By AICPA & CIMA
4.4
1212 ratings
The podcast currently has 86 episodes available.
This podcast discussion with Michael Reese, Risk Control Consulting Director (Accountants) — CNA Insurance, centers around the importance of engagement letters for tax practitioners. Michael emphasizes the role engagement letters play in setting expectations, providing clarity and mitigating risks during engagements. He also reviews the necessity of having clear, documented agreements to minimize disputes and liability issues.
What you’ll learn from this episode:
AICPA resources
Annual Tax Compliance Kit — Engagement letters, organizers, checklists and practice guides help you manage your tax season workflow.
Say "I do" to engagement letters — Uncover the importance of establishing parameters of client relations and detail the scope of services to be provided.
Other resources
Frequently Asked Engagement Letter Questions — The Accountants Risk Control team at CNA, the endorsed underwriter of the AICPA Professional Liability Insurance Program, summarizes answers to frequently asked questions.
Transcript
April Walker: On today's podcast, listen to hear how you can manage your risk with engagement letters. Hello, everyone, and welcome to the AICPA’s Tax Section Odyssey Podcast, where we offer thought leadership on all things tax facing the profession. I'm April Walker, a Lead Manager from the Tax Section. And I'm here today with Michael Reese. Michael is a risk control director with CNA.
Michael Reese: Good morning, April.
April Walker: Thanks for joining me today. Here at the AICPA, we work really closely with Michael and his team on lots of things and lots of projects. But I'm especially grateful for the partnership that we have with his team for Tax engagement letter templates. Speaking of engagement letters, they are now currently available to Tax Section members. Of course, I will put a link in the show notes so that you're able to access those.
April Walker: Today, we're going to talk about some common questions that we get, and I'm sure that you also get Michael on Tax Engagement Letters and just generally how to manage your risk as a tax practitioner. Welcome, Michael, and thank you for joining me.
Michael Reese: Thank you. Hopefully, what I can provide will be of use to your listeners. These are questions we often get as well. I do want to confirm that, but it's a very important topic. Glad we're talking about it here today.
April Walker: I'm positive that they will be helpful. Sometimes people get answers to questions that they don't really want to hear, but they're important for them to hear.
Michael Reese: Exactly.
April Walker: Just to start off, I'm wondering why you think it's crucial for tax practitioners to have an engagement letter in place not only for every engagement but before they actually start the work.
Michael Reese: April, I think there's two primary answers to this question. First, setting expectations and then setting guardrails in case something goes wrong. From a practice standpoint, it's very important for both the practitioner and the client to know what's going to happen and what work is being done. Your engagement letter hopefully is going to clearly state, "This is what you've asked us to do. This is what we're doing. This is what we collectively need to do to get this completed. This is the info we need and when we need it," etc.
If a practitioner doesn't have this, then they run the risk of a client coming back later and either adding services, sometimes without the added fee, or complaining that a service has not been performed. There needs to be that clarity upfront. For professional liability reasons, having that clarity helps limit your duty of care to the agreed-upon scope.
This way, in the event of a dispute, the practitioner has a strong argument for avoiding liability related to items for which they had no responsibility. That leads me to the second answer involving guardrails. Ideally, the engagement letter is going to set out the agreed-upon rules if something goes wrong.
Dispute resolution is not really something CPAs focus on until they are in the middle of one, but we routinely talk to tax practitioners who are in the middle of an engagement with a problem and they don't have the signed letter to fall back on. If that letter is in place before the work starts, you now have options if something goes wrong, whereas without the letter, you don't.
Now, I'm not ignoring the fact that getting a signed letter back can be a challenge, especially for 1040 clients. But I know there are practitioners out there that have a strict process. No letter, no work. Remember, the onus is on the client because they do need your help. Otherwise, they aren't showing up to your office.
If they want the service, then they need to work with you. April, I would say put it this way. When I go to get work done on my car, even for an oil change, they don't even take my keys until I've signed a piece of paper that says I agree to the service and the terms of service. If I ignore that paper, disappear for some period of time, and then come back like some tax clients, when I come back, my car is still how I left it unrepaired, and I can't now complain that I'm going to be late for work because my car isn't fixed. I can, but I don't know how far it's going to get me. I really would like to think that tax professionals should have no trouble with a similar approach.
April Walker: That's a great analogy. That's where we'll talk about this. Mike, you and I have both been in practice before. And sometimes we struggle with the way we've always done things, in a certain way, but it might not be the way the rest of the world operates. If we're thinking about this in a way of managing your risk, this is definitely a best practice.
Michael Reese: Yeah, I would agree.
April Walker: Great. Let's talk about some common risks that tax practitioners face during engagement. You've got your engagement letter, for sure. Check one. We are in the engagement. How might having that engagement letter help mitigate some of the risks that can happen as things are going on?
Michael Reese: I'll give you four. We can talk about these. But the first one and we did touch on it before in the prior question, there's risk when there's no alignment on what the client needs. The client may not understand truly what they need to comply. They just know they need to file a return. Once you have the discussion with your client and identify the extent of the need, that engagement letter is going to provide the clarity that we spoke of, so both you and the client understand - this is what we're doing.
Two, once you know what you're doing, there's still a risk that the client doesn't know what's included. Let me give you an example. When I practiced, I had a 1040 business owner client that felt they were paying too much in estimated taxes using the 110% safe harbor method. We ended up doing actual method.
They didn't realize that meant doing quarterly drafts for the business and then calculating actual tax in multiple draft 1040s to figure out how much they owed each quarter. Added a lot of time, added a lot of fees. The client thought it was, "Part of the return." But at the time, the engagement letter didn't really break down for the client what was part of the return and what was not. That subsequent argument about fees could all have been avoided.
Three, there is a small risk someone may use the work for a purpose other than what was originally intended and we don't see this too often in tax. It's more of an attest item, but sometimes we do see it in tax. Just think of how often clients ask for comfort letters and you'll see where I'm going with this. Once you give them the deliverable, you do lose a bit of control as to what they might do with it.
Your engagement letter can anticipate this risk by saying, "We're doing this X." Tax return, consulting project, whatever. "We're doing this X for this specific reason. If you use it for some other reason, that risk and or loss is on you." I helped you with your tax return so that you can file your taxes and not have the IRS sending you nosy letters. If you gave that return to someone else for some other reasons, you've been warned, that's between you and that other person. But if your engagement letter doesn't close that door, you could have an issue.
Fourth, strangely enough, not every client realizes that if you don't file and pay your taxes on time, there's some downside associated with that. A lot of professional liability claims fall into the bucket of, "You didn't tell me," regardless of merit. At minimum, your engagement letter can put the client on notice. "Hey, if you don't do this or you don't take your responsibilities seriously, bad things can happen."
April Walker: I think those are all great examples. I'm specifically thinking about and we may touch on it a little bit later talking about some of the planning that might be around some of the upcoming TCJA sunset items and work you're going to be doing around that. I like your example and that absolutely has happened to me before about the estimated tax payments. The client didn't really understand, "Hey, cash out is also the fees you pay to me." I think that's a interesting one.
But you want to make sure that you're not leaving on the table the assumption that any planning and projection work that you might be doing related to these consulting projects or whatever around TCJA or whatever it might be is specifically either included in the engagement letter or you have a separate engagement letter that talks about that.
Michael Reese: I think you used a very important term when you say assumption. I think a lot of times CPAs are very in tune with the work and what needs to be done and there's an assumption that the client has the same knowledge or the same background. I think you talk to a lot of clients and what the CPA believes to be true isn't always necessarily what the client believes to be true. That's why you'll hear me talk a lot about that alignment between client and CPA. Documenting that and getting that understanding and having it in the engagement letter is very helpful.
April Walker: Like you said, in assurance engagements, you hear more about scope creep. But definitely, it happens in tax engagement too. It's important to think about.
I know this doesn't happen with people who listen to this podcast and are AICPA and tax section members. I know this doesn't happen. But maybe you have friends who do not have an engagement letter for an engagement. What are some examples of situations? Not specific - we're not calling names and calling people out here, but where might there be significant issues for a tax practitioner if they don't have an engagement letter?
Michael Reese: Sure, and you're right. I can't name names, but we've seen enough that I can give you some generic examples inspired by true events. Hopefully one listening doesn't say that's my situation, but that's not where this is intended to go. If you don't have an engagement letter, you may have an oral contract even if you don't realize it. I'm not sure most people are aware. Simple fact pattern. Client calls you for work, you discuss fees, client says, there's an argument, that's a contract. The problem is other than the fee and the return, what are the terms? What's the result if something weird happens and you want to fire the client? Or if the client never pays you for your time, or and I've seen this one before, the person goes MIA, you don't realize they were serious and they show up on the due date with a stack of papers and your fee demanding a tax return.
Oral contracts are a gray area and frankly, one where I think practitioners should seek legal help if one exists because of the ambiguity around performance, remedy and termination. When I say performance, I mean doing the work. Remedy is what one party can look forward to if the other party violates the agreement and termination I hope is self explanatory. I'll put a plug in here for the engagement letters offered to AICPA members in the tax compliance kit. Those letters include a provision that states the agreement supersedes all previous oral agreements. That's there on purpose. You can hopefully avoid the issues related to possibly having entered into an oral agreement, when you've provided a written proposal, or if the engagement letter scope differs from prior understandings. And that happens frequently enough where you talk about the work and then you put it in the letter and maybe the client doesn't realize the scope has changed a little bit.
Another situation. If you don't have an engagement letter and a good percentage of tax claims actually fall into this category, the disputes and ensuing lawsuits are more difficult to defend and more expensive to defend. You're now trying to piece together all of those conversations, all of those emails, dealing with all of the finger pointing and the convenient lapse of memories, just to figure out what was supposed to happen. Just put it in writing so it's clear upfront what the agreement is. I think an area I would be concerned with here is with SALT (state and local tax) compliance. Here it's more often that there's an engagement letter, but the letter is ambiguous or silent on key scope matters. It's not absence of an engagement letter as in your question, but functionally, it's the same principle because whether you have no letter or the letter is silent, in both cases, you don't have contemporaneous documentation.
A lot of clients forego SALT compliance because to them, the cost outweighs the act. But when the state comes knocking, you're going to have to navigate that lack of documentation. I don't know if too many clients audited by the state who raise their hand and say, no, I told my CPA not to prepare that return. My last example is the long standing client with recurring compliance that all of a sudden has new facts. Sometimes the practitioner isn't even aware of the new information when it's in their possession. If the planned scope anticipates 20 hours of work with commensurate fee, and now all of a sudden you realize the scope needs 50 hours of work. With a commensurate fee, the lack of an engagement letter is going to be a real problem when you send that bill for 2.5 times the fee that the client expected. Fee disputes are common claim drivers.
April Walker: Those are great examples and the SALT one particularly. You just need to make sure I think in the engagement letters that are part of our toolkit, it specifically says that you need to list out the state returns you're going to do, but there needs to be, like you said, some documentation about you may have a nexus and exposure in these particular states and somehow document what the client is telling you to do. Then just a quick note on sometimes people will talk about unilateral engagement letters. Hey, we've had this client forever, and we're doing the same thing for them. Do we really need to get an engagement letter every single year? What's your thought on that?
Michael Reese: I would say yes. You do need to get an engagement letter every single year. I'd say that for a couple of reasons. If your practice is still the practice 10 years later after you gave that original engagement letter, I'd be hard pressed to think that most people's practices and practices internally have changed. I think the engagement letter is a reflection of how your practice evolves and your quality control and what you're doing for a client. Two, depending on what's in your engagement letter, you want the engagement to actually end so that you're not indefinitely keeping open potential statute of limitations or potential liability. I'll give you a high level example. If you have an engagement letter and you say, I'm not going to do an engagement letter, I'll do the evergreen letter where it just continues on indefinitely. There's a question that engagement is still there. It's just an ongoing one really long engagement.
Whereas if you have the engagement letter, you clarify the scope every year. By clarifying the scope every year, you limit your duty of care for that year and then it ends. When you look at the statute of limitations for liability, you can say okay this letter is done with, this statute is done with, anything related to the work done there, that's passed. You can't come back and argue with me about it, but if you have just this amorphous, non defined or ill defined client situation, you interject a lot of ambiguity and that can become a problem for liability purposes. It's really just best to make everything clean, do one letter a year, make sure the clients understand that when that letter ends or when that work delivers, that one's done. I'm not tied to you indefinitely. I may be tied to indefinitely as the client, but I'm not tied to indefinitely visa V that engagement. Next year, when the work comes up, issue another letter. It also helps you understand what the client needs. Or if the client's needs they changed and it's evolved, the letter is going to reflect that every year as opposed to just having one letter, it's old you push out the same one. If their needs have changed, that letter really needs to reflect it.
April Walker: Good thoughts. Michael, I'm thinking about client education. I feel client education and communication is a big part of underlying a lot of what we talked about today. But I'm assuming you think it's an important role that we play in client education. But how can practitioners work on educating their clients about the importance of these engagement letters?
Michael Reese: I don't know if it's so much educating them about the importance of the letters. They need to understand the letter aspect of it as well, but it really is educating clients on their role in the process and reinforcing the fact that whatever the client brings to your door, it's ultimately the client's responsibility, not the CPA's responsibility. It's the client's tax return. It's the client's tax planning. As your service provider, I can provide you with suggestions, guidance, or advice, but really it's up to you to make the decision. The engagement letter should confirm that and lay out with some specificity what that decision is and what the client needs to do to support that decision.
One problem I saw from my own practice was that most clients concerns, especially around the engagement letter, started and stopped with a fee and the deliverable. It was very transactional. If the practitioner can impress upon clients that you're not a vending machine. They can't just drop off paper and money and expect magic. And that you client have to put some effort into the process too. That right there really helps everyone involved. I'll continue to harp on it, but things go a lot smoother when both practitioner and the client are on the same page. Client education can be a big help here because practitioners shouldn't take for granted that even their longstanding clients fully understand what's going on or what the process requires.
On your question of how. It's never a bad idea to be open and upfront about both the service and the engagement letter and answering any questions the client may have. Some firms take this approach as part of onboarding new clients. I know you and I talked a little bit about onboarding before we got underway, but practitioners should be forewarned. The risks of misunderstandings between practitioner and client are not limited to new clients. Practitioners need to be able to talk about what's in their letter. That may require them to sit down with an attorney that helped draft the letter so that they know what certain provisions mean and where it's okay to be flexible.
I might also challenge practitioners to not be afraid to openly discuss what might happen if things don't go as planned. Now, this doesn't have to be a doom and gloom or threatening conversation. But, hey, I need your help here to make this go smoothly and if I don't get your help, here's what the downside to you client might look like. I would hazard to guess that outside of a small population of clients that repeatedly get fired by their professional, most clients don't think about the prospect of what might happen if they don't hold up their end of the bargain.
Talking about client responsibilities openly and soberly and what happens if the client doesn't support the work might help make this prospect not so remote. Because unless the client just doesn't care about their taxes, and those are out there. I have to believe most clients do not want the prospect of either paying some unexpected amount on the due date or trying to find assistance at the last minute. If you think about it, a lot of client angst really revolves around those two items, paying more than expected or necessary and having the government come back and stress them out later. Use that and have an honest conversation with the client about what they need to do to avoid either of those outcomes. Then make sure it's in your engagement letter.
April Walker: Like I said, our conversation today boils down to communication and so I think those are good thoughts and good conversations to have. I mentioned it earlier but you and I are both in the public accounting world, and we're aware of the pressure that you can face with client demands and deadline demands and all of that. What do you think - do you have to balance that, with the need for thorough quality control? What are some of your thoughts around that question?
Michael Reese: I'll challenge it a little bit just because.
April Walker: That's fine.
Michael Reese: I don't want your listeners thinking that they need to make a choice between quality control and something else. You and I both know when the clock hits the week before deadline, ten, 11, 12th, a lot of things start getting squishy, I guess, maybe is the best way.
April Walker: Squishy is a good word.
Michael Reese: You got hard rules all of a sudden those rules get a little squishy. The term balancing may give some the impression that if one end is weighted more heavily, the other one is up in the air. Practitioners shouldn't view the quality control as optional if their reputation is built on doing quality work.
I think most if not all practitioners would say that's the case. I want to look at both parts of your question, thorough quality control and deadline pressure/client demands. Now, the most obvious answer to me for dealing with the pressure of a tight deadline and client demand is to not have deadline pressure or client demands. I know. Before I get laughed out of the room, I've had my share of deadline horror stories. We all have. The concept really isn't that outlandish. I'm starting to see a lot of evidence slowly, but surely practitioners are challenging that default notion that tax due dates have to be this pressure filled exercise that makes you wonder or question, why do I put up with this every year? If you can create optimal work conditions, that's a huge win rather than simply accepting that there's no alternative and suffering the consequences.
For those that aren't fully to a stress free deadline yet, and I know they're out there as well, your quality control, whether that's informal or it's a 50 page document that no one reads or refers to, it needs to be designed in a more intentional way. To me anytime you talk about quality control, I think you have to look at your process and your process design. Then you have to look at the people integral to the process, including the client. A lot of process is iterative, organic, reactive. When that happens, there's no design, there's no intentionality. You're just patching holes as they appear or responding to the latest impetus.
On the other hand, when there is design, sometimes we fall into the trap of designing to a best case scenario instead of a worst case scenario or realistic scenario. Mistakes happen all the time, but I don't think it's far fetched or controversial thing to say that in periods of high stress and pressure, the likelihood of a mistake is higher.
When I say process design requires intentionality, I'm really trying to highlight that the design needs to operate from the base assumption that the players involved aren't always going to do things in a rational, uniform or expected manner.
The question is, can your process for quality control withstand the sheer hysteria of those last days before the due date? Because if it can, you're not really balancing quality control or sacrificing quality. Your system accounts for the insanity as a given and then responds appropriately.
For those that have QC in place, I want you to ask yourself, are they rules or do they become suggestions in the face of competing interests? Do they become squishy, as we said before? Is it easy to rationalize an exception to the rule on April 13th compared to January 13th?
Part of this depends on what habits you have as a professional. If you have strong habits, the answer or choice you make doesn't change regardless of day or situation. I think the last thing I want to say about QC design is often practitioners are challenged because they don't know what they don't know, and that is a real and legitimate hurdle. We completely understand that.
We get a lot of calls on the risk management hot line where practitioners have never had to deal with this before and I get it. You can't design for what you don't know. But that's where I think you tap into your professional network, attend conferences, like National Tax Conference, where you and I will be and understand what resources are available to you, whether it's a tax section or your insurance carrier or your state society. There's tons of ideas out there, maybe too much, but there's nothing that says you have to keep doing it the same way and expecting a different outcome. I think that's called insanity.
April Walker: I particularly love that we start off talking about engagement letters, but then we circle back to thinking about a new way to operate in tax, which I do think is possible and one of my passion projects. I love that.
I just wanted to note another important aspect of quality control that in my mind, is a best practice for firms to minimize errors and omissions, and those are checklists that help you consider, have you addressed these key issues and making that not just a rote check.
It's a real part of your procedures and really stepping away and making sure you have a process for all of the things. Making sure you have a process for getting your signed engagement letter before you start your work, making sure every return has some review procedure.
Even if you're a very small practitioner you should have some kind of [review process]. Is it stepping away for a period of time before you look at the return again or something like that. Speaking of the checklist, they will be available soon in mid December as part of the annual tax compliance kit. Look forward to those.
Thank you so much Michael for this discussion today. I think it was a good one and hopefully a educational one for our listeners. In closing on these podcasts, if you're a listener, I hope you are. You know that this next question is coming and so it's Tax Section Odyssey we're taking a journey together towards a better profession.
In doing so I like to hear about my guest other journeys outside of tax. Talk to me about something that's on your bucket list or a recent trip you've had, something that you've got on the horizon.
Michael Reese: I have not had any recent trips, but I do have an upcoming trip next month and then I will give you a bucket list one as well because I'm always happy to talk about bucket list travel. Next month and we started this maybe eight or nine years ago. We took our daughter to Vienna for Christmas. We got away from the house for Christmas. I'm taking the family including the grandmothers. We are going to Germany to do Christmas markets. We're going to trips around Germany for about two weeks and visit a couple of Christmas markets and we'll make a pit stop in France to do some markets there. And my mother has never been overseas and so I'm really looking forward to that just reliving that child like joy that comes around the holiday season. That's what we'll be doing next month, lots of plans going into that. That will be a little bit of an odyssey as well because we'll see how well I can survive with my mother for 12 plus days. Shouldn't be an issue, but we'll see. Fingers crossed.
April Walker: Inter-generational trips.
Michael Reese: Exactly. I would say bucket list and I was talking to a couple of friends about this actually earlier this week, I would love to go to Easter Island and see the Moai and the Rapa Nui. That's a really long trip. But that's one that I think has been on my bucket list. If I can take that one off that would be really cool . I think maybe was it last month where Easter Island had the full solar eclipse? I would have loved to have been down there for that. But if I can get down there and check that out, I will definitely be in a good spot.
April Walker: Wonderful. I look forward to hearing about your trip to Germany and the Christmas markets. That's definitely on my bucket list as well.
Michael Reese: I will tell you all about it.
April Walker: Again this is April Walker from the AICPA Tax Section. This community is your go to source for technical guidance and resources designed especially for CPA tax practitioners like you and mine. This is a podcast from AICPA & CIMA together as the Association of International certified Professional Accountants. You can find us wherever you find your podcast, and we encourage you to follow us so you don't miss an episode. If you already do thank you so much, and please feel free to share with a like minded friend.
You can also find us at aicpa-cima.com/tax check out our other episodes and get access to all the resources, including those wonderful engagement letters mentioned during the episode. Thank you so much for listening.
Keep your finger on the pulse of the dynamic and evolving tax landscape with insights from tax thought leaders in the AICPA Tax Section. The Tax Section Odyssey podcast includes a digest of tax developments, trending issues and practice management tips that you need to be aware of to elevate your professional development and your firm practices.
This resource is part of the robust tax resource library available from the AICPA Tax Section. The Tax Section is your go-to home base for staying up to date on the latest tax developments and providing the edge you need for upskilling your professional development. If you’re not already a member, consider joining this prestigious community of your tax peers. You’ll get free CPE, access to rich technical content such as our Annual Tax Compliance Kit, a weekly member newsletter and a digital subscription to The Tax Adviser.
The AICPA & CIMA National Tax Conference will take place on November 11 and 12 in Washington, DC. Join Brandon Lagarde, Tax Partner at EisnerAmper, and April Walker, Lead Manager on AICPA & CIMA’s Tax Practice & Ethics team, to learn more about what to expect from the upcoming conference.
Conference sessions will feature topics such as:
AICPA resources
AICPA & CIMA National Tax Conference — For tax practitioners, there’s no better place to get immersed in current events than the AICPA & CIMA National Tax Conference; in-person and virtual options are available.
Reimagining your tax practice — Join us for free upcoming live roundtable sessions to tackle today’s top practice management issues with insights and tips from pioneers in the tax community.
TCJA expiring provisions — This detailed, downloadable resource offers an in-depth look at the expiring provisions under the TCJA and other recent legislation. It categorizes changes across individual tax, estate and gift tax and business tax provisions, organized by year of expiration.
Transcript
Neil Amato: Welcome back to the Journal of Accountancy podcast. This is Neil Amato with the JofA. I'm excited to be joined for today's episode by two top flight tax experts in this special collaboration episode with the Tax Section Odyssey podcast with our guests, we're discussing the AICPA & CIMA National Tax Conference which begins November 11th in Washington.
Those guests, April Walker, lead manager with the tax practice and ethics team and host of the aforementioned Tax Section Odyssey. Also Brandon Lagarde, tax partner at EisnerAmper and Chair of the Tax Conference Planning Committee. We have a lot to get to. We're excited to have you on. First, a quick welcome, April and Brandon, thanks for being repeat guests on the JofA podcasts.
April Walker: Thanks so much for having me Neil. I'm excited to be here.
Brandon Lagarde: It's very exciting to be here Neil. Thank you for having me.
Neil Amato: Yeah, we're glad to have you both on as I said, the Tax Conference is November 11th, less than a week after election day. Brandon for you first, tell me what you're looking forward to about this event which is at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington?
Brandon Lagarde: Yeah. I'm looking forward to just go into DC. It's going to be a week after the election, hoping that we know who the president will be and what the makeup of Congress will be at that time. Again, it's going to be a great atmosphere, a great opportunity to go to the nation's capital, to hear from some of the best tax minds out there.
Neil Amato: April, I know you're a repeat attendee at that conference. You're also running sessions, recording podcasts, taking part in panels. What do you look forward to from the event?
April Walker: It's always a busy conference for me and I love being in DC and it's very exciting for me to be there, like Brandon said right after the election. Speaking of that, really what I'm looking forward to most is hearing more about what the potential legislation outlook could look like based on those results, based on those election results. I think we'll hear more about we've talked a lot about the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the TCJA, that it potential expiration, what that means. We'll really be able to dig into that at the conference. I'm excited about that.
Neil Amato: It's almost like we planned this. My next thing was going to be the TCJA. Some of the provisions of that Act, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, are scheduled to sunset at the end of 2025. Clearly, there is a lot of uncertainty about the provisions right now as we record and the first part of October. But I imagine that topic is going to be a popular one at the conference. Brandon, What do you think?
Brandon Lagarde: Yes, absolutely and that's why, again, being there at the heart of it all after the election and getting to hear from presenters and speakers about just what the future holds for tax professionals, end of 2024 is going to be really important for us.
2025 is going to be incredibly important for tax practitioners to understand and remind ourselves of here are all these provisions that we've been dealing with for the last seven years that are going to expire. What's going to happen? Where are we going to be? A lot of planning opportunities, lot of reason to get in front of clients to learn about what we have in the horizon. Again, that's why this conference, particularly just the time of the year. It is in the election cycle, and heading into 2025, 2026. It's probably the most important conference that's ever taken place.
This is just a really important time for us to get together and to really try to figure out what's going to happen. Of course, we're not going to know exactly at that time, but at least start to have a better understanding, a clear picture of what we can expect and what should we be talking to clients heading into 2025? What are some things that need to be doing?
Because you can't just turn on the switch in November of 2025 and start to really think about this. Right now is really the time to get ahead of it and remind ourselves what provisions are expiring? What do we need to start thinking about planning opportunities to get ahead of it? That's what's at stake at this time.
April Walker: I love Brandon that you're setting the bar really high. The most important conference of all time. Here we go.
Neil Amato: Yeah, that's great and because it's the most important conference of all time, we will include a link to the conference registration page with the agenda information and all of that in the show notes for this episode. One of the items on that agenda is being led by Marty Finn. He's a previous guest on the podcast. He has a session on tax and financial planning. When estate taxes don't matter. Now not to steal Marty's thunder. But can you give me a little preview of the highlights of that session?
Brandon Lagarde: Certainly. We will spend a lot of time at this conference again, learning about the estate tax world and the sunset provisions and trying to navigate that. But the reality is a lot of our clients are not subject to estate tax. A lot of our clients are not having to worry about the sun setting provisions.
We thought it was important to have sessions that not just focused on the top 1% of our clients, but to the 99% or to the large majority of our client base. Things like gifting strategies, what we need to be talking to clients about, who aren't necessarily dealing with the estate tax. Income tax planning strategies around that.
Really just as practitioners, what do we need to be talking to clients about? We're not super focused on just estate tax and the ultra wealthy or the wealthy. That's one thing that we really try to work hard as committee in this conference is to find sessions that have a very practical application.
That we can take away tips and tricks and things to our client base and back to our hometown and not just focused on the very academic discussion that a lot of tax practitioners like to have. That they can relate to. Try to have sessions that are very practical in nature and the Marty session is definitely one of those. He's going to do a great job giving some really good tips and tricks to people to bring home.
Neil Amato: I liked the practical part you mentioned, and that leads me into another session that I want to ask you about. This is one that April is taking part in with Dan Moore and Mark Gallegos.The title of the session is Tax Practice makeover, transforming with year-round advisory services. Tell me some more about that session.
April Walker: Yeah. I'm really excited about that session. A lot of what I do here at the AICPA is try to help practitioners think about the future, the future of Tax Practice, the future of what a firm could look like. So we had this idea to do like a makeover of a practice. We're going to talk about some of the different aspects of a practice that you could make over- billing, client focus.
One of those is about adding advisory services. We'll talk more about that. So come and join us and learn how you could do a makeover of your practice.
Neil Amato: That's great. Now another session with an intriguing title, this is you, Brandon and you April, test your tax ethics IQ. Now one that sounds like one that people have to do some homework on or some pre-reading, maybe I don't know, but tell us about that session. What's a flavor of it that you can tell attendees about now?
Brandon Lagarde: We're going to try have fun with this session. Play some games that have come up with like a quiz atmosphere. I think April going to try bring a buzzer for people to buzz in and answer our questions. But really focus on ethical dilemmas.
We're faced with ethical dilemmas daily, with clients who are either trying to push the boundaries a little bit or just get into some situations where they find themselves in a bad place. We're constantly being asked to address the situation with our client base. Whether you need amended return for XYZ reason. Can you take on a client because of what's going on? Do you need a fire a client? Because they may be trying to push the envelope a little bit.
Really, there's a lot of ethical dilemmas that we face as practitioners. This is really a time for us to again, have some fun with it. To the extent that ethics is fun. We're going to try to test the audience and see what they think. It's always amazing if you ask a room of people what they think about certain tax ethic issue or are really just a tax topic.
In a room of 100 people, there are probably 100 different opinions on what should be done. I think it can be fun. We're going to try have fun with it. Again, I really trying to also provide some education so if you find yourself in these situations, here's some things to consider. But again, April and I, we hope to have fun with that.
April Walker: Just come visit us. There is no pre-work. To answer your question, Neil, there is no pre-work to the session. We'll take a lighthearted take on a potentially tough, dry subject.
Neil Amato: Great, and this quiz is not graded. You still get the CPE as long as you're showing up, right?
April Walker: Absolutely.
Neil Amato: Well, good. One of the themes that I'm hearing is providing advice on the topic of expanding services beyond just, "Hey, we're going to do taxes for someone." But if someone said to you, maybe after a session, "Hey, I really liked what you said there. But gosh, I'm a smaller firm," or "It's only me. I don't know where to start." What do you tell them?
April Walker: What I would do, if they came up to me and I hope they do. You can come up to me at our booth. You can come up to Brandon and I if you see us. We will likely be posted up in the bar at the Omni. Come see us anytime. But what I would tell you, we talk to small firms all the time.
One thing I recommend them is come to a session that I do that's on the computer. It's not live at the conference, but it's called Reimagining your tax practice. I'm really more about re-imagining and having makeovers and that sort of thing it seems like. But in those sessions we really talk about the nitty-gritty. Sometimes it's hard to think about this big process of going from X to Y.
We like to talk in those sessions about practical ways. I like to focus on the practical. How to actually get where you're going, or how to change things in your practice or how to change how you're operating. That's probably what I would say if you came up to see me wherever you might find me.
Neil Amato: This has been great. We've mentioned session by Marty Finn. We've mentioned some sessions you are taking part in. Of course, we've mentioned that key acronym these days, TCJA. Brandon, in closing. Anything you'd like to add as we wrap up this Tax Conference preview episode.
Brandon Lagarde: Yeah. Certainly. A couple of other terms you'll hear out there. AI, which we have a session. Transforming your tax practice. One thing we like to emphasize about all of our conferences, but certainly this one is, there'll be lots of sessions with lots of smart people talk speaking at these sessions with great content.
A lot of times your challenge is which sessions do I go to. Because it's such a great hour, hour-and-a-half of content. You'd have to choose. At the moment, you do have to pick a session. But you have access to recordings of all the sessions after. I often go back and watch sessions that I wasn't able to attend because of that great content. It's just a wealth of information.
Again, you get a little parting gift when you leave. Not only do you meet up, making new friends, meet people at the conference, talk about challenges you're facing with your colleagues and also hear some of the best speakers in DC and have a great time there. But you also get to have access to all the recordings after and watch the sessions after that you missed, and that is invaluable to have access to that content.
Neil Amato: April, how about you? Anything to add in closing?
April Walker: I think one thing that's really important about this conference being in DC, and we haven't mentioned yet, is the ability to have IRS speakers that come and speak to us. We're going to have the taxpayer advocate, Erin Collins. We'll have other IRS speakers scattered throughout the conference.That's another opportunity to really hear where they are on certain things and be able to ask them questions.
Neil Amato: Yeah. That's great. It's a good reminder that there is that access to IRS officials every year at this conference. Really thank both of you for your time. Again, look forward to the conference November 11th, Brandon, April. Thanks for being on the JofA podcast.
Keep your finger on the pulse of the dynamic and evolving tax landscape with insights from tax thought leaders in the AICPA Tax Section. The Tax Section Odyssey podcast includes a digest of tax developments, trending issues and practice management tips that you need to be aware of to elevate your professional development and your firm practices.
This resource is part of the robust tax resource library available from the AICPA Tax Section. The Tax Section is your go-to home base for staying up to date on the latest tax developments and providing the edge you need for upskilling your professional development. If you’re not already a member, consider joining this prestigious community of your tax peers. You’ll get free CPE, access to rich technical content such as our Annual Tax Compliance Kit, a weekly member newsletter and a digital subscription to The Tax Adviser.
This podcast conversation with digital asset specialist Kirk Phillips, CPA, CMA, CFE & CPB, Managing Director — Global Crypto Advisors, focuses on demystifying IRS Rev. Proc. 2024-28, which provides guidance on transitioning from universal basis tracking for holders of digital assets and a safe harbor deadline of Jan. 1, 2025, to determine how to allocate any unused basis in digital assets. Phillips shares recommendations for tax practitioners around communicating with clients and the need for careful planning and documentation to meet the safe harbor provisions.
What you’ll learn from this episode:
Understand more about Rev. Proc. 2024-28 and what it means for holders of digital assets.
AICPA resources
Digital assets and virtual currency tax guidance and resources — Sharpen your tax knowledge on digital asset and understand the tax complexities and strategies involved with virtual currency and cryptocurrency.
AICPA advocacy resources
AICPA makes recommendations for digital asset transactions regulations, March 7, 2024
Other resources
Rev. Proc. 2024-28 — Guidance to allocate basis in digital assets to wallets or accounts as of January 1, 2025
Final Regulations 2024-07-09 — Gross proceeds and basis reporting by brokers and determination of amount realized and basis for digital asset transactions
Transcript
April Walker: Hello everyone, and welcome to the AICPA's Tax Section Odyssey podcast, where we offer thought leadership on all things tax facing the profession. I'm April Walker, a lead manager from the tax section, and I'm here today with Kirk Phillips. Kirk is a CPA and it has a lot of other designations behind his name. But he's also more importantly for today's discussion, a specialist in the world of digital assets and crypto. [He's] been in it for a long time.
Our goal today, Kirk, is to demystify some of this latest guidance that we've gotten from the IRS. We're definitely not going to be able to demystify all of it in the time we're just going to spend today. But there are some important deadline related items, so we want to make sure we're covering those. Kirk is on the AICPA's Digital Asset Tax Task Force. And for the past few months, we've actually been meeting weekly, which is unusual for a task force. Because really we've been discussing one thing, Revenue Procedure 2024-28. What it actually said, what it meant. Just really delving into that, the details of all of that.
That's going to be the topic of what we're going to talk about today. What that means for tax practitioners and holders of digital assets. Especially like I said, there are deadlines around this safe harbor. Kirk, to start off. Welcome. Let's talk about I mentioned the deadline and let's talk about the significance of that January 1, 2025 deadline for making that reasonable allocation of unused basis. That's what the Rev Proc says.
Talk to us a little bit about what that means, what you're thinking about, what practitioners should be doing now to prepare for that date.
Kirk Phillips: Sure. Thank you so much April for having me on the podcast. I love talking digital assets and crypto, whether it's tax-related or otherwise. I'm excited to help demystify this Rev Proc. One of the key things here is that and why this is so important is we both have a short timeline. Because we're already nearing the last quarter of the year 2024. It's also very challenging - it's a onetime exercise that we have to go through and on a short timeline. That's why this is critical and that's why we're here today to talk about that.
One of the key things here is that prior to this Rev Proc that the taxpayers would do their accounting for the digital asset transactions, which would be their trading or their sales, and it could be other related transactions as well. But basically they would do all the accounting on a universal basis. The question is, what does universal basis mean?
Universal basis means that whether you have one wallet or one exchange account or you've got 37 wallets and six exchange accounts or even something more crazy than that, you would for the most part, more than 99% of the time people would use specialized tax software because that's really the only way to get the job done. You would connect all those things and or import your transactions into the software and it would essentially co-mingle all those transactions. I like to say as if it was one wallet or as if it was a single exchange.
But it's not simply for the tracking purposes, all the transactions are simply dumped together and you perform one set of accounting. That's what the universal [method] is. Now, you can no longer use universal. You have to do a wallet by wallet, account by account basis. Which means that if you, again using those same numbers I did in my example there. If you had 37 wallets, that means you essentially have to do 37 different sets of accounting for those. I think that without knowing even anything more about it, an accountant hearing that would say, "Wow," immediately that sounds like that could be challenging, that could be a lot more work, and so on.
There could be issues around that. And all those things are true. Because of this short timeline between now and the end of 2024 and essentially we're talking here at the end of September, so we got one-quarter left to do this. The important thing here is if you have any channels to communicate with your clients, the first thing to do would be to communicate with them and let them know, "Hey, there's this Rev Proc 2024-28." Maybe, perhaps even provided a link if you want to, and or read that yourself in detail at least once.
But there's a lot of other things that you can lean on in AICPA guidance, of course. But just to send that out, in other words, you don't have to know it in detail before communicating. You should start the process communicating right now to say, "Hey, there's a lot to unpack here. I'm just letting you know there's going to be more that's coming. Be on the lookout. We're going to do a series of blogs on this or whatever it is you do or a newsletter, segments, and things like that.
I think that's probably the number one thing to start off with is start the communication now, because this is not a one-shot communication thing. This is a series of communications that you're going to need to do. Whether you're just providing value to non-clients or you're working with current clients, you're going to need them to be thinking in steps and increments along the way.
April Walker: Yeah. That's a lot of what we've been talking about over the past couple of months. Who this actually applies to you and who needs to really take notice of this? I think that's a great suggestion. Our listeners might be thinking, "Hey, I didn't know that we are not allowed to use universal method of basis allocation anymore. Did that come from the revenue procedure or where did that come from?"
Kirk Phillips: Well, that actually came from the digital asset broker regulations. But then what happened is in the process of those becoming final and the fact that universal [tracking] comes to an end. And we have to do the wallet by wallet approach. What arises from that is a onetime exercise of how do we get from one thing to the other thing? How do we get from point A to point B?
April Walker: The Sec. 6045 regs, which are long and complicated. Again, like Kirk said, we'll continue to create resources around all of this information because it's a lot to unpack. In the revenue procedure, it talks about a safe harbor. As we're transitioning between universal and wallet by wallet, the procedure provides a safe harbor. Let's talk about what are the key criteria that qualify you for using that safe harbor and give some of the requirements for it and so talk a little bit about that.
Kirk Phillips: Sure. That's one of the big things here is what are those key criteria for the safe harbor? Of course, another thing is we're wondering what is it actually a safe harbor from? There's going to be more to come on that. Because that's actually not super clear and usually that is when it comes to safe harbor. The critical things here are that you have two methods that you can follow in this universal transition process. From universal cost basis tracking.
In that transition process you can use a specific units method or you can use a global allocation method. In either case, you need to do some work before the end of the year arrives at 12-31-24, or before January the 1st, whichever way you want to say that. Those two methods are two distinct ways of doing it. You might say that the global allocation method is more straightforward and less work or less complicated. But let's just unpack those briefly. There's more to dig into on these, but this is a brief touchpoint.
Let's start with global allocation. Global allocation, I like to think of it as more like a recipe. There's more than one way to get the "cake baked". Because you've got your grandmother's recipe and you've got your own style and you've got things like that and things in the cookbook. So you can arrive at a different cake, but if you follow the recipe, you're going to get the same cake. Basically, another way I like to say it too, is if you come up with a global allocation, which is simply saying, "You know, what I want to do is I want to allocate my Ethereum, my ether. And I want to take some low-cost basis.
Maybe you could say, "I want to use my oldest cost basis and I want to apply it to my oldest wallets." For Bitcoin, I had only two Bitcoin wallets and one of them, it's only collected Bitcoin, received Bitcoin, it hasn't sold any. Say, you want to allocate maybe what's already there. Whatever it is, you're really defining a process. You're not actually going through with the process, you're simply defining it.
The key distinction about global allocation is, if you define the process and if you were to give it to, let's say another CPA, they will come up with the same answer. If you give it to CPA A, CPA B, or CPA C, they should all come up with the same answer. It's very systematic. That's the distinction there. Now with the specific units, it's simply user's choice. Like in baseball, it's a fielder's choice. It's user's choice. It's however you want to allocate it specifically.
Again, you have to follow the date. You can't break the date in the basis or a specific lot based on the date that it was purchased. You can't break that up. At that level that's as granular as you can get. If there was a lot or a tranche of Bitcoin or whatever, AVAX, or just pick your favorite coin and that was purchased on a certain date. You can't break up the date because the date piece has to be maintained and be consistent.
Anyway, that's really just a user's choice scenario. That's the difference because you can't give that method to three other CPAs and have them come with the same result because that's not what it is. It has nothing to do with following a process. It's simply just a user's choice. Now the key thing on the dates there is that the specific units method has to be conducted and finalize before the end of the year, before the last day of the year.
With the global allocation method, you just need to come up with the formula for doing it by the end of the year. But you actually can apply the formula to get the allocation after that. That's a super important point right there. Under global allocation, you also have until either the original due date or even the extended due date of the tax return if you did not conduct a transaction. The key is not having any transactions. You've got to put a halt to your transactional activity until you apply the global allocation method.
But it does buy you more time to do it. You just gotta be careful because that's how you could throw off the safe harbor. And ruin the safe harbor if you don't put a halt to the transactions before doing the allocation.
April Walker: You mentioned in one of our discussions is about what is this a safe harbor from? Based on our best discussions and where we think we are now, what do you think about that? What is it a safe harbor? What is our alternative if we blow this safe harbor.
Kirk Phillips: That's a great question. It looks like it would be a safe harbor prospectively from this day forward or the end of the year exercise that we're talking about forward. We're not sure about retroactively. It mentioned if you don't follow the safe harbor, you can incur penalties and interests.
As I recall that's about as deep as it goes. You could draw an inference from that and say, if I don't follow the safe harbor, does that mean that all of my transactional activity, all my reporting for the prior years could be recast and recalculated under different cost basis method. And therefore end up with a different tax liability than you originally calculated. Those things can be worst-case scenario. We just don't really know.
April Walker: Usually when you have a safe harbor, you have rules of what to do and how to document that you have met that safe harbor. Again, things we've struggled with. Seems like a simple question right? But I'm telling you a lot of smart people in the room, this is not a simple question. Kirk, as we know it now, what types of documentation do we think will be good enough to substantiate that we have met that safe harbor as of 1/1/25.
Kirk Phillips: That's right. You could actually take an action. You could perform your allocation, and you could do this all before the end of the year. The question is, how do you prove that you've done it before the end of the year? People have talked about, well, you could have files saved that because you can look and see what a file date is, the modification date of a file.
But then you could also later open up the file, not even change anything but potentially open a file, change the modification date. If that was something that is being looked at, then that could be an issue there. This is really where it comes into use in your CPA skills to figure out what's a good way to document. We're already good at that. Even in the world of not knowing, you can come up with "well I think I should do this" to document.
One of the things is if there's a way to send an email to yourself. Time stamping on emails is one way to do things like that. Just in the larger world of documentation. Like I said, everybody is relegated to using specialized crypto tax software. You might as well say everybody uses crypto tax software.
Then the question is, which one do you use? Because they're all different. They all have issues and so on. But hopefully regardless of the software, it would allow you to export an end of the year holdings report or an inventory report. That's essentially what it is because the data is in the software and if that's going to be one of the key things is, can I get that report?
Let's just assume that you do. The first thing you do is to export that report. That's going to be the basis and the starting point for doing an allocation. Let's fast forward just a second. Let's say you go through the allocation however long that happens and let's say you're done. For example you could say, let me attach that file now. Again, figuring out how do you document.
You could attach that file in an email or you're copying [yourself] with your client and maybe there's other members in the firm as well. Maybe there's a specifically designated digital asset person who want to get copied. But nonetheless, that would create an email timestamp on it and that document is attached to it. That's one way that you can actually document that these things were done ahead of time.
I guess if we want to dive into documentation further again, I was talking about that inventory being a starting point. Regardless of whether you use this global allocation that we spoke about or specific units allocation. You would need to take the starting point of the ending balances or the inventory and then you need to take your wallets. Then you need to then allocate the basis that's in the wallet. Because remember it's on a universal basis. Now you're trying to allocate it on a wallet by wallet.
You then need to go through it, but it's difficult to describe it without seeing a visual. But basically you would allocate all of the inventory that starting to all of the current wallets that you have. Again it depends on what method you're using.
But at the end of the day, what you're trying to achieve is you want to get a proof. We all love proofs, and this is one way to do it. What's the proof? The proof is the check total. It could be a check total per asset, for example that you've allocated all the Bitcoin, you've allocated all the ether, you've allocated all the Solana, the AVAX, the whatever. You've allocated everything so that the check totals on the top match the check totals on the allocation. That's how you know that you've done it and it is complete and correct. Is by doing the methodology that is like that. Because if you don't do that then there's really no way to know that it's complete. You got to have checked totals and arrive at the same numbers and then that's how you do it.
Again it can be challenging because it's depends on what's the quality of the data that you're starting with. One of the big challenges is I think all the software has different types of issues, limitations, certain features some have that others don't have and things like that.
The first thought might be from the accountant mindset oh, if I split this inventory report out it's accurate. But the thing is, it's most likely not accurate. There's going to be issues with it. You're actually starting with something that's not solid in the first place, which creates a whole other set of challenges. But we can't dig too far into that one right now.
April Walker: I was just went back into my way back machine and I was doing proofs and doing double underlines and I was getting really excited. I think that's a great point. If you are using software for yourself or for your clients, you need to, just like with everything we would say, you're not printing it out and then just putting it in a file or somewhere and never looking at it again. You got to make sure that it's not garbage in, garbage out situation. Again, lots of potential steps in this seemingly simple, allocate your basis comment.
Another thing we've talked about is the role of brokers. Because eventually in the years to come, I'm sure you're aware, there's going to be in a form 1099-DA. And there's going to be reporting of digital assets and then hopefully there's going to be at some point, [cost] basis on those forms.
Again, happy little world the basis is going to be equal to what you think it is and everybody's happy. I think we know that it's going to be much more difficult than it sounds, but let's stay simple for the moment. Let's talk about how that revenue procedure 2024-28 impacts how a broker might communicate with your clients regarding interactions with brokers and how this might be a help eventually.
Kirk Phillips: That's all a great question and it's interesting how just the broker side of things, what were the centralized digital assets exchange. Because that's what we're talking about. It's just the two ways of saying it. But just to be clear what we're talking about because we have decentralized exchanges.
Then the other side of that is the brokers and the centralized exchanges. And so that creates a whole another set of unique things and considerations with the brokers. And how they're going to report basis because they're the ones that are required to do it right now. We don't have it on the self custody side. I guess the overarching thing is you could end up with perpetual mismatches. And when I say perpetual, they could go on forever - definition of the word. But it could go on for a very long time. Just to make a point there, you have a perpetual mismatch between what you have been tracking with your crypto tax software and what the broker actually has on file.
If it was Coinbase, for example, Coinbase and the assets that are on Coinbase were actually purchased there. Coinbase is going to have a record in that scenario. Then your tax software may have under the universal method have already spent some of that basis. Because again, those transactions are treated as if it was all one big wallet. You've got a mismatch off the start, even if you do a proper allocation on your own side, you may not even know what the broker has. So the question is, how can you communicate with the broker and let them know?
The centralized exchange services or these brokers, they can receive user provided basis, but they're not required to, but they may accept it. If you have some that accept it, that may be one path that you could try to match up what you have from your allocation and communicate that to the broker so it matches up. But again, that's not going to be perfect because not every centralized exchange is going to do that. Only some of them are. Even in cases where they do provide that as a courtesy to their customers, that's not a magic wand either. If there's other things that can happen there, we could get into the weeds further on that.
But one of the things is when you transfer in tokens to a broker, that they don't have any cost basis there. Again, if you wanted to report it because they're accepting it, yes. Otherwise they wouldn't have the information. There's just no way for them to know. If you think about the different assets that they may have in your account, they're going to have some that they know the basis for which would be the ones that you traded with them. Then they're going to have other transferred in assets from customers and they're not going to have any basis information on that.
That just exacerbates the issue of what basis they have, what information they have and what's getting reported. You're going to have basically you could have 1099-DAs and so on that get reported on your behalf or the basis information is not correct. I think you know what is going to happen in those cases. You can imagine the challenges of trying to reconcile. That's what it was going to come down to is creating a really challenging reconciliation process with what the broker reported and the software with the software not really having features enough to give you reconciliation, the ability to reconcile to the degree that we're talking about.
April Walker: We've talked a little bit about there are times certainly where you get it 1099-B and the basis that the broker reports, doesn't match for this or that reason? It can be inherited and who knows a couple of different scenarios. But generally, you can rely on what the basis is. I'm not sure that's going to be the case in this situation. But again, we're just scratching the surface on some of these complex issues. More from an issue highlighting, you can recognize that this is coming. Kirk, This has been great, we've covered a lot of great information, gives us some good takeaways as we're wrapping up listening to this podcast and what can practitioners do in the next quarter coming up or then as they're starting working on a 2024 tax returns.
Kirk Phillips: Yes, I've got some great key takeaways and key points here. Then again, these things will be some of the stuff that I was suggesting in the beginning where you incorporate it into your blogs and newsletters, etc. This ongoing communication that's going to be critical. One of those could be strategically setup and tee up this allocation process in such a way that it is less complicated and has less issues. There's really going to be a strategy that could alleviate some of that. It's not relegated to whatever challenging process is going to be for any specific client. One way you can do that as potentially consolidating wallets.
If there's an example, like I said, the client that's got the 37 wallets and the six exchanges. You can consolidate those down. Now whether it whittles down to a single wallet, probably not, with that many for various different reasons. But if you could go from, say, 37 and six, what's that? Forty three. If you go from 43 and you're able to whittle that down to say four or five. You're automatically going to have less challenges and the less complicated allocation process. Really strategically consolidating assets and wallets is one way that could make this process easier. And then also similar and in conjunction with that could be to take the assets off the exchange.
Because again, if you don't have the ability to communicate with that particular broker because they're not receiving user provided information. If you take the assets off the end of the year, and then you put it back, they're going to have a zero basis. Again, that's its own issue, but I think it's the lesser of the evils, if you will. It's a better scenario for them to have a zero basis because then you're going to report something for it. Rather than they have some number and you have some different numbers. It's kinda like cost basis cleansing and you could call it that.
The other thing here is the third key takeaway. I talked about all crypto software has limitations and challenges and issues, all different from one another. You really need to know [whether the software can help]. For example, if a software provider is going to provide some tooling to be able to help in this process, they may actually provide it to the user. And say, hey, you could just click a box here and we're going to lock down the inventory. Then we're going to do this reallocation for you and you think to yourself, that's great.
I don't have to do any of the work, but you're still going to need to check that. You can't just rely on that. Then furthermore, if there is anything [available] like that, the question [comes] back to safe harbor. Does just checking a box, is that an action that proves that I took an action, a timely action, and allows me to be in the safe harbor or not. I think one of the best takeaways is, regardless of any of these pathways, is that you got to have a workpaper of some sort. And it says, I examined this. Here's a work paper that shows I did the work.
Because it's one of the things that the software doesn't lock down the previous inventory. Find out what software the person uses. Because you may know or you may not know. It depends how you work with the client. [You need to] really understand what is that software provider doing to handle this. That's another key thing. This is really a big, interesting brain teaser for CPAs who were in the digital asset space.
April Walker: For sure and we appreciate you taking a walk with us down, at least to start or the path and more to come. Kirk, this first time you've been with me on this podcast. We call it Tax Section Odyssey. We think of it as an Odyssey, a journey toward a better profession. In doing that, I like to get a glimpse of my guests other journeys outside of the world of tax. What's something on your travel bucket list? Something you have planned. Give me something to add to my bucket list.
Kirk Phillips: Yes. I will be going to Orlando in about a month to see my sister and I don't get to see her much. But one of the things I like to do is backpacking. I am involved with Scouts and I discovered backpacking in 2021 for the first time. I just love going on the Appalachian Trail and all different kinds of trails, whether it's with Scouts or other things. That's one of the things I like to do a lot.
April Walker: Nice being outside and in nature and there's some beautiful places to hike for sure. You'll have to share some pictures from your hike when you're back with us. Thanks again, Kirk. This was very informative for me, as it always is. I didn't give a shout out to our digital asset page, but I will certainly put it on the resources.
Again this April Walker from the AICPA Tax Section. This community is your go-to source for technical guidance and resources designed especially for CPA tax practitioner like you in mind. This is a podcast from AICPA and CIMA together as the Association of International Certified Professional Accountants. You can find us wherever you listen to your podcasts and we encourage you to follow us so you don't miss an episode. If you already follow us, thank you so much and please feel free to share with a like-minded friend. You can also find us at aicpa-cima.com/tax and check out our other episodes, as well as getting access to resources mentioned during this episode. Thank you so much for listening.
Keep your finger on the pulse of the dynamic and evolving tax landscape with insights from tax thought leaders in the AICPA Tax Section. The Tax Section Odyssey podcast includes a digest of tax developments, trending issues and practice management tips that you need to be aware of to elevate your professional development and your firm practices.
This resource is part of the robust tax resource library available from the AICPA Tax Section. The Tax Section is your go-to home base for staying up to date on the latest tax developments and providing the edge you need for upskilling your professional development. If you’re not already a member, consider joining this prestigious community of your tax peers. You’ll get free CPE, access to rich technical content such as our Annual Tax Compliance Kit, a weekly member newsletter and a digital subscription to The Tax Adviser.
In this episode David Snider, Founder and CEO — Harness Wealth, discusses the transformative role of technology in tax practices, exploring how tools like practice management software can enhance client relationships and streamline operations. David shares insights on what he sees as three phases of technology adoption in the tax industry and offers practical advice for firms looking to advance their tech capabilities. Tune in to learn how embracing technology can lead to a more efficient, client-focused tax practice.
What you’ll learn from this episode:
AICPA resources
Adding AI into your tax practice — Artificial intelligence (AI) is certainly a hot topic of late. Listen to hear Jason Staats and Ashley Francis talk about the latest information in this area and where you should move forward and where you should proceed cautiously in this Reimagining Your Tax Practice archived session.
Transitioning to a tax-focused CPA financial planner — Tax return compliance is continuing to become more of a commodity. Your clients see you as their trusted adviser and ask about a range of topics that affect their financial well-being. In this Reimagining Your Tax Practice archived session, learn more about practitioners who offer financial planning services and how that has impacted their practices.
Transforming Your Business Model…Technology — The Private Companies Practice Section (PCPS) is developing tools around technology designed to help firms not only identify elements of their current business model that may be holding them back but also offering solutions to help them adapt in this changing environment.
Upcoming event
Tech stack wars in 2024 — With the amount of technology products out in the market, how do they perform in reality? Join our next tech stack wars challenge on Oct. 16, 2024, to hear about the latest in technology for tax practices.
Other resources
Harness Wealth — Learn more about how Harness Wealth strives to provide the next generation of builders confidence in the path to their best financial future.
Transcript
April Walker: On today's podcast, listen to hear more about leaning into technology for your tax practice. Hi everyone and welcome to the AICPA Tax Section Odyssey podcast, where we offer thought leadership on all things tax facing the profession. I'm April Walker, a lead manager from the Tax Section and I'm here today with a repeat guest. His name is David Snider. He's the Founder and CEO of Harness Tax. Welcome back, David.
David Snider: It's a pleasure to be here. Thank you April.
April Walker: David, I'd love for you to start. Tell us a little bit about yourself and tell us a little bit about Harness Tax and where you see yourself in this world of tax.
David Snider: Thank you for having me. Yes, so Harness has a platform for routine tax advisors that are looking to make their relationship with their clients more seamless and insightful. What that really means is a practice management solution that's tied into a much broader set of offerings. That includes business development to help advisors with leads, a concierge team to help with support, as well as a broader network of resources to help guide advisors and give them the resources of bigger firms.
April Walker: Wonderful. I feel since we talked in Spring of 2022, if it's possible, I feel like the importance of technology is even more important. Maybe that's just me being dramatic, but let's start off just by pretty broad question like, how do you see technology transforming the way tax advisors interact with their clients?
David Snider: Absolutely. I think about it being in the second of three inevitable phases. I think the first was the first stage, which is very typical across industries. My background was spending, now 12 years, building tech enabled services, software solutions, first at Compass, a real estate advisory firm, and now at Harness. Before that in the middle, spent a lot of time at Bain Capital looking at different disruptive technologies. And so that first phase that we went through, very similar to a lot of industries, adoption of email, adoption of technologies that clients can actually submit core documents digitally and not just in paper.
The ability with the early software to actually complete and file electronically. That really is table stakes. If you look at the data, it's 99% of advisors have an Efin, etc. The second phase that we're really still in the early to mid innings of is the software collaboration phase. What that looks like is work-flow automation, ways of interacting with clients to create leverage for advisors and scale. It's not just, hey, I typed an email, send it to one, or I create an engagement letter sent to one. It's using the efficiencies of technology that can, at the vanguard be AI, but really doesn't need to be.
In the vast majority of cases, it's just having good practice management software to create efficiencies for the advisor that end up, ironically, even though you have to spend less time, creating a better client experience and one that's more customized to the individual. It gives them more visibility into what's going on, what's coming next.
The third phase, which I think only a handful of firms are really investing in, fully tapping into, which is totally fine. I don't think the client expectation is there, is around customized insights. How do you not just deliver an efficient workflow? But how do you, at the outset of a tax season, demonstrate to your client that you already know some stuff about them from prior years, here's why we really need just to tweak that. Showing your work. Here is all the different analysis that we ran in the completion of your return or the discussions that we had and at the end of the process, Yes, here's a completed tax document or analysis that you requested, but also here's what it means.
I think that ability to both give insights to people and leave clients like they actually understand tax, the tax process, the work that you did, is going to create massive benefits in terms of client's willingness to pay, their retention, their happiness, etc. Very few firms are at a Phase 3 in our opinion. You don't need to be concerned if you're not. Because there are a few, if any are. But certainly making sure that you've put in place or have the opportunities to go into next tax season and really nail Phase 2. I think will put advisors in a great place to really capture what is happening on the vanguard in Phase 3.
April Walker: We definitely hear from people and when I'm out talking to firms, people who are definitely still in that Phase 1. Where they transferred to Cloud. That seemed like a huge deal and leaning into some technology, but maybe taking that next step into two, even is difficult. Do you have any advice or thoughts on that? Because everyone is so busy and it's hard to figure out, especially if you're really small, it's hard to figure out how to take that time and really invest in trying to get to that next step. Any ideas or suggestions there?
David Snider: I think the good news is there are a lot of very good practice management software that did not exist or did not have the robustness that they do today, five years ago. One of the things to consider in evaluating the different choices is, ensuring that you price in the value of your time as a practice leader. In that there is a learning curve on anything, no matter how good the technology is. There are some that I think are much cheaper and may have the technologies you want to check the box on. But I think really understanding what is the on-boarding team look like?
What does the client success infrastructure of that solution look like? Who's going to make it as easy as possible to set you and in many cases your team up to use it successfully? And to answer issues that will inevitably arise from any change. I think we have over-invested in those resources, because we know there's a lot of change and fully transitioning the way that you think about practice management, some of the potential third-party software you can plug in, etc. That's important.
I think whatever approach that you take, whether it's working with Harness or a whole host of other solutions that are out there that are very good. I think just making sure that you understand, hey, what are the functionality each have, what's going to be accretive to the way that you want to work and your staff and perhaps your clients. But also what's the process going to be to fully utilize and take advantage of that.
April Walker: Those are some good thoughts. Just maybe if we can talk about a few examples of ways that firms can use practice management tools to really help them. Because this is really what it's about. It's about not having to have an Excel spreadsheet of clients and that's all you have. I'm not saying that's what our firms have. I'm just saying, I was in practice for some time and I remember that. What are some ways you can use tools to really advance your practice?
David Snider: I think there's both external components. How do you enhance the way that your clients perceive their process and there are internal things. How do you ensure that you don't miss a filing? The reason that advisors have Excel is just a mechanism to ensure that they do the work for their clients that the clients expect. I think on the external side, the more frequently you're interacting with clients around the tax process, generally the better, not in an annoying way, but I think tax is something clients generally don't want to think about, but definitely want to get right.
It's no different than a patient coming in to a doctor if they have an issue, but don't really totally understand it. Having a solution that allows you to email me before the season starts, to preview of what's to come and the deadlines and things that are upcoming. What do you need from your clients? What is the engagement going to look like from a pricing standpoint? Being able to send out engagement letters that reflect that. So someone feels like they weren't surprised because they had exactly what's being done for them and the pricing terms, etc, outlined being laid out. Having the client questionnaire customized ideally to what the clients already told you in previous years.
It feels intelligent, not like you're starting at Day 1 every year with the same advisor around your materials, etc. All that stuff is beneficial, being able to update them that "I've received everything I need" or expect to hear from me this time in March for business filing. Aspirationally, late March not April 14th, but whatever that may be for the draft filing, what their advisors recommended, etc. Or at extension deadlines, etc. That stuff all again can be done without moving your practice to Phase 2, but it's going to be dramatically more time consumptive. And it's stuff that you can't bill and price for in the way that you want.
Because there are lots of other tax firms that have already made those investments and therefore they can do those things with very little time invested. Internal stuff is really around collaboration, tracking, knowing what clients have uploaded what? Who has been filed? Who's working on documents? Etc. Where are they in the process? Have they paid? The more visibility you have, the easier it is to spend each day, not driven by who is pinging you over and over in your inbox, but who actually needs something based upon external deadlines or prioritization or the revenue they're going to drive wherever that may be as you think about being the quarterback of your practice rather than playing defense. Just having the scrimmage run towards you over and over again during tax season and hoping you're still standing at the end of it.
April Walker: Yes, I love a football analogy. I was just in Minnesota to watch my Tar Heels play. My first trip to Minnesota anyway, it was fun.
David Snider: I went to the Super Bowl when The Patriots played there against The Eagles a number of years ago and it was bone chilling.
April Walker: Yes, we're recording this in early September. It will come out in a couple of weeks and what we're really thinking about, and what I hope our practitioners are thinking about is year-end planning and there's a lot to talk about with impending legislation. There's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act sunsetting. There's a lot going on for you to be in front of your clients and proving your value. Talk a little bit about how technology might assist you with some of those conversations, or pulling data together to be able to help understand who you need to talk to you, and what about?
David Snider: Number 1, I would say, and this is anecdotal, I don't have the data to prove it. The majority of advisors do not proactively email their clients in Q4. Unless they need to collect certain things to do a quarterly estimate, etc. That is a huge missed opportunity. Even if you adopt, no technology, take an hour jot down some thoughts, a few bullets on what could be at stake in the election or the expiration of the Trump tax cuts or of the estate tax exemption, whatever it is, send something that seems thoughtful, and obviously it's going to be thoughtful from any practitioner who cares about what they're doing.
If you do that, you may think, I actually have the time to have something more customized. A, you can use software at least have to be addressed to the person, even if it's a mass email versus just a generic one, but then you could potentially also group your clients and say, hey, I've got 15 law firm partners, and I've got 42 small businesses, and I've got a cohort of people with multi-state issues, etc. I'm going to create three different end of year planning emails.
I'm going to categorize my clients and be able to send out something that's not individual, but that makes you feel like, wow, April is really ahead of the curve in terms of giving the insights that I wouldn't have expected. Although it obviously can be automated, but it takes the adviser having the initiative to create that content and think about what's going to be most useful for. When you do that, feel free to promote the scope of what you can offer. Tax advisors or not, the world's sales-iest profession. In many respects that can be a good thing, but it also does you a disservice where your clients don't know what type of things might be beneficial.
For that end of the year planning to small business owners be like, hey, you're thinking about possibly selling or transferring a chunk of the business to a child or an employee or selling outright, etc. There are a whole bunch of things that you should be thinking about now, potentially some things that may involve tax decisions this year versus next year, etc. I can be helpful with that.
I think highlighting the opportunities around that and giving people the ability to opt in for more complex planning is going to be really accretive. But yes, whether it's Harness practice management solution or others, there are definitely ways to customize the messaging, the cohorts, some of that stuff, but it really starts with the advisers sitting down and saying what is potentially meaningful on the horizon for my clients. And how much time energy do I want to take to customize that? And maybe it's hey, it's one generic one, and there are 10 clients that really move the needle. These are my 10K plus clients, whatever the threshold may be. I actually want to spend some time and really make them feel that I'm paying attention to their holistic needs and how I can be strategic to them.
April Walker: A lot of times we hear people say, I don't want to bother my clients, but I feel like on the other side, they really want to hear from you when you have something to say that's really important and crucial to them. I think it's important. That's a great point you made about reaching out in some way fourth quarter of 2024, because like we said, there's a lot of different things that you could bring up that are specific to their situation.
David Snider: Honestly, my view and it's just a personal view having now been in and around this industry for several years is book-ended communications is extraordinarily rare and extraordinarily valuable. What I mean by that is communication before the season starts, the more customized, the better, but at least something. The same thing at the end, that even after the client has signed a return, you've completed some analysis that post-season follow up.
If it's just previewing when they think about bringing for the next year or some of those planning opportunities goes a really long way, I think in demonstrating value. I'm seeing advisers do the presentation of insights through loom videos and other things that I think is also an element of that. Which is do more than deliver the bare minimum of the compliance requirements, and you will stand out and generate a tremendous amount of goodwill from your clients in whatever form it takes. A Loom video, something semi-customized, something even generic will be helpful to a lot of the people that you work with.
April Walker: Just thinking about some clients you may have worked with with Harness Tax, do you have any success stories that come to mind where technology really improved someone's practice?
David Snider: Yeah. I think we have two different types of advisors that we principally help. The one is a practice with 1-25 employees under 10 million of revenue, that's really making an investment. [They say] we've got a good business. We're going to do just fine regardless, but we also recognize to make it A, sustainable, B, to enable growth,
We've got to be more efficient and we want to not just be good enough that clients don't leave, we want to be better. For a number of those practices, I think the combination of a workflow, practice management technology that can save a couple hours per client with some of these automations of the client engagement letter or the intelligent client questionnaire, the status updates, also supplemented by our client's success team that can help field those level 1 questions that may come into the advisor. They're not necessarily required to answer. They don't require tax expertise, etc. All that stuff gets unburdened. Those firms have then been able to take advantage of new referrals that they generate and a whole bunch of Harness generated clients.
One of the earliest practices that came on to the platform has grown, I think 80, 90% across two seasons because the practice leader is getting a lot more leverage in the amount of time that she spends with each client. She's gotten more resources to talk about in the conversation. The clients, they don't use the network of tax attorneys that we have or some of the other software and database that they have access through our platform.
The other group are people that have been at top 50 firms and for a variety of reasons feel like now is the time to be more entrepreneurial to create their own practice. There's tremendous demand for people that have specialization, nimbleness, a willingness to create a great experience. And one that joined that had been at a top 50 firm to create his own practice and his first year was able to generate over a quarter million dollars of revenue. That really came from Day 1, adoption of Harness' technology, a few other components to that workflow and the ability to really highlight some areas of specialization and to take a lot of clients that came through our consumer-facing side that brings in clients and distributes those to the right advisors to serve them.
It's really a powerful combination that no matter how good your practice seems, if you free up hours and you position yourself well, you're going to grow. I think giving yourself that time, especially in Q4, to really think through what are ways that you can generate more value, maybe capture a fraction of that incremental value for existing clients and create the space for you to take on new ones that would be incrementally valuable is wonderful. We've certainly seen that just in the top-line value and in really high net promoter scores of the clients that are being served by advisors using our technology.
April Walker: We'll go live before the end of September. Hopefully this will be valuable information for people and we talk about growing. Sometimes firms don't want to grow because they feel like they have too much going on at the time. But what we have talked about and heard and I'm sure you'll echo this is sometimes you need to grow in a different way, like you need to cull some clients and really focus on growing your experience with those really good clients.
David Snider: Grow your free time. Grow your client value and or grow the amount of money that you pocket at the end of the year.
April Walker: All three, I'm going to say, check, check, check for me. David, it has been lovely chatting with you today. Any final thoughts as we're wrapping up?
David Snider: I think we're turning back to that initial theme. If you are an advisor in Phase 1 where you adopted some technology probably 7-10 plus years ago, it's really important, to get ahead of clients expectations. Which I think will rise as more advisers are using technologies to create a better experience. But don't also get anxious. Oh, if I don't have a fully outsourced AI practice then I'm behind the curve or my job's going away. There is secular growth in demand for tax services.
The more that you can devote time to areas that you are advising, building relationships, strengthen relationships you will thrive in this profession. But don't sit in the same as last year mentality. Take Q4, look at what is going well, look at what's going to create the most value for you and your clients and make those investments of time and in some cases, expenditure.
April Walker: Great thoughts. You've been with us before, so you know that in closing on these podcasts — we're Tax Section Odyssey — we're taking a journey together toward a better profession. But I also like to think about other journeys outside of tax. David, share a page from your travel journal, a trip coming up or something you've just recently done. You already had a spoiler with the Super Bowl trip, so that was cool.
David Snider: That's way in the rearview, I don't think the Patriots are making a run this year unless something dramatic changes. But the trip I'm excited about I'm heading actually tomorrow night to Barcelona and watch the America's Cup race as a father sons trip. [He has] always been a big sailor before my time. He spends a lot of the summer and now year-round in Rhode Island. That used to be where the America's Cup always was held and for the last almost 40 years, I think it's been elsewhere. We decided rather than just wait, we will take the trip. We're hoping that Team USA, American Magic, can at least win the Louis Vuitton cup to be the challenger against New Zealand.
April Walker: Worst-case scenario, enjoy some time in Spain which doesn't sound like a bad plan for me.
David Snider: Exactly.
April Walker: Thanks again so much, David. Again, this is April Walker from the AICPA Tax Section. This community is your go-to source for technical guidance and resources designed especially for CPA tax practitioners like you in mind. This is a podcast from AICPA and CIMA together as the Association of International Certified Professional Accountants. You can find us wherever you listen to your podcasts and please feel free to follow us so don't miss an episode. If you already follow us, thank you so much and please feel free to share with a like-minded friend. You can also find us at aicpa-cima.com/tax and find our other episodes as well as resources mentioned today. Thank you so much for listening and happy fall.
Keep your finger on the pulse of the dynamic and evolving tax landscape with insights from tax thought leaders in the AICPA Tax Section. The Tax Section Odyssey podcast includes a digest of tax developments, trending issues and practice management tips that you need to be aware of to elevate your professional development and your firm practices.
This resource is part of the robust tax resource library available from the AICPA Tax Section. The Tax Section is your go-to home base for staying up to date on the latest tax developments and providing the edge you need for upskilling your professional development. If you’re not already a member, consider joining this prestigious community of your tax peers. You’ll get free CPE, access to rich technical content such as our Annual Tax Compliance Kit, a weekly member newsletter and a digital subscription to The Tax Adviser.
This Tax Section Odyssey podcast episode takes a deeper dive into the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) initiative on Base Erosion Profit Sharing (BEPS) 2.0 which sets to reform the internation tax system with Pillar 1 and 2 tax regimes. In addition to the complexity of such international regulations, the political landscape for U.S. implementation is uncertain, and potential action is needed from Congress.
Cory Perry, Principal, National Tax — Grant Thorton Advisors, and Vice Chair of the AICPA’s International Technical Resource Panel (TRP), highlights that while many U.S. companies may not face larger tax bills if these regimes are adopted in the U.S., the administrative and compliance challenges are significant. The AICPA has submitted comment letters to the OECD, Treasury, and the IRS, focusing on simplification and clarification of rules.
AICPA resources
OECD BEPS 2.0 - Pillar One and Pillar Two — The OECD BEPS 2.0 sets out to provide a tax reform framework allowing for more transparency in the global tax environment.
What you need to know about BEPS 2.0: Pillar One and Pillar Two | Tax Section Odyssey — The OECD BEPS 2.0 project is an international effort to reform the international tax system that addresses transfer pricing, profit allocation and tax avoidance.
Advocacy
Comments to Treasury on tax issues of OECD Pillar Two, Feb. 14, 2024
Comments to Treasury on Amount B of OECD Pillar One, Dec. 12, 2023
Other resources
OECD BEPS — Inclusive Framework on Base Erosion and Profit Sharing
Transcript
April Walker: Hello everyone and welcome to the AICPA's Tax Section Odyssey podcast, where we offer thought leadership on all things tax facing the profession. I'm April Walker, a lead manager from the tax section and I'm here today with my colleagues Reema Patel and Lauren Pfingstag. They are colleagues here with me at the AICPA. They are international experts and legislative experts. We'll get into more of that as we're discussing.
I'm also delighted to have with me Cory Perry. Cory is a principal with Grant Thornton Advisors and their national tax office. He's also, and more importantly for our discussion today but probably not more importantly for his day-to-day, the Vice Chair of the AICPA's International Tax Resource panel and Chair of the OECD taskforce. That's what we're going to be talking about today.
If you are a follower and listener of this podcast, you might recall a few episodes ago we did a higher-level background on OECD's tax regimes — Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 — just laying the groundwork. Today we're going to talk more about why we think you need to be familiar with these concepts. Even though for today they may not be relevant for any of your current clients.
We're also going to delve into the political landscape and where we are today and what that could mean for the US tax system related to international tax legislation. Reema, I'm going to let you take it away for the next little bit.
Reema Patel: Thanks, April, Cory, welcome. I know a lot of us have been hearing about the OECD Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 for awhile now. Many countries have also implemented it this year and some are implementing it next year. I guess the most basic question we can start with is, who should care and pay attention to this?
Cory Perry: Absolutely. It's a wide impact in tax, but it only impacts the largest of the large companies. I would say it has a high threshold, 750 million of consolidated revenue and two of the four preceding years and you have to be taxed, want more than one jurisdiction. We are talking about very large companies but these days, even middle market companies are easily starting to bump up against that threshold. We're not just talking about the Fortune 100. We're talking about middle market and above companies that should care and think about these rules.
Obviously accountants that serve those types of companies, those larger companies. I think many of those companies themselves not even be fully aware that they're subject to these rules or may not have fully thought through how they're going to comply. The other thing I would add, there is a bit of a misconception out there that this is a corporate multinational problem. Although that is primarily where it is, it also impacts pass-throughs, partnerships and S corps that are parents within these groups can be equally subject to these rules.
Rules don't always necessarily apply at that level, but they are applied to the group as a whole. I know there's a number of practitioners out there that have clients that have grown over time and might have reached this level. It's by no means going to be the majority, certainly going to be a large minority, but I suspect many will have clients out there that might be impacted or if you're in-house at your company might be impacted.
Reema Patel: Like you said, it is for large corporations currently with consolidated revenues at 750 million euros and more. What are you seeing with the clients right now? Any challenges that they're being faced by technology? Gathering data points? I know you have to comply with many foreign jurisdictions as well as the US. Can you speak a little bit to the challenges that you're seeing just as a practitioner as well as from a client perspective as well for them.
Cory Perry: Absolutely. Companies are really still trying to get their hands around this as are practitioners. Even the rules aren't fully baked. The OECD is still releasing new guidance every couple of months on quite a frequent cadence. So the rules continue to evolve and how companies are approaching it continue to evolve as well. As far as challenges, interestingly enough, from what we're seeing, many companies are not actually seeing larger tax bills.
You'd think tax legislation, tax change like this is going to hit the bottom line and there are certainly companies out there with lower/no taxed pockets of income or that are in low-tax jurisdictions. But what I've found is the vast majority, particularly of middle market companies, are generally not in many of these low-tax jurisdictions, if at all. They are in higher tax jurisdictions, think of the US's top five trading partners- for example, Canada, Mexico, China, and Japan and the UK all have rates above or even some cases well above 15%.
The idea is to reach a minimum level of 15% and once you're above that, there may not be additional top-up tax to be paid. It may not be necessarily for all taxpayers an item that's going to really be a cash tax impact. But where we're really seeing the challenge is more on the administrative and compliance side to this.
It is a very significant undertaking to comply with these rules. It's just a massive effort that's required in order to get your hands around what needs to be done, get your systems updated so that you can comply and collect the information or the data at the right level, clean the data, so on and so forth. There was a lot of complex calculations that need to be done. In some cases there may be even third or four sets of books that need to be kept that you may not have been keeping our tracking in the past.
The rule started out with a simple premise. It was going to be a book tax based on books. That sounds simple. But it quickly evolved into a very complex tax regimes that sits on top of all the other global tax regimes that are already in place. If it wasn't complicated enough before, now we have another layer over the top making it quite complex. That's certainly been the biggest challenge is how do you deal with all of this change and international tax complexity when you're operating across borders.
Reema Patel: Definitely, I guess it just keeps piling all the time. Three sets of books, four sets of books. We don't even have CAMTI [rules] out yet. Speaking of which currently, it looks like, as we mentioned it's for large corporations, but what do smaller firms and CPAs in the industry need to know? I'm sure they're not getting into the nitty-gritty details of how to calculate pillar two taxes and all the top up taxes on different regimes.
But we don't know if the threshold does get lowered, more companies will get pulled in, possibly. What should they know? How can they keep up with and at least be aware that it's out there?
Cory Perry: I think at this point I would say it's more of a client service point. It's being aware of the potential risks in an area where your client might be subject to these rules. I don't expect many firms will have many clients that are going to be impacted. In fact, many firms might not have any clients that are impacted. But it's making that identification and helping those clients understand whether they are impacted. It is getting a lot of press and it's in the Wall Street Journal, it's on NPR in the morning, it's certainly in the mainstream news.
Clients are interested in asking questions about it. It's understanding that it's out there, what it is and who it applies to. I think that's the most important part, I don't expect most smaller firms will scale up or hire experts in this area necessarily. But I think helping those clients with the identification - that's going to be greatly appreciated. You're highlighting a risk area for them that they might not have previously considered. Then helping them find a resource that can assist with this somewhat unique area of tax.
Whether that'd be another CPA firm in the US or more commonly, sometimes these are non-US firms because right now, as we'll talk about later, the US is not implemented these rules that could certainly assist. Again, flagging these as issues, being aware of those thresholds and who it might apply to is probably the area I would focus right now and making sure that your base has been reviewed. And they understand whether they're going to be in or out these rules.
Reema Patel: Definitely. I guess just building on what you said. It's been in the news everywhere. We've also heard in the news — What's the U.S going to do? The US hasn't implemented or enacted any part of pillar two regime yet. Until they do or they don't, the U.S. multinationals are going to have to comply with this. They have to comply in the foreign jurisdictions. They have to comply in the U.S. as well. But there has been limited guidance issued. [There was] a notice earlier in the year, and then the recent proposed regs on dual consolidated losses.
But none of them really went into detail. It was just like scratching the surface. There's a lot of guidance that the U.S. taxpayers need. I know the AICPA's submitted a few comment letters to the OECD, to Treasury and the IRS, and you've been heavily involved in some of them. Do you want to just speak to a little bit on what we highlighted in the comment letters, some of the recommendations and concerns we raised in hoping for some future guidance.
Cory Perry: Sure. You made a good point there with scratching the surface. I think there's a lot of ground yet to be covered by the IRS. As I said earlier, this is a complex system that lays on top of a complex system. The US [tax] system is undoubtedly the most complex tax system out there. There are a number of different interesting and intricate ways in which these two systems interact. The IRS is working diligently, but I think [they are] only beginning to understand where some of these issues and gaps might be in regulation.
They're trying to hit the bigger ones first which they've done with then notice package and the regulations. The notice addressed primarily, but not exclusively, foreign tax credit issues and how the US is going to view these new taxes, really novel taxes that have been created under this Pillar 2 system. And how that's going to interact with the US foreign tax credit system. Then just a week and a half or two weeks ago, they also released proposed regulations dealing with a number of dual consolidated loss issues. One of the major issues they addressed was the Pillar 2 area. The dual controlidated loss rules, those very complex rules, but suffice it to say they are rules that are intended to address double-dipping of losses between two systems.
Really, now that we have this overlay, we have this third system that you have to contend with where losses can be used in the U.S. and in that third system and that makes that already challenging system quite complex. I would say a detailed discussion of our comment letters is probably a little bit weedy for this discussion but I'll give some themes and some areas that we focused on in those comment letters. The first I would say is a call for simplification. That was really our focus with most of our efforts in this space. We asked for exceptions and safe harbors from application of some of these very onerous rules.
We focused on areas where there wasn't much opportunity for abuse but there was a lot of opportunity to save taxpayer's and CPAs time and effort to have to do some of these calculations that might be, in some cases unnecessary. Or you could make various safe harbor type assumptions. We focus on simplification. Clarification was another area where we focused on. There's a lot of gray out there and there will continue to be. But we focused on a few areas of gray within these rules that we had identified that we thought the IRS could add clarity. Beyond those, we also provided some comments, or we're working on some comments, not just to the IRS, but also to the OECD.
There we were focusing on, again, clarification and simplification but with U.S. and multinational corporations in mind. Really the focus is on some of the safe harbors that are out there. There's transitional safe harbors that allow for shortcuts, if you will, that make the work much simpler. But many of those are temporary and they're set to expire in a couple of years and we're making some comments around those. One of them being a request that those be made permanent for taxpayers in an effort to simplify this very complex system.
April Walker: Thanks so much Cory. You did a wonderful job for me. Definitely not an international tax expert by any stretch of the imagination and it was made it easy to understand where we are. I'd like to pivot a little bit now and have Lauren take us away. I don't know if anybody knows but there's an election coming up in a couple of months and so I thought it would be interesting if we would talk about what does our political landscape mean for what the U.S. is going to do around this? Lauren, tell us what you know all around this area.
Lauren Pfingstag: Thanks for inviting me to join the podcast, April. Cory, I think a lot of professional congressional watchers would say in this space that there's going to eventually need to be some action taken by Congress to move Pillar 2 forward. What would that look like right now?
Cory Perry: It's certainly a challenge, I would say in our current environment to move Pillar 2 legislation forward. To give a little bit of background on where it's been. Historically from a political sense, the Pillar 2 rules have been a core aspect of Biden's tax platform. He attempted to move them through the Build Back Better bill a few years ago, that ultimately failed in the Senate. But they remain, and they were in his most recent greenbook, a core part of his plan. I believe they will continue to be a part of the Harris tax platform. I have no reason to believe that will change as well as the Democratic agenda going forward. It has broad support on the Democratic side. The Republicans side historically had support there but more recently they've been openly critical, I'll say of Pillar 2.
They've noted their concerns in public forums and expressed frustrations with the negotiation process. There are certainly some challenges there. It's not impossible that we could see some legislation move forward in the short-term particularly if we had, for example, a Democratic controlled government. If we had a Republican controlled government, I think the chances go down. With that said, there are some other factors on the horizon that could influence this from a political perspective. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, tax cuts for individuals expire in the end of 2025, beginning of 2026. Many of the favorable business provisions like the GILTI rate, the BEAT rate, the foreign derived intangible rate, and a variety of others.
Those are just the international ones, but those are set to expire the end of 2025 for tax years beginning in 2026. That sets up an interesting opportunity where perhaps we could see some compromise, maybe a budget reconciliation bill where it's not along party lines, depending on which way the government swings. Obviously, we might need some collaboration there. If we don't have a democratic government, we might see something later in 2026 in terms of legislation. There is a path forward although it does look like a challenging one.
Lauren Pfingstag: Is it true that implementing part of Pillar 2 legislatively would potentially raise revenue over a 10-year budget window? Meaning, if Congress were to move forward with a piece of legislation that put Pillar 2 into play, that they would raise a certain amount of money that could be used to pay for other provisions and a larger let's call it end of year 2025 tax bill?
Cory Perry: Absolutely yes. It would be a revenue raiser. Right now, if it's not imposed, other countries might be taxing the United States under the way these systems operate. Subsidiaries, for example, could be taxed in the U.S. if it's in an effective rate less than 15%. There's certainly revenue on the table and free revenue. If you think about it, you could tax in the U.S. or you could tax it in the foreign country. If we tax in the U.S. first, they're not going to tax in the foreign country. It is a revenue raiser. I think it was scored that way in the Build Back Better bill.
It would certainly be a pay-for those types of extensions of those expiring tax cuts that I mentioned. That's why I think it could be a lever that could be pulled in those negotiations to help further the Pillar 2 legislation in US in exchange perhaps for some of those other items.
Lauren Pfingstag: Particularly if the Democrats, as you said, did win control of the White House, the House and the Senate this November. I think this is more of a note rather than a question, but I think West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, who was one of the most, if not the most moderate Democrats in the Senate, was instrumental in pulling Joe Biden's vision for Pillar 2 out of the Build Back Better bill. When you look ahead into 2025 and you think through the different Senate races, Senator Joe Manchin is retiring, you no longer have Senator Sinema from Arizona who is retiring.
It's hard to pick out who in the Democratic caucus in the Senate, at least in 2025, could play, or would want to play the role of a Joe Manchin and maybe stripping that out of a democratic tax reconciliation bill if we get to that Democratic trifecta of power. I'll be keeping my eye on that for sure.
Cory Perry: I wholeheartedly agree. Keeping their caucus together was a challenge last time and it seems like it could potentially be easier at least.
Lauren Pfingstag: This is obviously just holistically like a weedy, thorny topic. In my conversations across D.C., I have only met a few people, and I don't count myself among them — who really understand this. It's incredibly complicated and if you were in a room with the tax aides who staff members on the House Ways and Means Committee and the U.S. Senate Finance Committee and you could deliver one or two key messages to them about this, what would you want to tell them and have them relay to their bosses?
Cory Perry: I think there's a couple of key messages and themes here. One, I would say the world is moving forward with or without us in terms of pillar 2. At some point, I think there was thought and perhaps that thought might still exist in some, but I think there was a thought that this wouldn't move forward without the US and some of the larger economies like China and India signing on. But that's shown not to be the case. It's been enacted and legislated in the E.U..
All the E.U. member states have adopted it. There's dozens of countries across the world at this point with many more being added every month. It certainly has broad international support and it's moving forward with or without us. What does that mean? I think that means US multinationals in particular might face some challenges if U.S. doesn't enact legislation.
If U.S. enacts, there is a benefit from that. They would pay the tax most likely at the U.S. level. They'd be able to file returns at the U.S. level. They'd be able to work through the U.S. government to use the information exchange mechanisms to make sure the foreign countries have received the reporting that they need and not to mention it would shut off the under taxed profit rule (UTPR) which is beyond the scope of our discussion today but it's a complex rule. I'd describe it as the backstop rule. Effectively if no other rule taxes that rule comes in and imposes that tax.
If the U.S. doesn't do anything, subsidiaries could be taxing the U.S. As I said earlier, the U.S. profits through that under taxed profit rule, as well as other subsidiaries of the U.S. that the U.S. could tax. There's certainly revenue opportunities that are on the table that seemingly will go to other countries if we don't act. It would also go a long way in simplifying the US's approach to compliance. Because they'll be less of a need to orchestrate the two systems if we adopted one of them and made it part of our law. I think it would be easier to coordinate the two. Just overall for those reasons I mentioned earlier it would make it much simpler for U.S. multinationals in the long run.
Lauren Pfingstag: Thank you for taking again what is a difficult subject and making it digestible. That is a skill and we appreciate it.
April Walker: Yes, I echo those thoughts, Lauren and I'm also incredibly grateful for you joining because you bring a different perspective, Lauren, to this conversation and very fascinating. I was listening on the edge of my seat hopefully everyone else was. And I'm appreciative to Reema. Reema is very well-versed in international tax so I'm grateful for her to be able to ask questions that I couldn't pull off. I'm very appreciative to you Reema. Cory, I'll give you the opportunity to just as we're wrapping up final thoughts on this very heavy weighty topic?
Cory Perry: Just the closing note that I would leave is, if you think you're subject to these rules or you think you have clients that might be subject to these rules don't wait. Engage with your advisors or with your clients now. Review structures and start planning for pillar 2. The sooner that companies and accountants act, the better prepared that the taxpayer will be for the changes that are ahead. There's things that can be done now that will significantly reduce reporting in the initial years, simplify the overall process that may not necessarily be available if you wait. It's coming, it's right around the corner and that should start thinking about it now.
April Walker: Perfect. I would be remiss if I didn't say [you can find] in our show notes a landing page on the AICPA's website where you can find resources and we're continuing to work on those resources. I will put a link to the show notes in there.
Just in final closing, a little bit of a lighter topic. The name of this podcast is Tax Section Odyssey so I'd like to think about us taking a journey together, toward a better profession and in doing so I'd like to get a glimpse of my guest other journeys outside of tax. Cory, tell me a page from your travel journal or a memorable trip or something you'd have on the horizon?
Cory Perry: Sure. I regularly take trips to Taiwan, that's one of my favorite countries to go to. That's where my wife's originally from. We met in college and have been married for many years now, but I have two young boys who love to travel with me, although it's sometimes challenging to travel with them, but I still enjoy it very much. We go to Taiwan usually every year, every other year to visit her family, travel around Taiwan and see Taipei. That is a reoccurring and memorable trip journey.
April Walker: Wonderful. As I'm doing these I like to add to my travel list because I love to travel.
Thanks again, so much I'm so grateful for Cory, Lauren, and Reema. Again, this is April Walker from the AICPA Tax Section. This community is your go-to source for technical guidance and resources designed especially for CPA tax practitioners like you in mind. This is a podcast from AICPA and CIMA together as the Association of International Certified Professional Accountants. You can find us wherever you listen to your podcasts. I encourage you to follow us so you don't miss an episode. If you already follow us, thank you so much and I encourage you to share with your like-minded friends. You can also find us at the aicpa-cima.com/tax, where you can find other Odyssey episodes as well as get access to the resources mentioned during this episode. Thank you again so much and thank you for listening.
Keep your finger on the pulse of the dynamic and evolving tax landscape with insights from tax thought leaders in the AICPA Tax Section. The Tax Section Odyssey podcast includes a digest of tax developments, trending issues and practice management tips that you need to be aware of to elevate your professional development and your firm practices.
This resource is part of the robust tax resource library available from the AICPA Tax Section. The Tax Section is your go-to home base for staying up to date on the latest tax developments and providing the edge you need for upskilling your professional development. If you’re not already a member, consider joining this prestigious community of your tax peers. You’ll get free CPE, access to rich technical content such as our Annual Tax Compliance Kit, a weekly member newsletter and a digital subscription to The Tax Adviser.
In this joint episode, Neil Amato, host of the Journal of Accountancy podcast and Melanie Lauridsen, VP of AICPA Tax Policy and Advocacy discuss two recent Supreme Court decisions.
The Supreme Court ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo overturned a 40-year-old precedent of deference referred to as the Chevron doctrine, affecting future rulemaking by eliminating the need for judges to defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. In Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Supreme Court ruled to alter the statute of limitations for challenging regulations, starting the clock when a plaintiff is injured rather than when the regulation is enforced.
These decisions introduce significant uncertainty for the accounting profession, particularly regarding IRS regulations and long-standing rules and emphasize the need for CPAs to stay informed and adaptable as the implications of these rulings unfold.
AICPA Resources
Melancon: Supreme Court decisions are ‘big deal’ for tax pros, The Tax Adviser, Aug. 1, 2024
Supreme Court overrules 40-year-old Chevron doctrine, The Tax Adviser, June 28, 2024
Supreme Court decision on Chevron doctrine will affect tax pros, Journal of Accountancy, June 24, 2024
For a full transcript of the episode, see Tax Section Odyssey on the AICPA & CIMA website.
On this episode of the Tax Section Odyssey podcast episode, Dave Kirk, National Tax Partner — EY, and Chair of the AICPA’s Pass-through Entity Tax Task Force, discusses the complexities surrounding state tax refunds related to the pass-through entity tax (PTET) and delves into the challenges posed by the lack of IRS guidance, the application of the tax benefit rule and varying state regulations. Dave emphasizes the importance of consistency in handling these refunds and advises practitioners to involve taxpayers in decision-making due to the inherent uncertainties and risks.
AICPA resources
FAQ on the Federal Taxation of State Income Tax Refunds for PTET Payments — FAQ guidance on the federal taxation of state income tax refunds for PTET payments.
AICPA list of taxpayer and practitioner considerations for whether to elect into a state pass-through entity (PTE) tax — Various issues should be considered when deciding whether a taxpayer can, and should, elect into a state PTE tax.
Pass-through Entity (PTE) Taxes States’ Legislation and Tax Authorities’ Information and Guidance — A state-by-state PTE matrix tracking and linking to legislative updates, guidance, as well as other relevant information.
State and Local Tax (SALT) Roadmap and Resource Center — Browse the reference library for the latest guidance and tools to address your state and local tax needs including tax rates, due dates, nexus, PTE tax and more.
Transcript
April Walker: On today's podcast, listen to learn more about how to handle refunds related to the pass-through entity tax.
Hello everyone and welcome to the AICPA's Tax Section Odyssey podcast, where we offer thought leadership on all things tax facing the profession. I'm April Walker, a Lead Manager from the Tax Section and I'm here today with a repeat guest, Dave Kirk. Dave's with National Tax at EY. He is the knower of a lot of things, but specifically today we're going to talk about PTET.
Dave, let's start off with, I think when we chatted before, we talked about pass-through entity tax fun with that, we're delving into a very specific issue related to it. Let's first talk about the challenges. There are so many challenges around this, the lack of guidance around PTET, but today we're going to talk about refunds and there isn't guidance really. How has that impacted our practitioners?
Dave Kirk: First of all, thanks for having me again. Being the leader of the PTET Task Force for the AICPA and having to deal with this for E&Y nationally, I've probably spent 500 hours of my life on this that I'm not getting back. It's just that each state is different. You could probably group states together. It usually requires a case-by-case analysis on how the deduction was taken, when the deduction was taken, and how much money the taxpayer is getting back.
The [IRS] Notice 2020-75 only talked about taking the deduction. There was not one word in that notice talking about refunds. You're right, April, there is no formal guidance from the IRS on PTET refunds. But this is also not the first time in US history where a state government has given money back to a taxpayer. Our federal tax system, as we currently know, it has only been around for 110 years or so. We do have guidance scattered throughout that last century of payments of taxes, deductions for taxes and recoveries. You might call it the common law of refunds that we would use in the absence of anything specific coming out of the government on how to deal with this.
Walker: Tax benefit rule, right? It's been around for a little bit.
Kirk: Yeah. There's two aspects of the tax benefit rule. There's the exclusionary aspect of it, and that's been codified about 40 years ago into Sec. 111 of the code. Then there's also the inclusionary aspect which kind of says, hey, you got a benefit for a payment back in a prior year and you have got that payment returned. That should be something, that should be Sec. 61, gross income. But where the complexity arises is, first of all, you can tell whether something is taxable or not taxable based on whether you got a benefit for it in a prior year.
Okay, great. That's relatively straightforward, and I say relative with some emphasis there. But then you'd go down a very slippery slope really quick once you do determine that a PTET refund is taxable, because then you have to ask yourself, what characteristics does that taxable refund have? That is a morass that I don't think that the government ever really envisioned. I'm not envisioning any sort of guidance coming out of the government within the next 12 months on this.
Walker: The last count, we have 50 states. Like you said, you can group them maybe, but each state was allowed with the IRS notice to develop their own regime which causes all kinds of fun. Which again, we won't get into specifically today.
But like you said, it seems like we could the tax benefit rule and thoughts around that, or how we are going to try to provide some assistance to you with a resource that's been developed. You mentioned that you are the Chair of the AICPA Task Force for PTET. We thank you so much for all the things you do for the AICPA. In doing that, you guys have developed some really helpful FAQs around different nuances, some examples or some summary activities that can happen. Let's provide our listeners with some of the key takeaways from those FAQs.
Kirk: First, states matter, and who's getting the refund matters. If you're an S corp and let's just keep this simple that you have at dentist that owns an S corp. That S corp makes $1 million and it owes PTET at the S corp level of say, $80,000. What you do assuming cash basis and assuming you pay the exact amount of PTET on December 31st, that you can deduct it. Your K-1 line 1 should be $920,000. You are going to get a credit on your local state return of $80,000. In a vacuum, you should not have a state liability equal to or greater than or less than the $80,000. In a perfect world, that's how the system works, and that's probably about as complicated as the system was ever supposed to be in the eyes of the IRS.
But you know that no one ever hits their tax liability at 100 percent. You might hit by 99, 98% or 101 or 102%, but you're never exactly on the dollar. First is the S-corp. If you thought that you owed $80,000 and you made that payment in December of 2023. Cash basis taxpayer, you reduced your K1 income by the $80,000. But when you get around to filing your return and you only owe $79,000, when the S-corp files the PTET return, the S-corp is overpaid $1,000. That should be income back to the S-corp because in 2023 they deducted 80,000.
They only should have deducted 79k and so they get it back. In a vacuum, next year, I'm going to have $1,000 of income on my K1 that I wouldn't have otherwise had if I wasn't in this PTE regime. Simple. Now if I deducted it on the front page of the return because I'm just offsetting my dental practice income or whatever it is, that PTET payment is no different than rents or salaries or insurance or whatever it is. Ok fine. So when I pick it up, that $1,000 refund in the next year, that should also be similar to my dental practice income, it's simply reversing a deduction.
If that amount is, if I say for example, reduced passive income, maybe I'm a part owner of a dental practice that I don't practice anymore and I'm passive. Then that should come through as passive income to me because last year the deduction was probably a passive deduction. Or if I was in a business that generates QBI, qualified business income, under 199A and I deducted PTET against it last year. If it reverses, then it feels like the right answer should be it's 199A income, good QBI when I pick up my refund.
But that is where the inclusionary aspect of the common law tax benefit rule would come into play. You think about it in the same way of self-employment income. Is if a partnership that you were in your subject to self-employment income on the Line 1 and your PTET deduction reduced Line 1, and that amount is refunded to the partnership, or some portion of that was refunded back to the partnership in year 2, that should probably be self-employment income. Just because the deduction reduces self-employment, you'd think that the income should increase self-employment. That's at the entity level.
But then you have to think, going back to my original example, my dental practice made a million dollars and paid $80,000 of PTET. I turn around and I file my personal return and because of credits or dependent exemptions or whatever it is, I owe only $76,000 on my 1040, on state version of my 1040. I'm going to get $4,000 back from the state. Then the question is, what is that? I first start with the concept of I have $4,000 and so Section 61 says that's income, I'll live with that.
Then I go to Sec. 111 and said, do I have a benefit from a prior year or do I not? If I don't have a benefit in a prior year, then this income shouldn't be income so it would probably be excluded by [Sec.] 111. But because they took the $4,000 of a deduction on the front page of the 1120-S, it reduced my K1 number. I did get a benefit even if I had an NOL that I could use and I didn't pay any tax on a prior year. It just means I used less NOL. Or that if it was passive income and I had passive losses that would be able to offset, but it would still be income to me.I still got a benefit even though I had other personal attributes that minimized that income, it would still be income.
It's much harder though, to think about, look, I am getting this refund and should a state refund be QBI? Because it came from the state, it didn't come from the entity like in the first part of our discussion, should it be self-employment income? That's never been the case before that a state tax refund is self-employment income. That's just weird because itemized deductions for state taxes were never self-employment because you'd never got to deduct them from self-employment. You have all of these character questions.
But that is simple when you're looking at the individual and the entity in a vacuum, and that's where we started that I'm a dentist, I own 100 percent of an S-corp and that's all I have. But as soon as I start injecting other things such as a spouse with W2 withholding or estimated payments that are made at my 1040 level or composite returns that I'm filing in other states and getting out-of-state tax credits on my local return. That gives rise to the question of if I get money back from the state, is it really the PTE credit that I am getting back or am I getting back my estimated payments? Or am I getting back my W-2 withholding or my spouse's W-2 withholding? That part, what is it, is a question that we've never really had to wrestle with in the last 100 years because taxes were always deductible in prior years, prior to TCJA.
Yes, we had the AMT system and everyone knew how to do that calculation of how much of the taxes puts you in an AMT and did you even get a benefit at all? But the composite taxes, the withholding taxes, estimated payments, they were all treated the same. But now you have this special class of tax credit, deemed tax payment, whatever you want to call it, that, is almost like a hydra with multiple heads of, what is it?
In the FAQs, basically say, "Look, we think that absent any guidance specifying that certain items come first, that you pick a method and you stick with it year over year." A duty of consistency. If you want to take the position that every dollar of refund first comes from estimates and withholdings. Basically your Schedule A, taxes that are capped at 10K. Then chances are those coming back to you will not be taxable because you capped out at the 10K and you never got a benefit under the tax benefit rule. Another alternative is to say that the PTE credit comes back first, but that would almost certainly be taxable if it was deducted on Schedule E or are embedded in Line 1 of a K-1. That's probably not very common for people to take that position.
But the other one would be, look, if you have $80,000 of PTET credit and you have 20,000 of withholding than $0.80 of every dollar coming back could be taxable and 20% would be associated with the withholdings or whatnot. Maybe that would not be taxable. That would be like a pro rata method. But absent guidance, it's Choose Your Own Adventure. Just don't get eaten by the dragon at the end.
But that's what we're instructing our folks inside of E&Y is to just be consistent and let the taxpayer in on the discussion. Don't make unilateral decisions on their behalf. And let them know that there is uncertainty, there is risk, and that the IRS may disagree on taking estimates first and whatnot. That they should to the extent that they are running into this problem. That if I know that my PTET is being overpaid at my partnership or S corporation level, then I should take corrective measure at my personal level either, by reducing estimates or trying to ratchet down withholding of my spouse on her W2 or his W2 to try to make sure that you're not overpaying too much because you're still giving interest-free loans to your state and local governments and that still doesn't make any sense.
Walker: That's a great summary of what's included and the different situations that we go through [in the FAQs]. But consistency, I think, is a good rule. Also, if we note the fact that the IRS hasn't and likely will not put out any guidance on this. I think it's really interesting that here we are in the middle of 2024 and TCJA is scheduled to sunset at the end of 2025 and we're dealing with this. It may become a moot point, but it's still very important that people are just really wrestling with this very complex issue and without guidance, it's hard to make a plan.
Kirk: I think the IRS is keeping their fingers crossed, that the SALT cap expires and the TCJA and PTE regimes will just expire and everyone will go back to itemized deductions. I'm not sure that's in the cards, because even if the SALT cap goes away and that itemized deductions are fully allowed for taxes, just like was in pre-TCJA land. The PTET regime is still beneficial from an AMT perspective. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised that you're going to have maybe state societies and taxpayers and the likes start lobbying their state governments in the next year to extend the PTE regime past 2025, make it permanent.
Because of the AMT benefit, regardless of what happens in Congress on the cap. Whether cap goes away, cap goes up, cap stays where it is, whatever. Because the people on the coasts, the high-net-worth individuals on the coast and in the highest tax states, California, Oregon, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts. You all know where you are, Illinois, whatever, that taxes and 2% miscellaneous were the ones that put you in AMT to start with. The fact that you could get their local governments to go along with this, I don't think that this topic is going away for taxpayers or the IRS. I think that both sides, both taxpayers and the IRS need to I would say wake up to this. This is something that's in my mind here to stay for the long term.
Walker: I don't know if that's good news or bad news. I'm not sure how I feel about that. It is news. That's what we're here, is to let people know. Here's something you need to not bury your head in the sand about. Any other final thoughts as we're wrapping up? Dave, any advice?
Kirk: Advice is that it is a lot more complicated than people appreciate. That I know I've heard certain preparers, usually it's smaller firms, really small. Just say that this stuff it's not taxable if the state doesn't give you a 1099-G. The 1099-G has nothing to do with whether something is taxable or not. The taxability of something landing in a checking account, direct deposit, or via check. The default position is it's taxable unless you can tell me why it's not. That's always been the case in the code. I think that's the way people need to approach it. Start with taxable and let's figure out a way for it not to be.
Walker: Great. That's good final advice for everyone. Dave, in closing on these podcasts you've been with me before, but I like to think about us taking a journey. We're the Tax Section Odyssey, we're taking a journey toward a better profession. But I also like to hear about my guest other journeys outside of the world of tax. I do have some insider information — I know you were just on a trip, do you want to share something about that. How did that go?
Kirk: We just got back a couple of days back from 16 days in Alaska. We flew into Fairbanks, took the train down to Denali and then carried on down to Anchorage, and then got on a ship and made it all the way down to Vancouver.
Walker: Nice.
Kirk: I expected a lot of strange things to happen, maybe be chased by a moose or something like that. But what I didn't anticipate is when I took the train from Fairbanks down to Denali, that a spark shot off the train and started a forest fire at the entrance of Denali. Within two hours of us getting to the entrance to the park, the forest fire had spread to such a point where it burned all the power lines and the park had been is now I think just opening up after being closed for about two weeks. Ironically, I've been to the entrance point of Denali twice in my life and I've never actually been able to make it into the park. That gives me a reason for a third time to return to the interior of Alaska.
Walker: Yes. I like your positivity there, rather than taking it as maybe you don't need to go back to Alaska. I don't know. I hope you were able to experience some of the loveliness of Alaska even though you weren't able to get into Denali.
Kirk: Oh, it's beautiful. For those that like the outdoors. It truly is a magical place.
Walker: Wonderful. Thank you again so much, Dave. I hope this was helpful and good information for our listeners. It certainly was for me.
Kirk: Thank you for having me again, do it anytime.
Walker: Thanks. Again, this is April Walker from the AICPA Tax Section. This community is your go-to source for technical guidance and resources designed especially for CPA tax practitioners like you in mind. This is a podcast from AICPA and CIMA together as the Association of International Certified Professional Accountants. You can find us and listen wherever you find your podcasts and please follow us so you don't miss an episode. If you already follow us, thank you so much and please feel free to share with a like-minded friend. You can also find us at aicpa-cima.com/tax, and find our other Odyssey episodes, as well as getting access to the resources mentioned during this episode, specifically the FAQs that were the focus of our conversation today. Thank you for listening.
Keep your finger on the pulse of the dynamic and evolving tax landscape with insights from tax thought leaders in the AICPA Tax Section. The Tax Section Odyssey podcast includes a digest of tax developments, trending issues and practice management tips that you need to be aware of to elevate your professional development and your firm practices.
This resource is part of the robust tax resource library available from the AICPA Tax Section. The Tax Section is your go-to home base for staying up to date on the latest tax developments and providing the edge you need for upskilling your professional development. If you’re not already a member, consider joining this prestigious community of your tax peers. You’ll get free CPE, access to rich technical content such as our Annual Tax Compliance Kit, a weekly member newsletter and a digital subscription to The Tax Adviser.
If you're advising businesses on their pending ERC claims, this is a must-listen for practical guidance on navigating the process and setting the right expectations.
Tune in to hear Chris Wittich and Dan Chodan, two experts immersed in Employee Retention Credit (ERC) matters for four years, discuss the IRS's upcoming actions for sorting and processing pending ERC claims by risk level. High-risk claims are likely to be denied, medium-risk claims require more detailed review, and low-risk claims will be processed starting soon. The IRS moratorium on processing claims filed after September 14, 2023, is still in place.
Businesses with pending ERC claims are facing critical choices about amending income tax returns due to statute limitations. The speakers advise open communication with clients about the limited options available and the importance of understanding the ethical responsibilities as tax preparers. Based on the current backlog at the IRS for ERC claims, it is important to manage client’s expectations around the processing time as the impact of potential changes in legislation.
Related resources
Previous Tax Section Odyssey episodes discussing the Employee Retention Credit (ERC):
· Sifting through ERC questions | Tax Section Odyssey
· ERC suspended: What happens next | Tax Section Odyssey
· Employee retention credit and professional responsibilities | Tax Section Odyssey
ERC guidance and resources — The rules to be eligible to take this refundable payroll tax credit are complex. This AICPA resource library will help you understand both the retroactive 2020 credit and the 2021 credit.
Employee Retention Credit (ERC): Fact or Fiction? — Use this guide to educate yourself and others on common misconceptions surrounding the ERC.
Employee Retention Credit Decision Tree — Download the ERC decision tree to help you with various decision points when working with clients to protect yourself/your firm from significant risk.
IRS resources
· IR-2024-169 — IRS news release on June 20, 2024, discussing the next stage of ERC work
· IR-2023-169 — IRS news release on Sept. 14, 2023, ordering the immediate stop to new ERC claim processing.
· IRS ERC resource center — IRS hub for ERC information, including links to guidance, FAQs and the latest news.
Transcript
April Walker: On today's podcast, we're going to talk about the IRS's next steps for ERC and what that means for you.
Hello everyone, and welcome to the AICPA's Tax Section, Odyssey podcast, where we offer thought leadership on all things tax facing the profession. I'm April Walker, a lead manager from the Tax Section, and I'm here today with two repeat guests. I'm happy to have with me, Chris Wittich. He is also known as @ravenoustiger. He is a partner at Boyum Barenscheer in Minnesota. I'm also delighted to have Dan Chodan. Dan is a tax partner at Trout CPA in Pennsylvania. Welcome to the both of you.
Dan Chodan: Thanks for having us.
April Walker: Chris, let's set the stage for what we know now. We're recording on July 2. [Let’s talk about] what we recently heard from the IRS late last week and what we know now about the IRS processing of claims or what they're telling us.
Chris Wittich: On June 20th, IRS had a press release, and there was a lot of good information in there, the first time in quite awhile. I think we've gotten some insight as to what they're doing with these ERC claims. Right off the bat, they differentiate, and they say they're putting claims in three different buckets, and it certainly falls in the red, yellow and green.
In my mind, the red category, the IRS is saying between 10-20% of the claims fall into what they describe as the highest risk group. They've said that a lot of these are going to be just straight-up denied in the coming weeks, so that red they're just seeing these claims. They're looking at them. They're saying these are not good claims at all. I would suspect those are like the employees don't exist, the businesses don't exist. They're claiming more in credits than they paid in wages, stuff like that. The IRS is saying 10-20% of all the claims they have, I would expect to get adjusted or denied entirely, and they're going to start working on that soon.
The next category is the biggest category, and that's the yellow, as I would describe it. So they're saying between 60 and 70% of claims show an unacceptable level of risk. That's their term, not mine. That's two-thirds of the claims. They think the risk is so high that it's unacceptable and we're not exactly sure what factors they're using to determine that, but in their own words, they're going to be doing more thorough reviews, compliance reviews of those claims. Which again, that's the vast majority of the claims.
The third category is a green zone. They're saying between 10 and 20% of the claims show a low-risk, and they don't say how they determined it, but you can reasonably assume that the claims are well within the payroll metrics. They might be particularly at-risk industries. A restaurant is likely to be a lower risk claim than a law firm. Based on industry or the size of the claim, or the number of quarters, they're saying, well, 10-20% of these look like they're going to be good claims, and so they intend to start processing them. It remains to be seen how quickly they really process the claims, but at least they're acknowledging that a portion of these are good claims and we're going to start getting them out.
For those three buckets, the other caveat here is those are the claims filed prior to the moratorium. They haven't looked at the claims filed after the moratorium. So, those three buckets, those are just the claims they had prior to September 2023.
April Walker: It's important to note, because we get this question quite a bit, the moratorium means they are not processing those claims. It does not mean that they're not accepting them. If you feel you have a good claim. We're going to get more into the statute discussion a little bit later. [I’m really not talking specifially] about statute on income tax return, but there's also a statute issue with the ERC claim itself. Again, we'll talk about how you're talking to your client about the [statutes], but the moratorium does not mean you cannot file, it just means they are not processing.
Chris Wittich: The moratorium. I always explain it to clients, like you can send in your claim. The IRS will take your claim and put it on a shelf, and they promise that someday in the future they will start looking at the stuff on the shelf, and they haven't done that yet. If you have a good claim submit it, it goes on the shelf, the IRS will get to it down the road.
April Walker: That's what the IRS told us, which is important to set the stage. Chris, based on this information from the IRS, what advice are you giving to businesses who are waiting? I guess there are the buckets – from what the IRS said. There's also buckets of where people are in this claim process. Walk us through a little bit about how you're sharing with your clients about expectations, I think is an important word.
Chris Wittich: So for the people who filed prior to the moratorium, and we have lots of people we helped in the summer of 2023, very few, if any, of them have seen actual checks or credits getting processed. I think now what we can tell people is the IRS is going to start processing those. If you filed in the summer of 2023 and you're a low-risk claim, I would expect or hope to get processing in the next six months.
For those people, I am saying, hey, it's been slow. It's been maybe 12 months and you haven't seen anything, but we're very hopeful that you will get processed before the end of the year. For the people who filed during the moratorium, and certainly we've had a bunch of those. Originally we didn't know how long the moratorium would last. Maybe it was only going to be a couple of months.
My advice to them now is that I fully expect the moratorium to last until April of 2025. I think if you read in-between the lines of what the IRS is saying, this moratorium is going nowhere anytime soon. If you filed in October 2023, just after the moratorium, I'm telling them, hey, that claim is likely to sit on the shelf at the IRS until April 2025, then they're going to process them in the order they were received.
Late 2025 or sometime in 2026 is my realistic expectation for when those claims will get processed. For the people who are questioning their claims, I would remind them that the withdrawal process is still available, it's still open. You can also just file a regular amended payroll tax return to undo or modify or payback your portion of a claim, if you think it is no longer a claim you want to make.
Then for people who have potentially made bad claims, I would say the IRS has hinted at a second voluntary disclosure program (VDP). It's not out yet. When it comes out, the terms won't be as generous as the first time around, but there's a decent chance that a second voluntary disclosure is coming down the road so that's how I look at it. You got the good claims from before the moratorium, the good claims during the moratorium and then you've got withdrawal, regular amendment and voluntary disclosure as the options to deal with bad claims.
Dan Chodan: If I can jump in there about the VDP. I think the comment has been that they were going to make that decision pretty soon. I think this month so that we should hear something on that. Anybody that might be thinking about doing it, I'd say at least hold off through the summer before making those decisions because it sounds very likely that they're going to come at least come out with something or say that they're not.
One way or another, I think the IRS already hinted at that, but you bring up a really good point there Chris, and the IRS said it in this release. They are really concerned about lifting the moratorium and what that would do for the next wave of promoters, pushing for another gold rush, I think is the term that's used there.
That's really the big push of the moratorium itself. To shock the system of the outfits that were doing heavy promotion. I think it's been largely successful. You got to give the IRS credit. They can't necessarily deal with a significant volume that was out there. It went from 50-60,000 claims a week. You're recently looking like closer to 12k a week that they are receiving. And that's because of this moratorium and then because you can't file 2020 claims anymore.
Because after the bill with the January 31st cutoff potentially was out there, that really caused a push, for a lot of reasons, but the moratorium being the primary one. And just to reiterate what you said with that in mind, the IRS saying they want to responsibly lift the moratorium, and that absolutely means it's not going to be before there'll be any chance that funds would go out and be used for further promotion. They've said that explicitly in this. Those hoping that it would have been through the end of '23, what the first timeline could have been and it'd be lifted soon.
It's certainly dragged on of course, till now and I expect that it's going to at least double in time here through next year, if not more. While they try to get Congress to act, they want Congress to pass that ERC provision that was in that bill, that didn't make it to law yet. But they want that passed in standalone or tucked into something else.
That's what IRS is lobbying for. It's certainly interesting, but I am maybe a little more pessimistic on the timeline. Six months, I'd love to see something happening. But I've been telling people we're in uncharted waters and we have seen some processing. It's been a trickle during the moratorium of the pre moratorium claims getting paid. I think there's a lot in this release, but that's basically going to continue. What we've seen is the same as what it's going to be going forward. It's going to be a very slow rate and it's a very small amount.
But we are saying that most all of these claims have a very high risk of being improper and the low-risk claisorryms are so small. How do you know which bucket they've put you into? You just can't expect anything. What I'm telling clients is do what the IRS is telling you to do here. You've got to wait and don't expect anything, don't spend this money in advance. If you do have a hardship case, it's been over a year. Those are the taxpayer advocate cases that can be filed and there's been success there. We've seen that for those funds that have sat around for a long time, but if it's a true hardship case that can be made, still don't consider that a guarantee, but at least you can make those cases through taxpayer advocate.
That's an action that can be taken, but for those that can't make the hardship cases, it's a sit around, waiting game for very large claims that are solid. Refund litigation is part of the conversation too through the court proceedings there, but not something that the average taxpayer would be considering. Just due to the costs and the timeline and there is scrutiny to that. It isn't going to be all claims, it's just going to be the best ones and the biggest ones and those willing to fight that process. No guarantee that it will mean it's a faster process than if you had left yourself from the traditional route. Those are just the conversations around what are we doing at this point. Just to add some more color to that plan.
April Walker: That's great. Dan, Thanks. I was just thinking as you were talking. Again, we do not know anything about whether this is true or not, but truly, if they push the moratorium until next spring of 2025, maybe I just had a light bulb moment, That will be the end of when 2021 claims can be filed. But I guess even more important, if there is a legitimate claim, back to our original point, can still be filed. They're put on that proverbial shelf that Chris is talking about, but it sounds and they certainly alluded to that opening up the moratorium seems like an opportunity.
Dan Chodan: We should mention April [15 deadline] there. I always have to layer that with a lot of caution at this stage because that January 31st date could stick at some point. While I would say you can file them today, there's no guarantee. If the messaging continues the way that it's going, it could be another date. It could be any date. It could stick with January 31st. All these claims on the moratorium, have been sitting on the shelf. It could go all the way back to the beginning of the moratorium. that's more revenue for them in Congress to go spend somewhere else. It's not to say that you don't file if you have a legitimate claim, but you just have to be aware that there's absolutely a risk at play that this could be changed and could be changed retroactively to make sure we highlight that.
April Walker: Great point and things you need to be talking about with your clients as you're thinking about it as a business yourself filing this claim.
I want to talk about any experiences you've had, just in general, with not necessarily the processes and the claims, but thinking about have you had a lot of [IRS] examination communication. What's your experience been with your current claims that you have in the hopper?
Chris Wittich: I've seen just a wide variety, I would say, of issues or notices related to these. Certainly, had a couple of audits, but still that's a small number. We have other issues where four of the quarters got processed, but not the other two. You call the IRS, try figure out what happened, and you get the runaround, you just can't get a straight answer.
We've had notices where the IRS denies the claim because they say you didn't pay any wages, only to discover that, yes, of course, they paid wages, but the IRS lost all the payroll tax documentation; they don't have the W-2s, a lot of little one-off issues, I would say that are all over the place and it has to do with these things. A lot of these things were filed on paper, the records aren't necessarily that great.
I'm sure that I have clients in what they think is the highest risk category, and they're there because they lost the W-2s, and so they think a client made a claim of $100,000, but don't have a single person on payroll. But yes, they do have people on payroll, we have all the payroll tax reports, we have all the proofs that W-2s were issued. IRS just isn't matching that up, necessarily. Just lots of issues, but they're all over the place. I haven't seen anything, at least recently that's been very systemic or consistent.
My advice is always trying to confirm that the IRS has your claims. Certainly, certified mail was a good way to do that, but some clients didn't do that, so you can call the IRS and at least confirm that they received it and then deal with those one-off issues as they come.
April Walker: Are you doing that on the PPS line?
Chris Wittich: Yeah. We've used the PPS line for the most part, you certainly need a power of attorney to do that. Some clients just call themselves and they're calling the regular IRS line, that's so hit or miss, as to what kind of service you're going to get, but it's available just to call and confirm that they have it.
April Walker: We do get that question a decent amount. Dan, do you have any thoughts to share?
Dan Chodan: Sure. Yeah, I'd add to that. Once you have that power of attorney, you can get the 941 transcripts. It's going to give you the same information as a phone call, they'll tell you the date received, and once it's paid, otherwise, no updates in the process, which is just mind-boggling, of course, when he tried to explain that to a taxpayer that wow, how do I not know the status?
Unfortunately, everybody's in the same boat, all we can do is prove receipt and then show when the payments are made, and those transcripts are great. As far as what I've been seeing, I've seen it all across the board just as Chris has mentioned here, there's inconsistency as I talk to other professionals, the enforcement of this is all over the map, some have moved very quickly, some really drag on, some agents are very well-versed in the process, some are missing things that are needing to be explained the rules, may be and helped through the process is a wide breath in that and what's going on, but it doesn't seem to be in a large volume.
There's a team that's doing these in examinations and the processing is at a trickle, it's not a large group, and neither of those areas. Something's going to have to change going forward while the IRS puts more resources behind enforcement. Will there be a larger enforcement window authorized by Congress that's being asked for in these bills? Now at some point, the rate of processing has to pick up or it's just going to take years and years for the backlog to be cleared on all these things.
There's more to come on what's going to happen, but again, is it to expect some seismic the change in the next six months or even to a year, it's probably not it, but there'll be some change on that front. There has to be given the IRS rhetoric around enforcement and then also just there will be more of a ground swell eventually that we have to do something with all these claims sitting on a shelf.
April Walker: I'd like to pivot a little bit to another big question we get all the time, and this is the segment I'd like to call There are no good answers to these questions". I want to talk about them [though] and let's walk through where you guys stand with them.
So statute of limitations and income tax returns. Lots of concerns here, especially as we talked about with all the delays. With delays of running out of statute for these income tax returns where either amended returns have already happened or need to happen.
Let's break it down a little bit. There are businesses who haven't received their refunds, their claim has not been processed. You have told them. I know the two of you have told them, no question, they need to amend their income tax return for the period of the ERC claim, and statutes either have already run or getting ready to run. Chris, talk a little bit about talking points here. What you're talking with your clients about, trying to help them understand where they are with this.
Chris Wittich: Yeah, there's definitely no good answers, and I think just being honest with the clients and telling them that upfront. The biggest thing is to discuss it with them, make sure they're aware, and then let them choose which bad choice they want to make.
But the timing of the income tax statutes, they are going to close, and especially with this recent announcement, we basically know that these moratorium claims are not going to get processed before the statute closes, lots of claims or high risk, so they're not as likely to get processed before these statutes close.
A lot of the 2020 statutes are probably already closed, 2021 will go next year. A lot of the time you're left with a choice which is pay tax, which you simply cannot afford to pay because you have not received the money, or let the statute run and potentially do it after the statute, which is not a good feeling, and neither of those is attractive.
The third common scenario is I paid my tax already, but now my claim has been sitting for 18 months and I'm worried I'm not going to get all of it. So do I push back to those same two options again, do I amend now to take the income back out? And I'm left with the same two choices of when to pay the tax or to do it late, or do I look at some protective claim to hopefully protect me if the IRS adjusts my claim down, then I want to be able to get a refund of the income taxes, which I've already paid.
I think all of those scenarios are lousy choices for a taxpayer to make. I see my role is just making sure they know all of the lousy choices available to them, and it's going to depend on their financial situation. Sometimes you simply cannot afford to pay the tax, that's just not a choice, if I'm going go bankrupt by paying the tax, I guess we're not choosing that option. So making them aware.
I think it would certainly be a consideration as to how high a risk a claim do you think they have. Some claims are based on gross receipts decline that's very obvious, and all the calculations are done correctly. Other claims are based on government orders and trying to figure out what a more than nominal impact is, and there's some question as to maybe a grouping or something like that.
Some claims are inherently going to seem like they're higher risk and making sure the clients are aware of that, and then just letting them go with one of these lousy options. I wish I had something better to tell them. It's kind of a depressing conversation to have with people, but it's one that you don't want to avoid because that is the worst outcome. Because if you don't talk to them about it.
Dan Chodan: We can't avoid it, we need to make the recommendation to the client. Here's what the rules are, you've made the claim, here's what it is. We have to advise the rules, but we can't force someone to amend either, we have to meet our duty in that and there's the reality of their situations that will come into play and their decision. But we have to do our end of things.
What will be interesting is the proposed bill that was out there to change some things on the ERC would align the income tax statute with the enforcement. There could be relief on some of this for the ones that get thrown out later, may at least not have that double whammy of inability to get the income tax back, so there may be some relief for those bad cases at some point.
But right now, before these statutes run, 2020, maybe closed, 21 is still open for sure. Those ones that could be risky, I'd have those conversations. Also on our end, if we know clients that have a shaky one, they may be in a position where they don't want to wonder what Congress will do in the future, will they give us this relief or not? They may look to get that cash back on the income tax side now and then redo this in the future as needed. But at least you can lock in if you know that you're in a really sticky spot, so that's something to consider.
April Walker: I told you that this was the section of no-good news and that's not generally how I roll. I generally like to provide bright light and positivity, but this is a tough one.
But I think this is where you need to show that you're an advisor and show your value even if you're coming with not a lot of great news. All right, as we're wrapping up, let's see, I'll start with you, Dan. Is there any final thoughts or takeaways that you'd like to leave our listeners with today?
Dan Chodan: Sure. This is a very interesting release that pushed us to have this conversation today. I think it's very telling, but also at the end of the day, we're in the same spot. The IRS has the situation where it wants it. The advertisements have disappeared. The deluge of claims is way less. It's not that they're without problems, but the IRS has been immensely successful on this already, so you got to give them some credit.
This release gives us a lot of information, but when you look at it, it means what we've been experiencing is probably going to continue. We're probably going to get another doubling of the experience we've had to this point. The fact that they say the vast majority of these show risk of being inproper just really supports what has been seen, what they've been worried about all along, and is also just echoed in the compliance efforts.
They said two billion dollars to date in compliance through the VDP, through withdrawal and enforcement efforts. That's a huge number. Not a huge number to the total of the program. But when you think about, that means that's what's been accomplished so far, so how much more is out there if that's what has been withdrawn, if that's what has been enforced to date, even with limited resources and small amount of audits there's a much bigger pool and it speaks to the fear and the risks that's out there.
A lot more to come. If there's no congressional action at all related to this program and everything just stays as is going forward, I'd be surprised. Something's going to happen in some form, even if it's not exactly what was out there in the last proposed bill. I feel like this is going to come in some way, shape, or form in the next couple of years, and the IRS will have more releases. There'll be more twists and turns on this.
More to come, unfortunately though, for those that aren't in a spot to get a taxpayer advocate referral and have a hardship claim to push this. I think you're just along for the ride until you're in that real need, unless you're going to go that refund litigation route, you're just going to have to be along for the ride here, unfortunately. A lot of other tough conversations we've been having for a while now are just going to be continuing, that we're going to have to wait and see.
April Walker: Thanks, Dan. All right. Chris, what's your send-off thoughts for us?
Chris Wittich: I would agree with everything Dan said. I guess I would just wrap it all the way back to the discussion that we had in April of 2023. I'd encourage you to circle back. In April 2023, we talked about the IRS OPR announcement. We talked through the Circular 230 issues, the SSTS issues, what are the ethical responsibilities of a tax preparer of a CPA. I would cross-reference those conversations with where we're at today.
You want to advise your client of the rules. You want to be sure you know what the IRS is saying currently. But I would cross-reference, we got this new press release, there's some new information in there. They're clearly targeting these bad claims, so what do we do about the bad claims? There's a few solutions available now, but I also need to understand my ethical responsibility. I'm sure it'll be linked, but I would go back and take a listen to that with this new press release in top of mind.
April Walker: Yes. That is exactly right. That's when we were together last to record talking about that, and none of that conversation is out of date. We're in a different place with claims, but all of that conversation is very relevant.
Now, you're not going to get out of my fun question. Even though you've been with me before, you still have to answer these questions. I like to think about us taking a journey together towards a better profession. Always journeying toward that. Chris, what journeys are you taking outside of tax? I think you're getting ready a month or so to have baby number 2. I don't want to put words in your mouth. Where are you headed this summer?
Chris Wittich: With a baby on the way, travel plans are limited. These days our travel plans consist of going to grandma's house or going to the other grandma's house. About 20 minutes in either direction is our maximum travel distance, but excited too. I'll be at National Tax in November. I'll be in DC.
April Walker: That's fun travel, and there'll be some good hotel sleeping for the tiger. Dan, you don't have the tiny little ones running around, so hopefully you got some fun travel on the agenda.
Dan Chodan: We're going to get them back to the beach this summer. They'll be really excited for that. But my favorite travel this year was a bucket list item for my wife. It was our 10-year anniversary. She always wanted to go to Nashville. Big country music fan. That was a great time. We did that. Just got back. I'll admit country music isn't all that bad after being steeped in a little more of it, so I'm coming along to it.
April Walker: Okay. It's not it's not my favorite either, but Nashville is quite a fun town, so glad you were. And that was a without-kids trip?
Dan Chodan: Yeah.
April Walker: Those are always the best. Love the kids. Love them. You all are great. But so nice to be having adulting trip. Chris, maybe one day.
Dan Chodan: Different kind of fun.
April Walker: Exactly. Thank you guys so much for sitting down with me. I think this was a great important conversation. In the next stage, I feel sure we're going to talk again, so look forward to that.
Again, this is April Walker from the AICPA Tax Section. This community is your go-to source for technical guidance and resources designed especially for CPA tax practitioners like you in mind. This is a podcast from AICPA and CIMA together as the Association of International Certified Professional Accountants. You can find us wherever you listen to your podcast and we encourage you to follow us so you don't miss an episode. If you already follow us, thank you so much and please feel free to share with a like-minded friend. You can also find us at aicpa-cima.com/tax, and find our other episodes, as well as resources mentioned in this episode as well as linked back to other podcast episodes as we discussed. Thank you so much for listening and stay cool everybody.
Keep your finger on the pulse of the dynamic and evolving tax landscape with insights from tax thought leaders in the AICPA Tax Section. The Tax Section Odyssey podcast includes a digest of tax developments, trending issues and practice management tips that you need to be aware of to elevate your professional development and your firm practices.
This resource is part of the robust tax resource library available from the AICPA Tax Section. The Tax Section is your go-to home base for staying up to date on the latest tax developments and providing the edge you need for upskilling your professional development. If you’re not already a member, consider joining this prestigious community of your tax peers. You’ll get free CPE, access to rich technical content such as our Annual Tax Compliance Kit, a weekly member newsletter and a digital subscription to The Tax Adviser.
In this joint episode, Neil Amato, host of the JOA podcast and Melanie Lauridsen, VP of Tax Policy and Advocacy for the AICPA discuss recent updates on three key tax topics: the Employee Retention Credit (ERC), Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) reporting, and a member survey about IRS performance during tax season. Melanie highlights the IRS’s recent actions and proposed regulations regarding ERC, the implications of BOI reporting requirements, and the mixed feedback from AICPA members on IRS service improvements.
AICPA resources
AICPA Employee retention credit guidance and resources — Access resources providing the latest updates on the employee retention credit (ERC).
Beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting resource center — Access resources to learn about the beneficial ownership information reporting requirement under FinCEN’s Corporate Transparency Act (CTA).
Transcript
Neil Amato: Welcome back to the Journal of Accountancy podcast. This is Neil Amato with the JofA. I'm joined again by Melanie Lauridsen, Vice President–Tax Policy & Advocacy for the AICPA. This is a special collaboration episode between the JofA podcast and the Tax Section Odyssey podcast.
Again, welcome back. Melanie Lauridsen is our guest. She is a repeat guest. Melanie, today, as we record, it's early July, and we're going to focus in particular on three topics: The employee retention credit or ERC, beneficial ownership information reporting or BOI reporting, and then a member survey about IRS performance in tax season.
It sounds like there have been more than a few updates recently on those topics. Let's dive in. ERC first: What's the latest from the IRS and what does that mean for our members?
Melanie Lauridsen: Neil, thanks for having me back and yeah, there definitely have been some updates. As you know, the IRS did make an announcement around ERC and there are a couple of main points that they wanted to bring out.
The first one is that the IRS made a call to action for Congress specifically asking to retroactively stop processing ERC claims.
Also, the second piece of it is for Congress to extend the statute of limitations, but very narrowly defined, and it really is only for IRS assessments. In other words, if a taxpayer wants to make an amendment on their own free will, the statute of limitations will not be extended to that. But if the IRS notices something, says something, or is talking with you, and they recognize there needs to be an adjustment, then you can move forward and make that amendment.
This has some implications, obviously, for our members, specifically the retroactive aspect of it. Now, they worded it differently because there's the Wyden-Smith bill, which we've talked about where that is retroactively stopping making valid ERC claims.
In this case, it is that the IRS has no longer to process claims. It still has that same effect with members and does bring a little bit of nervousness to people. What that really means is that our members really need to have conversations with their clients if they have a valid ERC claim that hasn't been filed.
[In] those conversations, people need to make it clear to the client that, yes, we can do the work, but there could be either the retroactively where the IRS stops processing claims, or there could be a bill that says that no longer, since a certain date, they don't have to accept claims. There's a little bit of risk associated with that. I think in the last time we spoke, we spoke about how there's an unknown around that date and therefore there's uncertainty around it, and clients need to be aware of the risks associated with that.
The other important aspect of this announcement is where the IRS indicated that they have bucketed all these claims into three groups. There's the low-risk, medium-risk, and high-risk.
The high-risk is where there are clear signs of error within the claim. Now, couple of things I need to make sure people understand. We don't know the criteria that the IRS is using to categorize people. They are not making that public. The other thing, too, is you cannot call the IRS and ask what bucket you're in. You just won't know. They can't help you on that front.
What that means is if you're low-risk, the IRS is trying to process that claim as quickly as they can so that people can get the refunds back. If you're a high risk, they're trying to process that claim also as fast as they can to be able to deny those claims. Now, if you're medium-risk, that's the bucket where you're stuck and it will be a while before they actually look at those claims.
Amato: That medium-risk bucket, do you recall: What's the approximate percentage that maybe that has?
Lauridsen: I know that the IRS in their announcement gave a broader range of it, but in a conversation with IRS executives, I was told 57%.
Amato: Good to know.
Lauridsen: That's a big number.
Amato: It is a big number. A lot of people still in limbo. And maybe lost in the shuffle: Can claims still be submitted during this period?
Lauridsen: I get that question quite a bit, and there's a little bit of confusion around it. Some people think that claims, you can't file them. If you have a legitimate claim, you can still file it. The problem is centered around is the IRS going to process it or will it not be considered a valid claim? It goes back to those conversations that our members need to have with clients because we really just don't know what will happen with the claims.
Amato: Does it surprise you the number that were labeled high-risk?
Lauridsen: Not based on feedback that we've seen from our members and other external stakeholders. We do know that there were ERC mills out there promoting the claims and they would tell people "you absolutely qualify," when they absolutely didn't.
We also know of some of our members where they flat out told the client "you don't qualify," but the ERC mills were telling them, "you do." Then they went off to the side to go get that claim because it was a lot of money for some of these people, and money was talking.
Amato: Now, I guess also related to the ERC, on July 1 the IRS published some proposed regulations, so it's hot off the presses for us. What can you tell me about these proposed regs.?
Lauridsen: The IRS did drop proposed regulations. These proposed regulations, they provide that the IRS will assess an underpayment of tax on any overpayment interest paid to the taxpayer on an erroneous ERC fund. In other words, not only would you need to pay back the overpayment of the interest portion that you received of a claim, but you would then also have interest penalties on top of it.
One thing to note with the proposed regs. is it recognizes that the current regulations don't address the recapture of interest paid. They also note that the proposed regulations are to apply only to interest paid after the issuance of the proposed regulations, so not before. It's still very unclear as to the payments – what about the payments are already went out with or without the interest, and whether the IRS will attempt to recapture that interest? There's just still a lot of confusion around it. As we get more clarity, we will also provide that to our members.
Amato: We will post some pertinent resources and also recent JofA coverage of this news and other news we mentioned. Melanie, I mentioned JofA resources, are there other resources that you'd like to recommend that maybe I'm not aware of?
Lauridsen: Absolutely, Neil. The Tax Section Odyssey podcast will be doing a deeper dive around the questions that our members and their clients may have, and that should be posted around the same time as this podcast. (Editor's note: The episode Lauridsen mentioned is scheduled to publish the third week in July).
Amato: Excellent. Now let's talk a little bit about BOI, beneficial ownership information, that reporting requirement. What's new on the BOI front?
Lauridsen: There's quite a few different little updates here. But most recently [the] Maryland attorney general did actually provide and release an opinion on whether assistance by a CPA, with the beneficial ownership information reporting requirement of the Corporate Transparency Act, would constitute the unauthorized practice of law [UPL].
The Maryland attorney general made it very clear that the determination of UPL is fact-specific and that the opinion is only a guideline because, again, they have to take a look at each and every single case.
Making clients aware of the BOI reporting requirements, guiding them through FinCEN's FAQs, through the compliance guide, helping [the client fill out] the BOI reporting form, guiding them through questions and answering questions for them — all of that is not considered unauthorized practice of law, according to the Maryland attorney general.
If you were to fill out the report on behalf of a client without connecting with the client, there might be some issues there. Also, if there's just a lot of uncertainty and you know that legal knowledge is needed, a legal analysis to determine who a beneficial owner is, then you really should be turning to a lawyer to help you answer those questions.
What I'm telling people is what we've been telling members all along, that a CPA will need to use their professional judgment when they engage or work with a client, and they'll have to determine where that line gets drawn as to whether or not a lawyer is needed. If it's a very complex business arrangement, most likely, you will want to include a lawyer.
Again, this is all very in line with what we've been telling members, and it's also similar to what other states have said. But no other state has actually put it into writing, and there have been no other opinions. So far, Maryland is the first.
Amato: Thanks for that update. Now, I understand also that I guess you're working with congressional staffers on a bill being drafted on BOI. What is that bill designed to do?
Lauridsen: Actually, we are working with Congressman [William] Timmons' office and that bill actually works well with the Maryland opinion. The hope is that the bill would be able to avoid having to go to all the many multiple jurisdictions and the bill would be able to take care of all this all in one fell swoop. Specifically, the bill offers two aspects of relief which are a big concern to our members.
Number one: The bill would offer a safe harbor for CPAs who do their due diligence when filing the BOI report on behalf of a client. In other words, if you get information, you have a conversation with the client, you do that due diligence, and yet the client gives you some fraudulent or false information, that you would not be held liable for that.
The second piece that the bill does: The bill flat out states that services under the Corporate Transparency Act are not considered unauthorized practice of law. That really does go a long way in helping with the various states because when the federal [government] gives that nod, an indication, a lot of the states would most likely fall in line with that.
Also, I do want to connect on the other types of work we're doing, not only with Congress. We have worked with a lot of external stakeholders and external coalition members because this concern is not a specific AICPA issue. This is a broader issue for all small business entities.
Those two points that I brought up from the bill, those take care of the biggest pain points. But the third pain point really is the 30-day period to update the BOI report for an error or a beneficial owner's updated information. We're working with FinCEN on this since FinCEN actually has authority to make this change.
Collectively, we are working with [Capitol] Hill, we are working with external stakeholders, and also FinCEN, and we've actually pulled everybody together to start having conversations so that there is awareness of what our pain points are, and what exactly we can do to be able to resolve a lot of these issues.
FinCEN does have concerns, and they've made it very clear that this year they're focusing on awareness and not enforcement. Part of the reason is, so far, keep in mind we're seven months into the year, FinCEN has only received just over 2 million BOI reports. Remember, they're asking for 32.6 million, so awareness is definitely something of a concern for them.
Stay tuned, there will be more to come.
Amato: Thank you for that. You mentioned Congressman Timmons, that's, I guess, Rep. William Timmons from South Carolina, is that correct?
Lauridsen: Correct.
Amato: Great. Yes, we're talking about all these updates and potential changes and things that people want to do but currently the BOI reporting requirement, it remains the same for most small businesses, right?
Lauridsen: It does and that's what makes it very scary. A lot of people have heard about the court cases where they said the Corporate Transparency Act was unconstitutional. But again, that only applied to a small sliver of the population of the members of [the National Small Business Association].
So, it's very confusing. The rules themselves are confusing. But unfortunately, everything remains the same, and people, unless you're one of those 23 exceptions, you still need to file.
Amato: Moving on to IRS survey results. It's not an IRS survey, but it's a survey about the IRS. In our previous podcast, we discussed how the IRS perceived how the filing season went. The IRS released some data showing that they answered [88]% of calls that came to the IRS.
The AICPA conducts an annual member survey immediately after the filing season to see how the members felt about IRS service. What does the feedback say, and is it in alignment with what the IRS said?
Lauridsen: Oh, Neil. No, it's not in alignment with what the IRS said. This year, overall, the IRS did better than last year, which was also an improvement from [the] prior year. But even so, the bottom line is we are not at pre-pandemic levels. The IRS really has a long way to go for us to get to the service that we deserve.
For example, the PPS line did show improvement from our members' perspective, but approximately 56% of our members were able to get through to the IRS on a consistent basis, while 29[%] of our members had hit-or-miss calls, and 15% of our members couldn't get through at all.
The wait times, again, keep in mind the IRS is saying it's about three-minute wait time, those did improve. This year, only 28% of our respondents had to wait an hour or more, compared to 63% just two years ago. Yes, that's an improvement, but 28% of our members having to wait over an hour? That's a little bit painful there.
The biggest pain point is the quality of service our members are getting. Is the IRS able to answer your question, or do you need to be transferred? At which all of us know that if you get transferred, you pretty much get transferred multiple times, and, of course, there's no guarantee of a resolution.
Sadly, we found that only 37% of our members were able to get consistent support from the IRS, meaning a resolution, while 37% rarely or never were able to get a resolution.
Amato: Among our members who are tax practitioners, are they satisfied with the service the IRS provided during filing season?
Lauridsen: Neil, surprisingly, our members are feeling more optimistic about how the IRS is doing, and they've improved for the last two years with the IRS. It has definitely helped that the IRS is answering the calls.
However, to your point, almost half of our membership does not think the IRS is on the right path.
I should also let you know, too, that when we get these survey results, we actually communicate this directly with the IRS and we let them know. Our work is cut out for us as to what we need to be able to continue moving forward with IRS services, and we've definitely portrayed that to the IRS.
Amato: Speaking of moving forward, for the 2025 filing season, what would you say are the top concerns facing AICPA members?
Lauridsen: Given that it's an election year, no shocker that the number one concern for our members, and number one concern comes in about 29%, is the impact of legislative changes. What I was surprised to see was that the lack of guidance actually came in only at 17%. But I actually expect that to go up considerably once we start to see those legislative tax packages becoming law and we are going to need guidance from the IRS and Treasury.
Number two on the list, coming in at about 27%, also no surprise, is the continued delay, which includes the written correspondence and processing of information with the IRS.
I should also note that we did have an option on this survey for people to click "other" and fill in the response, and that came in about 5%. Overwhelmingly, everybody was talking [about] the delay of the brokerage statements and delayed K-1s, which create workload compression areas. That is definitely something that we've been monitoring and we're starting to work again, and we've been keeping an eye on it for a few years.
Neil, all this is really to say that we have identified some issues. There's a lot of work that needs to be improved upon with the IRS, and we're moving forward with it.
Amato: K-1 in particular, that was a term I hadn't even thought about or heard in a while, so I guess it's still out there, along with others.
Melanie, we appreciate this update as we close out our July recording. Again, we're recording early July. This is due to publish in mid-July. What would you like to leave listeners with as a closing thought?
Lauridsen: I think our members should be aware that we are monitoring, we definitely love hearing from them, we take it to heart, and we definitely push for their needs to be able to find resolutions.
Sometimes the work is very slow. But we do start to see results and we do start to see the needle moving. Hopefully soon, we'll have some resolution with ERC and some answers and guidance, and we'll start seeing resolutions for BOI, too.
Amato: That's great. Melanie, thank you very much.
Lauridsen: Thank you, Neil.
Keep your finger on the pulse of the dynamic and evolving tax landscape with insights from tax thought leaders in the AICPA Tax Section. The Tax Section Odyssey podcast includes a digest of tax developments, trending issues and practice management tips that you need to be aware of to elevate your professional development and your firm practices.
This resource is part of the robust tax resource library available from the AICPA Tax Section. The Tax Section is your go-to home base for staying up to date on the latest tax developments and providing the edge you need for upskilling your professional development. If you’re not already a member, consider joining this prestigious community of your tax peers. You’ll get free CPE, access to rich technical content such as our Annual Tax Compliance Kit, a weekly member newsletter and a digital subscription to The Tax Adviser.
In this episode of the Tax Section Odyssey podcast, the focus is on the landmark Supreme Court case, Moore v. United States, which examined the constitutionality of the mandatory repatriation tax under Sec. 965 of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). The Court upheld the tax with a 7–2 majority.
The case opens up further discussion on the taxation of unrealized gains and the constitutionality of a wealth tax. Tony Nitti highlights the significance of the Supreme Court’s decisions on taxation and encourages a thorough reading of the opinions for their educational value.
Also, revisit previous episode from Nov. 22, 2023 — All eyes on Moore v. U.S. plus a history lesson on tax cases.
Transcript
April Walker: Hello everyone and welcome to the Tax Section Odyssey podcast, where we offer thought leadership on all things tax facing the profession and today we have a really quick turnaround podcast that I'm excited about with Tony Nitti, he is a partner at EY National Tax, he is a frequent guest on the show and we recorded late last fall on this topic, the Moore vs. the United States and the podcast was published on November 22nd.
Dare I say riveting podcast or at least it was riveting to me. Hopefully, you listened to it. I will put a link to it on the facts and arguments in the Moore case being heard by the Supreme Court. There was a history lesson, several references to Hamilton, my favorite musical and just an all around fun time.
Here we are Tony, the court took their sweet time I feel like but they dropped the decision last Thursday and here we are first thing Monday morning to record. We are here for the people, so welcome, Tony.
Tony Nitti: Thanks for having me April. Good to be back with you. I'm excited for two reasons. One, you and I and Damian Martin that is also at EY, we did talk about the Moore case back in, I guess it was late November. I know it was right before the oral arguments in our podcasts. Then Damien and I had done a presentation on it at national tax and so I'm excited to come back just to talk about Moore in general.
But I'm also excited because I did get a little jealous when I saw you did a separate podcast with Damien last week and I knew that I had to do something to knock him off the top line of the list of AICPA podcasts. Damien, as soon as this publishes you are relegated to number two. All is right with the world now April.
April Walker: I'm happy to be part of the competition between two greats such as yourselves. The prior podcast did an amazing job, in my opinion, going through all the details but for those who might not want to take a deep dive, that one probably runs 45, 50 minutes, something like that.
For those who don't want to go back and listen, I don't know why you wouldn't but if you don't, Tony, I'd love for you to give us a quick background to set the stage for us on the Moore case.
Tony Nitti: I'll do it as quick as possible and I don't want to bury the lead. Let's talk about the ruling before we even get into the facts but Supreme Court did rule by a 7:2 majority in favor of the government. Effectively saying that section 965 of the code that was added as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, what we call the mandatory repatriation tax, that it is in fact constitutional and yes, this was a victory for the government.
But let's backup now, let's go through the facts and then talk about why was everybody hanging on that the Supreme Court's decision here, why was this such a eagerly anticipated opinion in the tax community? The facts in Moore, very basic. We've got a retired couple up in the state of Washington and in 2006 they invested some money in an Indian corporation.
They took back more than 10% of the stock, the corporation was owned more than 50% by US shareholders, thereby making it a controlled foreign corporation or CFC. Then from 2006 all the way to the end of 2017, the CFC made money but it never actually repatriated any amounts back to the Moores in the form of a dividend. Under the laws in place at that time, the Moores had no income to recognize at the individual level because they hadn't received any dividends from their CFC.
Now we know that since 1962, part F has imposed a deemed dividend on shareholders of a CFC when that CFC is earning certain types of passive income but that's not what we're talking about here. The corporation CFC in India, it was earning regular operating income, so there was nothing to attribute back to the Moores in the form of a deemed dividend, until December 22nd, 2017 because that's when Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
As part of that Republican tax bill. One of the things we did was shift from what we call a worldwide system of international taxation to a territorial system of international taxation. With that shift, what was going to happen and what did happen is that income held in a CFC post-2017, when it was repatriated to the US in the form of a dividend would not be subject to tax at the individual level.
But you can't just flip a switch and make that move April because if that income has been stashed in a CFC prior to 2017 and has never been subject to US tax. If you suddenly opened the flood gates and allow what was rumored to be anywhere from 1.5 to $2 trillion that had been stashed in CFCs, never subject to US tax. If you allow that to come back post-2017, tax-free, that's a windfall. That money would have never been subject to US taxation.
To prevent that windfall, Congress enacted Section 965, this mandatory repatriation tax and what it did is it said, look certain shareholders of a CFC as of December 22nd, 2017, you have to pretend that you received a dividend equal to your pro rata share of the CFCs income from whatever came later 1986 or when you acquired the stock all the way through to the end of 2017.
Tony Nitti: By picking up this deemed pretend dividend and paying tax on it, now we can pave the way for this switch to a territorial regime where in the future that same money can actually be repatriated back to the US and not have to be subject to US tax.
Tony Nitti: The Moores dutiful taxpayers that they were, paid the 965 tax, I believe it was $14,729 and then they got around to thinking, what did I just pay tax on? I never received anything. I put money into a CFC and I sat on my hands and I enjoyed the fact that the company was doing well but I never took a penny out.
Tony Nitti: Why on earth am I cutting a check to the Internal Revenue Service? They sued in district court and the district court dismissed in favor of the government. They appealed up to the Ninth Circuit, the Ninth Circuit did the same and then over the summer last year, the Supreme Court decides that they will listen to this case and it certainly surprised a lot of people.
Tony Nitti: Why would the nation's highest court agree to hear an argument over $14,000 in tax? But the root of it was the fact that they were arguing, the Moores were that Section 965 was unconstitutional and that's a big deal. When you're saying something's unconstitutional and that goes beyond just your run-of-the-mill argument, you tend to see in Tax Court.
Tony Nitti: The reason they were saying it was unconstitutional, it was something that was certainly going to pique the interest of the Supreme Court and certainly in this day and age. What they said was, look.
Tony Nitti: The 16th Amendment to the Constitution grants Congress the power to lay and collect taxes on income from whatever source derived without having to apportion that tax among the states based on population. When the 16th Amendment says it can tax income by definition in the 16th Amendment has to be realized. There has to be what we call this realization requirement and we'll examine that further. Just for our purposes right now, it just means that I need to have something in my hands that makes me richer from an economic sense that I can do what I will with.
Now we know that tax law has expanded upon the concept of realization where you can have concepts of constructive realization, but we'll get into all that. The idea is something had to happen to lead me richer in an economic sense. They said, here in 965, I'm being taxed on amounts that clearly I never received. There has been no realization. If there's been no realization than whatever the taxing me on cannot be income. The only thing they could be taxing me on, is my ownership of stock and a CFC as of a specific date and time, December 22nd, 2017.
That type of tax, a tax on ownership of property, is a direct tax under the meaning of Article 1, Section 9 Clause 4 of the constitution, what we call the direct tax clause, and is required by that clause to be apportioned among the states based on population. Since 965, last time I checked it was directly assessed and not apportioned among the states based on population. The tax violated the Constitution.
A really fascinating argument, April, because what it looked like it was doing was setting us up for a showdown for the ages because in their written briefs, the taxpayers, more or less said to the Supreme Court. We need you to rule once and for all that, yes the 16th Amendment contains a requirement that income be realized before it can be taxed as income. You can only imagine, and this is what we discussed in our first podcast at National Tax, what the implications of that type of ruling would be if the Supreme Court last Thursday had handed down a ruling that said income has to be realized. It's not just 965 that would face expulsion from the code. How does partnership roll? How to S corporations? How do they survive if there's now this constitutional realization requirement?
When you think about pass-through taxation, we know that the owners are taxed on their share of the pass-through entities income, whether they get a penny or not in the form of distributions. If you've suddenly got this realization requirement, how do you make peace with Subchapter K and S? Or what about Subpart F that we just talked about? That since 1962 has allowed Congress to say to shareholders that have a CFC, we know you didn't get anything out of the CFC, but the CFC is earning passive income, and to prevent abuses, we're going to pretend that you got your share of that passive income and subjected to tax. How can Subpart F continue to exist if there's this new constitutional realization requirement as established by the Supreme Court?
The reason we got together in November and had a whole session devoted to it at National Tax was because smart people like former House Speaker Paul Ryan, were saying, look, a victory for the taxpayers in Moore could invalidate up to a third of the current tax law. That's a big deal.
Then for the government's part, they appear to be saying to the Supreme Court, it's time for you to rule the opposite, that there is no realization requirement inherent in the 16th Amendment. Imagine what those consequences would be. If we're saying income does not have to be realized. It's not just about preserving Subpart F and Subchapter K and S. It's about the future of tax law.
If income doesn't have to be realized, then Congress, if it needs to, could attempt to tax taxpayers unrealized appreciation in their assets and less anybody think that's far-fetched. Remember that, a couple of weeks after we got together in November, April, Senator Ron widened formally released his proposal for what he calls the billionaires tax, which is a minimum tax that would reach, in part, certain individuals unrealized appreciation in their assets. It's a very real proposal that's floating out there right now.
If the Supreme Court last Thursday would have come down and said, there is no realization requirement. Congress can tax whatever it wants, then it would obviously leave the door open for something like that tax on unrealized appreciation or maybe, and I think this is a slightly different argument that we can get into, or maybe even a wealth tax, which obviously Elizabeth Warren and other candidates in the 2022 election from the Democratic side were proponents of we. In November me, you and Damien, just like every major newspaper, just like every morning talk show we're discussing Moore because of the implications. We thought we were headed for a landmark decision, an absolute showdown with the Supreme Court, backs to the wall had to say once and for all, is there a realization requirement in the 16th Amendment?
April Walker: Very nice. I think that sets us up for that you told us what the decision was, the court came down in favor of the government 7-2. Let's talk now about what that really meant. How did the showdown, how did it come out and what did we learn from this and what significance does it hold for our taxpayers now?
Tony Nitti: When you ask how do the showdown come out? It didn't. That's disappointing to many. It's anticlimactic too many, but it also shouldn't be a surprise. Now how can I sit here and say, it shouldn't be a surprise when Damien, myself, you, we devoted a couple of hours between podcasts and sessions back in November to saying this realization requirement is going to get settled here. What changed that ultimately, the court was able to decide without even addressing the realization requirements and why would I say that shouldn't be a surprise.
We had unfortunate timing with our sessions back in November, April because first week of December is when the oral arguments were held in Moore. It became very clear in the oral arguments that both sides, taxpayers and the government, had perhaps become aware of the gravity of what they had asked the Supreme Court to rule on because they both took steps to give the court an avenue to a more narrow, less impactful ruling, so that the taxpayers, the Moore's, they came in and said, we're reading the same articles everyone else is that we could try to throw out one-third of the code here.
You don't have to do that Supreme Court in order to rule in our favor because what we're going to do here, in these oral arguments is we're going to concede for you that these other provisions that people are looking towards, they're constitutional for their own reasons. Partnerships work because partnerships have always been treated as being a mere aggregate of its partners, like they don't have a separate tax existence. That is why income of a partnership can be taxed at the partner level, whether or not it's been distributed. S corporations, every shareholder who's around at the time the S election is made, has to affirmatively consent to that election. You know what you're getting into.
What you're getting into is being taxed on income that perhaps you haven't realized yet, but as long as you sign up for it, then you're stuck with it. They say that's what makes S corporations different. The fact that you have to consent to it. Then Subpart F, this was a little bit of a reach I think, but they said look, Subpart F is designed to attack specific abuses where people are putting passive income in a CFC when they could just as easily hold it in their individual capacity. We think that one is okay as well.
I think that last piece in particular hurt the taxpayers a bit because if you read Justice Barrett and Alito's concurring and judgment opinion, they're not quite so sure it appears to me that Subpart F would even be necessarily constitutional and we can get into why that would be in just a few moments. They were trying to make it easier in the Supreme Court saying you don't have to worry about throwing out this other stuff but, Sec. 965, it's a different animal. It's not a partnership, it's not an S-Corp, It's not Subpart F.
It is a situation where reinvested money and a CFC got nothing in return for 12 years, and now you're taxing me on income that I've never received, that's got to go. That's unconstitutional. The government, they came in and they said, hey, Supreme Court, guess what? You can rule in our favor without even addressing this realization requirement because if you look hard enough, you'll realize here that income has clearly absolutely been realized. It's just that it was realized at the corporate level, at the CFC level. If we look back at the judicial precedent of this very core, we can see in the mid-20s to the late 30s, a series of cases that allow Congress to attribute the income that's been realized by an entity, specifically when that entity is taxed as a pass-through for US tax purposes.
That's a partnership, that's an S-Corp. In a lot of settings, it's also a CFC, but Congress can attribute the income earned by a pass through to its owners even if it has not been distributed. So they said, Supreme Court, we're giving you an out here. You can rule in our favor without even talking about realization. Instead, just focus on attribution. Acknowledge that the income has been realized at the CFC level, and there's nothing preventing Congress from saying, we're going to attribute that income at the CFC level to its shareholders, including the Moore's and make them pay tax on it even though it is yet to be distributed.
Tony Nitti: After the oral arguments, I think most people who were watching closely saw the writing on the wall. Because the Supreme Court is in the habit of issuing the most narrow opinion that they can in order to rule on a specific set of facts. With the government giving the Supreme Court a pretty clear avenue to a more narrow ruling that didn't have to address the realization requirement, I think a lot of people anticipated that we were going to get a decision that was largely based on attribution rather than realization.
That's what ultimately came down last Thursday and that's why I say it feels anticlimactic to some because we only had to get into to the second footnote in the entire case where the majority opinion drafted by Justice Kavanaugh said, we're not here today to talk about what would happen if Congress were to try to tax unrealized appreciation or even wealth. Then, even in the body of the opinion, Kavanaugh comes out at some point and says, the Moore's wanted us to say there's a realization requirement. The government wanted us to say that there is not, we don't need to address that today in order to opine on this set of facts.
Tony Nitti: That realization debate has just been deferred because instead, what they did is the majority kept it very simple. Just like the government proposed to them, they looked at cases stretching from 1925 there were four of them from 25 to the late 30s and they're slightly different facts in each case. But by and large, you had these four cases that showed that Congress has flexibility when you have an entity taxed as a pass through and you have flexibility if you're Congress to have either taxing at the entity level or taxing at the owner level. Now, the court did put some guardrails around that flexibility. Kavanaugh talked about the fact that, this concept of attributions should generally be limited to, as I mentioned before, entities that are taxes pass-through for US tax purposes, which would be your partnerships, your S corps, things like grantor trust and then CFCs. But then also Justice Kavanaugh was saying that we're not saying that they can tax the same income at both levels under the same character but yes, you can have income at a corporate level, dividend and shareholder level, but they were putting some guardrails around it.
Generally speaking, they kept it very simple and the majority did two things. One, as I said, they looked at that judicial precedent that says, we've got a history here of being able to tax, for example, on Heiner v. Mellon, partners on income that even under state law, they were not permitted to receive in the form of distribution. Then we have the Bruce Baker case where Congress was able to tax partnership income at the entity level because it was effectively acting as if it were a corporation. They looked at these four pieces of precedence and yes, the concept of attribution is alive and well, we can take this income earned at the CFC level and attributed to the Morris.
Then they just took some steps to take apart the Moore's argument that Sec. 965 is somehow vastly different from Subchapter K and S and Subpart F because they said, this argument that partnerships are never respected as separate tax-paying entities. We know that's not the case and we have case-law here that says, at various moments in time, we've been able to levy taxes at the partnership level and we know that for variety of reasons for federal tax purposes, partnerships are respected as their own entity. Maybe not necessarily tax paying entity, but their own entity and aren't mere aggregates of its partners. From an S corporation perspective, you say that every shareholder has to consent to the election and they do.
But think about if the shareholder mix changes and now you have shareholders owning 49% of the stock and they want to revoke that S election. You need more than 50% consent to revoke an S election. You can have 49% of shareholders who do not consent to that election, but they're powerless to do anything about it. They said the mirror requirement that you consent is not enough here to differentiate sub S for 965 and then Subpart F the argument for the Morris was largely based on the degree of control that shareholder had to have in the CFC. But it's the same 10% control for 965 purposes as it is for Subpart F purposes.
The court just basically said your arguments Moore aren't convincing to us. We're going to keep this simple. We're going to attribute the income of the CFC to you here and say that is perfectly constitutional. The decision was a little anticlimactic, but should not have been surprising.
April Walker: Little bit anticlimatic on the decision. And the focus on attribution versus realization. But Tony, is there anything we can gleam or learn from this decision?
Tony Nitti: I certainly think there is. We've got a 33 page dissenting opinion from Justices Thomas and Gorsuch that could best be described as a strongly worded, maybe scathing, whatever you want to call it. But it was very clear that these two justices, in descending to the majority's opinion, really felt like the Supreme Court had a missed opportunity here to address this ambiguity in the law and figure out once and for all whether or not there was a realization requirement. Because they accused the majority of this is a direct quote, “changing the subject in addressing attribution over realization”. But then went on to say pretty definitively, no pretty about it. They went on to say definitively, we believe there's clearly a realization requirement inherent in the 16th Amendment and so we don't agree with this ruling. Listen, it's a dissenting opinion so to some degree that angry arguments set forth is the legal equivalent of Grandpa Simpson shaking his fist at a cloud.
But we should still pay attention to it because I believe that it was a well-crafted argument by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch as it goes through the evolution of the Constitution that I think could absolutely serve as a foundation for future defenses against, for example, a tax on unrealized appreciation. I think there's a lot to be learned from this dissenting opinion where Thomas and Gorsuch build out their argument as far as why there's a realization requirement in the 16th Amendment.
If you've got a couple more minutes April, I certainly wouldn't mind taking our listeners through it. Because like I said, I do think it's well thought out. But we don't have to go through the whole history again, like we did last time about how the constitution came to be but it is important that we understand a couple of steps in the evolution. You want to hear the entire sorted history, you can go back to the original podcasts, get all your fill of Hamilton references as April said.
But for today's purposes, it's 1787 we're at the Constitutional Convention and we are aware that we need to be able to generate revenue for the federal government, but at the same time, we have to be sensitive to the sensibilities of the country's citizens who, after that nasty breakup with England, were not going to be particularly receptive to taxes.
The Constitution starts out with Article 1, Section 8 Clause 1, that just grants the government it's general taxing power. It says that the Congress can enact taxes imposed duties, excises, and pretty much leaves it at that. But that concept of taxes, we knew they were going to need more guardrails around because people were so sensitive to it and after some heated negotiations between the Southern and Northern states that we go into detail about in the first podcast, they come out and say, the two most likely taxes that we're going to impose at the federal level are what we call a poll tax or a tax per head on humans simply for existing and then a tax on the ownership of real property.
One of the guardrails we want to build into the Constitution is that these types of taxes, what we will call it direct taxes had to be apportioned among the states based on relative population. They added a second clause to the Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 what's become known as the Direct Tax Clause and that clause simply just says, all direct taxes have to be apportioned among the states based on population. Quick example of how that would work if Congress were to enact a national tax on each acre of land and the total tax is going to be $10 million to be collected from all the states.
If Connecticut and Virginia, even though they may have different acreages of land within their state boundaries, if they have the same exact population, they're going to pay a portion of that overall federal tax. You take the national tax and you say, each state pays its share based on its relative population as a part of the whole. That was supposed to provide some safeguards and some guardrails. The problem as we delve into in our first podcast is that nobody really understood what a direct tax was and that's been a bit of a problem.
Tony Nitti: A couple of years later we add a supreme court case called Hilton, where the Supreme Court ruled that a tax on the ownership of carriages for the conveyance of persons was not a direct tax. In that case, the justices, each of them, to some degree, came out and said, at this point, we think the only things that truly are direct taxes are taxes on people and taxes on ownership of real property. That's how things stood for the next 100 years, April until post-civil war, Congress tried to enact its first ever peacetime income tax.
Tony Nitti: That got challenged right away in a case called Pollock versus Farmers Trust and the taxpayer said, look, this income tax is unconstitutional. Why? Because it is a direct tax. If we stop right there, like wait a minute, you just said that direct taxes were things like a tax on people and a tax on owning real property. How can an income tax be a direct tax? Well, the taxpayer was arguing, look, we know a tax on ownership of property, like real property is a direct tax. The tax on the income that comes from that property, we don't have any mechanisms in the constitution to distinguish between those two, to separate between the two.
Tony Nitti: We have to treat a tax on income that comes from property like rental income from real estate, the same way constitutionally, we would treat a tax on the underlying ownership of the real property and everybody acknowledges that is a direct tax. A tax on the income from the property should also be a direct tax. Then extending that concept to personal property, they said the same thing. They said, if you own stock and we want to tax the dividends that come from that stock. Well, taxing that income is akin to taxing the ownership because we have no means to distinguish between the two, and so that would also be a direct tax.
Tony Nitti: If you can't tax dividend income, you can't tax rental income, a big part of your income tax isn't going to work anymore and that's exactly what happened, April. Much to the surprise of Congress and in one of the most analyzed, scrutinized, debated cases in the supreme court's history, Pollock versus Farmers Trust, the Supreme Court rules that the income tax, in large part, is a direct tax that has to be apportioned among the states based on population. Obviously that doesn't work to apportion and income tax among the states based on population, and so the tax disappeared. The income tax was gone.
Tony Nitti: But Congress couldn't just sit there and do nothing. They needed a way to generate revenue and so they did something that would be largely unthinkable in today's environment, but they amended the constitution. This piece here, April is critical to understanding the arguments set forth by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch. Because in the 16th Amendment, it was done specifically to counteract the ruling in Pollock. Congress came out and said, okay, we're going to amend the constitution to say that congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on income from whatever source derived without apportionment among the states.
Tony Nitti: But what they didn't do, April when they added that 16th Amendment, and again this is critical, is they didn't get rid of the direct taxing clause, right? They could have just ripped that from the pages of the constitution say, we're getting rid of this requirement that a direct tax has to be allocated among the states, but they didn't. They left it there when they added the 16th Amendment, which says, we can tax income without apportionment.
Tony Nitti: In the eyes of Thomas and Gorsuch, and this is not in their eyes, I should say, this is a fact and then I'll get to their opinion, the fact is post 1913, we have three distinct categories of tax regimes in this country. Number one, we have indirect taxes like duties, imports, and exercises that we don't need to worry about for this conversation. Number two, we have the direct tax clause, direct taxes have to be apportioned among the states based on population. Then category three, we have an indirect income tax that doesn't have to be apportioned.
Tony Nitti: The point that Justices Thomas and Gorsuch make, and it is an interesting one, is that if we're going to have category two while adding category three, and we're going to retain both those categories. There has to be some way to distinguish when an item falls in category two as a tax on property, a direct tax, versus when it falls in category three, a tax on income. That process, according to the two justices, by which an item that's being taxed moves from category to a tax on property, a direct tax, to category three a tax on income, is this process of realization, this idea of realization.
Tony Nitti: We can further refine this idea of realization in both legal and layman's terms right, from a legal perspective, they said, hey, look at the 1920s decision the supreme court you had someone who invested money in a corporation, and then got a stock dividend, and that stock dividend didn't make them richer. It gave them more slices of pie in the corporation, but reduced the value of each slice. So their overall value of their ownership hadn't changed.
Tony Nitti: But the IRS tried to tax it and the supreme court said you can't because it's not income. The reason it's not income is because there's been no realization. In defining realization, they said, look, when you make a capital investment in a corporation like this, you don't have realization until you have something of detachable, separable value in your hands as the shareholder that you can do whatever you want with, that you can use at your disposal. Since you don't have anything of value here, there has been no realizations, so that's the legal definition.
Tony Nitti: A more simple definition, April that I find helpful is if we want to distinguish between what is a tax on property in category two, that's a direct tax and what's a tax on income that's not, is to think of it in terms of a tree and the fruit that it bears. You own a tree, you own property, right? Taxing the ownership of that tree would be a direct tax. But if that tree bears fruit, think about fruit. You can only fully enjoy fruit if you sever it, if you detach it, if you harvest it from its source from the property.
Tony Nitti: In the eyes of Thomas and Gorsuch here, the dissenting justices, what they're saying is, we have to have that moment where the fruit is detached from the tree and only then does the fruit become income that can be taxed as income, not have to be apportioned among the states, so it's that critical moment of realization. April, if you appreciate your analogies being food-based, I don't know maybe that tree and fruit analysis helped you.
April Walker: It certainly did.
Tony Nitti: Yes, it's extending that argument two more, the facts and more. It becomes very simple for Justices Gorsuch and Thomas because they say, the Moores invested in a corporation, that is a tree, that is a property investment. Show me where the fruit was. They never got any fruit. They never got a distribution. They never got anything in their individual capacity, and so if we were to tax what is effectively an ownership of stock here and treat it as if it were taxing the fruit that never came, taxing it as if it were a tax on income, then what we're doing from a constitutional sense is we are ignoring Congress's decision to preserve Category 2, to retain that direct tax clause. Because for them to take the time and effort to keep the direct tax clause means that Congress believes some items should continue to be treated as a direct tax on the ownership of property. Until property bears fruit, any tax that you tried to assert on that property should continue to be respected as a direct tax or else what was the point of preserving that direct tax clause when you added the 16th Amendment.
Tony Nitti: They then went on, and hopefully this is making it more clear for the listeners and not more confusing, April, but this concept of a tree and fruit, I think is helpful. Until you've got fruit in your hands, how can anything be taxed as income. They went on to say, think about it in terms of a tax on unrealized appreciation. Imagine that you, April, buy real estate today for a million bucks, and over the next year, you don't rent that real estate out. You don't sell that real estate. You don't generate a penny of income from the real estate, but it does appreciate and value, it doubles by next year at this time.
Tony Nitti: If Congress were to come in and try to tax you on that doubling in value. What Justices Thomas and Gorsuch would say, April, "Is there any fruit in this situation? Did you receive anything of separate detachable value that you harvested from the tree? Now have in your individual capacity to do what you want with?
April Walker: Seems no.
Tony Nitti: Seems like no. They would say is if it seems like no, then you can't possibly be taxing fruit. The only thing you can possibly be taxing is the ownership of the tree, the real estate. Since 1787, people have appreciated that a tax on ownership of real estate is a direct tax that Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 of the Constitution requires to be apportioned among the states based on population. That's it, that's the thrust of their argument.
But it's really an interesting one because the constitution is obviously very much like the tax law in the sense that, I don't know if a lot of people notice about the tax law, but the way the tax law has to be interpreted by the courts is that no single word in the code or regulations is superfluous or unnecessary. Which seems crazy, right? When we think about the length of the code and regs. But everything has to have a purpose.
Tony Nitti: Same thing with the Constitution, if they took the time to preserve the direct taxing clause, but added a 16th Amendment that allows us to tax income. There's got to be some critical distinction between those two categories of taxation, and then the eyes of dissenting opinion of Justice Thomas and Gorsuch, that critical distinction is when income becomes realized when the tree ultimately bears fruit. I think because their analysis is one of constitutional evolution, that it is well formulated and that it very well may serve as the backbone for a future defense because at some point, we're going to end up right back in front of the Supreme Court finally, deciding whether or not realization is required. Who knows what the composition of the court looks like at that time? I say their argument is well crafted. What do I know?
Tony Nitti: People could put together other arguments that are more well-crafted or contrary arguments that are better crafted. But I do think that this is something we should be paying attention to in this more opinion, even though it's in the dissenting opinion, even though they were overruled 7-2, because I think it is logical. I think it is, as I said, well put together when you look at the evolution of the Constitution. You can get some insight into at least how these two justices view a realization requirement. I think also if you were to go and read the concurring judgment opinion by Justice Barrett and Alito, you'll see that they certainly have some concerns about realization as well. But that's a decision for another day. I did say decision for another day, and so for people who are frustrated, I get it. But we shouldn't have been surprised because the writing has been on the wall since December.
April Walker: Wonderful. As we're wrapping up a little bit, I'd like to talk about what your opinion is on how this decision might affect future tax reform efforts. I guess I'm thinking wealth tax.
Tony Nitti: Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I view the wealth tax as being an entirely different issue with much bigger hurdles to get past than, for example, a tax on unrealized appreciation. The reason I think I say that is because with a wealth tax, it gets very hard to argue necessarily that there has been any fruit born because you haven't earned any income at all. They're not even attempting to tax you on income necessarily. They're taxing on the value of assets. I don't know how a wealth tax and necessarily fits within the 16th Amendment definition of income.
Tony Nitti: One of the things that I found very fascinating about the Moore case when we got to the oral arguments, is that they talked in the oral arguments with the government about their thoughts on a wealth tax. In this case, the government conceded that, look, if we were to try to tax the value of someone's assets for just a specific moment in time, I believe they said that was a quintessential direct tax that must be apportioned and I might be quoting it wrong, so please somebody double-check me on that. But I think they more or less said the government, hey, in this case, we can see that a tax on value for specific moment in time would be a quintessential direct tax. But we can tax and increase in value between two different points of time because that represents income.
Tony Nitti: I think a tax on unrealized appreciation, we saw how that argument may well go. You've got Justice Jackson saying that Congress can tax whatever they want. There's no realization requirement. You've got, at the very least Justices Thomas Gorsuch saying, " Not a chance, there's absolutely a realization requirement." I would presume that some other justices will join them. But a wealth tax, I just think is a more difficult argument to make unless there's constitutional angles and there probably are that I just don't see. Because you're not even pretending to tax income necessarily, you're taxing value at a specific point in time. If you go back to my tree verse fruit analogy, how in a wealth tax environment are you not conceding that you are taxing ownership of the tree rather than the fruit that it bears.
April Walker: Well, this is about as breaking news as this podcast gets. Any final thoughts you want to share with us, Tony, as we're reflecting on this long awaited decision.
Tony Nitti: Anytime the Supreme Court talks tax, we have to pay attention, we have to listen. I would just encourage people to read it all of it, read the majority opinion, read the two concurring opinions, and certainly read the dissenting opinion just to see how this may all shake out at some point in the future. But obviously it's all at the mercy of when it eventually becomes in front of the court. But to me, it's just a fascinating history lesson on the evolution of taxes. Really, I've always said, when I do podcasts with my old buddy Damian Martin. Bring him up one last time, I've always said there's no better way to learn the tax law than reading case law. I think the 80 pages or so here, more, even though it may not be what everyone hoped it would be, certainly offers a lot of insight and a lot of educational value.
April Walker: Perfect. Yes, I like to leave people with some homework and that's some good homework to do. Go read the decision. Thanks again, Tony. This has been delightful. I appreciate your time and energy on this.
Again, this is April Walker from the AICPA Tax Section. This community is your go-to source for technical guidance and resources designed especially for CPA tax practitioners like you in mind. This is a podcast from AICPA and CIMA together as the Association of International Certified Professional Accountants. You can find us wherever you listen to your podcasts and please follow us so you don't miss an episode if you already follow us. Thank you so much and please feel free to share with a like-minded friends. You can also find us at aicpa-cima.com/tax. Check out our other episodes, as well as the aforementioned one earlier about this case and also get access to the resources. Thanks again for listening.
Keep your finger on the pulse of the dynamic and evolving tax landscape with insights from tax thought leaders in the AICPA Tax Section. The Tax Section Odyssey podcast includes a digest of tax developments, trending issues and practice management tips that you need to be aware of to elevate your professional development and your firm practices.
This resource is part of the robust tax resource library available from the AICPA Tax Section. The Tax Section is your go-to home base for staying up to date on the latest tax developments and providing the edge you need for upskilling your professional development. If you’re not already a member, consider joining this prestigious community of your tax peers. You’ll get free CPE, access to rich technical content such as our Annual Tax Compliance Kit, a weekly member newsletter and a digital subscription to The Tax Adviser.
The podcast currently has 86 episodes available.
250 Listeners
4,230 Listeners
74 Listeners
578 Listeners
175 Listeners
404 Listeners
67 Listeners
107 Listeners
88 Listeners
268 Listeners
230 Listeners
54 Listeners
10 Listeners
15 Listeners
28 Listeners