Dealing with state tax issues? It comes down to domicile

USA Discussion in 'General Tax Discussion' started by George Tsourdinis, May 9, 2017.

  1. George Tsourdinis

    George Tsourdinis

    Joined:
    May 9, 2017
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. Advertisements

  2. George Tsourdinis

    George Tsourdinis

    Joined:
    May 9, 2017
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. Advertisements

  3. George Tsourdinis

    George Tsourdinis

    Joined:
    May 9, 2017
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    George Tsourdinis, May 13, 2017
    #3
  4. George Tsourdinis

    George Tsourdinis

    Joined:
    May 9, 2017
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    In Hargis, T.C. Memo. 2016-232, the Tax Court held that an S corporation shareholder could not claim losses from several wholly owned S corporations due to insufficient basis. The shareholder's participation as a co-maker or guarantor of his S corporations' borrowings did not increase his basis because the indebtedness didn't run directly to him.

    http://www.thetaxadviser.com/issues...cpald&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=15May2017

    George Tsourdinis
     
    George Tsourdinis, May 15, 2017
    #4
  5. George Tsourdinis

    George Tsourdinis

    Joined:
    May 9, 2017
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    Based on how states conform (or not) to IRS regulations for purposes of state income tax, the recently issued regulations under Sec. 385 could have material consequences for state corporate income tax (and possibly other state and local taxes), even if an exception applies for federal tax purposes. The IRS issued final and temporary regulations (T.D. 9790) on Oct. 13, 2016.

    What follows is a high-level overview of certain provisions in the regulations that could have state corporate income tax consequences. It is important to understand that the regulations consist of a number of complex provisions and exceptions, including ordering, transition, and operating rules.

    http://www.thetaxadviser.com/issues...cpald&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=16May2017

    George Tsourdinis
     
    George Tsourdinis, May 16, 2017
    #5
  6. George Tsourdinis

    George Tsourdinis

    Joined:
    May 9, 2017
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    George Tsourdinis, May 17, 2017
    #6
  7. George Tsourdinis

    George Tsourdinis

    Joined:
    May 9, 2017
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    George Tsourdinis, May 18, 2017
    #7
  8. George Tsourdinis

    George Tsourdinis

    Joined:
    May 9, 2017
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sec. 743(b) provides that in the case of a sale or exchange of a partnership interest for which a Sec. 754 election is in place, a partnership shall adjust the basis of partnership property. The purpose of the adjustment is to eliminate the difference between inside basis of the partnership property and the outside basis of the partnership interest for the transferee partner. The basis adjustment is allocated among the partnership's assets in a manner that has the effect of reducing the difference between the property's fair market value (FMV) and its tax basis.

    http://www.thetaxadviser.com/issues...cpald&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=22May2017

    George Tsourdinis
     
    George Tsourdinis, May 22, 2017
    #8
  9. George Tsourdinis

    George Tsourdinis

    Joined:
    May 9, 2017
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    George Tsourdinis, May 25, 2017
    #9
  10. George Tsourdinis

    George Tsourdinis

    Joined:
    May 9, 2017
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    A federal district court held that the IRS has the authority to require tax return preparers to obtain preparer tax identification numbers (PTINs) but that it cannot charge a user fee for issuing PTINs (Steele, No: 14-cv-1523-RCL (D.D.C. 6/1/17)). The plaintiffs in the case, tax return preparers, brought a class action suit against the IRS claiming that the IRS lacks legal authority to require preparers to obtain PTINs and to charge a fee for issuing them.

    The IRS originally began charging a user fee for issuing a PTIN in connection with its tax return preparer registration program, which required tax return preparers who were not CPAs, attorneys, or enrolled agents to pass an exam and register with the IRS. That program was invalidated in Loving, 742 F.3d 1013 (D.C. Cir. 2014).

    http://www.journalofaccountancy.com...cpald&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=06Jun2017

    George Tsourdinis
     
    George Tsourdinis, Jun 6, 2017
    #10
  11. George Tsourdinis

    George Tsourdinis

    Joined:
    May 9, 2017
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    IRS provides simplified method to request an extension of time to make a portability election

    In a taxpayer-friendly development on Friday, the IRS issued guidance permitting certain estates to make a late portability election if they did not make a timely election (Rev. Proc. 2017-34). A portability election allows a decedent’s unused exclusion amount (deceased spousal unused exclusion amount, or DSUE amount) for estate and gift tax purposes to be available for the surviving spouse’s subsequent transfers during life or at death.

    Previously, the IRS had provided a simplified method for obtaining an extension of time to make a portability election, if the estate was not required to file an estate tax return and if the decedent was survived by a spouse. However, this simplified method was available only on or before Dec. 31, 2014.

    http://www.journalofaccountancy.com...cpald&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=12Jun2017

    George Tsourdinis
     
    George Tsourdinis, Jun 12, 2017
    #11
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.