Newsletters

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

Employees can elect to make voluntary contributions from their salary to certain retirement plans. The type of plan may depend on your employer. Many employers maintain cash or deferred arrangements -- 401(k) plans -- as part of their defined contribution retirement plan. State and local governments can maintain "457" eligible deferred compensation plans. Nonprofit organizations can provide a 403(b) tax-sheltered annuity. And, of course, taxpayers can contribute to an individual retirement account (IRA).

These plans all maintain separate accounts for their participants. All of these plans are subject to annual limits on voluntary employee contributions, which apply per participant, not per plan. The normal limit for both 2009 and 2010 is $16,500 or the employee's compensation, if less. Employer limits may reduce the $16,500 amount.

Contributions to a 401(k), 403(b) or 457 plans must be made by the end of the calendar year to apply against that year's limit. Generally, employees can change the amount or rate of salary reduction contributions by making an election at any time during the year.

Catch-up contributions

For most plans, the limit increases in the year that the employee will turn 50. The increased limit applies even if the employee terminates employment or dies before actually turning 50. The increased limits are known as "catch-up" contributions. Catch-up contributions are additional elective deferrals made by eligible participants above the normal applicable limit. However, a catch-up contribution does not mean that the employee can take an unused limit from an earlier year and catch-up; the catch-up contribution is based on the higher limits allowed to older individuals.

A plan does not have to allow catch-up contributions. There are statutory limits on catch-up contributions, adjusted for inflation each year. For 401(k), 403(b), and 457 plans, the maximum catch-up contribution for both 2009 and 2010 is $5,500. The employer cannot reduce the catch-up limit. Adding the catch-up limit produces a potential overall limit of $22,000 on voluntary contributions by a 50-year old employee. Excess contributions have to be included in income (if not withdrawn in time), plus they are subject to a 10 percent penalty.

IRAs

For an IRA, there is a separate regular limit of $5,000 for 2009, up to the amount of the individual's compensation, and a separate catch-up limit of $1,000 for an individual who turns 50 by the end of the year. An IRA contribution can be made by the due date of the year's tax return in the following year (not including extensions). So the deadline is April 15 of the following year. There also are penalties for an excess contribution to an IRA.

The new "new homebuyer" tax credit

The homebuyer tax credit would have expired on November 30, 2009 had Congress not extended the credit. The new credit is extended to homes purchased before (1) May 1, 2010, or (2) July 1, 2010 if the taxpayer enters into a written binding contract before May 1, 2010 to close on the home before July 1, 2010. The credit amount remains at a maximum of $8,000, or 10 percent of the home's purchase price (whichever is less). However, the new law places a cap on the home's purchase price, which cannot exceed $800,000 in order to claim the credit. In addition, a modified credit is available for "repeat" homebuyers, discussed below.

Comment. The "first-time homebuyer credit" is somewhat of a misnomer. Under the original - and now extended - credit, you did not (and still do not) technically have to be purchasing your very first home to qualify for and take the credit. A first-time homebuyer for purposes of the $8,000 credit is a taxpayer who an individual (and spouse, if married) who had no present ownership interest in a principal residence during the three-year period ending on the date the home is purchased. This means that you could have previously owned a home as long as you have not had any ownership interest in a personal residence for at least the three years prior to purchasing the home for which you are claiming the credit.

Congress raises income limits

The homebuyer tax credit is also now available to a greater segment of the home-buying population. The new law has increased the income limits that phase out the credit, allowing higher income individuals and families to qualify.Phase-out of the credit begins under the new law at $125,000 modified adjusted gross income (AGI) for single taxpayers (up from $75,000) and at $225,000 for married taxpayers filing joint returns (up from $150,000). The phaseout range itself is $20,000, thereby reducing the credit to zero for individual taxpayers with modified AGI of more than $145,000 ($245,000 for married joint filers). The credit is reduced proportionately for taxpayers with modified AGIs between these amounts.

"Long-time" homeowners qualify for reduced $6,500 credit

A reduced homebuyer tax credit may be claimed by existing homeowners who have owned and lived in their home for a long period of time. The reduced tax credit, of up to $6,500, may benefit long-time homeowners who are ready to move up or simply move on from their current home. The tax credit is equal to 10 percent of the home's purchase price up to a maximum of $6,500. Purchases of homes priced above $800,000 are not eligible for the tax credit.

To qualify for the reduced $6,500 credit, you must be a "long-time resident" as defined by the law. For purposes of the credit, a "long-time resident" is defined as a person who has owned and resided in the same home for at least five consecutive years of the eight years prior to the purchase of the new residence. Importantly, for married taxpayers, the law tests the homeownership history of both the spouses.

If you are an existing, repeat homebuyer who qualifies for the reduced credit, you do not have to purchase a home that is more expensive than your previous home to qualify for the tax credit. There is no requirement that the new principal residence be a "move up" property; it can be less expense than your former home. However it must be your new "principal residence" in order to claim the credit. Moreover, a repeat homebuyer does not need to sell or otherwise dispose of his or her current residence to qualify for the $6,500, either, as long as your new home becomes your principal residence.

Example. Bob and Edith are married and are both eligible to claim the reduced $6,500 credit for existing "long-time residents." Their modified AGI is $240,000, which results in being $15,000 over the beginning of the phaseout for married taxpayers filing jointly. They will be able to claim a partial reduced homebuyer credit in the amount of $1,650 (15,000/$20,000 = 0.75; 1.0-0.75 = 0.25. $6,500 x 0.25 = $1,625).

While the homebuyer credit can be very valuable, it is also very complex. In addition to the provisions we have described, there are special rules for repayment, new documentation requirements, a purchase price cap, and more. Please contact our office for more details about the first-time homebuyer credit.