Podcast Article

I have a friend who has been retiring “in about two years” for the last five years. He is 67, runs a successful practice with about 400 returns, and specializes in tax planning. He has never had the practice valued. He also has no succession plan in the event he does not come back from his next fishing trip. This is not unusual. This is typical. The 2020 American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) firm succession survey found that only 6% of solo and sole practitioners had a practice continuation agreement in place. Nearly half of those surveyed said they knew they needed one and had no idea how to start. That second figure is the one that gets me, because it is not denial. Our colleagues know exactly what is at stake and are stuck. Let us get unstuck.

The story of Anne Milner Fields is one of the reasons family limited partnership (FLP) opinions appeal to me so much. Born in 1925, she grew up in a small town in Texas and then moved to Dallas where she got a job as a secretary and met prominent oil man Bert Fields Sr. They married, and she lived the life of a socialite until he died in 1963. She consciously turned herself into a businesswoman, going so far as to take accounting courses. Having no children or grandchildren, she took her grandnephew, Bryan Milner, under her wing, paying for his education and mentoring him. In 2010, the year she turned 85, she made him executor of her estate and gave him a general power of attorney. He was also set to inherit the residue of her estate after some specific bequests. I really think we have the elements of a novel or a TV miniseries here, but we are tax people, so we are going to focus on how Anne’s estate tax was handled after she passed. It didn’t go well.

Following Betteridge’s Law of Headlines, the answer to the question posed in the headline is, “no.” Actually — because we’re talking about taxes here — we can say the answer is never so definitive, so let’s change it to “probably not.” But it's more complicated than it may seem.

We all know how messy tax returns can get when couples who used to file jointly divorce and there are children (and tax credits) involved. It’s often difficult to explain the rules surrounding Head of Household filing status and the various tax credits available to parent-clients who have separated or divorced. But what happens when the clients misunderstand and decide to fight about it in family or divorce court? The following case study says “nothing good” can be a horrifying and frustrating answer to this question.

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.

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.

The Internal Revenue Service has made no secret of its increased scrutiny of captive insurance arrangements, particularly those involving the small insurance company election. For taxpayers and their advisors, this has created understandable concern and, in some cases, hesitation about whether captive insurance remains a viable risk management and tax planning tool. Yet heightened scrutiny does not mean prohibition. The Internal Revenue Code continues to recognize captive insurance, Congress has refined it, and courts evaluate it based on well-established insurance principles. The real issue is not whether captives are allowed, but whether a specific taxpayer has a legitimate business need for insurance, has structured the arrangement properly, and has implemented it in a manner consistent with both tax law and insurance fundamentals. Understanding where scrutiny arises, how elections function, and what separates compliant captives from problematic ones is critical for CPAs advising closely held businesses today.