is filed, that information is not considered to be disclosed on the return.
This two-part article provides a comprehensive review of the rules for determining the taxability of an S corporation’s distributions to its recipient shareholders. Part I provides an overview of the intent of Sec. 1368 and the related regulations, the shareholder- and corporate-level attributes that drive a distribution’s taxability, and the rules for determining the tax consequences of distributions made from an S corporation without accumulated earnings and profits.
The IRS issued proposed regulations aimed at preventing partnerships from using technical terminations to accelerate their deductions of startup and organizational expenses.
The Supreme Court held that the 40% penalty for a gross valuation misstatement applied when the partnerships at issue had been determined to be shams that lacked economic substance, and, as a result, the partners’ outside basis in the partnerships was zero.
ATRA extended the five-year recognition period for the BIG tax to 2012 and 2013 and also changed the BIG tax treatment of installment sales and carryovers of built-in gain not taxed in the year recognized because of the taxable income limitation.
In some situations, business owners have state-law reasons for wanting their business to be formed as a limited liability company, but for tax purposes they would prefer S corporation (rather than partnership) tax treatment.
The IRS ruled that a joint collaboration between two corporations was a partnership for U.S. federal tax purposes and the entity could not elect out of the application of subchapter K of the Code.
The IRS ruled that S corporation members of a controlled group may use the Sec. 179 election up to the maximum election amount as if they were separate entities, and are not subject to the controlled group’s overall limit.
The exclusion of S corporations from component membership in controlled groups of corporations multiplies the planning opportunities for businesses under common control but calls for vigilance by tax professionals to use this deduction wisely.
Two recent Tax Court opinions focusing on reasonable compensation for S corporation shareholder-employees provide important takeaways for owners and practitioners by addressing common issues surrounding distributions and loan repayments in the context of reasonable compensation.
A partnership making an optional Sec. 754 basis adjustment for land subject to a long-term ground lease is permitted to adjust the basis of the land but may not allocate the basis adjustment to buildings or other depreciable assets the lessee constructed.
The Office of Chief Counsel advised that an indemnification agreement should be disregarded and, accordingly, the underlying partner contribution and distribution should be treated as a disguised sale.
This article discusses major changes and developments that directly affect S corporations and their tax advisers during the period of this update (July 10, 2012–July 9, 2013).
The IRS recently released an information letter to clarify the treatment of the Sec. 179 limitations applied to members of a controlled group, in which certain members had made an election to be treated as an S corporation.