The IRS and the Treasury Department have automatically extended the federal income tax filing due date for individuals for the 2020 tax year, from April 15, 2021, to May 17, 2021. Individual taxpayers can also postpone federal income tax payments for the 2020 tax year due on April 15, 2021, to May 17, 2021, without penalties and interest, regardless of the amount owed.

The IRS and the Treasury Department have automatically extended the federal income tax filing due date for individuals for the 2020 tax year, from April 15, 2021, to May 17, 2021. Individual taxpayers can also postpone federal income tax payments for the 2020 tax year due on April 15, 2021, to May 17, 2021, without penalties and interest, regardless of the amount owed.

This postponement applies to individual taxpayers, including those who pay self-employment tax. Penalties, interest and additions to tax will begin to accrue on any remaining unpaid balances as of May 17, 2021.

The IRS has informed taxpayers that they do not need to file any forms or call the IRS to qualify for this automatic federal tax filing and payment relief.

Individual taxpayers who need additional time to file beyond the May 17 deadline can request a filing extension until October 15 by filing Form 4868 through their tax professional or tax software, or by using the Free File link on the IRS website. Filing Form 4868 gives taxpayers until October 15 to file their 2020 tax return, but does not grant an extension of time to pay taxes due.

Not for Estimated Taxes, Other Items

This relief does not apply to estimated tax payments that are due on April 15, 2021. Taxes must be paid as taxpayers earn or receive income during the year, either through withholding or estimated tax payments. Also, the federal tax filing deadline postponement to May 17, 2021, only applies to individual federal income returns and tax (including tax on self-employment income) payments otherwise due April 15, 2021, not state tax payments or deposits or payments of any other type of federal tax. The IRS urges taxpayers to check with their state tax agencies for details on state filing and payment deadlines.

Winter Storm Relief

The IRS had previously announced relief for victims of the February winter storms in Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana. These states have until June 15, 2021, to file various individual and business tax returns and make tax payments. The extension to May 17 does not affect the June deadline.

On March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. Some of the tax-related provisions include the following:

On March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. Some of the tax-related provisions include the following:

• 2021 Recovery Rebate Credits of $1,400 for eligible individuals ($2,800 for joint filers) plus $1,400 for each eligible dependent. Credit begins to phase out at adjusted gross income of $150,000 for joint filers, $112,500 for a head of household, $75,000 for other individuals. The IRS has already begun making advance refund payments of the credit to taxpayers.
• Exclusion of up to $10,200 of unemployment compensation from income for tax year 2020 for households with adjusted gross income under $150,000.
• Enhancements of many personal tax credits meant to benefit individuals with lower incomes and children.
• Exclusion of student loan debt from income, for loans discharged between December 31, 2020, and January 1, 2026.
• For tax years after December 31, 2026, the $1,000,000 deduction limit on compensation of a publicly-held corporation’s covered employees will expand to include the five highest paid employees after the CEO and CFO. The rule in current law applies to the CEO, the CFO, and the next three highest paid officers.
• For the payroll credits for paid sick and family leave: The credit amounts are increased by an employer’s collectively bargained pension plan and apprenticeship program contributions that are allocable to paid leave wages. Also, paid leave wages do not include wages taken into account as payroll costs under certain Small Business Administration programs.

The president is conducting a nationwide tour to explain and promote the over 600-page, $1.9 trillion legislation.

Stimulus Payments

Many of the 158.5 million American households eligible for the payments from the stimulus package can expect to receive them soon, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said the same afternoon Biden signed the legislation into law. Payments are coming by direct deposit, checks, or a debit card to those eligible.

FTC: Beware of Scams

Scammers are right now crawling out from under their rocks to fleece businesses and consumers receiving the aid, the Federal Trade Commission warned on March 12.

It is important for business owners and consumers to know that the federal government will never ask them to pay anything up front to get this money, said the FTC: "That’s a scam. Every time." The regulatory agency also cautioned that the government will not call, text, email or direct mail aid recipients to ask for a Social Security, bank account, or credit card number.

The IRS needs to issue new rules and guidance to implement the American Rescue Plan, experts said on March 11 as President Joe Biden signed his COVID-19 relief measure.

The IRS needs to issue new rules and guidance to implement the American Rescue Plan, experts said on March 11 as President Joe Biden signed his COVID-19 relief measure.

"I hope Treasury will say something very soon: FAQs, press release, something. IRS undoubtedly will have to write new regs," commented Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center Senior Fellow Howard Gleckman. He stressed IRS certainly will have to figure out how to make the retroactive tax exemption for some 2020 unemployment benefits work. Gleckman also said he suspects the Child Tax Credit will require new guidance.

Gleckman claimed a new form this late in the tax season is unlikely. "Amended returns seems easiest," said the veteran IRS observer.

To help implement the tax-related changes in the American Rescue Plan, a colleague at the Tax Policy Center, Janet Holtzblatt, said that she, as well, is looking for guidance from the IRS on what taxpayers would do if they received unemployment benefits in 2020. Holtzblatt noted the law would exclude $10,200 of those benefits from adjusted gross income if the taxpayers’ adjusted gross income is less than $150,000.

What people will want to know, Holtzblatt stated, is:

• What to do if they already filed their tax return and paid income taxes on those benefits? Do they have to file an amended tax return just to get the tax refund for that reason, or will the IRS establish a simpler method to do so?
• And going forward, what about people who have not yet filed their tax return? If a new form is not released, what should they report on the existing return—the full amount or the partial amount? And how will the IRS know when the tax return is processed whether the taxpayer reported the full amount or the partial amount? (Eventually, the IRS could—when, after the filing season is over and tax returns are matched to 1099s from UI offices—but that could be months before taxpayers would be made whole.)

For the CARES Act, Holtzblatt said the IRS generally provided guidance through FAQs on their website which was insufficient for some tax professionals and later voided. "Some of their interpretations raised questions—and in the case of the treatment of prisoners, was challenged in the courts and led to a reversal of the interpretation in the FAQ," she explained.

National Association of Tax Professionals Director of Marketing, Communications & Business Development Nancy Kasten said new rules are musts and the agency will have to issue new FAQs, potentially on all of the key provisions in the legislation. The NATP executive asserted that old forms are going to need to be revised for Tax Year 2021. "Regarding 2020 retroactive items, we are waiting on IRS guidance," said Kasten.

National Conference of CPA Practitioners National Tax Policy Committee Co-Chair Steve Mankowski said the primary rules that will need to be written ASAP relate to the changes in the 2020 unemployment, especially since it appears to be income based as well as the increased child tax credit with advanced payments being sent monthly unless a taxpayer opts out. He added there will most likely need to be a worksheet added to the 2020 tax returns to show the unemployment received and adjusting UE income down to the taxable amount.

Mankowski, immediate past president of NCCCPAP said the primary items for new FAQs include the unemployment and the income limit on the non-taxability, changes in the child tax credit; and changes in the Employee Retention Credit.

In response to an email seeking what the agency plans to do to help implement the pandemic relief measure, an IRS spokesman forwarded the following statement released on March 10:

"The IRS is reviewing implementation plans for the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 that was recently passed by Congress. Additional information about a new round of Economic Impact Payments and other details will be made available on IRS.gov, once the legislation has been signed by the President."

Strengthening tax breaks to promote manufacturing received strong bipartisan support at a Senate Finance Committee hearing on March 16.

Strengthening tax breaks to promote manufacturing received strong bipartisan support at a Senate Finance Committee hearing on March 16.

Creating new incentives and making temporary ones permanent are particularly critical for helping American competitiveness in semiconductors, batteries and other high-tech products, Senate Banking Chair Ron Wyden (D-Ore) and Ranking Minority Party Member Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) stressed at the session.

Wyden said it is urgent business for elected officials to create conditions for the American semiconductor industry to thrive for years as part of a Congressional job creation toolkit. "I have seen too many short-term tax policies and mistakes," the Senate Finance Chair said. His sentiment was echoed by Crapo, the committee’s top Republican: "This is an area of bipartisan interest, and I welcome the opportunity to work with Chairman Wyden on this."

Crapo: Don’t Raise Corporate Rate

At the same time, Crapo cautioned Congress should not offset losses in federal revenue from increasing the stability of investment importance of protecting tax credit credits by raising the overall corporate tax rate. He said he is "very concerned" by reports he has heard that the White House is preparing to propose just that. Currently at 21 percent, the corporate tax rate was 35 percent before the 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act took effect.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School Of Management Accounting Professor Michelle Hanlon told the hearing raising corporate tax rates would put American industry at a competitive disadvantage globally. She said the 2017 tax cuts should be built upon to expand manufacturing.

While saying expanding tax breaks for tech including clean energy is critical, Senator Tom Carper (D-Del) warned the federal government is looking at an avalanche of debt. To lessen that surge, he said it is important to go after the tax gap: money that taxpayers owe but they are not paying.

Senator Todd Young (R-Ind) warned that left unchanged, starting in 2022 companies will no longer be able to expense research and development expenses in the year incurred. "This would come at the expense of manufacturing jobs," he said. Young has introduced legislation to let businesses write up R&D as they are currently allowed.

If businesses are not allowed to continue to amortize their research and development expenses in the year they are incurred, it would significantly increase the cost to perform R&D in the U.S., Intel Chief Financial Officer George Davis warned the panel.

Ford Embraces Biden Proposal

Ford Motor Company Vice President, Global Commodity Purchasing And Supplier Technical Assistance Jonathan Jennings told the Senate that the auto maker embraces President Joe Biden’s proposal to provide a 10 percent advanceable tax credit for companies creating U.S. manufacturing jobs.

IRS Commissioner Charles "Chuck" Rettig told Congress on February 23 that the backlog of 20 million unopened pieces of mail is gone.

IRS Commissioner Charles "Chuck" Rettig told Congress on February 23 that the backlog of 20 million unopened pieces of mail is gone.

"There were trailers in June filled (with unopened paper returns). There are none today," Rettig said in an appearance before the House Appropriations Committee Financial Services Subcommittee.

When there was a delay in getting to a return, Rettig said that a taxpayer was credited on the date the mail was received, not the day the payment was processed.

The IRS leader stated that virtual currency, which is designed to be anonymous, has probably significantly increased the amount of money taxpayers owed but have not paid since the last formal figure of $381 billion was estimated in 2013.

To close the gap between money owed and money paid, Rettig said there has to be an increase in guidance as well as enforcement. "The two go together," said Rettig, who pointed out that the IRS must support the people who are working to get their tax payments right as well as working against those who are trying to thwart the agency’s efforts.

Rettig cited high-income/high-wealth taxpayers, including high-income non-filers, as high enforcement priorities. "We have not pulled back enforcement efforts for higher income individuals during the pandemic. We can be impactful," said Rettig. He added that the IRS is using artificial intelligence and other information technology (IT) advances to catch wealthy tax law and tax rule breakers. "Our advanced data and analytic strategies allow us to catch instances of tax evasion that would not have been possible just a few years ago," said the IRS leader.

Rettig contended that the agency’s IT improvement efforts are being hampered by a shortage of funding. According to Rettig, three years into a six-year business modernization plan, the IRS has received half of the money it requested from Congress for the initiative.

One of the impacts of the pandemic on the IRS and the taxpayers and tax professionals it serves, said Rettig, is the average length of phone calls has risen to 17 minutes from 12 minutes because the issues have been more complex.

On another issue related to COVID-19, Rettig said the IRS has been diligently working to alert taxpayers and tax professionals to scams related to COVID-19, especially calls and email phishing attempts tied to the Economic Impact Payments (EIPs). He said people can reduce the chances of missing their EIP payments through lost, stolen or thrown-away debit cards by filing their tax returns electronically.

The Commissioner told the panel that the delay in starting the tax filing season this year will not add to any additional delays to refunds on returns claiming the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) or the Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC).

Rettig also noted that taxpayers who interact with an IRS representative now have access to over-the-phone interpreter services in more than 350 languages.

The Tax Court ruled that rewards dollars that a married couple acquired for using their American Express credit cards to purchase debit cards and money orders—but not to purchase gift cards—were included in the taxpayers’ income. The court stated that its holdings were based on the unique circumstances of the case.

The Tax Court ruled that rewards dollars that a married couple acquired for using their American Express credit cards to purchase debit cards and money orders—but not to purchase gift cards—were included in the taxpayers’ income. The court stated that its holdings were based on the unique circumstances of the case.

Background

During the tax years at issue, each taxpayer had an American Express credit card that was part of a rewards program that paid reward dollars for eligible purchases made on their cards. Card users could redeem reward dollars as credits on their card balances (statement credits). To generate as many reward dollars as possible, the taxpayers used their American Express credit cards to buy as many Visa gift cards as they could from local grocery stores and pharmacies. They used the gift cards to purchase money orders, and deposited the money orders into their bank accounts. The husband occasionally purchased money orders with one of the American Express cards.

The taxpayers also occasionally paid their American Express bills through a money transfer company. Using this method, they paid the American Express bill with a reloadable debit card, and the money transfer company would transmit the payment to American Express electronically. The taxpayers used their American Express cards to purchase reloadable debit cards that they used to pay their American Express bills, and the purchase of debit cards and reloads also generated reward dollars.

All of the taxpayers' charges of more than $400 in single transactions with the American Express cards were for gift cards, reloadable debit cards, or money orders. On their joint tax returns, the taxpayers did not report any income from the rewards program.

The IRS determined that the reward dollars generated ordinary income to the taxpayers. When a payment is made by a seller to a customer as an inducement to purchase property, the payment generally does not constitute income but instead is treated as a purchase price adjustment to the basis of the property ( Pittsburgh Milk Co., 26 TC 707, Dec. 21,816; Rev. Rul. 76-96, 1976-1 CB 23). The IRS argued that the taxpayers did not purchase goods or property, but instead purchased cash equivalents—gift cards, reloads for debit cards, and money orders—to which no basis adjustment could apply. As a result, the reward dollars paid as statement credits for the charges relating to cash equivalents were an accession to wealth.

Rebate Policy; Cash Equivalency Doctrine

The Tax Court observed that the taxpayers' aggressive efforts to generate reward dollars created a dilemma for the IRS which was largely the result of the vagueness of IRS credit card reward policy. Under the rebate rule, a purchase incentive such as credit card rewards or points is not treated as income but as a reduction of the purchase price of what is purchased with the rewards or points ( Rev. Rul. 76-96; IRS Pub. 17). The court observed that the gift cards were quickly converted to assets that could be deposited into the taxpayers’ bank accounts to pay their American Express bills. According to the court, to avoid offending its long-standing policy that card rewards are not taxable, the IRS sought to apply the cash equivalence concept, but that concept was not a good fit in this case.

The court stated that a debt obligation is a cash equivalent where it is a promise to pay of a solvent obligor and the obligation is unconditional and assignable, not subject to set-offs, and is of a kind that is frequently transferred to lenders or investors at a discount not substantially greater than the generally prevailing premium for the use of money ( F. Cowden, CA-5, 61-1 ustc ¶9382, 289 F2d 202). The court found that the three types of transactions in this case failed to fit this definition.

The court ruled that the reward dollars associated with the gift card purchases were not properly included in income. The reward dollars taxpayers received were not notes, but instead were commitments by American Express to allow taxpayers credits against their card balances. The court found that American Express offered the rewards program as an inducement for card holders to use their American Express cards.

However, the court upheld the inclusion in income of the related reward dollars for the direct purchases of money orders and the cash infusions to the reloadable debit cards. The court observed that the money orders purchased with the American Express cards, and the infusion of cash into the reloadable debit cards, were difficult to reconcile with the IRS credit card reward policy. Unlike the gift cards, which had product characteristics, the court stated that no product or service was obtained in these uses of the American Express cards other than cash transfers.

As the court noted, the money orders were not properly treated as a product subject to a price adjustment because they were eligible for deposit into taxpayers' bank account from acquisition. The court similarly found that the cash infusions to the reloadable debit cards also were not product purchases. The reloadable debit cards were used for transfers by the money transfer company, which the court stated were arguably a service, but the reward dollars were issued for the cash infusions, not the transfer fees.

Finally, the court stated that its holdings were not based on the application of the cash equivalence doctrine, but instead on the incompatibility of the direct money order purchases and the debit card reloads with the IRS policy excluding credit card rewards for product and service purchases from income.

The IRS Office of Chief Counsel has embarked on its most far-reaching Settlement Days program by declaring the month of March 2021 as National Settlement Month. This program builds upon the success achieved from last year's many settlement day events while being shifted to virtual format due to the pandemic. Virtual Settlement Day (VSD) events will be conducted across the country and will serve taxpayers in all 50 states and the District of Colombia.

The IRS Office of Chief Counsel has embarked on its most far-reaching Settlement Days program by declaring the month of March 2021 as National Settlement Month. This program builds upon the success achieved from last year's many settlement day events while being shifted to virtual format due to the pandemic. Virtual Settlement Day (VSD) events will be conducted across the country and will serve taxpayers in all 50 states and the District of Colombia.

Settlement Day

Settlement Day events are coordinated efforts to resolve cases in the U.S. Tax Court by providing taxpayers who are not represented by counsel with the opportunity to receive free tax advice from Low Income Taxpayer Clinics (LITCs), American Bar Association (ABA) volunteer attorneys, and other pro bono organizations. Taxpayers can also discuss their Tax Court cases and related tax issues with members of the Office of Chief Counsel, the IRS Independent Office of Appeals and IRS Collection representatives. These communications can aid in reaching a settlement by providing taxpayers with a better understanding of what is needed to support their case.

The Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS) employees also participate in VSDs to assist taxpayers with tax issues attributable to non-docketed years. Local Taxpayer Advocates and their staff can work with and inform taxpayers about how TAS may be able to assist with other unresolved tax matters, or to provide further assistance after the Tax Court matter is concluded. IRS Collection personnel will be available to discuss potential payment alternatives if a settlement is reached. For those who choose to take their cases to court, the VSD process can also give a better understanding of what information taxpayers need to present to the court to be successful.

Following its first announcement of virtual settlement days in May last year, the Chief Counsel and LITCs have successfully used VSD events to help more than 259 taxpayer resolve Tax Court cases without having to go to trial.

Registration and Information

The IRS proactively identifies and reaches out to taxpayers with Tax Court cases which appear most suitable for this settlement day approach, and invites them attend VSD events. The IRS also generally encourages taxpayers with active Tax Court cases to contact the assigned Chief Counsel attorney or paralegal about participating in the March VSD events.

This year, the IRS has included the following locations where these events have never been offered: Albuquerque, Billings, Buffalo, Cheyenne, Cleveland, Denver, Des Moines, Indianapolis, Little Rock, Milwaukee, Nashville, Peoria, Omaha, Reno, Sacramento, San Diego and San Jose.

LITCs can contact their local Chief Counsel offices about the event in their area. If additional information is needed, individuals can reach out to Chief Counsel’s Settlement Day Cadre, or contact Sarah Sexton Martinez at (312) 368-8604. Pro bono volunteers are encouraged to contact Meg Newman (Megan.Newman@americanbar.org) with the American Bar Association Tax Section.

An individual who owned a limited liability company (LLC) with her former spouse was not entitled to relief from joint and several liability under Code Sec. 6015(b). The taxpayer argued that she did not know or have reason to know of the understated tax when she signed and filed the joint return for the tax year at issue. Further, she claimed to be an unsophisticated taxpayer who could not have understood the extent to which receipts, expenses, depreciation, capital items, earnings and profits, deemed or actual dividend distributions, and the proper treatment of the LLC resulted in tax deficiencies. The taxpayer also asserted that she did not meaningfully participate in the functioning of the LLC other than to provide some bookkeeping and office work.

An individual who owned a limited liability company (LLC) with her former spouse was not entitled to relief from joint and several liability under Code Sec. 6015(b). The taxpayer argued that she did not know or have reason to know of the understated tax when she signed and filed the joint return for the tax year at issue. Further, she claimed to be an unsophisticated taxpayer who could not have understood the extent to which receipts, expenses, depreciation, capital items, earnings and profits, deemed or actual dividend distributions, and the proper treatment of the LLC resulted in tax deficiencies. The taxpayer also asserted that she did not meaningfully participate in the functioning of the LLC other than to provide some bookkeeping and office work.

However, the taxpayer, a high school graduate, testified that she had “a little bit of banking education,” indicating that she had some familiarity with bookkeeping. Her ex-spouse added during trial that the taxpayer had worked at a bank for a few years. Regarding her role in the LLC, the taxpayer maintained the business' books and records, prepared and signed sales tax returns and unemployment tax contribution forms on its behalf, and worked with an accountant to prepare its tax returns. Nothing in the record indicated that her ex-spouse tried to deceive or hide anything from her.

Further, the taxpayer’s joint ownership of the LLC, her involvement in maintaining its books and records, her role in preparing and signing tax-related documents on behalf of the business, and her cooperation with an accountant to prepare the LLC’s tax returns, showed that she had actual knowledge of the factual circumstances that made the deductions unallowable. Thus, she also was not entitled to relief under Code Sec. 6015(c).

The taxpayer was not eligible for streamlined determination under Rev. Proc. 2013-34, 2013-43 I.R.B. 397, because no evidence corroborated her testimony that her former spouse had abused her in any sense to which the tax law or common experience would accord any recognition. The history of acrimony between the taxpayer and her ex-spouse called into question the weight to be given to her claims of spousal abuse. Finally, the taxpayer was unable to persuade the court that she was entitled to equitable relief under Code Sec. 6015(f). She was intimately involved with the LLC, knew or had reason to know of the items giving rise to the understatement, and failed to make a good-faith effort to comply with her income tax return filing obligations.

A married couple’s civil fraud penalty was not timely approved by the supervisor of an IRS Revenue Agent (RA) as required under Code Sec. 6751(b)(1). The taxpayers’ joint return was examined by the IRS, after which the RA had sent them a summons requiring their attendance at an in-person closing conference. The RA provided the taxpayers with a completed, signed Form 4549, Income Tax Examination Changes, reflecting a Code Sec. 6663(a) civil fraud penalty. The taxpayers declined to consent to the assessment of the civil fraud penalty or sign Form 872, Consent to Extend the Time to Assess Tax, to extend the limitations period.

A married couple’s civil fraud penalty was not timely approved by the supervisor of an IRS Revenue Agent (RA) as required under Code Sec. 6751(b)(1). The taxpayers’ joint return was examined by the IRS, after which the RA had sent them a summons requiring their attendance at an in-person closing conference. The RA provided the taxpayers with a completed, signed Form 4549, Income Tax Examination Changes, reflecting a Code Sec. 6663(a) civil fraud penalty. The taxpayers declined to consent to the assessment of the civil fraud penalty or sign Form 872, Consent to Extend the Time to Assess Tax, to extend the limitations period.

Thereafter, the RA obtained written approval from her immediate supervisor for the civil fraud penalty, and sent the taxpayers a notice of deficiency determining the same. The taxpayers contended that the civil fraud penalty was not timely approved by the RA’s supervisor because the revenue agent report (RAR) presented at the conference meeting embodied the first formal communication of the RA’s initial determination to assert the fraud penalty.

Due to the use of a summons letter requiring the taxpayers' attendance, the closing conference at the end of the taxpayers’ examination process carried a degree of formality not present in most IRS meetings. The closing conference was, like an IRS letter, a formal means of communicating the IRS’s initial determination that taxpayers should be subject to the fraud penalty. Therefore, the RA communicated her initial determination to assert the fraud penalty when she provided the taxpayers with a completed and signed RAR at the closing conference. The RA had also informed the taxpayers during the closing conference that they did not have appeal rights at that time, which was incomplete and potentially misleading.

The completed RAR given to the taxpayers during the closing conference, coupled with the context surrounding its presentation, represented a "consequential moment" in which the RA formally communicated her initial determination that the taxpayers should be subject to the fraud penalty.

As 2013 draws closer, news reports about “taxmageddon” and “taxpocalypse,” describing expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts, are proliferating. Many taxpayers are asking what they can do to prepare. The answer is to prepare early. September may seem too early to be discussing year-end tax planning, but the uncertainty over the Bush-era tax cuts, incentives for businesses, and much more, requires proactive strategizing. Ultimately, the fate of these tax incentives will be resolved; until then, taxpayers need to be flexible in their year-end tax planning.

As 2013 draws closer, news reports about “taxmageddon” and “taxpocalypse,” describing expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts, are proliferating. Many taxpayers are asking what they can do to prepare. The answer is to prepare early. September may seem too early to be discussing year-end tax planning, but the uncertainty over the Bush-era tax cuts, incentives for businesses, and much more, requires proactive strategizing. Ultimately, the fate of these tax incentives will be resolved; until then, taxpayers need to be flexible in their year-end tax planning.

Individuals

In less than three months, the individual income tax rates are scheduled without further action to automatically increase across-the-board, with the highest rate jumping from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. Additionally, the current tax-favorable capital gains and dividends tax rates are scheduled to expire. Higher income taxpayers will also be subject to revived limitations on itemized deductions and their personal exemptions. The child tax credit, one of the most popular incentives in the tax code, will be cut in half. Millions of taxpayers are predicted to be liable for the alternative minimum tax (AMT) because of expiration of the AMT “patch.” Countless other incentives for individuals will either disappear or be substantially reduced after 2012.

In July, the House and Senate passed competing bills to extend many of these expiring incentives one more year (through 2013). No further action is expected on these bills until after the November elections. However, they do signal a highly probable temporary solution to the fate of the Bush-era tax cuts. Regardless of which party wins the White House and Congress, the probability of a one-year extension of the Bush-era tax cuts appears high.

Along with expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts, the two percent payroll tax holiday for 2012 is scheduled to expire. For individuals with income at or above the Social Security wage base for 2012 ($110,100), the payroll tax holiday represented a $2,202 savings. Unlike the Bush-era tax cuts, an extension of the payroll tax holiday is unlikely.

Putting aside the Bush-era tax cuts and the payroll tax holiday for a moment, two new taxes are scheduled to take effect after 2012: an additional 0.9 percent Medicare tax on wages and self-employment income and a 3.8 percent Medicare contribution tax on unearned income. Both new taxes are targeted to individuals with incomes over $200,000 (families with incomes over $250,000). One important misconception about the 3.8 percent Medicare tax is that it is a direct real estate tax. Taxpayers that dispose of real estate may be exempt from the tax either because of income limitations or because of an exclusion provided for primary residence home sales. However, certain high-end homes may feel the sting of the 3.8 percent tax on some or all of the gain realized. Despite some rumblings in the GOP-controlled House, it is unlikely the new Medicare taxes will be repealed before 2013.

All these provisions can be seen as the perfect storm. Year-end tax planning takes on new urgency because of the uncertainty. Some variations on traditional year-end planning techniques may be valuable. Instead of shifting income into a future year, taxpayers may want to recognize income in 2012, when lower tax rates are available, rather than shift income to 2013. The same strategy may apply to recognizing income from capital gains and dividends. Another valuable year-end strategy is to “run the numbers” for regular tax liability and AMT liability. Taxpayers may want to explore if certain deductions should be more evenly divided between 2012 and 2013, and which deductions may qualify, or will not be as valuable, for AMT purposes. Additionally, keep in mind the new Medicare taxes and how they will impact investments and possibly home sales.

Estate tax planning is also in flux. Under current law, the maximum estate tax rate is 35 percent with an applicable exclusion amount of $5 million (indexed for inflation) for decedents dying before January 1, 2013. Unless Congress acts, the estate tax will revert to its less generous pre-2001 rates. Gift and generation-skipping transfer (GST) taxes also will revert to their pre-2001 rates.

Businesses

Businesses are also confronted with uncertainty in tax planning as 2012 ends. Special incentives, such as bonus depreciation, enhanced Code Sec. 179 expensing and a host of business tax extenders, may be unavailable after 2012.

Under current law, 50-percent bonus depreciation applies to qualified property acquired and placed in service after December 31, 2011 and before January 1, 2013 (January 1, 2014 for certain property). For tax years beginning in 2012, the Code Sec, 179 expensing dollar limitation is $139,000 and the investment ceiling is $560,000 for tax years beginning in 2012. After 2012, 50-percent bonus depreciation is scheduled to expire (except for certain property) and the Code Sec. 179 expensing dollar limitation will drop to $25,000 with a $200,000 investment ceiling.

Enhanced Code Sec. 179 expensing is a good candidate for extension after 2012, but at less generous amounts. In July, the Senate approved a Code Sec. 179 dollar amount of $250,000 and an $800,000 investment limitation for tax years beginning after December 31, 2012. The House approved a Code Sec. 179 dollar amount of $100,000 and a $400,000 investment limitation after 2012.

The list of expired business tax extenders is long. The expired incentives include the research tax credit, special expensing for film and television productions, the employer wage credit for military reservists, and many more. A host of related energy incentives have also expired and are awaiting renewal. Unlike past years, Congress is not expected to routinely extend all of the expired provisions. The more widely utilized incentives are likely to be extended; some lesser used incentives may not.

Businesses do have some good news in year-end planning. Temporary “repair” regulations issued in late 2011 include a valuable de minimis rule, which could enable taxpayers to expense otherwise capitalized tangible property. Qualified taxpayers may claim a current deduction for the cost of acquiring items of relatively low-cost property, including materials and supplies, if specific requirements are met. The aggregate cost which may be expensed annually under a taxpayer’s expensing policy is subject to a ceiling equal to the greater of 0.1 percent of gross receipts or two percent of total depreciation and amortization reported on the financial statement.

Businesses should also explore the Code Sec. 199 domestic production activities deduction. This deduction, unlike many other incentives, is permanent and will not expire after 2012. The deduction allows qualified taxpayers to deduct an amount equal to the lesser of a phased-in percentage of taxable income (adjusted gross income for individuals) or qualified production activities income. A taxpayer’s Code Sec. 199 deduction cannot exceed one-half (50 percent) of the W-2 wages paid by the taxpayer during the year.

Sequestration

The fate of the Bush-era tax cuts and the other incentives is linked to sequestration. The Budget Control Act of 2011 imposes across-the-board spending cuts starting in 2013. Many lawmakers want to postpone or repeal the spending cuts but savings must be recouped somehow. Several energy tax incentives, especially for oil and gas producers, have been viewed as likely candidates for elimination to offset repeal of the Budget Control Act.

Please contact our office if you have any questions about the incentives we discussed and how you can develop a year-end tax plan that responds to the current climate of uncertainty.

Form 8942 will also contain a Penalties of Perjury Statement. Each applicant must sign and date this statement. The person signing for the applicant must have personal knowledge of the facts. Further, the declaration must be signed by a person authorized to bind the applicant. The Penalties of Perjury statement is effective for ALL information submitted as a complete application. The Project Information Memorandum: •The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will review information provided by the applicant in the Project Information Memorandum in order to determine whether a project meets the definition of “qualifying therapeutic discovery project” and whether the applicant has demonstrated that its project shows a “reasonable potential” to meet one or more of the goals specified in the statute. •The Project Information Memorandum must follow the format specified herein. It must contain the questions specified and the answers as to which the applicant must check yes or no. The form also requires, as stated, that the applicant provide written narratives with respect to certain questions, including narratives supporting and explaining the basis for each yes answer. The statements included in Project Information Memorandum shall not exceed the stated word limits. If statements exceed the stated word limits, words beyond those limits will not be considered. Statements that otherwise fails to comply with the instructions set out in the application will not be considered. All text shall be typed, single spaced, suing 12 point font, 1 inch margins and unreduced 8 ½ inch by 11 inch pages (A Project Information Memorandum that is submitted using the form provided on the IRS website will be deemed in compliance with spacing, font, margins and page size requirements with regard to the information submitted on such form). All applications shall be legible. Pages shall be sequentially numbered and identified with the name of the applicant and the date. No material may be incorporated in any application by reference. •Note: Any language beyond any word limits in the application will be disregarded for purposes of review. •If elements of the Project Information Memorandum contain information the applicant considers to be trade secrets, confidential, privileged or otherwise exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, the applicant shall assert a claim of exemption at the time of application by placing the following text on the first page of the Project Information Memorandum, and specify the page or pages of the application to be restricted. “The data contained in pages [ ] of this document which hereby forms a part of the application have been submitted in confidence and contain trade secrets or proprietary information, and such data shall be used or disclosed only for review purposes. This restriction does not limit the government’s right to use or disclose data obtained without restriction from any source, including the applicant.” •To further protect trade secret, confidential, privileged or otherwise exempt information, each line or paragraph on the page or pages containing such data must be specifically identified and marked with text that is similar to the following: “The following contains proprietary information that [name of applicant] requests not to be released to persons outside of the Government, except for purposes of review.” •Note: Any text used to protect confidentiality will not be counted against the total word limits of the Project Information Memorandum. •The Project Information Memorandum must include: A.Provide an overview of the project for which you are seeking a credit or grant, including a description of the product, process or technology under development. The description may not exceed 250 words. If the project involves a new therapy, the description must include an explanation of why that therapy is novel. B.Answer each “Yes or No Question” (the actual form will have check-boxes) in the following and provide a short (not more than 50 words) statement supporting each positive assertion. Check all that apply, but you need check only one Yes for answers 1 through 4 for initial qualification.

Qualifying Therapeutic Discovery Project definition 1. Is the project: a.designed to develop a product to treat or prevent a disease or condition; b.by conducting pre-clinical activities, clinical trials, or clinical studies, or by carrying out research protocols; and c.for the purpose of securing approval of a product under section 505(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act or section 351(a) of the Public Health Service Act? 2. Is the project designed to diagnose a disease or condition? 3. Is the project designed to determine molecular factors related to diseases or conditions by developing molecular diagnostics to guide therapeutic decisions? 4. Is the project designed to develop a product, process, or technology to further the delivery or administration of therapeutics? Selection criteria 5. Is the project likely to result in one or more new therapies? 6. If the answer to question 5 is Yes, are the new therapy(ies) expected to: a. treat areas of unmet medical need? b. prevent, detect, or treat chronic or acute diseases or conditions? 7. Is the project likely to reduce long-term health care costs in the United States? 8. Is the project likely to significantly advance the goal of curing cancer within the next 30 years? For each of questions 9, 10, and 11, provide a short statement, not to exceed a total of 250 words, including responses to bulleted items. For question 9, applicants may also submit up to five literature citations in the specified format that will not be counted against the 250-word limit. 9. Explain the scientific rationale, based on prior conceptual and empirical work, which supports the belief that the proposed project will lead to the outcome the applicant has identified above. Explain the research and development plan that will lead to the outcome identified above. Describe the scientific evidence relied on by the applicant, including a description of any peer review of the project and a list of no more than five literature citations using the following format: ?Include the names of all authors (in the same sequence in which they appear in the publication), the article and journal title, book title, volume number, page numbers, and year of publication.

?When citing articles that were authored or co-authored by the applicant and arose from NIH support, if available, provide the NIH Manuscript Submission reference number (e.g., NIHMS97531) or the Pubmed Central (PMC) reference number (e.g., PMCID234567) for each citation.

?Citations for which an NIH Manuscript Submission reference number is not available but are publicly available in a free, online format should include URLs or PMCID numbers along with the full reference. The references should be limited to relevant and current literature.

10. Describe the stage of development of the project, including a description of preclinical and clinical trial results that are relevant to the proposal. Include in your description:

?If the project involves the development of a product that is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, an explanation of whether an investigational new drug application or an investigational device exemption has been filed with the Food and Drug Administration, and whether an application for approval, license, or clearance has been filed, and, if so, the status of that application as of the date of application as of the date this project information memorandum is submitted.

?If the project does not involve the development of a product that is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, information about any regulatory reviews or approvals that have occurred.

?If the project involves preclinical testing, a description of the testing completed and/or contemplated.

?If the project involves testing in humans, information about the phase(s) of the testing that has been completed and the number of subjects tested in each phase and information about trials for which the applicant is actively recruiting subjects. Summarize the results of the trails, noting any failed trials or successful trials.

?The planned research and development strategy for the test or treatment being researched and a summary schedule for development of the project, including timelines and milestones planned and completed.

11. Describe the resources, management experience and organizational capacity of the applicant and explain how applicant believes that such resources, experience and capacity will support successful completion of the project. Include in this description: ?A statement of the revenue levels and sources for this project over the past three years.

?A statement of the revenue levels and sources for the proposed research and development plan delineated in response to question 10.

?A description of any significant public or private investment, such as by venture capitalists, in the development or commercialization of the project.

?A description of any strategic partnerships for the development or commercialization of the project.

?A statement of whether the applicant has suspended operations for the project and, if so, whether the suspension is temporary or permanent. If the project has been suspended, terminate, or is otherwise inactive, explain why, including whether the cause is a lack of financial resources or other reasons.

Evaluation Criteria and Factors for the Project Information Memorandum HHS will make the determination described above based on the information provided in the Project Information Memorandum and on the following eligibility and evaluation criteria and factor Definitions A project that does not meet the definition of "qualifying therapeutic discovery project" will be found to be ineligible. A project that does not support an affirmative response to any of questions 1 – 4 does not meet the statutory definition of a qualifying therapeutic discovery project. The applicant must effectively support each yes answer through the accompanying narrative. Question 1 focuses on the requirement of § 48D(c)(1)(A) of the Code. To satisfy this provision, the project must be designed to treat or prevent diseases or conditions. It must be designed to do so by conducting pre-clinical activities, clinical trials, or clinical studies or carrying out a clinical protocol. It must also be for the purpose of obtaining approval of a product under one of two statutory provisions—Section 505(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) (a new drug application) or Section 351(a) of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA) (a biologic license application) . For example, a medical countermeasure against a known threat or emerging infectious disease that is developed for the purpose of securing approval under one of these provisions would satisfy this provision. Note that generic drugs, which are approved under Section 505(j) of the FFDCA, and biosimilar products, which are approved under Section 351(k) of the PHSA, would be excluded. Dietary supplements and most cosmetics would also be excluded because they are generally not the subject of a new drug or biologic license application. Questions 2 and 3 focus on the requirements of § 48D(c)(1)(B) of the Code. This provision covers two separate categories of products. The first, covered by question 2, is a product to diagnose a disease or condition. Any product that diagnoses a disease or condition would meet this criterion, whether or not it determines molecular factors or is a molecular diagnostic. Relevant products would include point of care diagnostics for infectious agents. Question 3 covers a product that determines molecular factors related to diseases or conditions by developing molecular diagnostics to guide therapeutic decisions. This might include, for example, a test that would determine which patients with a particular disease or condition would be likely to respond best to a particular drug or device. Question 4 focuses on the requirement of § 48D(c)(1)(C) of the Code. To qualify under question 4, a product, process, or technology must further the delivery or administration of therapeutics. For the purposes of § 48D(c)(1)(C), the term “therapeutics” means drugs or medical devices, as those terms are defined in Section 201(g) and (h) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 321(g) and (h). Biologics that are licensed under the PHSA will generally be either drugs or medical devices. Thus, a drug-eluting stent or infusion pump would be an example of a product that furthers the delivery or administration of a drug and would meet the requirements of this provision. However, a medical device, or other product, process or technology that does not further the delivery or administration of a drug or medical device would not meet the requirements of this provision because such products do not deliver or administer a therapeutic within the meaning of § 48D(c)(1)(C). The term “therapeutic” is narrower than the term “therapy,” which appears elsewhere in section 48D. Therefore, products, processes or technologies that deliver other therapies which are not therapeutics, such as speech, physical, and cognitive therapies, would for the same reasons be excluded. Reasonable potential selection criteria If HHS determines that a project meets the definition of "qualifying therapeutic discovery project," HHS will proceed to determine whether the applicant has demonstrated, through responses to questions 5-11, that its project shows a reasonable potential to meet a statutory goal. This determination will be based on an evaluation of whether the project is designed to achieve one or more of the goals specified in section 48D and, if so, whether the applicant has shown a reasonable potential to achieve the goal(s). Specifically, the applicant must show that its project is designed to achieve one of the statutory goals by checking yes for one or more of the following: a. question 5 and question 6.a; b. question 5 and question 6.b; c. question 7; or d. question 8. In addition, the applicant must effectively support each yes answer through the accompanying narrative. Question 5 addresses the requirement of § 48D(d)(3)(A)(i) of the Code that, to satisfy the statutory goal of that provision, the project must be a “new therapy.” Thus, the therapy must be novel and cannot be the same as, or difficult to meaningfully distinguish from, a therapy currently on the market. For example, this means the therapy should not be in the same class as existing therapies, unless such therapy is expected to offer a significant enhancement in safety or effectiveness. HHS will evaluate the information provided as to the novelty of the product based on the explanation provided with any Yes response to this question and the initial narrative description of the project. Question 6 addresses the requirement of § 48D(d)(3)(A)(i) of the Code that a new therapy either treats areas of unmet medical need, or prevents, detects, or treats chronic or acute diseases or conditions. For example, unmet medical needs would include novel influenza vaccine technologies, broad spectrum anti-viral medications, novel antibiotics, and platform vaccine technologies. In addition to new therapies that treat diseases and conditions, such products that detect or prevent diseases and conditions are also covered by this provision. Question 7 addresses the requirement of § 48D(d)(3)(A)(ii) of the Code, which covers projects that will reduce long-term health care costs in the United States. The narrative accompanying any Yes response should explain how the project is likely to reduce health care costs, including a description of how the project will lead to actual cost reductions, not just substituting one cost for another and the basis of this determination. The narrative should provide a reasonable estimate of savings and demonstrate a reasonable potential to achieve these savings. Question 8 addresses the requirement of § 48D(d)(3)(A)(iii) of the Code, which covers projects that will significantly advance the goal of curing cancer within the next 30 years. If HHS determines that the applicant satisfies the requirements to which questions 5 through 8 are addressed, regarding the specific statutory selection criteria, HHS will proceed to review the responses to questions 9-11 and evaluate whether the information provided supports a determination that there is a reasonable potential that the project will achieve one or more of the statutory goals. HHS will make this determination based on an analysis of the scientific rationale for the project (question 9), the current stage of development of the project (question 10), and the evidence that the applicant has the capacity to bring the project to fruition (question 11). HHS will notify the Service of the results of the HHS evaluation as to whether the project is a qualifying therapeutic discovery project and shows a reasonable potential to achieve one or more of the statutory goals. Certification Only those qualifying therapeutic development projects that have both (a) a reasonable potential to achieve one or more of the statutory goals set forth in section 48D(d)(3)(A) as determined by HHS and (b) the greatest potential to (i) create and sustain (directly or indirectly) high quality, high-paying jobs in the United States, and (ii) advance United States competitiveness in the fields of life, biological, and medical sciences as determined by the Service will receive a certification for all or a portion of their qualified investment. The Service will certify an amount of qualified investment made by an eligible taxpayer for qualifying therapeutic development projects in accordance with the provisions put forth in this document, obtained from Internal Revenue Code § 48D.