IRS Penalty Relief for Small Employer Insurance Reimbursement

2015 will have to go down as the year of major IRS announcements made during busy season. Last week, the IRS granted relief from having to file 3115 for many of our clients (Revenue Procedure 2015-20). This week in Notice 2015-17 the IRS made an equally impressive announcement regarding health insurance reimbursement for small employers.
 

Background:

Employer payment plans have been a very popular way for small business employers to provide insurance for their employees. This is because the premiums for group health plans are either too expensive and/or the employees like to have their own plans. The employer either pays the premiums directly or reimburses the employee for the premiums paid. The employer gets a deduction and the premiums are a tax-free benefit for the employee.

In IRS Notice 2013-54, the service virtually obsoleted the use of employer payment plans where there was more than one employee involved in such a plan. The Section 4980D penalty for noncompliance is $100 per employee per day – $36,500 effective January 1, 2014.

Both the IRS and DOL have posted information on their respective websites about IRS Notice 2013-54 . Yet there is still a lot of confusion, concern about potential penalties that could drive a company out of business and many unanswered questions regarding 2% S shareholders, reimbursement for Medicare, etc.

IRS Notice 2015-17:

Here are the major points of this new announcement:

1. Penalty relief for small employers in 2014 and through June 30, 2015:

·         The IRS will not penalize small employers (less than 50 full–time equivalent employees) who have an employer payment plan or reimburse for Medicare.

·         After June 30, 2015, employers may be subject to the penalty. But at least for now we can take the deductions, exclude the premiums from employees’ income and not worry about the potential fine.

2. 2% S shareholders relief:

·         No penalties will be assessed for 2014 and 2015 on S corporations who reimburse insurance for 2% shareholders.

3. 2% S shareholders above-the-line deduction:

·         2% S shareholders can continue taking an above-the–line deduction for insurance premiums paid including reimbursed premiums. Remember, to the extent a 2% shareholder receives the Premium Assistance Credit for buying insurance on a government exchange, the deduction must be adjusted pursuant to Revenue Procedure 2014-41.

4. The one-employee exception:

·         The restrictions on having an employer payment plan as addressed in IRS Notice 2013-54 do not apply where the plan has only one participant who is an employee on the first day of the year.

In this notice, the IRS clarified that where an employee is covered under a reimbursement with other than self-only coverage (such as a family plan) and another employee is covered under that plan as a spouse or dependent of the first employee, then that plan is deemed to cover only one employee. Therefore this plan would not be in violation and there would be no penalty.

If an S corporation maintains more than one reimbursement arrangement for different employees, all the arrangements are treated as a single arrangement covering more than one employee, so the one-employee exception would not apply. This situation would result in penalties once the relief periods expire.

Conclusion:

The good news is that we have general penalty relief through June 30, 2015, and for 2% shareholders through all of 2015. We need to be planning for what happens after June 30, 2015. Does your client offer a group plan? Does the client just pay more salary? The employees won’t like the extra income tax and FICA tax they have to pay. What about other options as marketed by certain benefit companies?

We will be discussing all of this in upcoming seminars and webinars.

For now, enjoy this good news.

For further details on the notice and what the potential tax implications are, click here to view or download the IRS article (PDF)

Private Tax Collection: Will Congress Ever Learn?

The use of private collection agencies to collect delinquent taxes has been tried by the federal government several times. Up to this point, all of the attempts have been failures. So why does Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) want to use them again? Could he be politically motivated?

Senator Schumer has had a provision inserted into the tax extenders bill that will require the IRS to contract with four private collection agencies to collect delinquent income taxes. Did I mention that two of those agencies are located in Senator Schumer’s congressional district?

As I mentioned, we’ve been down this path before. The first attempt to collect delinquent taxes by someone other than the IRS was in 1872 when Congress authorized contracts between private citizens and the U.S. Treasury Department to collect delinquent taxes. The collectors were entitled to retain 50% of the amount they collected. The process lost money and generated so many complaints that it resulted in the resignation of William Adams Richardson, Secretary of the Treasury.

Two other uses of private collection agencies were made in 1996 —1997 and 2006 — 2009. Both lost money and resulted in numerous consumer complaints. In one instance, private tax collection agencies collected approximately $98 million in delinquent taxes but it cost the Treasury over $110 million to administer the program. The Treasury Department also estimated that one of the programs would raise more than $1 billion in revenue, however the program ended up losing money.

Based on past experiences with private tax collectors you’d think that Congress would have learned its lesson. Private tax collection services don’t work. In addition to being money-losing operations there are other reasons not to hire private debt collectors.

Private debt collectors—

• have little incentive to keep taxpayer data confidential,
• are often heavy handed in dealing with taxpayers,
• are not inclined to offer payment options,
• usually cost more than the taxes they collect, and
• have no incentive to help the taxpayer correct simple errors.

My Solution

I have a better solution that doesn’t require the services of a private debt collector. Why not just collect the $3.3 billion in back taxes owed by current and retired employees of the federal government? (http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/23/pf/taxes/federal-workers-delinquent-taxes/) After all, the IRS knows where they work, so why not set up an affordable payment plan and deduct it from their paychecks each pay period?

What do you think?

AICPA Expresses Strong Concern over IRS Program

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) just couldn’t wait for Congress to pass legislation giving them the authority to regulate unregistered paid tax return preparers.  So, on June 26, 2014 the IRS announced a “voluntary” Annual Filing Season Program (AFSP) outlining the new program that focuses on continuing education and filing season readiness for unregistered paid tax return preparers.

The AFSP program will allow unenrolled return preparers to obtain a record of completion when they voluntarily complete a required amount of continuing professional education, including courses in basic tax filing issues and updates, ethics, as well as other federal tax law matters.

According to IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, “This voluntary program will be a step to help protect taxpayers during the 2015 filing season.” However, not everyone agrees with the commissioner.  In fact, the AICPA calls the program unlawful and improper.

The following are excerpts from the AICPA’s letter to IRS Commissioner Koskinen explaining the basis for their concern:

I.                 The IRS must identify a statutory basis for any regulatory approach it creates.

·       No statutory authority, including 26 U.S.C. § 7803, authorizes the proposed program.

·       If the IRS cannot identify a clear, specific statutory basis for its action, then under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) it may not act.

II.              A purportedly “voluntary” program would be an end-run around Loving vs. IRS.

·       The proposed program would also undermine the legal rationale given by the court in striking down the tax return preparer regulations.

·       The “voluntary” program would undermine the important concerns underlying Loving.

III.            The IRS must comply with procedural requirements.

·       The IRS must comply with the APA’s Notice and Comment procedures.

·       The IRS must comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act and with Executive Order 12,866 (Regulatory Planning and Review).

IV.             The proposal is arbitrary and capricious.

·       A voluntary program would not address the problem of unethical or fraudulent tax return preparers.

·       A voluntary program could give rise to confusion among consumers.

·       The IRS has not sufficiently considered alternative methods of ensuring that tax return preparers are qualified and competent.

For a complete copy of the AICPA’s 14 page letter go to the following website: http://www.aicpa.org/Advocacy/Tax/DownloadableDocuments/AICPA-Letter-to-Comm-Koskinen-June-24-2014.pdf .

I think the IRS is trying to do the right thing, but I believe that they are going about it in the wrong way. I agree with the AICPA that any approach the IRS takes must be supported by a strong legal basis and sound policy. To acquire that legal basis will require congressional intervention; however, Congress probably won’t act until after the next elections.

What do you think?

Regulating Tax Return Preparers: The Saga Continues

The IRS has opted not to petition the Supreme Court appealing various rulings striking down its efforts to require mandatory testing and continuing professional education for unlicensed tax preparers (Loving vs IRS). There is still a strong sentiment, however, for mandatory testing and continuing education as noted in the hearing describe below.

The Senate Finance Committee recently held a hearing on how to deal with incompetent and unethical tax return preparers. The committee heard testimony from numerous interested parties, each expressing their recommended solution to the problem. Following is a synopsis of the various recommendations:

• The IRS offered a volunteer form of certification.

• The Obama Administration’s 2015 budget includes a proposal to explicitly authorize the IRS to regulate all paid tax preparers.

• Loving vs IRS was successful in preventing the IRS from regulating paid tax preparers by requiring them to pass a competency test and take CPE.

• National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson supports requiring competency exams for tax preparers.

• Committee Chairman, Ron Wyden- (D-Ore,) touted his state’s tax preparer licensing standards.

• Janis Sallsbury, Chair of the Oregon Board of Tax Practitioners recommended that “Congress emulate Oregon’s regulation of tax return preparers and provide the IRS with the authority to require individuals to demonstrate minimum competency in tax return preparation, either by passage of a state board examination or by an IRS examination and to impose continuing education requirements after passing the examination.”

• Chi Chi Wu, a staff attorney for the National Consumer Law Center stated that the NCLC was in favor of the state licensing approach and they have developed a model act that states could use to implement such laws.

• Dan Alban, Attorney for the Institute for Justice who successfully sued the IRS in the Loving vs. IRS case, disagreed with the need to give the IRS the authority to re-impose the tax preparer licensing requirements. He recommended a voluntary certification program that would allow both consumers and preparers to decide if they value certification.

• John Barrick, an associate professor of accounting at Brigham Young University and a CPA, testified that return preparer regulation should be allowed if the costs do not outweigh the benefits.

The majority of the participants supported some form of mandatory competency testing for unlicensed tax preparers. It is interesting to note that Alban and the IRS both recommended voluntary certification. The majority of participants, however, supported mandatory testing for unlicensed tax preparers. 

Should all unlicensed paid tax return preparers be required to pass a competency exam and to take CPE, or are there other ways to ensure that preparers are competent to practice?

What do you think?

Regulating Tax Return Preparers

Do you realize that hairdressers are more heavily regulated than a mom and pop tax shop who offers to prepare your tax return? There is even reported to be a Laundromat in the Bronx offering tax prep services.

In most states, anyone can set up shop and offer tax preparation services without needing to demonstrate any level of competency.  Currently, only three states (California, Maryland, and Oregon) have laws addressing the necessary qualifications to prepare federal or state income tax returns.

Shouldn’t you look for a well-qualified individual to prepare your taxes? After all, you are legally responsible for the information in your tax return whether you pay someone else to prepare it or not.

The Internal Revenue Service tried to regulate unregistered tax preparers but has been temporarily stopped as the result of U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg’s ruling in favor of three independent tax preparers. The judge found the IRS had exceeded its statutory authority in imposing requirements for mandatory testing and continuing education for tax return preparers. Congress is considering giving the IRS that authority.

Not everyone is waiting on the IRS.  The state of New York, Department of Taxation and Finance, proposed amendments to its Personal Income Tax Regulations and Procedural Regulations to regulate New York tax return preparers. The proposed rules would add requirements imposing minimum standards on who can become a tax return preparer, instituting a continuing education requirement, and requiring a competency exam, all similar to the IRS‘s Registered Tax Return Preparer  (RTRP) program.

To further muddy the water, the new Commissioner of the IRS, John Koskinen, has come out in favor of a volunteer tax preparer certification. This is basically the RTRP approach only on a volunteer basis rather than a mandatory requirement.

Three approaches to regulating tax preparers have been offered:

1.     Wait until Congress gives the IRS authority to regulate tax preparers.
2.     Implement tax preparer regulations by state governments.
3.     Adopt a volunteer certification program.

Only time will tell which of these options will win. Which one do you think should be used?

State Governments to Regulate Unlicensed Tax Preparers

According to governmental regulators, tax return preparation problems are more likely to occur among small mom-and-pop tax return firms. In November 2013, The National Consumer Law Center, a consumer-advocacy group, reported on examples of unlicensed tax preparer problems and called for states to enact their own rules. The Internal Revenue Service’s attempt to regulate these unlicensed tax preparers was blocked by a law suit filed by a libertarian group opposing the federal regulations. (RTRP Rules Challenged) The Obama administration has appealed the ruling and a decision is expected in the near future. In addition, legislation has been introduced in Congress that would give the IRS the authority to impose regulations on unlicensed tax return preparers.

New York is now the fourth state to pass regulations governing unlicensed tax return preparers, joining the states of California, Oregon, and Maryland. New York will require independent preparers to pass a competency test and take continuing education classes before being allowed to prepare income tax returns for the public.

Among the new rules, New York preparers cannot charge “an unconscionable fee” and must adhere to “best practices” according to the New York Department of Taxation and Finance site. The state’s new rules became effective December 11, 2013 and carry possible criminal penalties.

New York taxpayers will eventually be able to look up tax preparers on the department’s web site to see if they are complying with the rules. A spokesperson for the department indicates that they will be investigating complaints, assessing penalties and seeking criminal prosecution.

What do you think? Should the states or the federal government be the authority to regulate unlicensed tax preparers? 

The Many Tax Implications of DOMA

The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the definition of “marriage” as defined in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is going to have far-reaching tax implications for married same-sex couples. The decision makes it clear that the federal government must recognize a lawful same-sex marriage. However, it left many unanswered questions. Following are just some of those questions:

1. Will the court’s decision be applied retroactively, and if so, to what extent?

2. Since some federal benefits are determined by place of residence, what is the effect on same-sex married couples who marry in one of the states where same-sex marriage is legal, but later relocate to one of the states where it is not legal?

3. Will same-sex married couples be permitted to amend their tax returns for prior years?

4. What if a couple is married in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage, but at December 31, 2013, the couple lives in a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage? Can they file a joint return for 2013?

5. What about decisions made based on filing status that are now too late to correct, such as Roth IRA contributions?

6. Will individuals who filed for automatic extensions for the 2012 tax year have guidance available in time to meet the October 15, 2013, extended deadline?

7. Will the court’s opinion affect same-sex couples in states that sanction domestic partnerships or civil unions?

8. What is the impact on employers with operations in multiple states? Can they apply a single standard or must they apply each state’s rules?

9. Are same-sex spouses entitled to all the survivorship rights given traditional married couples under a tax-qualified retirement plan?

10. Spouses who had health-care coverage, through their employer, for their same-sex partners were taxed on those benefits. Can prior year(s) tax returns be amended to reduce income by those amounts in order to have the tax refunded?

11. Employee Benefit Cafeteria plans can, but are not required to, permit mid-year election changes for certain events. If a plan permits mid-year election changes in connection with the marriage of opposite-sex couples does it have to allow the same change for same-sex couples?

12. What if an employer is based in a state that does not recognize same-sex marriages but has an employee who marries a same-sex partner in a state that does? Which state’s definition of marriage will apply?

And the list goes on.

Same-Sex marriage is legal in 13 states and the District of Columbia but is not legal in the other 37 states. Historically the IRS has deferred to states’ definition of marriage when applying federal tax rules. However if the IRS keeps the state residency policy, then the people in the 37 states where same-sex marriage is not expressly endorsed have gained virtually nothing, tax wise, from the Supreme Court’s decision.

With over an estimated 1,000 federal statutes that now need to be evaluated, and possibly amended to bring them into compliance with the new definition of marriage, looks like Congress will have plenty to keep them busy for years to come.

What do you think?

NEW webinar: The Next Step for DOMA: Implications and Opportunities
This webinar explores the key tax effects of the decision, including filing status, amended returns and protective refund claims, divorce and community property issues, and estate and gift tax planning opportunities. 2 CPE credits. More information.

DOMA Ruling Explained

On June 26, 2013 the Supreme Court ruled the Defense of Marriage (DOMA) act unconstitutional in a 5-4 decision. Specifically, the court struck down section 3 of the act which defines “marriage” as a legal union between one man and one woman and “spouse” as a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife. Upon repeal of DOMA, the federal government will now recognize all legal same sex unions in states that allow same sex unions. This aspect of the ruling is quite clear. 

What is not yet clear is the implication this will have on federal tax law and the affect this ruling will have on same sex couples immediately and moving forward. In some ways, this ruling will simplify tax law: same sex couples filing jointly in their state will now be able to file jointly with the federal government as well. Some aspects of the law are less simple and will require further clarification from the IRS as time passes.

Details of the Ruling

Traditionally, the regulation of marriage is an authority granted to the separate states. There are some examples where federal law regulates marriage in order to further federal policy, but generally the federal government seeks to limit the implications of these exceptions. The Supreme Court deemed DOMA §3 unconstitutional because of the far reaching implications of the provision—it affected over 1,000 federal statutes and many regulations.

Furthermore, rather than promote consistency, DOMA treated married couples within the same state differently, imposing restrictions, stigma and disabilities onto a state defined class. Those judges striking DOMA were concerned with the equal protection issues and they argued that the law makes unequal a subset of state-sanctioned marriages in areas ranging from taxes to Social Security and veterans' benefits. It is important to note that the scope of this ruling is confined to only “lawful marriages.”

Immediate Tax Implications

The following are among the tax breaks newly available to legally married same-sex couples:

... the right to file a joint return;

... the opportunity to get tax-free employer health coverage for the same-sex spouse;

... the opportunity for either spouse to utilize the marital deduction to transfer unlimited amounts during life to the other spouse, free of gift tax;

... the opportunity for the estate of the first spouse to die to get a marital deduction for amounts transferred to the surviving spouse;

... the opportunity for the estate of the first spouse to die to transfer the deceased spouse's unused exclusion amount to the surviving spouse;

... the opportunity to consent to make "split" gifts (i.e., gifts to others treated as if made one-half by each); and

... the opportunity for a surviving spouse to stretch out distributions from a qualified retirement plan or IRA after the death of the first spouse under more favorable rules than apply for nonspousal beneficiaries.

Many other tax provisions are affected by a taxpayer's marriage status, such as the deductibility of alimony paid to a spouse or former spouse and the availability of the innocent spouse protections.

Planning Tips

Married same-sex couples who filed separate federal returns due to DOMA should consider filing amended returns with claims for refund, where applicable. Filing jointly may produce a lower combined tax than the total tax paid by the same-sex spouses filing as single persons, but this can also produce a higher tax, especially if both spouses are relatively high earners. Tax professionals should calculate for their same sex couple clients their past returns to determine if an amended return will result in a refund.

Married same-sex couples should also amend their estate plans to take advantage of many of the favorable provisions listed above. It is estimated that there are more than 100,000 same sex marriages in the USA. This means that as many as 300,000 amended returns could potentially be required in the near future. Tax professionals should consider filing protective claims for tax returns for which the statute may be about to expire.

Areas for Further Exploration

Because the recent ruling limits its scope to “lawful marriages” it is yet to be seen how the federal government will handle domestic partnerships and civil unions of same sex couples. It is possible that the current ruling will only affect those couples living in states where same sex marriage is legal.

Additionally, the Supreme Court did not strike down section 2 of DOMA which allows states to refuse to recognize same sex marriages performed in other states. Because of this, a couple may be legally married in one state, but living in a state that does not recognize their marriage as valid. It is yet to be seen how the government will view these marriages on a federal level.

Tax professionals will have to wait for the IRS to issues procedures for dealing with these complicated situations.

The Gear Up Editorial Team

Revisions to the Indoor Tanning Services Excise Tax

The excise tax for indoor tanning services has been around since 2010 as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This tax is the government’s way of trying to get you to stop using indoor tanning services, since using them may cause skin cancer.

This is an example of the U.S. government again enacting legislation in an attempt to influence the choices we make. They learned from Prohibition that outlawing an activity often has little effect on our choices so they opted for the next best thing—they taxed it.

The Internal Revenue Service has revised and finalized the regulations for the 10% excise tax on Indoor Tanning Services (ITS) imposed by this legislation. The temporary regulations, effective July 1, 2010, were revised by the 2013 final version. The final regulations are effective as of June 11, 2013; however, there could be additional revisions in the future.

Some of the 2010 temporary regulations were retained while others were revised or superseded by the 2013 final regulations. Following is a summary of some of the more significant items that changed and those that have stayed the same.

Qualified Physical Fitness Facilities (QPFF)

1. Certain QPFFs, with membership fees that include access to indoor tanning facilities, were exempted from the excise tax by the 2010 regulations even though the QPFFs provide basically the same indoor tanning services as non QPFFs.

2. The 2010 regulations limit the definition of a QPFF to a business that does not charge separately for its ITS, offer ITS to the general public, or offer different membership rates based on access to the ITS. If the business meets all three conditions it is exempted from the tax.

3. The 2013 regulations maintained this exemption despite complaints that the exemption creates an unfair competitive advantage for exempt QPFFs.

Free or Discounted Indoor Tanning Services (ITS)

1. The final 2013 regulations specify that the tax only applies if an amount is paid for ITS.

2. If services are provided at a reduced rate, the tax applies to the amount actually charged for the tanning services.

3. The 2013 regulations specify that the tax does not apply to ITS received for redemption of “bonus points” from a loyalty or similar program.

4. For promotions that include a “free” tan with the purchase of a specific number of tans the purchased tans are considered as a reduction to the price of all of the tans rather than a package of purchased tans at full price along with a “free” tan. The tax is applied to the purchase of the package of tans rather than the redemption of the additional tan.

Bundled Services

1. The 2010 regulations provided a formula to determine the amount reasonably attributable to ITS included in a bundle of services. The 2013 regulations leave the bundled rules intact.

2. If the ITS are bundled with other goods and services, the provider must manually calculate the amount of the payment for the bundled services that is attributable to ITS.

3. The final 2013 regulations authorize the Treasury Department and the IRS to issue future guidance to identify additional options for making this calculation.

Gift Cards

1. An undesignated payment card is defined by the 2010 temporary regulations as an item that can be redeemed for goods or services that may or may not include ITS.

2. The 2010 temporary regulations imposed an excise tax only when the card is redeemed for ITS, not when it is purchased. It was pointed out that a provider can only collect the tax when the card is purchased not when it is redeemed for ITS.

3. The 2013 regulations do not change the 2010 requirements however, they authorize the Treasury Department and the IRS to issue future guidance with respect to undesignated payment cards.

4. As required by the 2010 temporary regulations the excise tax must be reported and paid quarterly on Form 720 “Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Return.”

Membership and Enrollment Fees

1. The 2013 final regulations clarify that the excise tax on ITS is imposed on amounts paid for monthly membership and enrollment fees to a provider of ITS, other than a qualified QPFF, even if the member does not use any ITS’s during the period to which the fees relate.

2. Some providers charge a fee that allows the member to skip one or more months of membership dues without being charged an enrollment fee when they restart their monthly membership. Amounts paid to temporarily suspend a periodic membership program are considered amounts paid for ITS and are subject to the excise tax.

The government has taxed alcohol, cigarettes and now indoor tanning services to try to legislate good health practices. I don’t think that they have been very successful with either alcohol or cigarettes and they probably won’t be very successful with indoor tanning services either. What do you think?



To earn CPE credit and learn more about health care reform and its tax implications, click here http://ppc.thomsonreuters.com/ftproot/MarketingFTP/emailCPE/13YEAR/ECHEAL2013/Page.html  to take a look at our webinar and course offerings

Three Strikes for the RTRP Regulations?

In baseball it is three strikes and you are out, but what about lawsuits? Three individuals sued the IRS to stop them from implementing their new regulatory scheme for registered tax return preparers (RTRP). Following is the course of events.

January 18, 2013 – As the result of the lawsuit, Federal District Judge James E. Boasberg issued an injunction preventing the IRS from enforcing its new Registered Tax Return Preparer regulations. (Strike 1) The IRS then filed a motion to stay the injunction.


February 1, 2013 – Judge Boasberg denied the IRS’s motion to stay. (Strike 2) The court also went on to clarify the requirements of the injunction and to emphasize that the PTIN (preparer tax identification number) program was specifically authorized by Congress and therefore not covered by the judge’s ruling.


March 27, 2013 – The District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals denied the IRS’s request to suspend the January 18th injunction. (Strike 3) A three judge panel upheld Judge Boasberg’s refusal to lift the injunction against the IRS. The court found that the IRS had not satisfied the strict requirements for a stay pending appeal.


The next major step will be a merits briefing which will conclude with oral arguments before a three-judge panel of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals.


Judge Boasberg did clarify that tax preparers could take competency tests and continuing education courses but only on a voluntary basis while his injunction remained in place.


Has the IRS struck out with its RTRP regulations? Probably not, but it may take an act of Congress to accomplish their goal of licensing all tax return preparers who are not EAs, CPAs, or Attorneys.


What do you think?



RTRP Program Suspended - Answers to Your Questions

As you are probably aware, on January 18, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a permanent injunction preventing the IRS from enforcing the RTRP regulations. On Wednesday January 23, the Justice Department, on behalf of the IRS, filed a motion to suspend the injunction pending resolution of the appeal that the IRS intends to file. On January 28, the Plaintiffs filed opposition to the IRS motion to suspend the injunction.

With all of these injunctions, motions, and oppositions you probably have questions about your participation in the RTRP program. Here are answers to some of those questions.


Will I still have to take the RTRP test? – No. At this time the RTRP test is no longer required. As such, the test is no longer offered by Prometrics. However, the Department of Justice, on behalf of the IRS, has filed a motion to suspend the judge’s ruling pending the IRS’s appeal. Stay tuned. The test may be reinstated in the future.


Will I still have to complete 15 hours of continuing education (CE)? – The answer is no, unless you are an EA, CPA or attorney. However, if you prepare individual federal income tax returns, in my opinion, it is in your and your client’s best interest to learn about the new tax laws and regulations affecting 2012 filings. CE is not currently mandatory for RTRPs, and any option to proceed with registering for or participating in a CE program is strictly voluntary.


Do I have to renew my PTIN to prepare tax returns for 2012? – We don’t know at this time. However, the IRS posted the following message on their Facebook page on January 29:


Currently we are working diligently to resolve issues surrounding the issuance of Preparer Tax Identification Numbers (PTINs) for the filing season. Additional information will be provided shortly as to how to obtain PTINs.


May I schedule a date to take the RTRP test? – No. The Federal Judge’s ruling has effectively closed the RTRP testing and registration process for the time being.


I am scheduled to take the RTRP test later this year, can I still take the exam? – No, not at this time. The Prometric testing system for RTRPs has been suspended until further notice. They have indicated that you will be notified when additional information is available.


I have already received my RTRP certificate. Can I continue to use the RTRP designation? – The future of the RTRP designation is currently unclear; however, I have seen nothing that would indicate you could not continue to use the RTRP designation if you have passed the exam and received your certificate.

Can I take the RTRP test prep course for CE? – Currently the judge’s order makes continuing education voluntary, but no CE will be awarded.


I expect that if the IRS does not win their appeal, Congress will pass legislation giving them the power to regulate unlicensed tax preparers…but when that might occur is anyone’s guess. What do you think?

Here Comes the Judge: New Ruling for Registered Tax Return Preparers

On Friday January 18, 2013, Judge James E. Boasberg of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia struck down the IRS’s Registered Tax Return Preparers (RTRP) program and enjoined the IRS from enforcing the regulations.

The Court’s Decision

• Boasberg ruled against the IRS and in favor of the unenrolled tax preparers. The ruling eliminates the requirement for unenrolled tax return preparers to pass the RTRP examination or to obtain 15 hours of continuing professional education each year in order to prepare income tax returns for pay.
• The ruling states that tax return preparers are not “representatives who practice before the IRS.” The court equated “practice” with advising and assisting taxpayers in presenting their cases before the IRS, and filing a tax return would not be described as “presenting a case.”
• The ruling also granted permanent injunctive relief, enjoining the IRS from enforcing its regulation scheme against unenrolled tax preparers.

Options for the IRS

The IRS has the following options:
• Abandon any further attempts to regulate unenrolled tax preparers.
• Appeal the judge’s ruling.
• Seek congressional statutory authority to regulate RTRPs.

Options for the Unenrolled Tax Preparer

RTRP’s have the following options:
• Go about business as usual with no need to pass the RTRP exam or obtain the required continuing education.
• Continue to comply with the RTRP regulations voluntarily.
• Become an Enrolled Agent.

The court ruling striking down the RTRP regulations does not have any effect on the IRS’s Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN) requirements. All paid tax return preparers will still have to obtain their PTIN each year.
If you plan to, or have already become an RTRP, I would recommend that you voluntarily take the 15 hours of continuing education each year. If the IRS does obtain the authority to regulate unenrolled tax preparers (which I believe is the likely outcome), you will be ready and up-to-date on the latest tax laws.

Here at Thomson Reuters, we have created courses, webinars, and a subscription package designed specifically to meet RTRP regulations. Regardless of the outcome of this ruling, we are happy to have developed products that are customized specifically for tax return preparers who need clear and succinct update training to meet the needs of their clients each tax season.

I think the IRS will probably seek congressional statutory authority to regulate RTRPs; however, with Congress’s lack of ability to pass any meaningful legislation it may take a very long time. What do you think?

A Tale of Two Plans

There are barely 10 days left in 2012, and we are still waiting for Congress and the White House to forge an agreement that would prevent more than $600 billion dollars in tax increases and spending cuts from going into effect on January 1, 2013.

The House Republicans were originally scheduled to bring their Plan B legislation to the floor of the House for a vote. The bill would have raised the marginal income tax rate on household income in excess of $1 million. The Democrats felt that the $1 million dollar threshold was too high. The bill was unlikely to pass in the Senate in its current state.

The Republican bill (Plan B) would have:

• Allowed the top marginal income tax rate, capital gains rate, and dividend rate to expire after 2012 for taxpayers earning over $1 million per year. The top tax rate on ordinary income would increase to 39.6% for these taxpayers, and the top rate on capital gains and qualified dividends would increase to twenty percent (20%).
• Permanently extended the Bush-era tax cuts for taxpayers with income below the $1 million threshold
• Kept the estate tax at its current level. The current estate tax structure has a 35% top rate and a $5 million exemption. The exemption is indexed for inflation.
• Permanently increased the exemption for the individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) and indexed the exemption for inflation. (It is about time that Congress ended the charade of patching the AMT exemption amounts every year or two.) This provision would have been effective for tax years after December 31, 2011; i.e., it would have been retroactive to the beginning of this year.
• Permanently increased the Section 179 expensing limitation to $250,000 and indexed the limitation for inflation after 2013. The limitation would, however, be reduced if the cost of Section 179 property placed into service during the year exceeded $800,000.

Plan B did not include the spending cuts that House Speaker Boehner had offered in his previous negotiations with the White House. In addition, the plan did not reinstate the personal exemption phase-out limitations or the limitations on itemized deductions.

The Republican plan was announced when House Speaker Boehner rejected an offer from the President that called for $1.2 trillion in new tax revenue. President Obama's offer included provisions that would have allowed most of the Bush-era tax cuts to expire for taxpayers who earned over $400,000. The President’s offer included about $1.2 trillion in spending cuts.

The White House's plan to avoid the fiscal cliff reportedly includes the following:

• Permanently extends the Bush-era tax rates for those taxpayers earning below $400,000
• Returns the estate tax to its 2009 structure when the top tax rate was 45% and there was a $3.5 million exemption per spouse.
• Raises the top capital gains rate and dividend rate to 20%
• Reinstates the personal exemption phase-out limitations and the limitations on itemized deductions for married taxpayers earning over $250,000 and single filers earning over $200,000.
• Permanently patches the individual AMT exemption amounts
• Imposes caps on itemized deductions and major exclusions for upper-income taxpayers effective in 2014.

Although Plan B probably would not have passed in the Senate, it did provide a possible starting point for negotiations between the House and Senate that might have resulted in a compromise that would be acceptable to both chambers.

President Obama pointed out this week that he has offered a balanced deficit-reduction plan with more than $1 trillion in spending cuts. He feels that the White House’s offer is close enough to the Republican plan that it should be possible for both sides to approve his plan by Christmas.

On Thursday, December 20, the Republicans cancelled the vote on their “Plan B” tax plan.  The House Speaker indicated that there were not enough votes to pass the Republican bill.  Apparently the bill narrowly cleared a procedural hurdle this afternoon and that made passage of the bill look unlikely. The House also recessed abruptly. 

Based upon reports earlier today, it seems unlikely that a deal will be reached before December 25. Even if an acceptable compromise is reached, any final vote would probably occur after Christmas.

While most of the attention regarding the fiscal cliff has focused on the negotiations between Congress and the White House, the IRS is strongly urging Congress to pass the alternative minimum tax patch quickly. The IRS Commissioner said that nearly 100 million taxpayers out of the 150 million taxpayers who are expected to file could be prevented from filing their taxes until March 2013 or thereafter. This number is an increase from the 60 million affected taxpayers that the Commissioner estimated in November.

Absent swift congressional action, the Commissioner said that nearly 30 million taxpayers will become subject to the AMT unless the AMT patch issue is resolved soon. The resulting situation could cause lengthy delays in tax refunds and unexpectedly higher tax liabilities for taxpayers who were previously unaware that they would be subject to the AMT. Congress probably does not need to be reminded that there is a large block of registered voters among those 30 million taxpayers.

While Congress and the White House search for the sanity clause, we can at least thank Santa for our presents next week. Perhaps some of our elected officials in Washington need to have some spectral visitors stop by during the holiday season, not unlike Ebenezer Scrooge.