Home Online Publications Online Issues TTA Home Table of Contents News Notes Search Feedback

News Notes

IRA 60-Day Rollover Waiver Denied New Bankruptcy Law Six-Month Filing Extensions EPCRS (Box) State Economic Development Incentives (Box)
 


Lesli S. Laffie, J.D., LL.M.



From The IRS

IRA 60-Day Rollover Waiver Denied

A recent letter ruling may serve as a warning to victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, even though it dealt with a 2004 Florida hurricane. Letter Ruling 200544022 denied a waiver of the 60-day limit for a tax-free IRA rollover requested by a taxpayer located in an area that received relief from Federal tax deadlines for hurricanes that swept Florida in 2004.

Facts: The taxpayer took an IRA distribution in July 2004 to facilitate the purchase of a new home. He anticipated that a home equity loan secured by the new house would permit him to repay the IRA withdrawal within 60 days. Severe hurricane damage to the new home delayed the processing of the home equity line of credit. As a result, the taxpayer did not receive the home equity loan until April 2005, after the expiration of the extended deadline provided for the disaster area in IR-2004-115.

Holding: The IRS refused to grant additional discretionary relief; essentially, the taxpayer used the IRA withdrawal as a short-term loan.

New Bankruptcy Law

The Service has issued a fact sheet (FS-2005-18) reminding debtors of their new responsibilities under the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-8), which generally went into effect for bankruptcy petitions filed after Oct. 17, 2005. The new law requires debtors to comply with certain tax-filing responsibilities, as well as provide copies of previously filed returns to creditors in some circumstances.

Filing returns: Under the new law, the IRS may request the bankruptcy court to order a dismissal or a conversion of a bankruptcy petition if the debtor fails to file a tax return (or fails to file for an extension) that becomes due after the date the petition is filed. A dismissal or conversion may also be ordered if a Chapter 11 debtor fails to pay any Federal tax obligations owed after the date the bankruptcy petition is filed. Chapter 13 debtors must also file all Federal tax returns for the four-year period before the bankruptcy petition, to have their bankruptcy plan confirmed.

Copies of returns: Generally, the new law requires that debtors must provide a copy of their most recently filed Federal tax return (or a transcript) to any requesting creditor. In addition, the debtor must provide a copy of the return to the bankruptcy trustee at least seven days before the first meeting of creditors. If a debtor files an amended return or files any returns that are past due while the bankruptcy case is pending, copies must be filed with the bankruptcy court at the same time they are filed with the Service.

Means testing: One of the centerpieces of the new law is a “means test” designed to force Chapter 13 debtors to make regular payments on their debts based on certain income thresholds. To determine the means test, a bankruptcy court is authorized to use IRS-published expense standards; however, these standards are for tax purposes only and may differ from those established by a bankruptcy court.

Regulations

Six-Month Automatic Extension 

IR-2005-131 announced that taxpayers will be able to request an automatic, six-month filing extension for most common individual and business returns under new regulations (TD 9229, 11/7/05).

The new rules provide streamlined and simplified procedures expected to save taxpayers between $73 million–$94 million annually, by eliminating or consolidating several existing IRS forms. As a result, as of Jan. 1, 2006, most individuals and businesses will be able to request a full six-month filing extension, without a reason or signature.

Prior law (noncorporate): The new procedures will replace the existing two-step process, under which noncorporate taxpayers could obtain only a six-month extension, by first obtaining an extension (usually automatic) for part of that period and then requesting a discretionary extension for the remainder. A filing extension does not extend the payment deadline.

Individuals: Beginning with 2005 returns due in 2006, individuals will be able to use a single IRS form (Form 4868, Application for Automatic Extension of Time To File U.S. Individual Income Tax Return) to get an automatic six-month extension of time to file. This will replace the existing two-step process under which an automatic extension was only allowed for four months (generally, until August 15). If more time was needed, a taxpayer had to explain why, using a second form (Form 2688, Application for Additional Extension of Time To File U.S. Individual Income Tax Return). About 6% of individual taxpayers requested the initial four-month extension, and about a third of those went on to request a second extension (usually for two months, until October 15). Form 2688 will be eliminated.

Businesses: Extension procedures will also be streamlined for business taxpayers, thus eliminating three existing forms. Under current procedures, only corporations can request an automatic six-month filing extension. The new regulations will also make this option available to most noncorporate business taxpayers, including partnerships and trusts.

Accordingly, as of Jan. 1, 2006, all eligible business taxpayers will use Form 7004, Application for Automatic Extension of Time to File Corporation Income Tax Return, to request an automatic six-month extension. In the past, eligible noncorporate business taxpayers had to request an initial three-month extension and, if more time was needed, then request another three months.
 

Is the IRS EPCRS SCP Working for You?

by Lisa A. Winton, MBA, MST, AICPA Technical Manager–Taxation, Washington, DC

The Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System (EPCRS) is a comprehensive system of correction programs for sponsors of retirement plans intended to satisfy the requirements of Sec. 401(a), 403(a), 403(b), 408(k) or 408(p), but which have not met these requirements for a period of time.

This correction system allows plan sponsors to correct compliance failures without endangering the qualified status of their plans. EPCRS includes the Self-Correction Program (SCP), the Voluntary Correction Program (VCP) and the Audit Closing Agreement Program (Audit CAP). To find out more about EPCRS, visit www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=96907,00.html.

The 2006 Employee Benefit Plans Conference (to be held May 8–10, 2006 in Baltimore, MD) will hold a roundtable discussion about the SCP. Please e-mail any anecdotal evidence, issues and/or questions you have regarding this program to taxletter@aicpa.org, so your concerns may be addressed with government personnel at that conference.

 

State Economic Development Incentives 

by William A. Raabe, Ph.D., CPA, The Ohio State University, and Roby B. Sawyers, Ph.D., CPA, North Carolina State University, Members, AICPA Tax Section

A recent Sixth Circuit case challenged the validity of an Ohio income tax investment credit. In Charlotte Cuno v. DaimlerChrysler, Inc., 386 F3d 738 (6th Cir. 2004), rev’g in part and aff’g in part 154 FSupp2d 1196 (ND OH 2001), the court found that an investment tax credit Ohio offered for increased in-state investment violated the U.S. Commerce Clause. On Sept. 27, 2005, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Facts

The credit in question allowed DaimlerChrysler to reduce its Ohio franchise tax liability by 13.5% of the amount of the new investment made in a Toledo auto manufacturing plant. The taxpayer also received city and school district property tax abatements on the new investment.

Holding

The Sixth Circuit held that the credit violated the Commerce Clause nondiscrimination test in Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 US 274 (1977), in that it favored expansion in Ohio, to the exclusion of expansion by Ohio-nexus businesses in other states. The credit was found to be discriminatory, because it did not reduce Ohio taxes by a percentage of non-Ohio investment. The property tax abatement was upheld. 

Analysis         

If Cuno’s reasoning stands, the decision will have far-reaching effects on the types of economic development incentives states can offer to new and existing businesses. Currently, 22 states offer tax credits based on machinery and equipment purchases that are similar to Ohio’s investment tax credit. Of states with a corporate income tax, only Alaska, Hawaii and New Hampshire do not use broad-based income tax credits to encourage economic development.

 


Back
2005 AICPA