Melanie Lauridsen, AICPA & CIMA VP of Tax Policy & Advocacy, provides an update on IRS service improvements and the impact of the Inflation Reduction Act funding. She also discusses other key tax advocacy tax initiatives that are top of mind right now.

AICPA resources

Employee retention credit resource center — Access resources to learn the latest 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).

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.

Melanie and I are going to talk about some tax topics that are top of mind for practitioners. This is the third such update in calendar year 2024. First, Melanie, welcome back to the podcast. We're recording in late April. In the tax community – I’m more the general consumer, not a practitioner – but I'm wondering, is there a sigh of relief maybe for the tax community? Or maybe a setting of those out-of-office emails and packing of bags for vacation when busy season ends?

Melanie Lauridsen: Neil, absolutely. There definitely is. I think of filing season like running a marathon in a two-hour timeframe. It's very intense, and at times you just don't know if you're going to make it. It feels very exhausting. But you do, and it's hard to keep up that pace. So, a quick shout-out to everyone and congratulations to those that did just wrap up another filing season. They've definitely earned that break and that vacation time.

Amato: Again, we're recording late April, April 26 to be specific. This episode will air in early May. Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but it feels like this year is the first sort of normal March and April for tax season that we've had since 2019. Is that accurate?

Lauridsen: Neil, last year was also a relatively smooth filing season. We did have uncertainty about how things were going to go. However, the IRS did receive the Inflation Reduction Act funding, which allowed last year to show improvements to their services. This is actually the second filing season in which the IRS has had access to that IRA funding.

According to the IRS stats, they had a really strong filing season. Now, I also believe this is in part because the IRS had a smooth runway for this filing season. There really weren't new laws, and, of course, the government shutdown did not occur, which forced the IRS to shut down. Collectively, like I said, it's a smooth filing season for the IRS to be able to show more improvements.

Now, most notably, according to the IRS, they've reached an 88% level of service, which is an increase from 84% level of service at the same time last year. They also answered over a million more calls this year with shorter wait times. That's all really good. However, I do need to caution that the IRS's numbers are a snapshot of a moment in time. That 88% level of service on their phone lines really captures a limited number of phone lines that they have and only a subset of the callers of those limited number of phone lines. For example, last year they had that 84% level of service that I mentioned. When looked at the entire year and looking at all the calls the IRS received, they really only answered about 34% of all the calls.

I also have to plug in that each year, we also deploy our own survey immediately after filing season, and we reach out to our members and ask them how they felt finally season went. Those responses oftentimes align more so with that 34%, and they also align with Erin Collins’ report to Congress on how the IRS did overall. Hopefully, for the next podcast, we can go over the results that we get from our members.

Amato: That's great, and it definitely does show that while there has been a smooth runway, it doesn't necessarily mean everything's going smoothly. It's certainly not all calm as it relates to issues affecting taxpayers, tax practitioners. What are some of those topics that are still popping up, that are top of mind for practitioners as we head into May and beyond?

Lauridsen: I do have to say BOI is a hot topic, beneficial ownership information. However, during the filing season, it got put on the back burner. But now that filing season is over, I've had a flood of people reaching out on the issue and really asking about the impacts regarding the court case with the National Small Business Association and what that really means. Also, unfortunately, we're starting to enter the natural disaster season as we head particularly into the October filing season, so people start to ask questions about that.

Actually just this past week, we endorsed a bipartisan legislation to provide additional tax relief to victims of natural disasters. Specifically, what we're supporting is when the IRS extends a filing deadline due to a disaster declaration, it would allow the taxpayers to claim and recover refunds not only within those three years but also that extended period of the disaster-related extension. Again, very helpful for victims of relief.

Changing topics again, another area that we're also working on, it has to do with digital assets. The IRS is beginning to ramp up more and more with that, and we're trying to find clarity around that tax framework for digital assets.

Amato: Yes. In the Journal of Accountancy, we recently wrote about the posting of the Form 1099-DA. Is that the draft, or the final form?

Lauridsen: Neil, you're right. It is the draft form, and they did release it. The intention is to show the report of the information of the sale or disposition of digital assets. That's going to be kicking off Jan. 1 of 2025, so that is coming soon.

Amato: Thank you for that. Tell me your reaction or response to this IRS news. Commissioner Danny Werfel said recently that the IRS still receives 20,000 employee retention credit claims a week. That's even though the processing of those claims has been halted since September. Seems like a lot.

Lauridsen: It is. Well, Commissioner Werfel actually told the Senate Finance Committee on April 16 that the tax bill passed by the House in January would actually help the IRS combat ERC fraud claims. That's where they're asking for ERC claims to be retroactively stopped. From his perspective, he said that eligible claims, they do exist, but they're very hard to find and it's finding a needle in a haystack. He's not very happy with that aspect.

If you see the statistics of their moratorium, the withdrawal program, and the voluntary disclosure program, there's real money at stake here. We've been told that it's costing the government something about $3 billion per week to maintain the ERC claims open. Now, all of this is to say that I personally wouldn't be surprised if that provision in that House bill to stop ERC claims retroactively, if it were to get stripped out from that bill, and it were to become a stand-alone bill that gets passed. There's just a lot of support for this provision, especially with that amount of money associated with it.

Amato: I heard that was spoken about in the most recent AICPA Town Hall, April 25. That $3 billion number definitely stands out.

Clearly, a lot still to be wrapped up as it relates to ERC claims. You mentioned that tax bill; that was going to be my next question. What's the update on that? I guess it's now in a committee in Congress, and for clarity, which committee exactly is it that has the bill, and where does it stand?

Lauridsen: It's with the Senate right now. The House passed the bill, and it went to the Senate. The last I heard was that the Senate wanted to do their own markup. But ultimately, if you look at what's happening in the world around us, there are a lot of things going on that the Hill has to focus on, and it takes precedence over this bill. It was also my understanding that this bill, as it stands, was barely on life support. Which it's not to say that it can't be revived in other iterations or eventually it could get passed, but as it stands right now, the likelihood of that bill pushing through is not very high.

Amato: If it doesn't go through, what happens? How does it restart if there's a new tax bill?

Lauridsen: On something like that, it really comes down to what I mentioned with the ERC provision. That has a lot of support, and people can then strip certain pieces out of the bill and either pass them as standalone bills, which is probably what would happen with the ERC bill, but you can also introduce it with other packages, different pieces of it. So like I said, it could be different iterations, different portions of it. It doesn't mean it's completely dead, particularly with the ERC piece.

Amato: If it's a 600-page bill, but not all of it's going to pass, then maybe the 60 most important pages here and the 30 most important pages there could be repackaged into a new bill?

Lauridsen: Yes. Something like that. Yes.

Amato: I realized those are just my estimates and oversimplification, but helps me understand. I hope it helps the listeners understand. You've mentioned disaster legislation, obviously, the news topics we've been following, ERC, digital assets, BOI, beneficial ownership information. But elsewhere from an advocacy standpoint, what are some of the top AICPA priorities for the second half of this year?

Lauridsen: Well, Neil, as you're aware, it is an election year, so we're absolutely going to be seeing tax reform coming up. We already know we have TCJA provisions that will begin to sunset. We have also heard of an IRS tax administration procedural package, which is going to have, we've heard things like potentially the Safe Harbor Act, some disaster relief provisions, or things along those lines with the IRS. Then, of course, there just is the 2025 tax reform package we'll see from the elections. Taxes are the way we generate income and money for our country, so we are bound to see a lot of potential tax changes coming up in this next year, and so we have to gear up and prepare for that.

Amato: Melanie, thank you for this rundown. Anything you'd like to add in closing?

Lauridsen: Just to pay attention. Changes are coming, and we're here to help. We're trying to continue to help them, supporting the profession but also taxpayers in finding fairness and equity in the tax laws.

Mark Gallegos, CPA, MST, Partner — Porte Brown LLC, discusses the importance of having processes around retaining documents for accounting firms as well as advising clients on what information is important for them to maintain. It is imperative to manage files in an efficient manner, and, often, there are different considerations for physical storage versus digital storage.

AICPA resources

Document Retention FAQs for Tax Practitioners — Having a written document retention policy for your firm is a must-do along with advising clients on taxpayer record retention.

Document Retention Policy Template for Tax Practitioners — Formalize your tax firm’s policies about retaining documents related to firm operations and client records.

Optimizing your tax practice — Explore tools to manage a more efficient tax practice, enhance your operations, add value to your service offerings and reinforce client relationships.

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. I'm here today with Mark Gallegos from Porte Brown in Chicago. He is a second-time guest, but welcome back, Mark.

Mark Gallegos: Thanks for having me, April.

Walker: Today's topic is about document retention, and this came to my mind for two reasons. One, on a practical level, we at the AICPA just updated some resources around this, some FAQs, as well as a document template, which of course I will share in the show notes.

But second, on a more personal level, recently my family has been cleaning out my in-law’s house and it was pretty clear that their document retention policy was to retain all documents. Either they didn't have one or that was their policy to retain everything. That was fun. But I thought this doesn't seem like a super sexy topic, but it's an important topic.

Mark, I thought maybe let's talk about the importance of a firm having a document retention policy. Maybe talk about some risks associated with not having one or maybe you have one to check the box, but you're not following it. What are your thoughts on that?

Gallegos: I know with clients I always run into either they save everything forever and then they have no idea what they've actually saved in all the boxes. Then there's ones that don't save anything.

Document retention policy is so important. It's critical, especially to a CPA firm, but even beyond that to individuals, to businesses. Because you're dealing with sensitive and regulated information, and when you're looking at that, there's different areas you need to break it down to.

Many industries we work in, including the accounting profession, you're highly regulated and you need to keep documents and you need to have a defined policy that helps define what are the legal obligations for keeping these. You don't want to be fined. You want to make sure you are the trusted adviser that can provide the information, but also you don't want to be the one that's keeping things for 20 or 30 years, that is just keeping up space.

It makes you efficient as an organization because you're basically organizing your documents. You can easily access them, and you can pull them when you need to. It's a good way of keeping security on those documents. Because at the end of the day, you want to be able to secure them.

Obviously, you can secure them in paper form, we can secure them in digital form, and we'll talk about all that. But I think there's different ways, because it is sensitive information, to make sure that you're also doing that. I think one of the most important things is from my perspective, from an accounting firm perspective, is client trust.

They trust us with their information. They trust us with their documents and so we want to make sure that we maintain a systematic approach to handling their information in a sensitive way.

We have that responsibility, and our reputation is on the line to make sure that we're holding up to that. But beyond that, there's a lot of risks that can go involved in this. You're talking about sometimes just legal risks and regulatory risks, like we mentioned.

If you don't have a policy, you might retain the documents [for] too long or too short, or maybe you don't have a policy, so you destroy them after a year when really you should have kept them for a period of time that was in fact what you should have kept them for.

Also, now, someone needs them, and you don't have them.

Operationally, it's good to have it because without a retention policy, these documents can accumulate [and that] can lead to your whole organization being disorganized. Then when you need to find something, you can't find it. That I find is a very common occurrence out there. On top of that, security.

Walker: Lots of reasons to have one. This never happened to me when I was in practice, but I don't know if it has happened to you, or you've heard about it anecdotally. Again, hope it never happens to you, but if in a lawsuit, your records are subpoenaed and you have a document retention policy and you're following it, then maybe if you are asked to produce documents and they're outside of your document retention policy. You're not required to provide them. But if you do have them, then you have to provide them and maybe provide even more.

I think that's like a firm liability risk, also, like so many risks around this. I don't know if you have any thoughts on that piece.

Gallegos: That alone is why you need the policy. I have not run into that.

I've had other colleagues and other firms run into this policy problem, where they've been subpoenaed to provide, we'll call it tax documents, tax work papers and they don't have them.

The first thing that people asked for when they start getting more into a litigation situation is providing your retention policy and they realized they don't have one then. Now, whether they've kept them and destroyed them in the proper amount of time, now their reputation, potentially, they could be on the hook for other fines and penalties.

It's just unnecessary legal action that they get drawn into, when at the end of the day, if they actually had a policy, they can say, we kept it for, we'll say seven years and then we destroyed them. Here's the record of us destroying them and you can provide all that information. It helps the entire situation, which I think is very important.

Walker: I think so. We've talked about the importance of having a policy. What about the guidelines? Are there very firm and fast guidelines on how long you keep certain documents?

Gallegos: One of the things, for us, tax returns — you want to keep indefinitely. I tell my clients that all the time, but there are workpapers and bank statements and payroll documents.

Typically, seven years is the policy. But you want to make sure that you are adhering to what are the rules. And for whether it's a permanent document or whether it's just a work paper. [Determine] what kind of document it is and make sure your policy identifies what your policy is to keep them and then how are you taking steps to make sure that you're following that.

When you're looking at different guidelines. Obviously, the legal requirements are based on what kind of document. Is it a federal tax law mandate? Is it something that is more HIPAA, health care type stuff? Is it SEC regulations and finance? Is it legal? Then you want to establish those categories to identify those different types of documents so that you can put them into different buckets. I think that's very important in this process.

Walker: I mentioned that we have a template for it. It's again, just those general guidelines that you can use for your firm and share with your clients.

But as Mark said, we want to make sure that you understand that there could be different reasons — Government grants or something like that or different state requirements related to keeping certain types of documents. You need to be able to think through that and understand it.

[Let’s talk about] document retention in general, in this digital age. I feel like there's still paper.

We talk about offices being paperless. My house is certainly not paperless. I wish it was, but I just remember, I started practicing in the mid '90s, which makes me feel like an ancient crone at this moment.

But anyway, it was like file cabinets. I can still close my eyes and think about going into the file room, pulling out drawers and things. These were the files that need to be destroyed and we moved files around. I don't know, it’s just bananas to think about.

But [hopefully] your policy is not that the cabinets are full, and we need to go through them.

How do you think about digital storage and what are your thoughts about managing that? Digital storage seems like you have an unlimited amount. Again, you go back to, it feels like, oh, I don't need to care about this. But you really do for the reasons we mentioned earlier. What do you think about digital storage, Mark?

Gallegos: I'm with you. I started in the '90s, I think '97, and I remember filing cabinets full of paper and everything was paper. Now we as a firm, we're very paperless.

But you still see paper and I still go places where I see nothing but paper. I think it's just all over the board, but there is definitely a shift from the physical to the digital document storage. It's altered the landscape out there.

We're seeing more and more of that because everything's pretty much digital. But that's good and bad. You've got to look at it as scalability and space availability. In the past, if I had lots of documents, I had rows and rows of file cabinets or rooms just filled with it and then off-site storage. They were paying an enormous amount of money to keep that paper. Then now with digital, it's all in the Cloud, we'll say, or in some sort of format.

However, without a policy, you can store so much stuff digitally and you don't know how to get to it. Searchability and being able to access what you saved because I could save one thousand documents in the cloud. But if I have no way of really knowing how I documented it, how do I search for it? How do I find that stuff once it's there? I think that's a big thing.

Also with digital storage, it's out of sight, out of mind in some respects. At least with physical, I can start digging through and have people go through these drawers and see what you can find on this. But sometimes when it's out of sight, out of mind, it just keeps building. If I have a firm of tens of people, thousands of people and now everybody's storing and we don't have a policy, we don't have any method. Boy, that's going to be a messy digital storage facility for us.

I think the most important thing in this is data breach, security risks. What happens if I have the greatest storage system, but I haven't protected it from outside security measures? That can be a big problem.

Walker: That's probably a different podcast topic, but every time I have a chance to talk about it, I remind our practitioners that they need a written information security plan. It's required — one reason to have it, but it's also, you just have to have it because of all this data…that you hear about these breaches all the time and it's really scary.

You talked about digital files — they're just everywhere. They could be [hard to find] if you don't have a really good system. Do you have any tools or software or things that you use to help with this, with retention in your firm?

Gallegos: Yes. We have a number of things within the cloud, but we predominately use our CCH products and the document products there. We have a very sophisticated way of how we save things and how they get archived, and we have people who manage that. There's an elaborate system of how data flows and gets stored and when it gets destroyed at the same time.

We're very lucky to have the resources to be able to have a great system. But also, there are other ways out there. There's so many, whether it's accounting platforms, even Microsoft’s SharePoint, Google Workspaces. There's a lot of software out there that can provide different tools. I think it's finding the right tool that works for your organization. What documents am I managing? Is it industry-specific? What are the integration capabilities of my system with this? Then I think [about] stuff we do and I think other people do too, is just regular training and updates. How do you maximize the effectiveness of these tools? Because just like anything, you'd go out and put on your phone the greatest app in the world but if you don't actually know how to use it, it's really not going to provide you any value.

Walker: Useless. I've done the same thing trying to keep up with my to-do list and things. There's some great stuff out there, but then it's all human-dependent at a certain level. The robots haven't taken over the world yet anyway.

We touched on this, but I think it's important to touch on it again, and that is recommendations to clients about their records. I feel like that was a common question that I got and I'm sure it is for you too, Mark. How long should I keep my tax return? Like you said, indefinitely for the tax returns, but that doesn't mean every piece of paper associated with that tax return.

How do you help your clients think about the importance of maintaining those records without going overboard and going into a hoarding situation, and then also the digital? Something sticking in my mind is that you as a firm are not your client's document retention [policy]. They should keep copies of their tax return. At a certain point, you're going to get rid of them and they can't ask you, do you have my 2000 tax return or whatever the year is? No, I don't have that, even if you've been a client for that long. How do you help that? We've talked about security, so you need to preach that to your clients too, of course. But what are your thoughts on that, Mark?

Gallegos: This is a question I get quite a bit, guiding our clients on document retention. It's more of a balancing act sometimes, ensuring compliance, but also helping them. A lot of them are hoarders, whether they want to be or not with that information. I'll have clients to call up, for example, and say, I've gone through my basement, and I have 30 years of boxes of tax documents. So you have to specify what kind of tax documents. Is it the actual tax returns or is it maybe all the work papers? W-2s, 1099s, etc.

I think that's where the template that the AICPA has is great for giving some guidance on what you should do. But I always tell my clients, look, tax returns, keep them indefinitely for yourself. Whether you want to know or not, it's just good to have in case you ever have to pull it out. But basic document storage of your records that support the tax returns, the seven years, or whatever makes sense for your situation is what you should keep.

But I agree, we keep our records for ourselves, it's not because we're keeping them for the client. I think that is where, again, circling back to the whole idea of having a policy is important. From a legal standpoint, assessing business needs, making sure that document management system is efficient. How are we handling it, whether it's paper or digital? Who's managing that? We have some key champions or practice leaders that are involved in that. What are the risks? What are the costs involved in making sure our system is up to date?

But also, just constantly promoting how do we keep it clean? How do we keep it moving forward? By having that, when clients ask you for their own, whether it's their business or individual, you can give them the same insights and then help them determine what policy they should have. Even if you're not a client, you just sit at home, and you've got all kinds of records. Say, I’ve got phone records going back 10 years, should you have that or not? Maybe you should create your own home policy, those things.

Walker: Good advice. Mark, as we're wrapping up, [do you have] final thoughts [to share] on this topic as you're thinking about document retention.

Gallegos: I think it can be a generic topic where people go, whatever. But I think it's more important. Where I see this [being critical] is [due to] all the legal things that come out. Unfortunately, there's a lot of lawsuits that fly in a given year, whether someone is involved or not involved or it's indirect. But needless to say, the one thing that will always come out of it is provide documentation or memos. If you were supposed to have that and you destroyed it or if you have a policy that says you should have kept it — If you should've destroyed it and now you still have it, you still got to produce it. It's all these things that come along that are very important. But also the security risks, the challenges that are involved in that, and sometimes just the cost that's involved. There's a lot involved there that you’ve got to really make sure of in the regulatory and compliance area.

I think so, staying compliant, enhancing your efficiency, helps minimize your risk and at the end of the day, from an accounting standpoint, it builds our trust. Our clients know, hey, you're the trusted advisor. You got our information and you're doing everything you can to make sure that is taken very seriously.

Walker: That's great. Just had another thought as you were talking, and that we didn't specifically talk about is emails and maybe other methods of communication with your clients, text messages. Again, I feel like that's a whole another podcast topic. Why are you texting with your clients? But anyway, at least there are ways to do document retention on emails. But I feel like that's where I've heard things can really go awry with liability situations, so make sure you're thinking about your emails and your email correspondence and any other correspondence with your clients when you're thinking about document retention.

You're a second-time guest on here so you know this question is coming, but I like to think about us taking a journey together towards a better profession and I love to hear about your other journeys outside of tax. What have you got on the horizon? We're at least having a pause in tax season, hopefully, you have something fun planned.

Gallegos: Obviously, busy season and tax season coming to a close is always not only a relief but it's like a celebration in your soul. For me, it's taking a step back to enjoy family and friends, to just thank everyone more intentionally that you maybe didn't get a chance to. But also, I think for me, it's all the soccer games to go to, it's all the school events, it's all the vacations that are coming up.

In the summer, we're going to take my family to the Outer Banks. We go every year. It is one of the most, for me, the relaxing week of my life because I just unplug and I literally get to enjoy beach sun and just relaxation. It's the one time a year more than any time that I really recharge. Not that I need a lot of recharging, but it does help.

Walker: Everyone needs recharging in some way. You have a graduating senior just like I do, where I'm sure there's stuff going on around that as there is at my house too.

Gallegos: Absolutely.

Walker: Thank you so much, Mark. I appreciate your time today and hopefully, we have provided some great information for our listeners.

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 to us wherever you find 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 all our other episodes as well as the resources mentioned in this episode as well as others. 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, listen to a conversation with Jody Padar, the Radical CPA, about the evolving role of CPAs in the face of technological advancements. Jody emphasizes the need for proactive communication, year-round tax planning, and restructuring business models to prioritize client needs so that CPAs can maintain their relevance in the accounting industry.

To learn more about Jody and her new book coming out soon, please visit her website.  

AICPA resources

Reimagining your tax practice — Tackle today’s top practice management issues with insights and tips from pioneers in the tax community.

Transforming Your Business Model — “Transform” indicates a dynamic but collaborative change that our business models will support. This concept invites firms to join the discussion and explore their businesses through the lens of the five focus areas.

Transcript

April Walker: Hello everyone and welcome to the AICPA's Tax Section Odyssey podcasts, 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 Jody Padar. She is the Radical CPA. I can't wait to hear more about that.

I think we’ve both heard of each other, but we've never officially met. I'm excited to chat with you today.

I saw a LinkedIn post that you did sometime during last week about communication gaps between clients and tax advisers. It really just resonated with me and so I reached out and I'm super appreciative that you sat down with me, we're actually chatting on April 15th.

I'm happy to not be scrambling around doing tax extensions today, but I think we will have a great conversation today. Let's start off with a quick summary about your observations that led you to that post and just where you're coming to this conversation from.

Jody Padar: Sure, I'm Jody Padar, the Radical CPA, and probably one of a handful of branded CPAs. I've been creating disruption in the industry for years now and really it began as a small innovative firm owner almost 15 plus years ago. I was at early cloud adopter, disrupted the space around cloud and technology. Fast-forward, I owned my own firm for 14 years. I sold it in 2020 right before the pandemic.

I joined Botkeeper for a couple of years, so I went to the tech side and then I was recruited away from Botkeeper to April [which] is the name of the software company. I started to build tax software from scratch.

Now I currently work as a senior adviser to April and then I'm all-in on being the Radical CPA and helping firms evolve to the next level of, I'll say, disruption — it's not really just disruption. The next level of relevance, really, as AI and all the new technologies come into firms to evolve them to stay relevant in the future.

How I got to that post was, I sold my firm in 2020. A couple of clients last week reached out to me because they were actually resold. When I sold, they didn't join Botkeeper. They actually went to another practitioner and then that new practitioner was sold again.

Fast-forward, they're in a new firm and they reach back out to me because where they landed in the new firm, they are not feeling heard. Ultimately, they do not feel that this new firm is listening to them and I don't think that they're unusual on that.

When you see the post, and it got over 150 responses, a lot of tax practitioners feel that not all firms treat clients the same way from a feeling perspective. When I talk about it, I'm talking about in [terms of] small businesses under a million in revenue. I know it could go up, but that's my sweet spot.

I think what happens is practitioners get the technical right and they get the deadlines, but they forget that the consumer that they're serving really doesn't care about that. They don't know any different, but they do know how you make them feel and they're not feeling heard. They're not feeling they're getting the right explanation and they're not feeling that CPAs are giving them what they're paying for.

It was interesting because there was a little bit of scuttle on it saying — you sold your firm pre-pandemic — what do you know? That was the feeling and I get it. It's been a rough few years. But if we're not selling and we're not meeting our customers needs where they need to be due to product market fit, what value are we to them? We can't complain about deadlines. We can't complain about lack of talent. We can't complain about all that other stuff because ultimately, we're here to serve our customer.

If our customer is not getting the feeling that they need and the understanding that they need about their tax situation, guess what? We're not going to be relevant because there are technology companies coming into the space that are meeting those needs.

I think that's the hard part for practitioners to hear. Again, I'm the person who's pushing the bleeding edge, but I think it's a real eye-opener to say, your competition is not the firm down the block. It's someone else in a technology space whose meeting their needs from a feeling perspective and a communication perspective and an understanding perspective and if we want to still be relevant and do business as tax preparers in the future, I think we need to up our game.

Walker: I love all of that and I call myself a recovering tax practitioner because I'm on the other side now. But I love, it's really a passion of mine, to think about, we can re-imagine this. We can rethink the way it traditionally worked. It didn't work for me to stay as a tax practitioner and why was that? But I love it — asking the hard questions and making people think, hey, maybe it's not everybody else's fault. Maybe you need to look in the mirror a little bit.

Let's think about when back when you were in the trenches and a firm owner, what strategies did you use to build those strong relationships with clients? Because that's really what we're talking about today. We're talking about communication and relationships. And no, an AI bot is not going to be able to do all the tax returns. That's not what we're saying. I know that's not what you're saying, but technology is going to be able to do a lot of things. The relationship is where we've got to figure that piece out.

Padar: The more technology comes in, the more human we have to be. We have to up our game on relationships. One of the reasons I'm so radical is because I threw out the billable hour. I was all about fixed fee pricing. How do you price a tax return upfront by getting paid up front for the work you're going to do, making sure that you're talking to the client quarterly at least, if not monthly, from a tax perspective and doing planning year-round.

I didn't let just tax returns come into my firm. You had to come in for at least quarterly projections, if not more. Restructuring your business model so that it is meeting the customer's demands and where they want to be. It's very hard to appease a customer when you're only talking compliance because the value in tax [work] is in the planning, it's not in the return.

How do you position yourself to do that? How do you set your pricing? How do you set your sales process? How do you set all of those other things? Then when it comes to communication, it's about scheduling those calls ahead of time and having those conversations year round. If the customers are cranky in March, it's because they haven't been communicated through the whole year. Because we know in March, that compliance document shouldn't be a surprise. Because you should have done planning before year-end and you should have had conversations the prior June about where that taxpayer was standing.

Again, it's how do we re-imagine who it is we're serving, what it is we're selling and how we deliver it so that our customer is the focal point of it. Because I think in years past, it was always like, that’s the end result and that’s not it. We need to re-imagine the whole process.

The thing is we can schedule these things. We can put in strategies to have conversations four times a year. Again, if you think about pricing and how [changes to the model can be] very disruptive to a firm. But if you price upfront for it, then the customer, they see it as part of what it is they get and you're not chasing them down. You send them an email and say, it's time to schedule our quarterly appointment. They put it on their books and you have that tax planning conversation as opposed to asking them to ask for it. Because they won't ask for it because they don't know it's important to them. They don't know what to ask for.

Walker: True. Another thing I was thinking about was, and this is a topic that's come up on this podcast before, is talking about active listening. It's definitely something that is a skill that I'm working on. In my life, in my family, in my dealing with listening to what people need. But let's talk about how important it is or how important you feel it is and building that bridge really between being that compliance [focused]: I asked you questions, you tell me things, I prepare a tax return, I check it off and I'm done and being a true business advisor.

Padar: That's where, again, I think it comes into scheduling these conversations and making tax a year-round conversation and restructuring your firms. That is part of what you do in the off season. Have these conversations at least quarterly- could be more- so that you’re used to talking to this customer and they’re used to calling you when they need you.

I would argue that most of this comes down to pricing because I think pricing is the number one thing that pushes people from calling their CPAs. If they think they're going to get billed by the hour or if they think there's going to be an extra charge for this, they don't call and it's very hard to be proactive when you're not getting called. When you fundamentally shift that pricing model, now all of a sudden your customers are calling you all the time and you can be proactive and you can actually even sell more services.

Because now you can step back and say, you need that calculation, happy to do it for you. Whereas in traditional firms, what happens is the customer doesn't call, they make some decision and now you're trying to figure it out in March. Then the taxpayer is mad at you because now they have this huge tax bill and they think it's your fault when ultimately in reality, you can't do anything after December 31st. Had you called me in August, we could have planned for this. But we get the blame, because we're the one who prepared the tax return.

I would argue, but if your customer felt there was an open-door policy where they knew they could call you all year and they weren't going to be nickeled and dimed for those phone calls, they would call you and you could then get proactive around tax planning.

We've created this problem ourselves, but we can undo it. It's just a matter of restructuring our firms to be radical. This is stuff that I've talked about for years. This is not new to me. What I think has happened though, is that the market has changed so much and I would argue that tax practitioners have felt it for a while, but it seems to be more extreme these days. It seems to be that more customers are demanding more and they want more, I'll say post-pandemic. How do we adapt to them?

Because if we want to be relevant, we truly have to have product market fit. I do’'t believe that CPAs have product market fit anymore. I think that they used to, but I think today professional service firms, the way we operate is not conducive because our customers are used to dealing with an Amazon type of experience, and they want that experience. Most firms, you send them documents and maybe you ask a question, it might be three days before someone gets back to you. Unfortunately, I think part of the reason firm owners haven't changed is because it's not just the front side of the house, it's the back-end of the house that we have to reorganize. We have to standardize, we have to productize our service offerings on the backend so that we can have a clear front end.

There's packaging and pricing on the front, but firm owners have to get their act together on the backend with the way they standardize the way they collect documents, the way they set meetings, they have these advisory conversations with their clients, the way they standardize all of those activities. They can't have seven different partners doing seven different ways in a firm. Unfortunately, it's still like that today.

Walker: Definitely. I was just thinking as you were talking, I feel like where the push is that these traditional firms and practitioners have all these clients. They don't have time to service all of them or they don't take the time. This is a general statement. You don't take the time to figure out what is my actual right fit [client]? That means getting rid of some, I think it has to be, if you're going to truly give the same experience that we want to give, an Amazon type experience, it has to be fewer people.

Padar: There's a talent shortage. There absolutely is a talent shortage, but that's supply and demand. Either you have to raise your prices and hire more people and pay a premium for them or you have to cut some of the clients you are serving today. That was some of the scuttle in the LinkedIn post saying who's going to serve them? If you can't serve them to the level they should be served, you are doing a disservice to your firm and to the customers who are paying a premium price and that's reflective of your brand. I get it, you're trying to be nice to these customers you've served for all these years. I get it. I was in that place and I had taken over my dad's clients, so I had some of those legacy clients.

But a certain point, they either have to pay more to get that level of service or they have to find another alternative. It may be a do-it-yourself product or it may be something else, and that's okay. But you can't let your business suffer because you're trying to help these people who "can’t afford it.” They’re making decisions every day about their priorities and what they’re willing to pay for. Some will be willing to pay for your services and some won’t be, and that’s okay.

I think that's the place we're at today. Firm owners have to really embrace that mindset and say, okay, who am I serving and how am I serving them? Because right now, taking everybody and giving them all not right level of service is not the right business move because now your good customers get annoyed with you too, and they'll go find somewhere else because they're not getting the service level that they want so that you can take care of these people who have been with you for years, who I would argue most of them will pay more because they trust you, they love you, they want to stay with you. You just have an ask them to pay a premium price.

Walker: This is really a tough love conversation right after the tenderness of April 15th. But sometimes we need to have these conversations. I'm also thinking about professionalism and customer service versus creating boundaries like clients that'll text you at all hours of the day and night. We're saying customer service, and then we're also saying, you've got to have boundaries because this is a business relationship. What are your thoughts on that or how to tackle some of those concerns?

Padar: Well, I think that depends again, on your pricing model, because you can have first-class clients who you will respond to at all hours of the night because they're paying a premium for that service. They want that service. They want the white glove service. But the other services, when you get to packaging and pricing, you can have a standard SLA service-level agreement where you'll respond to an email in 24 hours, but you'll spell it out.

I think that's the other piece of it is like, how poor are we at communicating what the expectations are for how our customers are going to interact with us? If we don't lay it out in a service level agreement and say, look, this is the price you're going to pay and we're going to respond within 24 hours or we're going to respond within 48 hours or whatever it is for your firm, then everybody's on the same expectation. If they don't follow it, you can always go back to them and say, hey, look, this is the price you're paying and you said that you were good with 48-hour turnaround and now you want me to respond in a half-hour, guess what? You're going to either pay more for that or if they're really abusive in it, may be the conversation to have, hey, maybe we're not the right fit anymore.

But these are all clarity around expectations that unfortunately CPAs never did before because it was always like, Oh, I'll bill you by the hour because the pricing model didn't make you rethink these things. If you rethink them and you think about it from a different lens, now all of a sudden you can set those boundaries. Again, I think people always get freaked out and they're like, oh, I don't want them calling me all the time. Guess what? Nobody wants to talk to their CPA every day. You can put unlimited calls in and guess what? They're not going to call you every day. People don't call every day, they really don't. Yet it gives them peace of mind and they'll pay a premium for that because they want access.

It's like when you look at these concierge doctor practices. People will pay a premium to be able to be seen within a couple of days or that day. It's funny too, because when you think about it, if you're sick and you call the doctor, like to me, there's never tax emergency.

Walker: We're not saving lives is what I say.

Padar: How many notices happen before that became an issue?

Walker: Right,100%. This has been great. I feel like we're on the same page with this, so we just need to get everybody else on the same page and then it will be a lovely world. Any final thoughts on any of these topics as we're wrapping up?

Padar: No, I just think that you have to realize that it can be done. I think so often we come out of this rat race of tax season and we're overwhelmed and we think, oh, we've got to change something. Then we take our vacation and then with summer, and then it's fall, and then we have extensions and then we're back to another tax season. The reality is you can't live in that world anymore, you have to change something and it has to happen right away. Because if you don't, you blink and it's another tax season.

There are lots of firms out there who are doing things like this. It's not like years ago when I was preaching a lot of this stuff, people said, oh, you can't do it. Oh, it's not proven. It is proven now. And there are lots of firms who are proactive and have redefined these new business models. Look to them, see what they're doing. Most of them are willing to help and talk you through it. Because ultimately, we became CPAs because we wanted to serve our clients and ultimately that's at the core of this. How do we serve our clients better? How do we still have lives? We can work less hours and actually enjoy the things that we do.

Walker: Wonderful thoughts. In closing on these podcasts, I like to think about us taking a journey together toward a better profession. Shoot, being radical. I love that part. In doing that, I like to get a glimpse of my guest's other journeys outside of tax. Jody, I'd love for you to share a page from your travel journal or a bucket list trip or something like that you have on your mind.

Padar: I recently got back from Australia and it was amazing. I would encourage anyone who hasn't been to Australia to make the trek on the airplane, which I was a little bit nervous about, and it was definitely worth it and it was amazing.

Walker: Super. Thank you again, Jody. This has been delightful. 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 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 during the episodes. Thank you for listening and I hope everybody has a nice deep breath relaxation before they get into some of this hard work that Jody has pushed us today.

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.

Elizabeth (Liz) Young,  the new Director of the AICPA & CIMA’s Tax Practice & Ethics team joins the podcast to discuss the importance of clear communication with clients, especially during the tax filing season.

Liz emphasizes the need for valid contracts and signed engagement letters before filing extensions. Common  risks and pitfalls associated with not having them in place include improperly filed extensions, missed deadlines, fee disputes and potential loss of revenue.

Sharing her passion for safeguarding the profession and futureproofing it for upcoming generations, she is focused on initiatives to recruit, retain and support young practitioners. 

 AICPA resources

Say "I do" to engagement letters — Understand the importance of establishing parameters of client relationships and detail the scope of services to be provided.

Tax Extension FAQ for Clients — Do you have clients who are hesitant about filing an extension to file their tax return? Communicate the who, what, when and how to ease their minds.

Annual Tax Compliance Kit — Engagement letters, organizers, checklists and practice guides help you manage your tax season workflow

Tax season resource center — Access the AICPA’s central hub for guidance, tools and developments throughout the tax filing season.

April Walker: On today's podcast, listen for some important reminders for the upcoming April 15th deadline.

Hi 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, Lead Manager from the tax section, and I'm here today with Liz Young. She is my new boss and the new director of tax practice and ethics team here at the AICPA. Welcome, Liz.

Liz Young: Thanks, April. It's great to be here with everyone.

Walker: Here we are. We're actually recording this on April 1st, but it will post later in the week, and April 15th is coming up very quickly. I'm sure our members have everything handled and in order and ready to go. But in case you don't, I thought we could talk through some deadline oriented questions that we get a lot and get your thoughts on them, Liz, especially considering your most recent position which was in KPMG and risk management.

To start off, let's talk about filing extensions. Because in the next week or so, you're either filing extensions or you're wrapping up returns. I thought that'll be a good starting place.

I'm thinking about two different scenarios. First, your clients that you've had forever. You're sure they're going to sign the engagement letter, but they haven't signed it yet. You've been in contact with them for this and that reason, but the return's not going to be completed before the deadline. It may be that their tax returns is always on extension.

What are the risks and pitfalls in this situation with filing an extension without having that signed engagement letter?

Young: Thanks, April. It's great to be here today and it's wonderful to have the opportunity to talk about this topic with you. It's certainly a topic that is very important to me.

First off, I would like to say I'm extremely happy to be back on board with the AICPA and the tax practice and ethics group. I used to be in the policy and advocacy group at the AICPA for four years. It's really great to see another side of things here as well.

But previously, as you mentioned, I was in KPMG and their risk management group, and I got to see a number of issues that practitioners face, specifically in this area. Our group at the firm always took a pretty strict approach here when looking at both professional standards and applying risk policies to these types of scenarios.

I'll address a few things that I think are important to consider specifically.

For example, there are both reputational and professional risks that come into play here and that can arise with regard to performing work when the taxpayer is not actually a client or is no longer a client because the terms of the contract are no longer valid.

Really the fact of the matter is if there is not a valid contract in place, then there's not a valid client relationship, and you should not be filing an extension on behalf of the taxpayer. There are certain nuances that can arise, but really, we recommend taking a strict approach in this type of situation.

Further, take into consideration that contracts typically last for a set period of time.

For example, a standard term can be 15 months. That's typical of what we would see at KPMG and would have in place at the firm. If returns or extensions are filed without proper contracts in place or when there are lapses in contract terms, because you go over that 15 month period, then a number of things can happen.

For instance, an extension may be improperly filed because the extension is not reviewed by the taxpayer before the filings occur. Deadlines might be missed if the wrong extension is filed.

For example, what if there was a structural change that occurred and the firm who prepared the extension was not aware of the structural change? The wrong extension might have been filed for the wrong entity. Perhaps if you're looking at an extension for a state return the wrong state was included, you might not be aware of this.

There can also be issues such as fee disputes that can arise subsequently when the client comes back and will not pay because there was not an agreed upon fee structure in advance for the work.

Ultimately, there may be time lost that needs to be written off by the team, and ERPS (enterprise resource planning system – a billing system) might need to be adjusted downwards when the expected fees cannot be collected. Really, these are just a few examples of pitfalls that can occur and traps for the unwary in this area.

Walker: As you were talking, I was just thinking that never happens – that our client doesn't tell us stuff that happens during the year, like a structural change. But really it doesn't [always] happen, [and this could be the result]. I know our listeners are probably a wide range of firms. We've acknowledged that KPMG is certainly one of the top four firms.

People who are listening are not necessarily in that situation. In thinking about that, yes, I appreciate you bringing up the risks, but then looking at it from the other side, what about that long-term client? That they expect you to file an extension. You don't file an extension. What are the risks there?

Young: Sure. Yeah, we definitely see that a lot in small to mid-size types clients or firms sizes. There are definitely risks to consider here as well with all types of firms sizes when an extension is not filed.

First of all, I would say business risks impact everyone in this type of situation. You mentioned the client relationship can be hurt long term. If the taxpayer believes they are your client, has an expectation that an automatic filing may occur on their behalf, say, due to history, but then ultimately it does not, you could lose out on long-term work. This directly impacts fees and revenues to the firm if there is this damaged or lost relationship.

There are other things to consider as well. Another element that's very important to consider is that if a filing is missed, then the client, no matter how large or small, will also face penalties imposed by the IRS potentially from missing the filing deadlines. You could have failure to file penalties, failure to pay penalties. This may be a surprise to the client. If they didn't know they missed a deadline because they were expecting you to file. That's a main point of consideration as well.

There's also statute of limitation concerns to be aware of. The statute of limitation typically starts to run three years after the return is filed. If you have an extension that's properly granted until October 15th, then three years would run from then if the return is filed on October 15. But if the extension has never filed, then the extension of limitation would begin to run three years after the tax return initial due date. The client may believe that their statute of limitation is different. That's something to be aware of as well because that's definitely a cause for concern.

I think the bottom line is that it's very important to be proactive with your clients, no matter how big or small with regard to communication about these potential risks that can develop and the importance of entering into a valid contract because of that.

Walker: That's what we were talking about when this came up. Just [having] better communication - I think will be a theme of this podcast today. Just making sure you're communicating exactly what your expectations are, and if your expectation is, "Hey, we're not going to file an extension until you sign this engagement letter." Even if we've done not a stitch of work for you that we're just not going to do it.

I’m thinking about another kind of set of circumstances and that would be clients, you really just haven't heard from at all. You're aren't 100% sure they are are going to be a client. You addressed some of these in earlier conversations, but I feel there's two steps. I've got a client list and I haven't heard from them and you're really busy. What are the risks or pitfalls in this particular situation about filing an extension? Again, when you haven't heard from them. And then recommendations that you might have [considering the] limited amount of time [remaining]. What would you recommend in this case?

Young: Thank you, April. I think as we have been emphasizing so far - communication is really key. The firm needs to be clear with the taxpayer that if the they are going to continue to be a client and the firm is going to continue to do work for them, then both parties need to have a contract in place by "x" date or the firm is not going to be able to do the work.

This communication really needs to start as early as possible and well in advance of the due date for any tax filings, so we're not down to the very last-minute. That really goes into planning for this in advance of the due date for filings that are going to incur, because it's critical and it should really be part of the annual planning process.

If the firm doesn't hear from the taxpayer after continued outreach, the best practice here is to not do the work and assume that the client relationship is no longer in place. Again, a pretty strict viewpoint should be taken related to this, but communications should be undertaken continuously to try and be as clear and concise as possible to try to resolve any ambiguities with regard to if there is in fact a client relationship in place or not.

One thing that can be considered is upfront is to enter into multi-year engagement contracts, so that any work would be covered for a longer period of time without a risk of lapse to the engagement occurring. When you get up to that deadline that's coming up in a couple of days, you'll know that you're already covered because you have a multiyear contract in place.

If you tend to have a client that tends to be on the quieter side, you can negotiate more upfront originally to try to get a longer contract term in place that would offer better coverage. Or if the client doesn't want to sign or they are lingering because there's terms in place that they don't like, you can allow for time upfront to go back and forth with them. If there's legal counsel available at all to work on contract term modifications that are acceptable to all parties, that'll help prevent scenarios from arising where you aren't sure if a taxpayer will still be your client or not for the upcoming compliance season.

Walker: Those are good thoughts. Again, some of this might not be realistic as we're talking about really short-term, but again, hopefully something will stick in your mind and maybe it's- we'll do better next year. I'm also thinking about quality control and accuracy during this crunch time. I remember when I was in practice and I was working a lot, and my brain at certain point just started getting really fuzzy. [What] advice, support, encouragement for practitioners [would you like to share for] this next week or so.

Young: Sure. I think because of the short turnaround, the time-frames that happen at the end, is why it's even more of the utmost important to just be cognizant of this type of risk during filing season.

My advice again would be to make sure that you're taking time to properly address the situation at hand. There are, of course, inherent pressure related to trying to rush through and finish before 4/15 or whatever the deadline is that you're looking at. But it's always a best practice to take a step back to make sure that you have the proper engagement letter in place that clearly covers the term of the work before the work is commenced because as you mentioned, mistakes can easily be made, especially during this time of year.

I know here at the AICPA, we actually have specific resources that can assist in this area. For example, I believe we have a number of best practices for engagement letters, tax return extensions, access to numerous engagement letter templates. I don't know if maybe you can comment more on those for our audience as well in terms of tools that they can leverage to help during this situation?

Walker: Absolutely, and I'll put some links to those in the show notes.

Also, when thinking about this upcoming deadline, I feel like extensions [are a good idea], even if your client is expecting for you to finish your return. It may be in your best interest to file an extension and just wrap the report in the next couple of weeks.

We hear a lot of times that clients are not understanding of what an extension means for them, so that we do have some resources around that, which I'll put in the show notes about dispelling myths and that sort of thing. We'll definitely put those in there.

Then my next thing I'm thinking about is as far as deadline-oriented questions, the seemingly constant requests for tax return updates that are happening right now. People probably were on spring break either last week or this week, but then they start thinking about, Oh my gosh, my tax return is due. Just want some thoughts again for our listeners thinking about all those contacts.

Young: Absolutely great questions and points of interests for consideration. But what I would say is absolutely leverage the team that you have in place, use your administrative staff to help with communications to your client, to put together filing deadlines, schedules to help set clear expectations while in advance, set deadlines for your clients and stick to them and have your clients stick to them as well. [Make sure] you're holding them accountable if you aren't receiving the documentation that you need from your client to move forward successfully or answers to questions that you're putting out for them and try to set clear boundaries and expectations so that they're aware that there's a risk to the work being completed timely and accurately.

They need to be able to meet obligations on their end in order for you to meet obligations on yours. Make sure you have a good staff in place as well to help with workflow and updates coming through and that their workloads are managed and planned out as much as you can as possible. I know, of course, easier said than done but building in any extra time for these updates that may occur can be extremely helpful, especially as you close in on that deadline.

Walker: Already knew this, but I'm really glad we're all on the same page with this. I've been preaching this for some time and I'll continue to shout it from the rooftops.

Let's pivot a little bit and Liz, I'd love to hear from you. [You are] a couple of weeks into this new role and [we know] how important it is supporting our members and our tax practitioners. Do you have anything special passion projects that are on your agenda or what you're thinking about as you're transitioning?

Young: Oh, yes, there are so many interesting things here that we get to work at the AICPA. That's actually one of the things I loved when I was here for four years previously too, every day is dynamic, every day is challenging when you get to work with such great people and our members are so wonderful and we have such a great impact.

But I think in particular I have always had a great interest in working on how to safeguard our profession and future proof it for generations to come, which I know is a big initiative here. I believe the AICPA has an opportunity to make a material impact on the profession for the future, starting with our young accounting folks and encouraging them to seek careers on this wonderful field.

I know I've had a wonderful career myself and as we face an ever-changing and dynamic landscape, I hope to directly be involved with efforts to recruit, retain, and support our young practitioners coming in. I think it's really important to showcase our great field and to address the accounting shortage head-on to really help young people realize how great a need there is for skill sets in this area and that there can be vast opportunity for success long term.

I know myself, I've definitely been a tax nerd my whole life and I love taxes specifically, of course, shouldn't everyone? No. But I would say I try to be a fun tax nerd. I love to help others see potential as well and all the opportunity available to them. Probably one of the most important initiatives I'm looking forward to working on directly here.

Walker: We're always excited to do that and same, I love talking about, how many different things you can do, different roles you can play as being a tax practitioner and being just a CPA in general. There's so many different things you can do and trying to encourage our younger generation. I have a getting-ready-to-go-to-college child myself, who is not very interested in accounting, but I still try to offer it up as, hey, it's a cool career. So we'll see if that sticks one day.

Liz, it’s so fun to be with you here today. In closing on these podcasts, I like to think about us all taking a journey together towards a better profession. The Tax Section Odyssey -we're journeying together. I like to get a glimpse of my guest other journeys outside of tax. Liz, tell me something from your travel bucket list or a recent trip you've been on, or something that you enjoy doing.

Young: I would say my family are avid Disney fans. We have a membership to the Disney vacation club and we get to spend a lot of our time or a lot of our free time down there. I have a four-year-old and a two-year-old and they're just really great ages where they love it. We spend a lot of time in Florida looking for Mickey Mouse and I have a vast ear collection- Minnie Mouse ear collection- that I love to sport while I'm down there. I love to travel in general, I've lived in France twice and love to get back as much as possible. Yes, there's always somewhere new to see, I would say my bucket list is ever-growing.

Walker: Disney is definitely fun. It's the happiest place on earth, and that is mostly always the case.

Young: That is true, mostly always.

Walker: Alright. Thank you again so much, Liz.

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 getting access to all the resources we mentioned during this episode.

I wish everyone a happy almost April 15th and 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.

Steve Turanchik from the AICPA’s Digital Assets Tax Task Force discusses upcoming reporting requirements for digital assets. Sec. 6045 will require brokers to report transactions involving digital assets, similar to how they report securities transactions currently. This is meant to combat anonymity concerns and improve tax compliance. However, the reporting rules have been delayed multiple times. The AICPA continues advocacy efforts in this area, providing comments to highlight issues and gaps in reporting requirements.

AICPA resources

• Digital assets and virtual currency tax guidance and resources — This hub is your go-to library for AICPA guidance and resources as well as current legislation, IRS initiatives and tax advocacy projects.  

.  Advocacy

·      AICPA submits additional comments on the proposed Sec. 6045 regulations on gross proceeds and basis reporting by brokers and determination of amount realized and basis for digital asset transactions, March 4, 2023

·       AICPA comments on the proposed Sec. 6045 regulations on gross proceeds and basis reporting by brokers and determination of amount realized and basis for digital asset transactions, Nov. 8, 2023

·       AICPA comments on virtual currency reporting under Sec. 6045 and Sec. 6050I, Form 8300 and instructions, Oct. 28, 2022

Other resources

• IRS Digital Asset page — Recently redesigned page to provide the latest IRS information on digital assets
• Treasury and IRS announce that businesses do not have to report certain transactions involving digital assets until regulations are issued, Jan. 16, 2024

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.

I'm here today with Steve Turanchik. He's an attorney with Paul Hastings in their tax, litigation, and controversy practice. He's also a member of the AICPA's Digital Assets Tax Task Force. That is a mouthful.

We are wrapping up this three-part series, I hope you've been listening, but you can always go back and listen to the first two parts, on digital assets here on the Tax Section Odyssey. It's been a wild and fun ride.

In today's episode, we're going to focus on reporting for digital assets. We're going to be talking about when that's scheduled to happen, what it will mean, what it will not mean, when it will actually happen as far as we know, at least at this moment, and what you need to do to help businesses and individuals that you work with in this space.

Steve, always, especially with this topic, I like to start off at a foundational level. I'm still learning terminology in this world and I bet our listeners are also, but talk to me about what we need to know about Sec. 6045 and 6050I. What are the key things that we need to be paying attention to?

Steve Turanchik: I'm happy to address it. Let me say, information reporting is rarely a fun topic. But for our members, it's going to be incredibly important because as information is reported to the IRS and to their clients, the practitioners are going to need to decide how they handle that information that's reported. You've got to account for it someplace. If you don't, the IRS sends you notices asking — hey, where is this information?

Let's step back prior to these code sections dealing with digital assets. We'll just talk about them generally.

[Sec.] 6045 is in the code because it requires brokers — that is the JPMorgans, the Schwabs of the world — to report when their customers have transactions involving securities. If you have an account at JPMorgan and you sell a security during the course of the year, JPMorgan will report that to you and the IRS on a Form 1099-B that is dealing with the reporting of securities.

There was a bit of a hullabaloo when that first came into play so far as information reporting to making sure basis was reported. This was one of the tools in Congress's toolbox to get people who are dealing in digital assets to report those transactions dealing in digital assets. Remember the big concern about this. When you go back to Bitcoin and the Blockchain and the various types of protocols that exist in the world, the concern from the government's perspective, including the IRS, is that these transactions were taking place anonymously. There was no real way to go about tracking these transactions.

Congress, in its infinite wisdom, has put into place an amendment to [Sec.] 6045 that requires people who are dealing in transactions on the Blockchain to report those transactions to the IRS. We're going to get into what hazards are going to come along with that and the various snafus that we are invariably going to see in a few minutes, but the basis of [Sec.] 6045 reporting was the brokerage reporting. That is, your JPMorgan and Schwabs reporting securities transactions to the IRS to assure that people who had money or had assets on those exchanges would report them to the IRS.

Now let's turn to [Sec.] 6050I. [Sec.] 6050I is historically been used to report transactions in cash. That is, greenbacks. If an individual or business comes into an art dealership or an automobile dealership and they bring in more than $10,000 in one transaction or a series of transactions, that trade or business was required to report those transactions to the IRS on a Form 8300 within 15 days of receipt of that cash. For those businesses that dealt heavily in cash, it just became a relatively standard way to go about reporting those transactions. Like it or not, if you're dealing in cash, you're receiving cash and you fail to report those, the penalties can be pretty severe.

With that in mind, that's where these two sections come from. Under the new legal requirement, if any person who in the course of their trade or business, it is important to note that it is part of your trade or business, receives more than $10,000 in digital assets in a single transaction or series of transactions, that needs to be reported to the IRS within 15 days. It's not limited to whether it's a taxable transaction. If a borrower is repaying a loan in digital assets, that needs to be reported. If funds are being raised in a capital raise, a venture capital firm, or an investment fund, if they're receiving digital assets as part of an investment, that also needs to be reported to the IRS. The penalties for failing to report that get to be pretty severe.

I understand the policy reason for it is that the IRS wants to see more and more reporting about a part of the economy that they believe is anonymous, that it's running under the radar. [Sec.] 6050I was put in place really to combat two different things.

First was tax evasion. If you're dealing in cash, it's hard to track. But the other part of it was money laundering. That certainly remains a concern here, which is why the IRS and frankly Treasury wants to root out potential money laundering by requiring those transactions to be reported. The reporting requirement involves obtaining the name, the social security number or tax identification number of the transferor.

From a policy perspective, I get why they're trying to do that. One thing that I've seen for frankly clients of mine, a question that routinely comes up, and I know for practitioners these are not the clients they want — but they exist out there — is, hey, Steve, I understand this requirement to report the received digital assets within 15 days, is that only for US businesses? If I locate my operation to the Caymans or Malta, do these rules apply to me? The short answer is the IRS could try, but enforcement is going to be very difficult.

You see a light bulb go off in the guys who are in this area. They're like, guess what? I'm going to start a foundation in Malta and forget the United States, which is discouraging if we want to see this infrastructure develop here in the US.

But for our practitioners, for our members, when this reporting comes in, there's going to be a deluge of information for the IRS. There will be every incentive for recipients of digital assets to be careful. That is, more conservative and over-report.

If your clients are the ones providing digital assets, they are going to need to deal with the fact that the information is reported to the IRS and be able to explain why it wasn't a taxable transaction or if it was a taxable transaction, that they'll need to report it. Remember if the person has, let's say $1,000 basis in Bitcoin and Bitcoin is now at $10,000. When they transfer that in exchange for goods or services, that itself is a taxable event for the transferor. [If it is an] event for the transferee, it depends upon the nature of the transaction.

[Sec.] 6045 is, at least in its initial drafting, was extremely broad. [Sec.] 6045 requires any person who for consideration is responsible for regularly providing any service, effectuating transfers of digital assets on behalf of other person. When we first read that as practitioners, we said that's going to encompass a lot of people that have no ability to comply. It's not just wanted to be exchanges or financial institutions. It could be anyone who develops software, anyone who is validating blocks on a Blockchain.

The good news is that, at least in the proposed regulations this past fall, the IRS has said, we don't intend this to apply to validators. We don't intend for it to apply to miners, or for people who have no ability to comply. Rather the requirement to the extent we're looking at one is for custodians to report this.

Now, what's troubling about this is you're going to have reports of transactions that may not be taxable. If the assets are moving from my account at custodian A to my account at custodian B, that's not a taxable transaction. The problem, of course, is because of the anonymity of the Blockchain, the brokers are not going to know whether it's a taxable transaction. You as the practitioner, are going to need to root out with your clients whether or not it's a taxable transaction for them.

The sad reality is that many account holders and many clients don't keep the best of records and trying to get those records off the Blockchain while doable is going to be labor intensive. That is the landscape we're looking at on a going forward basis.

Walker: That's a lot to unpack there. I was just thinking about as you were talking, I was in practice and I remember when the basis started having to be reported on the 1099-B and all the concern it caused with all the different codes and things. Now that's just old hat and it just happens. It seems like a whole different ball of wax for digital assets.

But spoiler alert, these reporting requirements have been started, [saying] they're going to be in place now and then they've been pushed back. Let's talk about where we stand now with the timing of their reporting requirements. I say where we stand now because I feel like we've just continued to push back because maybe the IRS isn't quite ready to deal with all the questions, but where are we right this minute?

Turanchik: April, the short answer is, we are in limbo.

Walker: That's not a fun place to be in the tax world, but here we are.

Turanchik: It is not. We were expecting rules to become effective January 1 of 2024. That is this past year. The reality is on the [Sec.] 6045 broker reporting, those rules will not become effective until the regulations are finalized. Proposed regs were issued last fall. They took comments last summer, they took comments through the fall. It's not entirely clear when the [Sec.] 6045 regulations will be finalized, in part because the IRS has received more than 30,000 comment letters.

Now, the backstory behind that and it's a little nefarious. A lot of those comment letters were likely AI or chatGPT generated, but they weren't generated by folks like the ABA or the AICPA. We did provide comment letters. The vast majority of them were created by artificial intelligence and explicitly meant or intended to slow down the IRS's rulemaking procedures.

It is my understanding from talking with folks who are working on the final regulations that they will have a way in which to sift out the more bogus comments. The reality is as part of the Administrative Procedures Act, the IRS needs to issue the regs, issue the notice, receive comments and take those comments into play. If the IRS disregards the comments entirely and it's likely the regulations is invalid and that of course, throws everything in a haywire.

With all that said, my contacts at Treasury estimate…they expect to have final regulations the summer of 2024. That might be a little ambitious because even if you throw out the bogus comments, there are still really substantive commentary from serious groups explaining — here all the areas that we think you guys need to provide guidance in and because it is a brand new area.

We see potential for reporting transactions that are not taxable and for potentially double reporting. Because remember the standard for the brokers is, any person who regularly provide any service effectuating transfers. You can have more than one person providing the service of effectuating or a transfer from place A to place B. If let's say three or four parties report the same transaction and that assumes it is even a taxable transaction. You now have a potential gain that's four times what should be reported to the taxpayer. That is a recipe for chaos. That's assuming that you have a taxpayer with good records whose straightforward with their return preparer about here are all forms I got. By the way, the same transactions reported twice, three times, four times. You're the return preparer. What do you do with that? You report it four times and then back it out as duplicative. Maybe. I think you probably have to.

But when I say it's a recipe for chaos, I'm not kidding about that. Let's imagine you're the IRS examiner and you're either newly trained, let's say you're well experienced in this area. You see the transaction shows up four times on a 1099-B or 1099-DA, which stands for digital assets. Are you going to take the return preparers word for it? That's a dupe. For all you know, you had four transfers of Bitcoin on that day and all of them are taxable. When you pull the Blockchain out and give it to the examiner who can't understand the Blockchain. Just think about that in the course of an audit. Is the examiner going to understand the Blockchain you give to them and even if they do, are they going to trust you?

Walker: Potential for, like you said, chaos, yeah.

Turanchik: If I had to guess, it is a wild guess, I would suggest we're going to see reporting on the brokers for transactions beginning January 1 of 2026. That's my current best guess. The problem is, let's say the regs come out final this summer. If you make it January 1, 2025, the people who are required to report are not going to have the infrastructure in place. Some might, the established exchanges might, but everyone who's going to be required to comply will not have that capability.

Walker: [Sec.] 6050I, I was going to say, with a little bit of the same story but a little different.

Turanchik: Little different, because there, there are no proposed regs and under the statute that was to become effective in the express language of the statute was January 1, 2024. That is just at this point two months ago. No proposed regs, nothing from the IRS saying we're delaying this. It wasn't until mid January that the IRS said, without implementing regulations, this cannot be effective despite the express language of the statute.

One area that gave me as a practitioner some comfort and I say some comfort, is that there's a lawsuit pending against the enactment of these particular provisions claiming violations of privacy, Fourth Amendment rights and in a brief to the District Court, the Department of Justice said [Sec.] 6050I will not become effective until final implemented regs are promulgated. It gave me some comfort, but just some comfort. Can I really use litigating position from the Department of Justice to justify my clients failure to file the Form 8300, despite the express language of the statute? As a lawyer, that gives me the heebie-jeebies.

Walker: Technical term, right? January is the time when people are trying to gather and get their reporting together. The fact that it wasn't delayed until the middle of January, there was this new form that was maybe going to be out there and then anyway, so like you said, some comfort that, okay, it's going to be delayed until we hear more from the regulations.

Turanchik:When the regulations are finalized. Regulations have not even been proposed yet. Unfortunately, unlike the broker reporting which takes place in January of the following year, the [Form] 8300 needs to be filed 15 days after you receive your digital assets. The [Form] 8300 currently does not have a place to report digital assets.

Walker: A lot of things. We talked a little bit about what the reporting is supposed to accomplish, and we talked about some of the gaps already, but what are some things that are probably not going to be fixed? You talked about tracking records and that sort of thing. Why is it still important for taxpayers to be able to track the cost basis or track their digital asset activity even once this reporting happens, whenever that might be?

Turanchik:The concern is if you don't track your cost basis, and you can't prove it up, the IRS's default position is, your cost basis is zero. Yes, zero. I have seen that, and I know this from my days at the Department of Justice, where there would be an IRS audit that came to my desk where the taxpayer simply didn't respond in the course of the examination.

Where the IRS had the gross proceeds recorded and until the taxpayer went to prove the cost basis, it was assumed to be zero. Now, one thing that was a success story of sorts. My particular taxpayer was deceased and her executor was a parish priest. He said, Steve, I don't know how to prove my cost basis. I said, don't worry, Father, I have subpoena power and I issued a subpoena to the custodian, and they provided the cost basis. After that, we got to the right tax result and the taxes paid. But look, in the digital asset space, the IRS isn't going to subpoena Coinbase for you, that's going to be on you. You got to be able to track and prove up your cost basis if it becomes an issue.

I had one client I brought through the streamline voluntary disclosure and the cost information, I won't say it was unreliable. But we took the conservative position that we're going to treat all of it as gain. The cost basis frankly was nominal to start with, but rather than trying to go through and track all that was a cost basis zero, whatever the proceeds are, and we have that number, that we're going to report as gain. It can be done from an administrative perspective, it is more conservative. But look, the reality is the prices of digital assets have dropped in the last 18 months or so. You might find yourself without significant gains and if you don't have your cost basis information, you may find yourself paying tax on something that you lost money on.

Walker: Not a good situation. We talked on part 1 of the podcast with Nick. We talked to a decent amount about possible options for people. Go back and listen to that one again, if you want to learn more about why you need to track, and maybe an Excel spreadsheet, not your best idea. I mentioned at the top that you're on the digital asset tax task force and so let's talk a little bit about the continued advocacy work that's being done in this area throughout this time, and will definitely continue.

Turanchik:We have provided comments on the [Sec.] 6045 proposed regs in an effort to highlight areas where we think there are real issues, gaps in reporting, the double reporting is a problem. The cost basis tracking, the more guidance the IRS can provide for practitioners, the more fluid it's going to be for tax compliance.

The simple reality is tax return preparers, we are the first guideposts. We are the first guardians of the Fisc, that if the return preparer is getting it wrong, you're less likely to have good compliance and the appropriate amount of tax reporting and payment. That guidance for return preparers provides us with the tools we need to tell our clients what needs to be done, and the reality is the IRS, even with the increased funding, doesn't have the ability to audit all taxpayers.

Rather, they're going to rely upon return preparers to ensure at least, the best compliance as possible for their clients. I also expect that we will be providing some comments on [Sec.] 6050I regs. On a personal matter, I think they should be repealed, but I don't think that's going to happen. I think the amount of information that's going to be reported to the IRS is going to be entirely overwhelming, and I will tell you in my conversations with folks both on the Hill and Treasury that they're not concerned. Their worst-case scenario is fine, we have more information we know what to do with, we'll figure it out or not figure it out.

Walker: I just go back to — it's not the same — but the whole discussion about the 1099-K and $600 is not a lot of money to have all these forms out there. Reporting is important. We're on this podcast to talk about reporting, and it is important. But also we have to think about the reality of the world.

Turanchik: I've done a fair amount of consulting on the 1099-K issues with third-party seller organizations, and it's a real issue. The biggest issue for me on the 1099-Ks is the payment for goods or services. Because a lot of transfers on those payment services, whether it's Venmo or PayPal, it's friends sharing expenses for dinner.

Walker: They just don't mark the right box or whatever it is.

Turanchik: They're not income events and the problem is if the wrong box is marked or worse, no box is marked, the [1099-] K gets reported to the IRS and the taxpayer now has received the form. They've got to go to their accountant.

Walker:What do I do with this?

Turanchik: I've got to deal with it in some way, shape or form. I think you report it and then back it out.

Walker: Again, we're talking about reporting. It's important. We'll just end on that note. Steve, any final thoughts to share with our listeners on just this topic of digital asset reporting, we'll definitely be talking more about this as things get finalized.

Turanchik:It's more a stay tuned because things will be changing. There will be additional developments. It's hard to say what they'll be. There's a lot out there, that still needs to be decided and we're still - early stages. This hasn't gone through litigation, it hasn't been tested. The good news, did I say there's good news? Treasury and the IRS at least are willing to listen to us and that is a good thing.

It's actually one thing I like about being in the tax community is that the folks at Treasury often times used to be in private practice and vice versa. The conversation is there not because practitioners are trying to help their clients evade taxes. It's that we are trying to make it as easy to be tax-compliant as possible. We want our clients to follow the law. We don't want them to get in trouble. Will there be bad actors? Of course, there will be.

Walker: There always are, in some worlds. Absolutely.

Turanchik: The vast majority want to be good actors, and that includes practitioners as well.

Walker: Absolutely. In closing on these podcasts, I like to think about us taking a journey together towards a better profession and in doing so I like to get a glimpse of my guests other journeys outside of the world of tax and digital assets and all of those things. Steve, share a page from your travel journey bucket list or a trip you have planned or something on your mind in that area.

Turanchik: During the pandemic, the year 2020, I turned 50, and I was supposed to go on a Safari with my wife that summer. That did not happen for a variety of reasons. Didn't happen in 2021 either. But in 2022, we did go on a Safari in Kenya, and it was the experience of a lifetime. It was absolutely amazing. I love the big cats, and we saw leopards, lions, elephants, zebras of course, and we were there for part of the migration, that was absolutely intense. It was always on my bucket list and my wife, you know what? I'll humor him. I'll go on it. She also absolutely loved it. It was fantastic. The downside is I'm not sure, I need to go at and again, I've seen everything I wanted to see. It was absolutely intense.

Walker:That's amazing. We had another guest who said the same thing. I can't remember which country they were in but said that the Safari was amazing. My husband also turned 50 in 2020. You and him are the same age. I'm a little bit younger, just a little bit. Thank you so much, Steve, for chatting with us today. We talked about reporting and all the things that are up in the air, but we're trying to help you learn what you need to know next.

This is April Walker from the 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 check out our other Odyssey episodes, as well as getting access to any resources we 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.

Melanie Lauridsen, AICPA & CIMA VP of Tax Policy & Advocacy, provides an update on several key tax initiatives that are top of mind right now. Highlights include the latest updates on beneficial ownership interest (BOI) reporting as well as what to expect from pending tax legislation.

 AICPA resources

• Decision holding Corporate Transparency Act unconstitutional appealed, The Tax Adviser, March 12, 2024
• Federal court holds Corporate Transparency Act unconstitutional, The Tax Adviser, March 5, 2024
• Plaintiffs: FinCEN should pause all CTA enforcement, The Tax Adviser, March 5, 2024
• 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).
• Client letter and FAQ for a government shutdown during tax season — Share some considerations with your clients as the potential for a government shutdown looms, and IRS services will be affected during tax season.

Transcript

Neil Amato: Welcome back to the Journal of Accountancy podcast. This is Neil Amato with the JofA. I'm again joined by Melanie Lauridsen, Vice President ­– Tax Policy & Advocacy for the AICPA. This is a special episode — a special collaboration episode between the JofA podcast and the Tax Section Odyssey podcast. Melanie and I are going to talk about a host of tax topics that are on the minds of practitioners as we record in early March. Melanie, first, welcome back to the JofA podcast. How are you?

Melanie Lauridsen: I’m good. Thank you for having me back.

Amato: Tell me first, what’s new in the world of tax advocacy these days?

Lauridsen: As you’re probably aware, there are some big things happening on tax, and sometimes with tax, it can linger and sometimes they move super, super quick, so it’s an interesting world.

But right now, the big issues that we're tackling are beneficial ownership information, ERC, which is employee retention credit, there's the government shutdown, which hopefully there won't be a government shutdown. We do a lot of work behind the scenes, but that may never come to light.

Of course, there's the House Ways and Means tax bill, but that doesn't mean there aren't a lot of other pieces of work that we're working on.

For example, this year, we've already started working on guidance for SECURE 2.0. We have the FBAR extension for those affected by the disasters. We have virtual currency. There's limitations of excess business losses. There's just a lot of work that's happening.

Amato: You've touched on some of those issues. I guess, through comment letters and other advocacy, what would you say are some of the highlights of those important issues right now that members should be aware of?

Lauridsen: Well, off the top of my head, the biggest one right now is beneficial ownership information. The interesting thing about this topic is every time we connect, something new is arising, something new has happened. Then of course, that creates a flood of activity, sometimes confusion, and people needing a little bit more guidance with that. Most recently there was a court case that has impacted BOI.

With employee retention credit, there are some tax bills that are impacting the timing of how long people can submit claims for it, and there's a flood of activity and some confusion also associated with that. It just depends on the topic that we're touching base on what you want to dive into.

Amato: On the topic of beneficial ownership information or BOI — I guess that falls under the Corporate Transparency Act — a court ruling a week ago today as of this recording, deemed the Corporate Transparency Act unconstitutional. Tell me a little more about what that means, how it changes or doesn't change what the AICPA is advocating for, etc.

Lauridsen: The court ruling — there have been different press releases that have come out. Again, I can't stress enough that it's created a lot of confusion. There was a court ruling from a lower court, and it comes from the state of Alabama, in which it did deem the Corporate Transparency Act — CTA is what I call it sometimes. It did deem the CTA to be unconstitutional. But the thing that people need to understand with that ruling, there was an injunction associated with it that was very narrow and limited in scope.

FinCEN has actually come forward and said that based on this court ruling, it is only the plaintiff, the association, National Small Business Association and its members, which is roughly [65,000] members, that do not need to file the BOI report.

Everyone else still has the requirement to file, and FinCEN has said that they will be enforcing that.

Now, what that means too from FinCEN's perspective is we've heard on good authority that they will appeal the court case, and they will also ask for a stay of the injunction.

One of the questions I do get is like, “Then we're going to become NSBA members because then we don't have to file the BOI reports.” That's not actually accurate. It's of members as of March 1, which was the date of the court ruling. Rushing out and becoming a member isn't going to help people.

Our position and what that means for our members, if you are not an NSBA member, it means that you are still under the requirement to file the BOI reports. I would say it's business as usual.

I would also clarify that for the existing entities, that was an entity that was created before 2024, that they have a full year to file. Like I said earlier with BOI, things keep changing and they seem to change rapidly. I would encourage those people to not rush out to file right now but to go ahead and take their time. They have time. Use that time until we can get more clarity and take that time necessary to file.

Amato: To clarify on that, entities formed before 2024, do they have until 12/31/2024 to file a BOI report?

Lauridsen: They have till January 1 of 2025, which is interesting. That extra day matters to some people.

Amato: Well, it's a leap year, so, get the extra day. Whether it's fast or slow, there probably will be some change as the year progresses.

What are the differences between the customer due diligence rule and BOI. And, I guess, are both needed? Can you explain a little more about that?

Lauridsen: Absolutely. In tax, as CPAs, we are bound by certain ethical requirements, whenever we do a tax return. One thing to keep in mind is BOI is not tax. A lot of people think it is tax simply because the entities — you know, it’s a form, it's got numbers — they’re going to be turning toward their tax preparers for help on this form. But, to be clear, BOI is not tax. Anyhow, CPAs, they're bound by due diligence.

When they get a client, they look at the client and make sure it is a valid client. They verify information, driver's license, Social Security numbers. They know the client, and CPAs also have tendencies to have long-running trusted relationships with the client. In other words, as a CPA, I'm not going to have a client who is running all these shady business dealings. I would know my client, and I would have that due diligence.

So, BOI, its intention is anti-money laundering. They're trying to capture those shell companies and trying to capture, really, money laundering associated with it. I think people believe, “Well, we have the due diligence piece. Why do we need the BOI piece?” And, is that necessary?

The first thing is keep in mind, CPAs already have that due diligence piece from our perspective. But not everybody is a CPA, and not everybody is working on ethical levels. That is the intention of BOI and why some people in our worlds, I completely understand why they think, “What's the point of it?” But there is a purpose.

Amato: That makes sense. Thank you for that. Let's talk some about the tax bill that you mentioned at the top. It's with Congress right now. It's in committee still. What does that bill mean for practitioners, and what do you expect to come next?

Lauridsen: The tax bill, officially named the Tax Relief for American Families and Workers Act, which is a very long name. I have a tendency to just call it the House Ways and Means bill. Essentially, what's happened is House Ways and Means. It's Chairman [Ron] Wyden and Chairman Jason Smith who came together. They had been working together on this bill for over a year and they came together, and it passed the House with lots of support there.

The core of this bill really is the expansion of the child tax credit, which is a Democratic priority. But in exchange, they also agreed to some business tax provisions of some fixes from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act business tax provision, some extensions there, which is the Republican priority. What the bill entails, just high-level, it would allow essentially the refundable portion for the child tax credit to be increased in time for taxpayers who work.

As far as the business taxes, what that means is it would reinstate the 100% bonus depreciation. It would also allow for immediate deduction of the Sec. 174 expenses, and Sec. 174 expenses are the research and experimentation expenses. It also allows for victims of disaster relief to be able to deduct those casualty losses without meeting the [adjusted gross income] 10% threshold. They also don't need to itemize. They can take what's called an above-the-line deduction for it.

The real big kick of the bill is ERC, where the bill would be retroactive at this point if it were to pass through, as it stands, which is saying that ERC claims would be stopped as of Jan. 31. The reason this is such a big deal is because ERC, stopping the credit claims, that is the “pay for,” meaning that is what would allow for all the other provisions to go through. That piece is nonnegotiable in the way it's written in the bill. There's a lot of questions associated with retroactivity in the bill

Amato: Again, as we're recording early March, you mentioned the word “shutdown” a little bit earlier. What would be the effect of a government shutdown during tax season? I guess the next deadline we're facing is March 22 for funding several agencies of the government.

Lauridsen: Well, let me start by saying there is never a good time for the IRS to shut down. There's just a lot of lost efficiencies or inefficiencies, I guess, within the IRS in shutting down and then opening back up again.

With all the IRS service issues that our members face, it would never be a good time. Having said that, having a shutdown in the middle of a filing season would be first of all, unheard of. It hasn't happened. The closest that we've come to a shutdown in a filing season is when we delayed the start of a filing season by two weeks, which is very different than having a shutdown right before tax returns are due. That would be, in my opinion, detrimental.

The AICPA has positions to maintain the IRS 100% open for them to provide all the necessary services to people. But all of this depends and hinges on the IRS’s contingency plan. The IRS did release a contingency plan at the end of last year, but that contingency plan is for nonfiling season. We don't actually know what's going to happen with the IRS, were it to shut down during filing season. And they would issue that plan if the government shutdown was imminent.

Amato: Well, we will have to wait and see on that. We’ll know more, again at this recording, in a few weeks. Melanie, there's always plenty going on. Clearly, by this conversation, there's a lot going on, but anything else you'd like to touch on before we conclude?

Lauridsen: Yeah. Touching back again on the tax bill that I was referencing, there are some retroactive provisions in there. Some of them would be great to see passed and then, of course, the ERC, there's a lot of question. And we get a lot of questions from the members regarding should we file, should we extend. We don't really particularly want to amend.

So couple of things that I do want to say what the bill is right now — at this moment in time and things change when it comes to legislative bills, so tomorrow it could be a different answer — but as of right now, it's not looking great that the bill would pass the Senate and it would become effective.

Even if it could pass and become legislative rule, what would end up as the final bill would probably be different than would have some edits made to it. Meaning, would it be retroactive, take the ERC provisions to Jan. 31? I don't know.

Would people have to do amendments? We don't know. But again, it's not looking great for the bill. The IRS has made it very clear people should go ahead and file and file now. We support “go ahead and file and file now.” We understand amending can create some roadblocks and some issues, but just things are up in the air in a way that, right now, it's not looking good for the bill.

Amato: Melanie Lauridsen, thank you very much for that update.

Lauridsen: Thank you, Neil.

Superseded returns — essentially a replacement for an originally filed tax return — can be a useful tool, especially as it relates to partnership returns which operate in the centralized partnership audit regime (CPAR). Learn more about when these “do-over returns” should be considered and what implications they may have for statutes of limitations. 

AICPA resources

Superseding returns and statutes of limitations, July 1, 2021, The Tax Adviser

BBA Partnership Audit and Adjustment Rules FAQ — Gain answers to frequently asked questions about the centralized partnership audit regime under the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA).

Other resources

Amended and Superseding Corporate Returns — Information from the IRS on filing a superseded return electronically  

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 Colin Walsh. Colin is a partner and firm leader at Baker Tilly in tax advocacy and controversy services.

Colin, today we're going to talk about a topic that is very timely as we're recording here on March the 4th and March 15th is coming up very, very soon. We wanted to get this in prior to March 15th, so thank you, Colin, for agreeing to be with us today and let's just get started and talk about what is a superseded return.

It might be a new term for some of you listening, but hopefully it won't be by the end of our conversation today and [let’s] just talk a little about basics and how it differs from an amended return.

Colin Walsh: Sure, thanks for having me, April. Superseded returns are incredibly important this time of year. A superseded return, by definition, constitutes a timely filed original, keyword, original tax return. You essentially are replacing the originally filed tax return with a second originally filed a tax return and as an originally filed a tax return, the superseded return carries certain rights and privileges that an amended income tax return does not carry.

Walker: Perfect. Let's talk about some of those. What are some of those characteristics of the superseded return and how do I actually do a superseded return?

Walsh: Historically, when we think about superseded tax returns, some of the more important items that taxpayers look at are things like statutory or regulatory elections that are required to be on an originally filed tax return. Certain types of elections cannot be on amended income tax returns. For purpose of making an election, it's important that those elections be on a timely return and the superseded return allows you to do that.

Likewise, we've seen a lot of clients that as some of us in practice may see those harsh penalties for late foreign information filings like 5471s and 5472s. Once again, because a superseded tax return constitutes an originally filed tax return, you can file a superseded income tax return, attach a foreign information reporting, and be absolved of those harsh penalties.

More recently, in the partnership context, we've seen some new life, if you will, that's been breathed into the superseded tax return, and this really deals with the centralized partnership audit regime or the BBA for Bipartisan Budget Act. It's critical in terms of how partnership tax returns need to be amended under CPAR BBA, that we preserve the ability for our clients to file superseded tax returns instead of having to file administrative adjustment requests under CPAR.

Walker: We were talking a little bit before we started this conversation about sort of a policy that you guys have around partnership returns and I'm sure some of our listeners, you're familiar with BBA and AARs, but it's still a new concept. We're still learning about the complexities around that so talk a little bit about how you've decided to do superseded returns for your partnerships.

Walsh: Baker Tilly has developed a firm policy that without written consent to the contrary from our partnership clients that all of our Forms 1065 must be extended even if the clients are going to timely file their Forms 1065 prior to March 15th and we do that strictly for purposes of preserving the ability to file a superseded return. Really the policy at issue there, I think, is two-fold.

First and foremost, the BBA CPAR rules are esoteric and evolving, and so just the administrative costs and the time that it makes to file an AAR under CPAR as opposed to, for lack of better term, amending the old-fashioned way via a superseded return, the superseded return is going to take a lot less time.

I know this isn't a BBA call, but the second reason is that under the centralized partnership audit regime, to the extent that a partnership files an administrative adjustment request, the partners in that partnership no longer receive amended Schedules K-1, so the partners can never go back and file amended reviewed year tax returns. Instead, partners in CPAR partnerships have to account for any adjustments that are made to a Form 1065 in what we call the adjustment year, meaning the year in which the administrative adjustment requests [are] filed.

By way of example, if we were filing an administrative adjustment request on a 2023 Form 1065 today, the partners would account for those changes on their 2024 income tax returns, they don't get to go back and file amended 2023 tax returns anymore, so that comes with a host of logistical problems that are unique to CPAR. It's because of those considerations and many others, our clients are essentially mandated to extend to preserve the right to supersede.

Walker: Got it. Are there any other circumstances you can think of for other types of returns that it might make sense to file a superseded return — and just as a second part to that question, I know for partnerships we’ve talked about why it makes sense to do that, but any other types of returns and situations where it might be in the client's best interests, also in your best interests, in having to deal with all the complexity.

Walsh: Any situation where you're filing an income tax return, whether that be at 1065, an 1120-S, an 1120, or even a 1040 to the extent that income tax return has statutory or regulatory elections on it, many of those statutory or regulatory elections cannot be on amended income tax returns. They need to be on timely filed original tax returns.

One that we saw a lot that came up last filing season was clients who are Qualified Opportunity Funds (QOFs). The way that you elect to be a Qualified Opportunity Fund is on a timely filed original tax return. To the extent that a client's income tax return missed that election, had they superseded and discovered it over the summer months, that client would have preserved the right to make the Qualified Opportunity Fund election and avoided a very costly and time-consuming private letter ruling with the Office of Chief Counsel.

Walker: That's what your clients are looking to you for, is that advice and help. You're making taxes not be such a horrible experience, or that sort of thing.

I was thinking again, here we are in early March, there's discussion of this pending legislation that has passed the House and is in the Senate. Not sure where that's going to go. Lot of angst. I've been hearing about the retroactivity of it. Again, we're not sure where that's going to go, but to me, that was another reason I started really thinking about and talking about this topic and want to make sure, what are your thoughts about that?

Walsh: As it relates to potential tax legislation, like yourself, I have gotten out of the game over the last five years of predicting what Congress will do, but I would say that our clients should not be afraid to extend and just wait to file. I think a lot of us have this temptation or clients want to get their tax returns filed as soon as possible and certainly, I understand the need to get some closure on the 2023 tax filing season and be over and done with.

Filing a superseded return can be helpful, but it does cost time and money and filing superseded returns, while in a legal sense are protected and honored by the IRS and no one doubts them. They can create some confusion at the service centers.

To the extent you are filing an income tax return that you felt could be changed via retroactive legislation that's going to come in the next few months here, I would be inclined to wait first, then supersede, then amend, but waiting is probably the most prudent thing right now in terms of time and professional fees and sending two originally filed income tax returns to the service center.

There's the law of it and again, superseded returns are acknowledged by taxpayers and the courts and the government, but as we know, filing two tax returns with the IRS can present its own problems administratively.

Walker: For sure. I've been with the AICPA for eight years and I felt like in that time, I've been part of that discussion of extension is not a bad thing. Sometimes it's hard to help both parties. Sometimes CPA tax practitioners want to get it done and just be done with it instead of extending the workload.

Sometimes it feels like the client doesn't understand an extension so that's part of your obligation is to explain to them and help them understand that it does not extend the time to pay the tax, but you can help them with that. There's a lot rolled up in that for sure, but I completely agree with you. It doesn't make sense to hurry, in my opinion, hurry up and file at this point.

Walsh: You used a key phrase there, which is, I want to be done with it. I think that's what the client actually wants and I think what we're saying is that hurrying to file an income tax return today that could be subject to legislative change, you aren't done with it.

Actually, now you have to go back and amend it or supersede it, which brings its own problems so there's the aspect of checking a box today and feeling like we've done all that we can but in the large scheme of things, rushing to file just for sake of checking that box could create issues you're dealing with well into 2025 and after.

Walker: You mentioned this a little bit, but filing a second return might cause confusion with the IRS, even though they're absolutely allowed to do it. I was thinking about and I was reading, I think, the Taxpayer Advocate had a blog about this, about some of the confusion and about statute of limitations and how that actually works with superseded returns, because I think that might be a confusing issue.

Walsh: Two questions baked into there. In terms of the IRS processing superseded tax returns, and then we'll talk about the statute of limitations.

But on the processing side, the IRS is so understandably sensitive to things like identity theft right now, and to the extent that there are two income tax returns with the same EIN filed in relatively close proximity to one another. We've seen superseded returns set off the alarm bells at the IRS in terms of identity theft. Understandably, and we're always able to work through those things but once an income tax return is with the identity theft unit at the IRS, it's going to take quite a bit of time to process that.

The other issue that we've seen with a superseded partnership return was that we did receive some matching notices because the IRS's system was essentially — they had processed both K-1s. The IRS was saying, “Hey, you didn't pick up this Schedule K-1 and we were saying, “We did pick it up. Tt was superseded and replaced with another one.”

In both instances, we were able to work through those things with the IRS, but of course, it takes a little bit of time and effort. Superseded returns are a do over, if you will, and it's helpful in that respect, but you can run into some administrative hiccups where I wouldn't rely upon it if you don't have to.

In terms of the statutes of limitations, there is some conflicting advice, some chief counsel advice out there in terms of what effect a superseded tax return has on the IRS's assessment statute under Section 6501 and the taxpayers refund claim statute under Section 6511. There were some chief counsel advice that I think caught the practitioner community a little bit off guard that said— the taxpayers refund claim statute and the IRS's assessment statue followed the originally filed tax return, not the superseded tax return.

Of course, chief counsel advice is not the law, it's not binding on taxpayers, it's the IRS's interpretation of the law, but it seems like there's at a minimum — there's some gray here or some confusion about whether or not when you file a superseded tax return that actually extends refund claim statute.

Say you file a superseded 2023 tax return this fall, I would not assume that you have until the fall of 2027, the superseded tax return date, to claim a refund. I would conservatively assume that the government is going to take the position that it was the originally filed return that starts to running of the statute.

Walker: That's good to think about and know. Sometimes things might come up and it might really matter. But like you said, it's some conflicting advice and it's good to think about these things. Do you have any examples we've talked a little bit about all of these things, but where filing a superseded returns significantly impacted the taxpayer situation?

Walsh: The centralized partnership audit regime, so going back to CPAR. Under the centralized partnership audit regime, to the extent that — let's try not to get too technical here — but that we're filing an administrative adjustment request and it's called a negative adjustment, a taxpayer favorable adjustment. We want to file an administrative adjustment request to claim a credit to reduce income, to increase expenses, something that goes in the taxpayer's favor. Under CPAR, those items are reported in the adjustment year, but CPAR creates in the adjustment year non-refundable credits that do not carry forward.

We call this the CPAR doomsday scenario. We've had clients that were on extension and we're able to file a superseded Forms 1065 and instead of filing an AAR under CPAR, they received second K-1s and were able to claim the benefit of the second K-1 when they timely filed their partner level income tax return prior to October 15th.

Without the superseded return, best case, they wouldn't get the benefit of that until they filed their 2024 return next year and enter the worst case scenario under this CPAR doomsday scenario, the benefit of the AAR could go away.

Walker: That's a big deal. Definitely, again, as I came into this, I knew that it was about AAR, but I didn't know how much. Definitely a Part 2 I feel is coming where we delve into all the things about AAR and the things people need to know because I'm still learning about it for sure.

Walsh: Well, if everyone follows our advice and they extend their 2023 returns, we could do that podcast after 9/15 because they could supersede up until then. If they're like most CPAs and tax attorneys, they want to know what they need to know today and that is you need to extend even if you're going to timely file.

Walker: Absolutely. Colin, this has been great and super informative. Do you have any final thoughts as we're thinking about superseded returns — the March 15th date coming up?

Walsh: Yeah. I think we've gone a long way as a professional community and dispelling the notion that filing an extension triggers IRS inquiry or your audit rate goes up or the IRS doesn't like extensions. That's simply not true and I think we should continue to dispel that notion. Let's squash that one right away. Some of the examples that we've come up with here may seem esoteric and rarely applicable, and that's true.

I think maybe nine times out of 10, you could accomplish the same things in an amended return that you could accomplish in a superseded return.

But for that 1 out of 10, where it really matters, where you need a regulatory or a statutory election or you've got the CPAR mess, it can be very helpful. I encourage everyone to extend. It is rare in tax that we get a chance for a redo and you will get a chance for a redo. That's my message heading into next week here.

Walker: Wonderful. That's great advice. Colin, you're a first-time guest. Welcome. We're so delighted to have you.

On these podcasts, I like to think about us taking a journey. It's the Tax Section Odyssey we're taking a journey together towards a better profession. And in doing so, I'd like to get a glimpse of my guests other journeys outside of tax. I don't know if you like to travel or you have any trips planned or anything like that or a bucket list trip. What's on your mind on that today?

Walsh: I have three children under the age of six, so there will not be a lot of international travel on my horizon here.

This summer, I live in beautiful Madison, Wisconsin, and my family's actually doing some construction in our home and we're going to spend a month traveling around Wisconsin. We're going to start in Door County, Wisconsin, which is one of our favorite places.

We're going to head over to Lake Superior and spend a week up there and then end in Northern Minnesota. I'm going to be taking three children under the age of six on the road. Say prayers for me, but we're excited to do it in a few short months here.

Walker: For sure. It's a part of the country that I haven't been to very much. I'm a UNC Tar Heel and we're playing Minnesota this fall and I'm like, we need to go up there because I've never been to [that area].

Walsh: We call it the upper Midwest. It's quite beautiful. A lot of lakes and mountains and it's great. Definitely get out to Minnesota and check it out. I encourage you.

Walker: Thank you again so much, Colin. 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 please feel free 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 Odyssey episodes, as well as get access to resources mentioned during the episode.

The tax treatment for digital asset losses can be a complex area. Not to mention, misleading information can cause confusion for tax practitioners and taxpayers alike. Learn more about the intricacies of how realized digital asset losses are reported and why it likely makes sense to avoid having the digital asset be considered worthless or abandoned based on the current tax treatment. 

AICPA resources

• Digital assets and virtual currency tax guidance and resources —This hub is your go-to library for AICPA guidance and resources as well as current legislation, IRS initiatives and tax advocacy project
• Crypto loss tax reporting fact or fiction — With the prevalence of recent virtual currency exchange bankruptcies and digital asset volatility, taxpayers may have misconceptions on reporting tax losses. 
• AICPA comments on digital currency losses, April 14, 2023

Other resources 

• IRS Chief Counsel Advice (CCA) 202302011 — Memorandum that addresses the applicability of IRS Sec. 165 to cryptocurrency that has declined in value 
• IRS Digital Assets  — Resources and guidance available on the IRS.gov website

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 Annette Nellen. Annette is a professor and director of the MST program at San Jose State University. She's also a wonderful AICPA volunteer and has been on the podcast before. Welcome back, Annette.

Annette Nellen: Thank you.

Walker: This episode is Part 2 in a three-part series that we're focusing on digital assets here on the Tax Section Odyssey, a journey through digital assets, if you will.

Today's episode is going to focus on a common question that we get in this space, and that is how our losses on digital assets treated for tax purposes. A second underlying question as you're listening to this might be, what are the misconceptions? What are the things that you hear people saying…you read on the Internet about this topic that might or might not be correct.

Annette is going to really help us dig in to those. Annette let's start off at a basic level and remind our listeners, just basic digital asset 101. What do we know about digital assets in general, and what does that mean for the treatment of digital asset losses?

Nellen: Well, thank you April, the key guidance here came out in 2014. That is [IRS] Notice 2014-21, where the takeaway was digital assets. That notice actually just talks about convertible virtual currency. That is before we were using the term digital assets because that was actually added to the law in November 2021 with the infrastructure investment and jobs act.

But the notice talks about treat this virtual currency cryptocurrency treated as property. It is not treated as foreign currency for tax purposes. They answered several questions in the notice. Some were pretty obvious like if you're paid by your employer in a virtual currency, is that taxable? Yes, of course it's taxable. That's fair market value at the time they receive it.

But the key takeaway and what they said [if] something isn't addressed here. Basically go to the rules on the taxation of property transactions and that probably will answer your questions. Now it doesn't always because there are some unique features of how virtual currency, digital assets operate that other ones do not operate in that way.

For example, a virtual currency could have something called a hard fork. I'm not aware of any other property that really has a hard fork with something just breaks off from it and continues on its own. Doesn't have a good analogy there. We do occasionally run into situations where [it’s] not real clear.

That's a lot of ones where the AICPA Digital Asset Tax Task Force is trying to address those and seeking guidance from the IRS if they can point out. Because this is a question people have, what do you think the answer is? We can all be on the same page here.

Walker: Yeah, that brings up several good topics. I generally have converted to saying digital assets. We can also say virtual currency. We could say cryptocurrency, all of those being, at least in general, the same thing. If Annette says a different word or I say a different word, that's all what we're meaning.

Then also that there's some really tricky things that can happen with this type of property that's way different than some of the really complex investment type property. That's why we have to be on top of this and learn.

That was our message in Part 1. We cannot escape this. We can't just bury our head in the sand and pretend like it doesn't exist.

Annette let's take this a step further. What if a client comes to you and says, I had digital assets. This is probably a pretty common thing that happened in 2023. “I had these digital assets in this wallet and it dropped tremendously in value — like right now it's only worth $0.30 or something like that. Did I have a realized loss? And if so, how do I treat that realized loss?

Nellen: Well, that is a good question. It seems to be one that the IRS was getting as well because in January of 2023, they issued a Chief Counsel Advice 202302011. It had a few reminders in there, but doesn't address every type of loss that people might encounter with their digital assets or cryptocurrency.

The fact pattern at Chief Counsel Advice was that the person had purchased a cryptocurrency at $1 per unit, and by the end of the year, it was trading for less than $0.01. That's something also unique about this virtual currency or cryptocurrency. It can certainly be trading for far less than one penny. That itself raises an interesting question because tax we're usually rounding everything up to $1. If something's worth less than a penny, does that mean it's worthless? Probably not.

Now, in that fact pattern though, where that cryptocurrency had dropped to below $0.01 It also was still, of course, owned by the taxpayer. They hadn't done anything to have a realization event. It was still actually being traded on at least one cryptocurrency exchange. It was still possible that they could have sold that in what would have been actually an on chain transaction.

Now, the Chief Counsel Advice does not go into doesn't matter if you sell it on chain, meaning you go through the normal like the blockchain transaction, actually get that completely transferred to somebody else versus I had the code for this. I'll write it down on the piece of paper and sell it to somebody. But then technically you still arguably have the code. You could have even memorized it. It didn't go into that, but it did state that with this fact pattern — worth less than a penny, you still owned it and it was still traded at least one exchange, you did not have a realized loss. They also said it wasn't worthless and that arguably makes sense. It's not worthless because you could still actually trade it. There's some place you could get somebody to buy that from you. Of course it's not abandoned, you actually still own it.

This Chief Counsel Advice did tell us that it's not a realization event, you don't have a loss. It does talk a little bit about the general rules on worthlessness and abandonment, but it doesn't talk about how would you know if a cryptocurrency had become worthless? How do you abandon a cryptocurrency? But I do want to state and I'll probably state this more than once.

Today, you don't want to have worthless or abandoned cryptocurrency because that results in an ordinary loss because there's no sale or exchange of a capital asset. You don't have a capital gain or loss, you have an ordinary loss.

But remember deductions and losses are matter of legislative grace. If you can't point to a code section allowing you to claim that loss, you cannot claim it. If you look at Code Section 62, 63, and 67(g) and this Chief Counsel Advice highlights Section 67(g). The only place this loss, if you did have a worthless or abandonment loss on the cryptocurrency, the only place it would fall would be as a miscellaneous itemized deductions subject to 2% of AGI limit — which for 2018-2025 is not allowed at all. The taxpayer would have been better off selling that before it became worthless so that you at least have a capital loss on that. So, a lot in that answer there.

Walker: It was a lot to unpack there. A lot of times I feel like I think when you're thinking back on worthlessness and whether something has been abandoned, a lot of times people want to convert it from a capital loss to an ordinary loss. That's generally where they're going with this. But that's really not the case in this scenario, at least that was presented in the chief counsel.

Nellen: Another thing to bear in mind here is that while you think, if I had worthless securities, I get a capital loss on that. That's because there's a special rule at Code Section 165(g). Maybe just a quick review of a few more code sections. What is a capital gain or loss? That's defined at Code Section 1222. Two key things you need for a capital gain or loss is a sale or exchange of a capital asset.

Now, if you're holding cryptocurrency for an investment, yes, that's a capital asset, but abandonment and worthlessness are not a sale or exchange. It's not a capital loss. It'd be an ordinary loss. What makes worthless or abandoned securities a capital loss is Code Section 165(g). But it's limited to securities, where it says, if you have worthless securities, treat it as if you had a sale or exchange on the last day of the year, that's what's then causing you to have sale or exchange of a capital asset producing that loss for you.

Then the Regs under [Section] 165 note that abandonment is the same treatment as the worthlessness, but the cryptocurrency is not a security. I know people say, oh, but look at the head of the SEC is saying all of it's pretty much a security. That is not necessarily true for. I don’t know about securities law, but that's not the definition for tax purposes here. You're ending up with an ordinary loss.

Then I've seen on web pages and among practitioners, oh, ordinary loss, great. We claim that above the line. Now again, you saw the point to a code section. Again, if you go through Code Section 62 defining adjusted gross income, Code Section 63 and 67, really defining taxable income and allowable deductions. There's no place where it falls other than it's a miscellaneous itemized deductions subject to 2% of AGI limitation, which actually is still allowed in California. California never conformed to that, but for federal purposes, and probably most states [in] 2018-2025, that loss is not allowed.

Also just odd stuff out there as well. There are some websites, at least the ones I've looked at, it says right at the top, worthless cryptocurrency. We will take it and they'll take it for some set amount, which is a fraction of a penny. But it's troubling that they're saying at the top of the website, worthless. Now if it's really worthless, why are they giving you anything for it and that you're arguably already having a transaction with the person.

Probably that does generate a capital loss from the sale or exchange of that. That'd be an example where it'd be nice if the IRS could say, even though you didn't negotiate the price, because that website is going to give everybody the same fraction of a penny for your "worthless". But again, it's arguably not worthless as I'm taking it from you. But that'd be viewed as a valid sale or exchange. We didn't negotiate the price, but again, we're talking about a price for something is worth less than a penny, would they ever come back and say, hey, if that's the main feature, just worth less than a penny, it's worthless.

In the letter that we sent off, the Digital Asset Tax Taskforce, we sent off a letter in April 2023. The Chief Counsel Advice is quite helpful, but it doesn't address everything. If one of the things that we asked was could you tell us what you think would indicate that a cryptocurrency is worthless and how you could actually abandon a virtual currency? Because then taxpayers would know how to avoid those situations, because that's not an ideal tax result for an investor.

Walker: Those are some great points and like you said, I will definitely put the chief counsel memorandum in there and also some of the letters that the Digital Asset Tax Taskforce has done and continues to do. While we're on that topic, let's talk about some more things that we might have done around digital asset losses. You do reference that letter and we'll put that in there and other guidance that's needed.

Referring back to that website I guess they're probably not saying worthless as in worthless for tax purposes. Maybe that's where they're going with that. But still it's very misleading for consumers as well as probably for tax practitioners who might not operate in this space.

Nellen: The taxpayer who's done that [and] transferred it there. I believe that actually is an on chain transactions, so that's good because that's indicating there was some way you still could transfer it.

Because one of the questions we've asked the IRS, both on the letter and when we occasionally meet with them is, what if it's the blockchain is down, nobody's verifying these transactions on X coin because it's over 9,000 virtual currencies out there. Maybe one just seems to be gone, you can't transfer anything. Would that indicate it's now worthless, because maybe sometime in the future, it'll get reactivated. Plus probably if you had the code on a piece of paper, there's somebody out that it will probably buy it from you for five dollars or something just to say, hey, maybe it will go back into business. Which is why I think these websites are taking all these things that people think are worthless, which clearly aren't worthless, somebody's making a market for these items.

Would that be a permissible transfer when it wasn't on chain. Just I wrote down the code, but arguably do I still have access to the code and then had convinced the buyer [that] I [have] erased it from my mind. I've burned the piece of paper and any other place I wrote it down. That's another topic that I hope the IRS will address it some time because it’s also relevant if you're gifting virtual currency to your relative. Do you have to do it on chain to make sure it's a valid transaction that everybody would know. Yes, it’s on the blockchain that just got transferred and you no longer have any access to it at all, only the recipient.

I would certainly say if you're going to make a gift to somebody, do it on chain, that's more likely should be a valid gift because you relinquish every ability to access that. But these are examples that come up. But it would be nice if the IRS could tell us what would make something worthless, what would make a cryptocurrency abandoned.

But I do hear from practitioners, so someone trying to do that because they think this ordinary loss that I can claim against my wage income and other income, that's not the case. I will encourage you to take a look at the chief counsel advice in the code sections it's referring to and we have an analysis of that in the letter as well.

But it does get confusing because people might just do a Google search and come across things that sound convincing. But remember, we're respected practitioners, we need to be looking at the law itself. Is that any support for this answer in the law itself?

Another code section we raised in the letter, erase a variety of things. Could you address this issue? There's a Code Section 1234(A), which we don't see many cases on, but occasionally we do. Where it's basically saying certain terminations of a right to a capital asset would be treated as a sale or exchange, then giving you that capital gain or loss situation. What is a termination of a cryptocurrency? The fact that the blockchain is no longer having transactions and nobody is verifying these. The blockchain has somehow been destroyed and I guess you destroy all the software or something. Would that be enough?

Then you also have the issue of what about the part that is dealing with their right to a capital asset. Is that what cryptocurrency could be defined as?

We've also raised the question, well, what about lending digital assets? Because the word lending and then digital assets. If we're thinking about currency, we're lending currency. But remember, the Notice 2014-21 said that the cryptocurrency/virtual currency is not treated as currency for tax purposes, it's treated as property. It's like you're lending your car to somebody. What happens if it doesn't get returned?

Also, what about the income you're generating from that [digital asset]. Is that portfolio [or] is it a trade or business? Obviously relevant for passive activity loss purposes under [Section] 469 and a variety of other issues.

These are tough issues for the IRS to deal with as well and have the magic answer. They're doing research, but some places it might be that maybe you just need to have a position. Hey, if this happens, we would treat this virtual currency as worthless, then we would all be on the same page at least of how that is viewed. Then we also in our letters, always make the statement or asking for guidance. We'd like to have binding guidance like a revenue ruling, revenue procedure, regulations. A chief counsel advice unfortunately, it's not binding guidance. Of course, the law [code] sections and there's all citing to binding guidance code, regs, court cases, things like that.

Walker: FAQs they did a round of those.

Nellen: But some of them are just restating binding law. But there were a few in there that were new.

Walker: I think some of the terminology also gets mixed up in there too, and that's part of the clarification in the letters. This has been really helpful Annette. I feel like sometimes we come out of this with more questions or I do, with more questions than answers, but at least you've got us pointing to asking the right question around us as we're looking to do 2023 returns that have this digital asset activity. Any final thoughts that you want to leave us with on this topic?

Nellen: I encourage you with losses, do take a look at that chief counsel advice [memorandum], the letter that the digital asset tax taskforce prepared and some of these comment letters — plenty of ones from the AICPA, New York State Bar and the ABA often have a lot of background information as well. Because it's not always a lot of information out there tax-wise on these on what are relatively still new transactions you've been around since about 2009.

When again, always remember we need to go to the primary authority for determining what is the tax treatment of something because there's a lot of misinformation out there. Unfortunaty also from accountants and attorneys. Sometimes they're just saying a statement that they haven't really dug into or they don't really know enough about the digital assets to realize that there is something different out there. Or they forgotten about Code Section 1222 or things like that. But the taskforce continues to look at what is going to help AICPA members to deal effectively with their clients? Where could we benefit from more binding information from the IRS?

Walker: We're wrapping up and closing on these podcasts I like to talk about us taking a journey. We're taking a journey through digital assets. We're just taking a journey towards a better profession, or that is my goal. But I like to hear about my guests other journeys outside of tax. Annette, you have been on here before. But tell us a trip you have planned or a trip you have been on recently that was memorable.

Nellen: Memorable would be right before Christmas, I did take my daughter, son-in-law, 9 year old grandchild, and infant grandchild to Disneyland. That was nice experience and all that. More immediately, I get to go to the American Taxation Association, which I'll mention because most members probably don't know but that, but that's a very large group of primarily tax professors and a few folks from accounting firms. We are having our mid-year meeting down in Long Beach where I've a couple of presentations with the AICPA.

Walker: Nice. Anytime a beach is involved, I'm always like yes, please. Even if it involves also some works stuff. Great. Thank you again Annette for this very helpful walk-through digital assets, virtual currency, cryptocurrency losses.

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 listened 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 this at aicpa-cima.com/tax, and find our other episodes as well as get access to the resources that we mentioned on this episode and others. Thank you.

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.

Misconceptions about digital asset tax compliance are common. With business tax returns now requiring taxpayers to affirm their taxable digital asset transactions, it is even more important to ask the right questions. Educating yourself and your clients in this area is important to fulfill your due diligence requirements as a tax practitioner.

AICPA resources

•  Digital assets and virtual currency tax guidance and resources —This hub is your go-to library for AICPA guidance and resources as well as current legislation, IRS initiatives and tax advocacy projects.  
•  Questionnaire for Individual Clients — Before accepting clients that are engaged in digital asset activities, there are certain questions CPA practitioners should have answers to.

Advocacy

• AICPA comments on the proposed Sec. 6045 regulations on gross proceeds and basis reporting by brokers, Nov. 8, 2023
• AICPA comments in response to the July 11, 2023, Senate Finance Committee letter on taxation of digital assets, Sept. 8, 2023   
• AICPA comments on the IRS draft 2023 tax forms digital asset question, July 28, 2023

Other resources 

• IRS Digital Assets  — Resources and guidance available on the IRS.gov website

Transcript

On today's podcast, listen to hear more about how you need to carefully ask your clients about their digital asset activity.

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 Nik Fahrer. He's a senior manager at FORVIS in their National Tax Professional Standards Group. He's been with us before talking about this topic, and I'm delighted to have you back, Nik.

Nik Fahrer: Thank you for having me back, April. I'm excited to be here.

Walker: You are our digital asset expert on the podcast. No pressure. We're going to delve into some questions that [are centered around that] here we are in February and we're getting ready to start talking to our clients. We're going to talk a little bit about that. I feel like the more I learn about digital assets, they have different names- cryptocurrency, virtual assets, the more I need to learn.

Hopefully today we're going to help you be able to have a conversation with your clients. Maybe your client is more knowledgeable than you are or you just need to get up to speed. That's our focus for today.

I'd like to start with what are your most common misconceptions that you encounter about digital asset tax compliance when you're thinking about working with clients?

Fahrer: Sure. I really like to break this down into four different categories. I think the first category is, do we have a taxable event? There's a big common misconception out there, especially with clients, that maybe there needs to be some education and educating our clients. That just because you invest in crypto and perform some trades, but haven't settled back to US dollars, doesn't necessarily mean that you don't have a taxable event.

Let's take an example. Let's say I buy some Bitcoin and then I trade that Bitcoin directly for Etherium, then I trade that Etherium directly for Solana. There's multiple taxable events in there because the IRS treats cryptocurrency as property. Even though I haven't settled back to US dollars and cashed out, a lot of clients think, I haven't traded my crypto back into US dollars, so I don't have to report it on my tax return. That's actually false. Those trades in that example, from Bitcoin to Etherium, that's a taxable event, and then from Etherium to Solana, another taxable event.

The second bucket, I would say here is completeness, so really making sure that we have all of our sources and transactions accounted for. What do I mean by that?

Another example, if you have a client that comes to you and says, hey, I transacted in crypto in 2023 and I need help reporting that. Clearly identifying what were all of the exchanges that they used, what were all of the wallets that they used, and does that account for all of their transactions. Like we just mentioned in the previous bucket, do we have a taxable event?

Almost every single transaction in the space is going to be a taxable event. We have to make sure that we can account for all of those and have the proper records. It can be difficult to track them all down because it's so easy to just open up a new wallet.

Third bucket, I would say, is understanding the character of the gain or loss. I mentioned earlier the IRS says this is treated as property. That doesn't necessarily mean that all of the transactions are capital gain or loss, some of them could be ordinary.

Some examples would be mining income, staking income, air drops, hard forks. All of these in the eyes of the IRS are likely considered ordinary income at the fair market value at the time of receipt.

One question you want to make sure that you're asking your clients is, not only can you give me list of your transactions of trades, but you also want to make sure that you're getting a list of transactions for some of these ordinary income items, which may be listed separately.

A lot of times our clients are using a software provider to generate a [Form] 8949. Well, those ordinary transactions aren't necessarily going to be captured on that [Form] 8949 because that [Form] 8949 is going to be your capital gain or loss.

Second, within this third bucket of the character of the gain or loss of NFTs, the IRS has come out and said that, are likely treated as collectibles and those could be subject to a higher tax rate as well. We want to make sure that we are capturing those NFT's and marking the appropriate box and letter associated letter on the [Form] 8949.

The fourth bucket, and I would say this one probably gets looked over the most, is are there any additional surtaxes associated with the client's activity? For example, net investment income tax. A lot of our clients are not CPAs, they're not accountants [and] are not aware of this may be additional tax that their capital gain or loss may be subject to. It's making sure that we're having these conversations with them so that they're aware that the max capital gain rate is 20%, but may be subject to this net investment income tax, which is an additional 3.8%. That's important when we're thinking through estimated tax payments, things like that.

Of course, there's self-employment tax if you're in the trade or business of mining or staking, for example, and that could be up to 15.3%. Then the additional Medicare tax of an additional 0.9% on maybe the net self-employment earnings associated with mining or staking or some of these other activities.

Just to recap, the four buckets that I would really say are, one, making sure that we identify all of the taxable events. Two, completeness. Making sure that we have all of our activity in some sort of Excel spreadsheet or [Form] 8949 that's generated from a software. Number 3, what's the character of the gain or loss? Doesn't necessarily mean it's always going to be capital. Could be ordinary. Then four, what additional taxes may be applicable as well? Net investment income tax, self-employment tax, additional Medicare tax, things like that.

Walker: Thanks Nik. That's super helpful. Definitely things I've heard too and probably misconceptions that I have as I'm still learning and try to understand and wrap my head around these topics and how the IRS treat digital assets compliance.

Another thing I wanted to bring up, and you've likely seen it, the IRS just did an announcement about it. We've talked for several years — I should have gone back and looked and seen how many years there has been a digital asset question on the 1040.

But, in addition to that, they've tweaked the language throughout time. But in addition to the 1040, there's also now that same digital asset question about, did you receive sell, or exchange or otherwise dispose of a digital asset? Those are going to be on business returns and also trust returns for 2023.

Just thinking about that, how are you thinking about getting that information from clients? Probably the same situation as you have been already for individuals. But any tips and tricks on navigating those questions that might be new for people?

Fahrer: I think this is a very important topic because that question is subject to penalties of perjury. So we want to make sure that we're probably erring on the side of caution and making sure that we're capturing this information from our clients.

One thing that we do is we add this question to our client questionnaires. Every single one of our clients fills out a questionnaire, and we word it almost verbatim to the question on the 1040, and now these other forms that you mentioned. Did you essentially transact in digital assets? I'm oversimplifying it, but that's basically what it's asking. Put that question on your client questionnaires and that's a really easy way to get that information from your clients.

Maybe another suggestion is consider adding this as a question to your client acceptance process as well. When you're first going through the process of having conversations with clients or whatever that intake process looks for you and your firm, consider adding that as a question to your client acceptance process.

Then I always recommend getting ahead of it as well. Get a good idea of the types of records that your clients can provide on the front end. This goes back to client acceptance as well. Good records go a long way whenever we're talking about reporting digital asset activity.

If a client can't provide you with good records, or maybe for example, they provide you a spreadsheet with hundreds or thousands of transactions and you have to go in there and manually calculate cost, basis, and proceeds. It's very time intensive, very costly, and that's going to help you understand what to quote them on fees. It may also help you push them in direction of maybe trying to sign up for a software like a CoinTracker or Ledgible or Cryptio, or Koinly.

There's several different softwares in the market where clients can go out there and connect their wallets, connect their exchanges and it will do a really good job of summarizing almost all of the activity on your behalf and generate [a Form] 8949, generate supporting schedules and things like that. Most of the time you're going to run into scenarios where there's software, it's an extra expense, but it's going to more than cover its cost to save you all the headache and time that you're going to have to calculate everything manually.

Walker: Definitely, some unique challenges in tracking and reporting digital assets as opposed to if somebody is just holding securities or mutual funds in a brokerage account, that's pretty easy. There can be some complicated transactions in there, but it's not the same thing as digital assets.

Then, like you said, there's so many different, usually if they're transacting, it's going to be a large number of transactions, that Excel spreadsheet could look like a nightmare, I would imagine. Any best practices or strategies or tips, and you mentioned some softwares and things, when do you see that a client has made the flip from I can just track this in an Excel spreadsheet to needing software?

Fahrer: Yeah, that's a really good point.

Maybe to add some context to why we even have these Excel spreadsheets. [Form] 1099 reporting is not currently required for crypto transactions. Typically clients get to 1099B at the end of the year for their stocks and securities. Those transactions are all summarized for us and it’s super easy as a practitioner to then take that information and transfer it to the tax return.

Whereas here there is no [Form] 1099. Maybe going back to the misconceptions that we talked about earlier, another misconception is that a receipt of a [Form] 1099 triggers the tax reporting requirement. Most of us know that's not true. It's not the receipt of the 1099 that triggers the reporting requirement, it's the taxable event itself, but our clients may not be aware of that. That's why it's even more prudent to ask these questions on the front end of, did you transact in digital assets, to get a better understanding of what all needs to go into the return?

I also think that self custody is something that's unique to this industry, if you will. We have the concept of you control your own assets means that there may not be a third party intermediary. There may not be a broker to keep track of your cost basis, and then that burden falls on the taxpayer. If the taxpayer is unable to provide records or proof of cost basis, the IRS is going to assume it's zero, which is the worst case scenario.

But to go back to your question April and really answer it more directly, I think if you have a client that has more than 20 transactions in a single year, it's probably worth it to work through one of those softwares that I mentioned before to get them to sign up for that, connect their wallets, their exchanges, and hopefully bring in everything in one central location and automate a lot of it.

Then I think there's some good resources out there too on how to stay up to date and understand maybe some changes that are going on in the industry. We have an AICPA web page that's dedicated to this topic. It's a very good resource.

There's also a questionnaire on that web page that you can download. It goes through and is basically built for practitioners to know what questions to ask. We don't know what we don't know if you're not in the space. This is a great questionnaire to go out there and just cherry pick what you think would be beneficial to ask your clients. This is a resource for you.

The IRS also has a website that is specifically dedicated to digital assets. If you just google IRS digital assets, I'm almost fairly certain it's going to be one of the first ones that pops up. It has all of the guidance that they've ever issued in this one single web page. Then of course, there's several people that are very vocal on LinkedIn and Twitter [X] that you can follow and good resources there as well.

Walker: Perfect. Thank you for highlighting those resources. The questionnaire is what spurred wanting to have this discussion. Nik actually did a few videos for us on the website related to that questionnaire, and we wanted to dig a little deeper. In the show notes I'll put a link to our digital asset page and that's going to have that questionnaire as well as like you said, other resources, it also links to the IRS.

One thing I wanted to note is the IRS does do I think a good job of [what] you might just be struggling with, hey, that question [on the tax return] — How do I answer it? Is there a way for me to answer no? There probably is an answer. I think we discussed this, but I wanted to say you have to answer that question. If we didn't say that specifically [earlier], I wanted to say that you have to say yes or no.

The IRS provides ways that you must check the box yes, if they did this- received digital assets for payment or digital assets for this or that. Then it also tells you a couple scenarios for no. Again, I'll put link to those resources in the show notes linked to the questionnaire. Which is great, especially if you have clients who are really in this space.

I wanted to share that Nik is on a Digital Asset Tax Task Force with the AICPA. That is a mouthful that I had to say very slowly. So thank you, Nik for doing that. I have a couple of other members of that task force and we're going to do some follow ups.

Nik referenced that there is no 1099 for digital assets you may be aware about. There are some reporting requirements that are coming in future years that we're going to have somebody who's going to talk about that. We're also going to talk about what happens for digital assets if you've experienced a loss. There's some tricky tax rules related to that. Just wanted to give a little bit of a teaser for that coming up.

Nik, you provided a lot of great information. I'd just like to give you an opportunity, is there any final thoughts as you're thinking about this topic or any good advice for our practitioners that are listening.

Fahrer: I just want to say thanks again for having me, April. We have a saying at FORVIS, if you see risk seek help. I would just encourage our listeners. If you come across a client where there may be some complex situations with digital assets, don't hesitate to reach out to somebody in your network that may be able to help you. It's very ambiguous right now, we don't have a ton of guidance and I would just encourage you to reach out to those in your network that may be able to help.

Walker: Perfect. In closing on these podcasts, I like to think about us taking a journey together towards a better profession. In doing that, I'd like to hear about my guest other journeys outside of the world of tax. Nik, I'd love to hear a page from your travel journey bucket list or a memorable trip that is on your mind.

Fahrer: I'm actually really excited to travel to Alaska for the first time this upcoming May. Really excited about that trip.

Walker: Nice. Are you doing a cruise or just exploring around in Alaska?

Fahrer: Yeah. Just flying into Anchorage and then renting a car and trying to explore as much of it as possible as part of the shoulder season. Not everything will be necessarily open yet. I really want to make it to Denali, but we'll see.

Walker: Okay. We'll have to follow back up on another podcast that will, sorry, probably be about digital assets, but I appreciate you being able to talk about it in such an understandable way. Thank you again, Nik.

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 mind. This is a podcast from AICPA and CIMA together as the Association of International Certified Professional Accounts. You can find us wherever you listen to your podcast. 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 it with a like minded friend. You can also find us at aicpa-cima.com/tax and find other episodes as well as get access to all the resources that we mentioned a lot on this episode. Thank you so much for listening.

Daniel Moore, CPA, Owner — D.T. Moore and Company, LLC, discusses the recent Department of Labor rule on determining the classification of workers as either employees or independent contractors under the Fair Labor Standards Act. He also highlights the potential legal and financial risks associated with worker misclassification.

The rule, effective on March 11, 2024, aims to align with judicial precedents, reduce misclassification risks and offer more flexibility for businesses engaging with independent contractors.

Factors for worker classification under this rule are:

• Opportunity for profit or loss that a worker might have
• Investments of resources by the worker and potential employer
• Degree of permanence of the work relationship
• Nature and degree of control an employer has over the work
• Extent to which the work is integral to the employer's business
• Skill and initiative of the worker

Dan highlights the importance of considering both IRS and Department of Labor rules when advising clients on worker classification and how to best communicate this change to clients.

 AICPA resources

·       Tax season resource center — Access the AICPA’s central hub for guidance, tools and developments throughout the tax filing season.

·       Employee or independent contractor? DOL issues new guidance, Journal of Accountancy, Jan. 10, 2024

Other resources

·       RIN 1235-AA43 published in the Federal Register — Department of Labor (DOL) rule

Transcript

April Walker: On today's podcast, listen to hear more about a recent Department of Labor rule that talks about independent contractors and employees.

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, lead manager from the Tax Section, and I'm here today with Dan Moore.

Dan is an owner of D. T. Moore and Company in Ohio, and he is another great volunteer friend of mine. And he's been on this podcast before, so welcome back, Dan.

Dan Moore: Thank you.

Walker: Today I thought we could spend a few minutes letting our listeners know about a new rule that the U.S. Department of Labor recently published in January. We're still in January when we're recording this, so very recent. It revises guidance on determining who is an employee and who is an independent contractor under the Fair Labor Standards [Act].

Just to set the stage a little bit, I'm not and Dan's not, an employment attorney, nor do we pretend to be one on TV or on this podcast.

We're going to approach this discussion as CPA tax practitioners and communicating this change to your clients. Because I'm sure you'll know and I'm sure as you're listening, you have clients who have struggled with this issue. It's not a new issue. It’s just, it’s a hard one to wrap our heads around.

So, we're going to talk a little bit about that. I will provide a link to the rule in the show notes. If you want to read more, it's very long, but we're not going to cover all the aspects and background about that rule. But just a quick little background on it.

In January 2021, the Department of Labor released a rule that was subsequently rescinded. This recent rule that was announced on January the 9th of this year, 2024. It replaces that guidance. It maintains that it's doing is [being] is more consistent with the judicial precedent. The rules that have been challenged in court and how the courts have come down on it. It also will reduce the risk that employees are misclassified as independent contractors, but also more flexibility, for businesses that still do engage with people who are in business for themselves and consider themselves independent contractors.

Let's start with an easy question, Dan. I'm sure it's easy. Maybe it's not easy. What's the definition of an independent contractor?

Moore: Thank you, April. It's always great to do these podcasts with you and I always enjoy the topics that you pick for me.

This one's a little bit challenging because independent contractor — it just depends to me where you're standing in the conversation. And although you can maybe reconcile and come to some conclusion under one aspect of the definition of an independent contractor, say, in the world of tax, when you step over to Department of Labor and you look at the Fair Labor Standards Act, you're standing in a different conversation.

And so, I may have figured it out on the tax side, but now I'm looking at it from the Fair Labor Standards Act. And now I've got to re-reconcile this whole concept as to whether or not someone is an independent contractor.

Independent contractors fall under a bunch of different names. You could call yourself an independent contractor. You could consider yourself to be self-employed. You could be doing freelance work. You could be involved in the much broader gig economy that is very popular and talked about frequently now. The tax aspect is going to be a little bit different about the Fair Labor Standards Act.

And first, before I define an independent contractor to the best of my ability based on the new announcement, I do want to touch on what the Fair Labor Standards Act is.

The Fair Labor Standards Act establishes a minimum wage for employees. It establishes the qualification or the right to pay overtime, record keeping. It discusses child labor law. It covers nursing mothers, 40-hour work weeks, breaks, how tips are to be paid to employees that are in an industry in which they receive tips as part of their compensation, and it prevents retaliation by an employer against an employee. There's a lot of things that the Fair Labor Standard Act covers, and the Fair Labor Standards Act covers employees, but it doesn't cover independent contractors.

So now we have to define — what is an independent contractor? — to see whether or not these set of rules do apply to independent contractors? And what we'll see as we go through this conversation today is although someone may seem like they're an independent contractor, once you apply the rules, for Fair Labor Standard Act purposes, they may be considered an employee in which you now have to apply all the Fair Labor Standard Act rules — an overtime payment would be one big one…a time and a half paid over 40 hours worked in a work week. A lot of these things are now going to apply to someone who may be sitting in the seat as an independent contractor, but fair labor standards are going to still apply to them.

So the easiest way — not necessarily easy — is we need to define what is an independent contractor. And that really isn't an easy question, and we have lots and lots of court cases to define it. [What] it really comes down to, is whether or not there is a matter of economic reality, and that the worker is economically dependent on the employer for work, thus an employee, or are they in business for himself and therefore potentially an independent contractor?

Like I said, there's a lot of different names, but also think of this too on the employer side with the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Fair Labor Standards Act is also there to protect the employer. Because if all employers are playing on the same level playing ground, then —your competition — it creates fair competition.

By establishing a 40-hour work week and overtime rules, that all plays a standard playing ground for all employers in which we're all going to play by the same rules in the sandbox. So now we have to look at who does this apply to? It implies to employees.

But how do we handle independent contractors and are independent contractors considered to be an employee?

And that's the big question of the day that this announcement in January (lovely time for new announcements to come out) This new announcement sets into play of, okay, independent contractor, are they subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act?

Walker: Gotcha. I was not trying to give you a trick question to start off with. I did know it was not a super easy question, but yeah, that's clear as mud for me.

However, thank you for that — doing a good job of setting the stage for us.

Now we know where we're going, how would one determine whether someone is an employee or an independent contractor under the Fair Labor Standards Act — once this rule is effective, which, noting that it is March 11th when the rule is effective.

Moore: Yes. First, we have to determine if an employee is a worker or an independent contractor. The rule came out with these six factors that you need to consider in determining whether or not someone is going to fall under employee versus independent contractor.

Now, this is not a true-false question. This is not, select A, B, C, or D as your answer. These are all subjective interpretations of these rules. And really, not one factor is weighted against the other. You have to just look at the rules [as a] stand alone. Try to apply them to your situation.

In my opinion, it almost comes down to, we have six factors. Do we have four to two, yay or nay, in determining whether or not someone should be really considered an employee for purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act? So, you have to analyze them all on their own. This is going to lead back to court cases and precedents that is from the past, but also looking at the future at all of these tests.

So there's 6 factors I'm going to just go through real quick — each 1 of the 6 factors — and then I'm going to go back to each 1 and just add a little bit more detail to each one.

So, as you're sitting there, and from my standpoint as a practitioner, when I'm sitting there talking to my client, I'm going to say, okay, let's look at the six factors.

• The first 1 being the opportunity for profit or loss depending on managerial skill.

• Factor 2 is the investments by the worker and the potential employer.

• Factor 3 is the degree of permanence of the work relationship.

• Factor 4 [is] the nature and degree of control.

• Factor 5 is the extent to which the work performed is an integral part of the potential employer's business.

• Factor 6 [is the] skill and initiative [of the employee].

Now, again, subjective and many factors. Subjective on both the independent contractor, employee side versus the employer side. To what level of skill or the ability to profit? It’s going to be dependent on a facts and circumstances test, and it’s going to be dependent for each employee.

Lots to think about as I'm talking to someone, [to determine] whether or not they're an independent contractor for the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Factor 1 — I have to look at, okay, rule number one, what is the opportunity for profit or loss depending on managerial skill? I almost think of this as, are you punching a time clock and getting paid based on the number of hours worked? That's probably going to be an employee situation.

Or are you approached by a company to provide a service in which you, as the contractor, evaluate that project? You look at what, you think, the amount of time is going to be, the materials, the labor…do you determine what your profit margin is going to be on that job, what level of profit margin you're going to bid out that job for? There's a lot of factors in which you're looking at the actual profit and loss of that project, in which you probably would be sitting more in an independent contractor situation.

The common industries — not to beat up on the construction industry — would be typical, whether or not someone is sitting as an independent contractor. In this case, if you're really just showing up and doing the job as you're instructed by the company that you’re doing the work for, you’re probably going to fall under the employee test.

But if you're bidding out the job and you're determining how quickly you can [do] the job, determining how much profit you want to make on that job, you're using your managerial skill, then you would probably fall under independent contract. So again, that's just one of six tests that you're looking at.

[Factor 2] Now you have to move on to the next test, which is investment by the worker and the potential employer. And in this scenario, if you're showing up and the employer is providing mostly all of the tools and materials that you need to do the job…You're showing up and they're providing you, say they're providing you software, they're providing you office space, computer equipment, supplies, all of that's provided. You're just showing up and doing the work. You're probably going to be sitting in the employee side of things.

Whereas, on the flip side of it, you have your own equipment, you have your own tools, you're purchasing better equipment to make you more efficient as you're doing these jobs. In this scenario, you would be sitting more on the independent contractor side of the conversation. So again, the amount of investment and the type of investment you're making in that job would determine whether you're an [independent contractor] or an employee.

[Factor 3] After investment of the worker and the potential employer, let's take a look at the degree of permanence of the work relationship. This is the third prong of the question.

And you're looking at if you're going to the same work location day after day and it seems to be more permanent. That is almost as if you're going to work like anyone else, it's as you're looking at it as your job, and you're really not going out to work with another company. Your priority is given to this one company.

You're going to have a degree of permanence with that relationship that's going to lean towards more of an employee relationship. The flip side would be, you know what, I'm going to work maybe Monday, Tuesday this week, and Wednesday. I'm going to go do some work for another contractor on another project. Thursday/Friday, I might go work for someone else on a different project. The following week the makeup of that work could be completely different. And so there isn't a degree of permanence. And so that would lead more towards an independent contractor relationship. Again, that's factor three.

[Factor 4] Which then leads us into factor four, which is the nature and the degree of control. And when you're looking at the degree of control of the employer, the company that the individual is doing work for, are they setting the schedule?

Are they, having the independent contractor/employee show up every day to the same location at which they are given their duties for the day…sent out to various projects? Throughout the day, they're being monitored. They're doing check-ins with the company to see where they are on the project.

That level of control is really going to lead towards more of an employee status versus an independent contractor. Where an independent contractor may say, okay, I'm going to work on this project for you for the first part of the day. Then I'm going to go work on different projects for another contractor and switch it up. Or maybe they have their own project that they're working on.

[Factor 5] Now we move into the fifth factor is the extent to which the work is an integral part of the employer's business. If the individual is showing up to work and the work that they are doing is very integrated into the overall process. Maybe it's manufacturing and they're coming in every day and they're doing a very integrated part of the overall product development or what they're creating. That integrated part really is part of that process in which that would lead to, in most cases, the individual being treated as an employee, unless it's a very skilled process that is very infrequently used.

If someone's coming in and stepping in, integrated into the process, they're most likely going to step into an employee versus the independent contractor side of things where they're doing work for the company. Your accountant that is doing bookkeeping work for you that's not integrated into the overall process of what the business is in making money doing, then that individual would be sitting in an independent contractor standpoint because they're not integrated into the process of the overall product that the company is making.

[Factor 6] Then finally, we're looking at that sixth factor, and that is the skill and initiative. So again, skill and initiative, that's very subjective. What level of skill is the individual providing for the job?

If you have an independent contractor coming in to do something that is very technical, that very few people do…it's an integrated part of the job, but it's something very technical, and you may only need them on an infrequent basis to complete a project, that situation would generally lead to someone being independent contractor.

However, if they're coming in, they don't require specialized skills in performing the work. They don't necessarily require training in doing the work. They're being supervised. They're being trained on the job. That really could lead to being an employee relationship. So again, very subjective to the level of skill that the individual is doing.

And you have to look at it…and I think by industry. I'm just thinking, looking at my clients, I have some clients that are independent contractors. The work that they do is very specialized. And in some cases, there are very few, maybe in the region, individuals that are doing that type of work.

They pick and choose who they're going to work for and they freelance, they go out, they do that job, it is an integrated part, but they're very specialized, and they're not frequently used. They sit in an independent contractor position versus an employee position. Somewhat clear as mud.

Six factors that we're looking at, trying to say thumbs up, thumbs down. I don't think it's still an easy answer to that question.

Really, at the end of the day, I'm looking at this [and saying] — do I need to apply these rules? Do I need to make sure that if someone comes in and bids a job for me, [do] I need to do some record keeping to see how many hours they're working for me? And if they go over 40 hours, I'm going to have to renegotiate maybe that bid or that contract or figure out what the hourly rate is for that job to determine whether or not you paid them a minimum wage and whether or not they've been paid time and a half for that project. If they're sitting in the independent contractor seat, but really when you look at the factors, they would be considered an employee for the Fair Labor Standards Act.

And this is a very broad definition.

Walker: Great. just to recap a little bit, for our listeners. You have to think about this from your perspective as you're hiring people. Obviously, we're going to talk more about why do you care about this? Why are you spending time talking about this? And we'll delve a little bit into that, in a second.

Dan did a great job of going through all the six things, but it's each six things could be their own probably 30-minute conversations about what they mean, but that was great.

Something I, as I was preparing for this, I'm not sure that I necessarily understood this, and I think we alluded to it a little bit, but I want to make sure we're clear.

This six-factor test, this new rule that's effective March 11, does it override, or does it change the way the IRS determines worker classification, or other federal, state, or local laws that may provide standards for employee classification? How am I thinking about this?

Moore: This is an answer that we don't [know] often in the world of tax. Our answer is usually — maybe, or it depends, we need more information. When the Department of Labor comes out to answer this question, the question of whether or not does this override, does this change IRS determination of worker classification, when the Department of Labor comes out and says no, that is a pretty stern answer.

It's not an "it depends” situation. It doesn't override or change IRS classification because IRS uses its own classification. [It’s] own standalone set of standards, the Common Law Test, which is completely different than the Fair Labor Standards Act and the rule that just came out. When we're looking at the Common Law Test, and just real quick on the Common Law Test as IRS looks at it, you're looking at relationship considerations, behavioral considerations and financial consideration.

We may determine that someone is an independent contractor from a tax standpoint, from an IRS standpoint, but that doesn't mean they're not considered an employee for Fair Labor Standards Act when we apply those six tests that we just went over. So, a hard no on the IRS standards. Does that make things any easier for us?

Absolutely not. It does not. And then you have to look at federal law, there's state law, there's local law, and all these laws apply to employees. The best rule to follow and the rules that you should follow, again we're not labor law attorneys, but you want to apply the law that has the most protections for the employee.

So certain laws may have higher standards than others, and you're going to follow the law that protects the employee the most in this situation. And so again, still confusing. We’ve got two bodies of law, when we’re looking at IRS and Department of Labor. There's so many other factors and other things to consider when you're looking at employee versus independent contractor, but this is not changing the IRS law.

Walker: Okay, that's helpful. Let's talk about why as a tax practitioner, you care about this classification enough to spend time talking about it with your clients.

Moore: I get this question all the time. I work with a lot of startups, in particular. The startups that are like, I have this person, they're coming in, they're helping me out. They make their own schedule. I'm just, I'm scared. I'm not ready to put them on payroll. They're fine with being an independent contractor.

But that doesn't work. And a lot of times I find, particularly small businesses that are starting out, I look at them and I say, the first thing is that person could change their mind when it comes time for them to file their tax return and you may have had this wonderful agreement that they're an independent contractor and they go to file their tax return, guess what? They may not think they're an independent contractor any longer when they realize the impact of the self-employment tax. I have that conversation [that] you need to put your individuals that are working for you on payroll. They need to be part of payroll.

And then as the business grows, I have the discussion that, you know what, you started out, you had a friend helping you out. You have this independent contract relationship. That relationship has grown into something. more than what it originally was, and now it really seems to me like this independent contractor person is really an employee, and now you've hired more people, and you put them on payroll, but you have someone else doing really the same work that you're paying as an independent contractor, and I really think you can't have two people sitting in the same position doing the same work, treating one as an independent contractor and one as an employee.

These are all challenges that startup businesses have. We particularly have these conversations with our clients that are in the construction industry. [There] really [are] no bright line test here on who should be an employee versus an independent contractor? And you have to look again, these six factors, you have to look at the IRS rules to determine whether or not they're considered an employee versus an independent contractor.

Walker: Very good. When you get those red flags that arise as you're having those conversations, and you think that there's an issue, you talked about that — that you're having the conversation — but how do you put them on notice? What are your recommendations? Do you refer them somewhere? What are your next steps?

Moore: You try not to scare your clients into compliance, but we have a lot of stories that we can tell that are very scary that have turned companies upside down. They have turned small family-owned businesses upside down.

In a recent case, I had a construction company that had really what seems to be an independent contractor relationship with someone that was doing work for them. This individual had their own LLC — their own construction company. They came together to work on a job and that independent contractor fell, was severely injured and passed away. Now this construction company is having to deal with the fact that there were workers comp issues and are being sued over this issue from the family — the surviving family of the individual that passed away.

Maybe at the end of the day they'll rule and say, you know what, you did have this, independent contractor relationship with this individual. They [won’t] fall under workers comp laws and there won't need to be a payout under workers comp, but it's cost tens of thousands of dollars. There's a lot of legal fees involved with that time and stress of this is massive. And so those are just the war stories.

I say, you really need to sit down with someone that is skilled and understanding about labor law to find out what your real risk is in the worst-case scenario. Those are rare situations, but when they [happen], they affect your business. They affect your family and they affect your health. And you have to make a very hard decision, on making that relationship with an independent contractor.

There's so many factors. There's fair labor. There's IRS rules when it comes to independent contractors. You have to look at unemployment laws, workers comp laws, the list goes on and on. And to make sure that you're properly protected, you have to really think. I think a lot of companies need to think very hard about that independent contractor relationship. And many will probably discover, you know what, I want to sleep at night. I'm going to flip this individual to an employee.

Walker: Great. yeah, like you said, it's not about horror stories and it's not about scaring. But part of our job as trusted advisers are to let people know, hey, there's potential payroll tax obligations and liabilities, but then there could be also these [other consequences]. You don't want them to come back to you and say, hey, you never questioned this. You never said anything was wrong with this. I think that's important. And that's the point of why we're talking about this today. Any final thoughts as we're wrapping up, Dan.

Moore: Yeah, so I'll remove the gloom and doom. The scenario could arise that you have someone doing work for you as independent contractor, under these rules, the individual would be able to go to the Department of Labor and say, okay, I really, truly believe that I fall under Fair Labor Standards Act, and I was not paid overtime by this company that I was doing work for.

Department of Labor comes in, they do a ruling, you may have to hire an attorney to help you navigate this situation. Then you have to pay overtime, calculate that, look at your record keeping. That could be penalties assessed with it. So that's just a simple, someone said, you know what? I worked 45 hours, not 40 on that job and I didn't get paid time and a half. And so, a very minimal kind of situation that could eat up a lot of time within the company.

Walker: Thank you so much for walking us through this conversation today. It was not an easy, breezy conversation, but it was one that I think we needed to have as hopefully our listeners will take something away. In closing on these podcasts, as you know, since you're a repeat guest, I like to think of us taking a journey together. An Odyssey, if you will, towards a better profession. In doing so, I like to hear about our guests other journeys outside of tax. So, please share a page from your travel journal or bucket list or something you've got on the horizon, Dan.

Moore: So, I won’t do a travel, but I will say just on my own personal journey and pursuit to mindfulness and clear mind. I love to collect audio books that I'm going to find the time to listen to and I never find the time to listen to them. This morning I did a swim and this morning I was pretty excited I finally got my new headset to work. That I can now listen to books while I'm swimming. This morning I got a 40-minute workout in and also got to listen to 40 minutes of a book that I would not otherwise have made time.

Walker: Tell us the name of the book.

Moore: it's on NLP, Neuro Linguistic Programming. I should probably listen to that definition a little closer, but it's just really looking at our reactions, the words we use and also listening to how your employees and your clients are speaking and the way they're speaking really can help you to better understand their thought processes that are going through something. I think it's a great tool to have this time of year when we are face-to-face with all of our clients.

Walker: Wonderful. You’re improving your body, you're improving your mind, all at the same time, that seems like a win-win for everyone.

Thank you again so much, Dan. I'm sure we'll have you again. I'll try to pick an easier topic next time.

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 we encourage you to follow us so you don't miss an episode. If you already follow us, thank you so much, and feel free to share with a like-minded friend. You can also find us on aicpa-cima.com/tax to listen to our other episodes as well as get access to resources mentioned. Thank you so much.

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.