Guest Article

CPAs routinely help clients improve tax efficiency, yet one of the most consequential advisory questions is whether the business itself could remain operational after a significant uninsured loss. Tax planning improves after-tax cash flow and strengthens annual performance, but continuity planning determines whether the enterprise can withstand disruption long enough to recover. When an adverse event threatens operations, liquidity and stability often matter more than marginal tax savings. For that reason, the discussion of risk funding deserves to sit alongside traditional tax strategy in any comprehensive advisory relationship.

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.

One would think that now, with summer doldrums and vacation days planned, Tax Court operations would slow and we could all go away. Not this month; six full-dress T. C. opinions and some Memos and miscellany fall like a summer cloudburst. Busy times.

Recent developments in the Section 183 (Hobby loss) area have not led me to change my basic conclusions. Taxpayers who have a sincere objective of ultimately making a profit should not hesitate to claim losses from the underlying activities. That is so even if you believe that profits are improbable. It is critical that they meet the standard of behaving in a businesslike manner. The other regulatory factors should not be ignored, but often there is not that much you can do about them. Reilly’s 18th Law of Tax Planning – Honest objective trumps realistic expectation.

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.

We’ve all said it: “Once busy season ends, we’ll fix this.” But the pressure never leaves, it just shifts. Extensions, quarter-end, planning season, and year-end come one after another. When a firm wants to grow, the real challenge is not, “Can we get more clients?” but, “Can we deliver quality service at scale without overburdening our team or diminishing client experience?” This is the true capacity problem behind growth.

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.