Investments

Consider this article your periodic reminder that, for married taxpayers, filing jointly is an election and not the default (and certainly not the only) filing status option. It is important in a busy practice to remember to offer this option to clients who may benefit from filing separately, even if they don't ask.

The IRS has issued a statement about a new settlement offer that is going out for conservation and historic preservation easement disputes. It is similar to previous offers, but there is one big difference. The partnership will not have to make a payment at the time that it accepts the offer. Other than that, it is similar to the deal offered in 2020. Taxpayers get to deduct what they are out-of-pocket as an ordinary deduction and are subject to a 10% penalty. In general, the out-of-pocket donation might be around 20% to 25% of the claimed charitable deduction. The Tax Court, on average, has been allowing 6%, although results vary. There is usually a 40% penalty in the decided cases.

Astute readers of this publication may recognize that I frequently write on Cryptocurrency and also on Tax Court cases. It feels like Christmas to me to be able to write about a tax court case about crypto. This is only the Third Tax court case to even mention crypto, and the first to look at the underlying principles of taxation. (The other two were about including crypto assets in a CDP hearing and a frivolous tax protester argument). Today’s case, Paschall v. Commissioner, is about the taxation of staking income.

Income shifting strategies address taxation at its most fundamental level by directing income to taxpayers in lower brackets or with offsetting deductions. Unlike many tax strategies that merely time recognition or enhance deductions, effective income shifting can permanently reduce the tax burden on a given dollar of income—often creating tax savings that compound year after year. In this article, we'll explore systematic approaches to income shifting that create extraordinary value for clients while maintaining impeccable compliance.

Many taxpayers have lived with a frustrating mismatch since the Section 163(j) limitation tightened after 2021 – the business may generate plenty of cash, yet its interest deductions are limited because adjusted taxable income (“ATI”) is too low, e.g., due to capex. The 2025 restoration of depreciation and amortization addbacks makes ATI planning relevant again, especially for groups that own valuable intangible property (“IP”), and the choice of legal entity to house group IP may have very different tax consequences as discussed in this article.

In recognition of the 250th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, let’s review 250 years of tax history. Our nation’s tax systems have evolved over two and a half centuries as ways of doing business and living have changed. Also, expectations of services the public wants and needs from the government have grown, resulting in tax changes to generate increasing amounts of tax revenue. Along the way, lawmakers have considered principles of simplification, equity, fairness, economic growth and effective tax administration that have shaped our tax laws. This article offers questions and answers to cover a range of interesting aspects of our federal tax history.

Perhaps the most misunderstood aspect of partnership taxation relates to distributions. When a partnership distributes cash or property to its partners, the tax consequences can range from completely tax-free to significantly taxable, depending on how the distribution is structured and the partners' tax basis in their partnership interests. In this article, we'll explore the rules governing partnership distributions and how they impact partners' tax situations. More importantly, we'll look at strategies to structure distributions in the most tax-efficient manner possible – because the goal is not just to understand the rules but to use them advantageously.

We’ve all been there. A client walks into your office and, somewhere in the conversation, you realize that a seemingly minor oversight, a missed deadline, a form nobody filed, an election nobody mentioned, has spiraled into a five- or six-figure tax problem. In my years of practice, some of the most expensive mistakes I’ve seen weren’t the result of aggressive planning gone wrong. They were small, quiet errors. The kind that happens when a deadline slips, an election isn’t made, or a form gets overlooked entirely. The tax code is unforgiving in these situations, and the IRS has little sympathy for “I didn’t know.” This article walks through some of the most common, and most costly, small mistakes that can devastate your client’s tax situation, along with practical guidance for avoiding them.