Specializing in IRS and NYS Tax Representation. Workers Compensation Audits, Payroll, Sales and Income Tax representation for Businesses, Individuals, Restaurants and Construction Companies. Civil and Criminal Workers Comp Audit representation includes: NYSIF Examinations, Premium Disputes, Employee Misclassification, Underreporting, Unreported Income, and Failure to Keep Accurate Payroll Records.
We take a practical approach to problem solving and strive to obtain the best possible outcome for our clients
We successfully solve IRS and New York State Tax problems, including suspended Drivers Licenses and Passports. Specializing in large dollar Payroll, Sales and Income Tax Representation for Individuals, Professional Practices and Businesses.
We negotiate excellent Payment Plans, Audits, Offers in Compromise, Payroll & Trust Fund Recovery Penalties, and most other tax issues. Do you have Unfiled Tax Returns? We can have them prepared and filed for you within 48 hours, guaranteed. Same day and emergency appointments are available Monday through Friday in our New York City office.
I came, gentlemen,’ said Mr. Pickwick, gazing placidly on the two partners, ‘I came here, gentlemen, to express the surprise with which I received your letter of the other day, and to inquire what grounds of action you can have against me.’
‘Grounds of—’ Fogg had ejaculated this much, when he was stopped by Dodson.
‘Mr. Fogg,’ said Dodson, ‘I am going to speak.’ ‘I beg your pardon, Mr. Dodson,’ said Fogg.
‘For the grounds of action, sir,’ continued Dodson, with moral elevation in his air, ‘you will consult your own conscience and your own feelings. We, Sir, we, are guided entirely by the statement of our client. That statement, Sir, may be true, or it may be false; it may be credible, or it may be incredible; but, if it be true, and if it be credible, I do not hesitate to say, Sir, that our grounds of action, Sir, are strong, and not to be shaken. You may be an unfortunate man, Sir, or you may be a designing one; but if I were called upon, as a juryman upon my oath, Sir, to express an opinion of your conduct, Sir, I do not hesitate to assert that I should have but one opinion about it.’ Here Dodson drew himself up, with an air of offended virtue, and looked at Fogg, who thrust his hands farther in his pockets, and nodding his head sagely, said, in a tone of the fullest concurrence, ‘Most certainly.’
‘Well, Sir,’ said Mr. Pickwick, with considerable pain depicted in his countenance, ‘you will permit me to assure you that I am a most unfortunate man, so far as this case is concerned.’
‘I hope you are, Sir,’ replied Dodson; ‘I trust you may be, Sir. If you are really innocent of what is laid to your charge, you are more unfortunate than I had believed any man could possibly be. What do you say, Mr. Fogg?’
‘I say precisely what you say,’ replied Fogg, with a smile of incredulity.
‘The writ, Sir, which commences the action,’ continued Dodson, ‘was issued regularly. Mr. Fogg, where is the praecipebook?’
‘Here it is,’ said Fogg, handing over a square book, with a parchment cover.
‘Here is the entry,’ resumed Dodson. ‘“Middlesex, Capias MARTHA BARDELL, WIDOW, v. SAMUEL PICKWICK. Damages #1500. Dodson & Fogg for the plaintiff, Aug. 28, 1827.” All regular, Sir; perfectly.’ Dodson coughed and looked at Fogg, who said ‘Perfectly,’ also. And then they both looked at Mr. Pickwick.
‘I am to understand, then,’ said Mr. Pickwick, ‘that it really is your intention to proceed with this action?’
‘Understand, sir!—that you certainly may,’ replied Dodson, with something as near a smile as his importance would allow.
‘And that the damages are actually laid at fifteen hundred pounds?’ said Mr. Pickwick.
‘To which understanding you may add my assurance, that if we could have prevailed upon our client, they would have been laid at treble the amount, sir,’ replied Dodson. ‘I believe Mrs. Bardell specially said, however,’ observed Fogg, glancing at Dodson, ‘that she would not compromise for a farthing less.’
‘Unquestionably,’ replied Dodson sternly. For the action was only just begun; and it wouldn’t have done to let Mr. Pickwick compromise it then, even if he had been so disposed.
‘As you offer no terms, sir,’ said Dodson, displaying a slip of parchment in his right hand, and affectionately pressing a paper copy of it, on Mr. Pickwick with his left, ‘I had better serve you with a copy of this writ, sir. Here is the original, sir.’
‘Very well, gentlemen, very well,’ said Mr. Pickwick, rising in person and wrath at the same time; ‘you shall hear from my solicitor, gentlemen.’
‘We shall be very happy to do so,’ said Fogg, rubbing his hands.
‘Very,’ said Dodson, opening the door.
‘And before I go, gentlemen,’ said the excited Mr. Pickwick, turning round on the landing, ‘permit me to say, that of all the disgraceful and rascally proceedings—’
‘Stay, sir, stay,’ interposed Dodson, with great politeness. ‘Mr. Jackson! Mr. Wicks!’
‘Sir,’ said the two clerks, appearing at the bottom of the stairs.
‘I merely want you to hear what this gentleman says,’ replied Dodson. ‘Pray, go on, sir—disgraceful and rascally proceedings, I think you said?’
‘I did,’ said Mr. Pickwick, thoroughly roused. ‘I said, Sir, that of all the disgraceful and rascally proceedings that ever were attempted, this is the most so. I repeat it, sir.’
‘You hear that, Mr. Wicks,’ said Dodson.
‘You won’t forget these expressions, Mr. Jackson?’ said Fogg.
‘Perhaps you would like to call us swindlers, sir,’ said Dodson. ‘Pray do, Sir, if you feel disposed; now pray do, Sir.’
‘I do,’ said Mr. Pickwick. ‘You areswindlers.’
‘Very good,’ said Dodson. ‘You can hear down there, I hope, Mr. Wicks?’
‘Oh, yes, Sir,’ said Wicks.
‘You had better come up a step or two higher, if you can’t,’ added Mr. Fogg. ‘Go on, Sir; do go on. You had better call us thieves, Sir; or perhaps You would like to assault one Of us. Pray do it, Sir, if you would; we will not make the smallest resistance. Pray do it, Sir.’
As Fogg put himself very temptingly within the reach of Mr. Pickwick’s clenched fist, there is little doubt that that gentleman would have complied with his earnest entreaty, but for the interposition of Sam, who, hearing the dispute, emerged from the office, mounted the stairs, and seized his master by the arm.
‘You just come away,’ said Mr. Weller. ‘Battledore and shuttlecock’s a wery good game, vhen you ain’t the shuttlecock and two lawyers the battledores, in which case it gets too excitin’ to be pleasant. Come avay, Sir. If you want to ease your mind by blowing up somebody, come out into the court and blow up me; but it’s rayther too expensive work to be carried on here.’
And without the slightest ceremony, Mr. Weller hauled his master down the stairs, and down the court, and having safely deposited him in Cornhill, fell behind, prepared to follow whithersoever he should lead.
Mr. Pickwick walked on abstractedly, crossed opposite the Mansion House, and bent his steps up Cheapside. Sam began to wonder where they were going, when his master turned round, and said—
‘Sam, I will go immediately to Mr. Perker’s.’
‘That’s just exactly the wery place vere you ought to have gone last night, Sir,’ replied Mr. Weller.
‘I think it is, Sam,’ said Mr. Pickwick. ‘I knowit is,’ said Mr. Weller.
‘Well, well, Sam,’ replied Mr. Pickwick, ‘we will go there at once; but first, as I have been rather ruffled, I should like a glass of brandy–and–water warm, Sam. Where can I have it, Sam?’
A former high-flyer was sentenced to 72 months in prison following his conviction on filing false tax returns and corruptly endeavoring to impede the due administration of the internal revenue laws. If you’re in trouble with the IRS or State call (212) 974-3435 today.
Selig & Associates
We take a practical approach to problem solving and strive to obtain the best possible outcome for our clients
We successfully solve IRS and New York State Tax problems, including suspended Drivers Licenses and Passports. Specializing in large dollar Payroll, Sales and Income Tax Representation for Individuals, Professional Practices and Businesses.
We negotiate excellent Payment Plans, Audits, Offers in Compromise, Payroll & Trust Fund Recovery Penalties, and most other tax issues. Do you have Unfiled Tax Returns? We can have them prepared and filed for you within 48 hours, guaranteed. Same day and emergency appointments are available Monday through Friday in our New York City office. `
To schedule a Free and Legally Privileged Consultation with a Federal Tax Practitioner and Attorney contact us Online
A busty bookkeeper who pocketed plenty was carted off to prison for 36 months, followed by 3 years of supervised release, and ordered to pay $193,909 in restitution. The bleach blonde bubblehead devised a devilish scheme to defraud the boss’s company. Notwithstanding all the adultery and ensuing embezzlement, the thing that really got her french panties into a twist was that she failed to file income tax returns for years 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 and then committed a "whole lotta love" a/k/a income tax evasion (she also made false statements to IRS criminal investigators).
Selig & Associates
We take a practical approach to problem solving and strive to obtain the best possible outcome for our clients
We successfully solve IRS and New York State Tax problems, including suspended Drivers Licenses and Passports. Specializing in large dollar Payroll, Sales and Income Tax Representation for Individuals, Professional Practices and Businesses.
We negotiate excellent Payment Plans, Audits, Offers in Compromise, Payroll & Trust Fund Recovery Penalties, and most other tax issues. Do you have Unfiled Tax Returns? We can have them prepared and filed for you within 48 hours, guaranteed. Same day and emergency appointments are available Monday through Friday in our New York City office. `
To schedule a Free and Legally Privileged Consultation with a Federal Tax Practitioner and Attorney contact us Online
A highly educated man was sentenced to 30 months in prison for failing to report and pay employment taxes, announced Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Richard E. Zuckerman of the Justice Department’s Tax Division and U.S. Attorney Robert J. Higdon Jr., for the Eastern District. According to court documents, from 2010 to 2013, Sainte Deon Robinson failed to pay over federal income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes withheld from the wages paid to employees of his business, the mental health service provider OneCare Inc. Robinson served in various positions at OneCare Inc., including President, and was obligated to pay over to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) such employment taxes on behalf of the company. He failed to report and pay over almost $1.7 million in employment taxes to the IRS. In addition to prison, Robinson was ordered to pay restitution to the IRS in the amount of $1,686,360, and to serve three years of supervised release after the completion of his sentence.
26 CFR 1.355-3: Active Conduct of a Trade or Business.
Rev. Rul. 2019-09
This revenue ruling suspends Rev. Rul. 57-464, 1957-2 C.B. 244, and Rev. Rul. 57-492, 1957-2 C.B. 247, pending the completion of a study by the Department of the Treasury (Treasury Department) and the Internal Revenue Service (Service) regarding the active trade or business (ATB) requirement under sections 355(a)(1)(C) and (b) of the Internal Revenue Code.
REVENUE RULINGS
In Rev. Rul. 57-464, the Service considered the section 355 qualification of a corporation’s separation of a manufacturing business from a group of real estate assets consisting of an old factory building used for storage and four other buildings: a duplex apartment building rented to employees of the corporation, a small office building rented to a single tenant, and two houses, one of which was occupied by a sister-in-law of the president of the corporation. The use of the old factory building for storage “was not in itself the active operation of a business as defined in the regulations.” The rental activities “produced only a nominal rental” and “negligible” net income, and the properties “were acquired either as an investment or as a convenience to employees of the manufacturing business.” The Service held that the separation did not satisfy the ATB requirement.
In Rev. Rul. 57-492, a corporation engaged in refining, transporting, and marketing petroleum products began a separate operation to explore for and produce oil. The exploration and production operation incurred substantial expenditures but “did not include any income producing activity or any source of income” until less than five years preceding its separation from the primary refining, transportation, and marketing operation. The Service held that the exploration and production operation failed to qualify as an ATB because, “[b]efore oil was discovered in commercial quantities ..., the venture ... did not include any income producing activity or any source of income.”
LAW
Section 355(a)(1) provides that, if certain requirements are met, a corporation may distribute stock and securities of a controlled corporation to its shareholders and security holders without recognition of gain or loss or income to the recipient shareholders or security holders. Among those requirements, both the distributing corporation and the controlled corporation must be engaged in an ATB immediately after the distribution. Sections 355(a)(1)(C) and (b), and §1.355-3(a)(1)(i). Each trade or business must have been actively conducted throughout the five-year period ending on the date of the distribution. Section 355(b)(2)(B) and §1.355-3(b)(3).
Section 1.355-3(b)(2)(ii) describes a “trade or business” as “a specific group of activities [that] are being carried on by the corporation for the purpose of earning income or profit, and the activities included in such group include every operation that forms a part of, or a step in, the process of earning income or profit.” In particular, “[s]uch group of activities ordinarily must include the collection of income and the payment of expenses.” Section 1.355-3(b)(2)(ii).
ANALYSIS
The Treasury Department and the Service are conducting a study to determine, for purposes of section 355, “whether a business can qualify as an ATB if entrepreneurial activities, as opposed to investment or other non-business activities, take place with the purpose of earning income in the future, but no income has yet been collected.” See IRS statement regarding the active trade or business requirement for section 355 distributions, dated September 25, 2018, available at http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/statements-from-office-of-the-chief-counsel. The ATB analysis underlying the holdings in Rev. Rul. 57-464 and Rev. Rul. 57-492 focuses, in significant part, on the lack of income generated by the activities under consideration. Consequently, these rulings could be interpreted as requiring income generation for a business to qualify as an ATB.
Accordingly, Rev. Rul. 57-464 and Rev. Rul. 57-492 are suspended pending completion of the study. See IRM 32.2.2.8.1, para. 9 (Aug. 11, 2004) (providing that a revenue ruling can be suspended “only in rare situations to show that previously published guidance will not be applied pending some future action, such as ... the outcome of a Service study”).
EFFECT ON OTHER REVENUE RULINGS
Rev. Rul. 57-464 and Rev. Rul. 57-492 are suspended.
Free Consultation
We Solve Tax Problems. Call (212) 974-3435 or contact us online. Meet with an experienced Federal Tax Practitioner and Attorneyin our conveniently located New York City office.
Restaurants
We Specialize in Unpaid Sales Taxes, installment agreements, audit representation and all Department of Labor issues. *Ask us about Debt Restructuring, including settling judgments, renegotiating bank loans and merchant cash advances. For immediate assistance call (212) 974-3435 or contact us online.
Contractors
We Specialize in Payroll and Withholding Taxes, installment agreements, audit representation and Workers Compensation insurance audits. To schedule a free consultation call (212) 974-3435 or contact us online.
Businesses
We Settle and Restructure Business Debts, including judgments and most insurance claims. To meet with us personally call (212) 974-3435 or contact us online.
Count On Us. Guaranteed.
✔Same day and emergency appointments available.
✔We negotiate excellent re-payment plans with IRS and State.
✔Missing tax returns prepared and filed in 48 hours, guaranteed.
A Florida man had his initial appearance in court yesterday after being arrested on an indictment charging him with filing false tax returns with the Internal Revenue Service, announced Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Richard E. Zuckerman of the Justice Department’s Tax Division and U.S. Attorney Ariana Fajardo Orshan for the Southern District of Florida.
According to the indictment, Joseph J. Ferry III, owned Ferry Enterprises Inc., a residential and commercial landscaping business serving customers in Martin and Saint Lucie County. Ferry Enterprises also provided landscaping services for Martin County and the City of Port Saint Lucie.
Ferry was charged with five counts of filing false corporate income tax returns and five counts of filing false individual income tax returns with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that fraudulently understated the total income earned by Ferry Enterprises - and Ferry himself - for tax years 2012 through 2016. The indictment alleges that business income was deposited into corporate bank accounts; however, Ferry allegedly used money from the business bank accounts to pay his personal expenses, including payments on his personal mortgage and loans, purchases of firearms, home renovations, and jewelry. Ferry also allegedly withdrew more than $2.9 million in cash from the corporation’s bank accounts.
If convicted, Ferry faces a maximum sentence of three years in prison for each count of filing a false tax return with the IRS. He also faces substantial monetary penalties and restitution.
An indictment merely alleges that a crime has been committed, and the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Zuckerman and U.S. Attorney Fajardo Orshan commended special agents of IRS Criminal Investigation, who investigated the case, and Trial Attorneys Allison J. Garnett and Sean Beaty of the Tax Division, who are prosecuting the case.
Free Consultation We Solve Tax and Insurance Problems. To speak with an experienced Federal Tax Practitioner and Attorney call (212) 974-3435 or contact us online. Don't delay another day. Meet with us personally in our conveniently located New York City office.
RestaurantsWe specialize in unpaid sales taxes, installment agreements, audit representation and all Department of Labor issues. *Ask us about Debt Restructuring, including settling judgments, renegotiating bank loans and merchant cash advances ("MCA"). For immediate assistance call (212) 974-3435 or contact us online.
ContractorsWe specialize in payroll and withholding taxes, installment agreements, audit representation and Workers Compensation insurance audits. To schedule a free consultation call (212) 974-3435 or contact us online.
BusinessesWe settle and restructure business debts, including MCA's, judgments and most insurance claims. To meet with us personally call (212) 974-3435 or contact us online.
Count On Us. Guaranteed.
✔Same day and emergency appointments available.
✔We negotiate excellent re-payment plans with IRS and State.
✔Missing tax returns prepared and filed in 48 hours, guaranteed.
Marlene Seo was sentenced of February 1st2019 to one year and one day in prison for making and subscribing a false corporate income tax return, announced Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney Richard E. Zuckerman, head of the Justice Department’s Tax Division.
According to court documents, Seo owned and operated the National Martial Arts Academy (NMAA). From 2011 through 2013, she directed that income due to NMAA to be deposited into certain bank accounts, which she did not disclose to her bookkeeper and accountants. As a result, Seo caused the 2011, 2012 and 2013 federal corporate income tax returns for NMAA to underreport the business’s gross receipts by approximately $650,000.
Seo pleaded guilty on October 29, 2018, to signing and filing NMAA’s false 2012 income tax return. In addition to the prison term, Seo was ordered to serve one year of supervised release and to pay restitution to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in the amount of $238,350.70 and a special assessment of $100.
Principal Assistant Attorney General Zuckerman commended special agents of IRS-Criminal Investigation, who investigated the case, and Trial Attorneys Anahi Cortada and Lisa L. Bellamy of the Tax Division, who prosecuted the case.
Free Consultation with an experienced Federal Tax Practitioner and Attorney.Call (212) 974-3435 or contact us online. Don’t delay another day. Meet with us personally in our conveniently located New York City office.
RestaurantsWe specialize in unpaid sales taxes, installment agreements, audit representation and all Department of Labor issues. For immediate assistance call (212) 974-3435 or contact us online.
ContractorsWe specialize in payroll and withholding taxes, installment agreements, audit representation and Workers Compensation insurance audits. To schedule a free consultation call (212) 974-3435 or contact us online.
BusinessesWe settle and restructure business debts, including multiple MCAs, judgments and most insurance claims. To meet with us personally call (212) 974-3435 or contact us online.
ount On Us. Guaranteed.
✔Same day and emergency appointments are always available.
✔We negotiate excellent re-payment plans with the IRS and State.
✔Missing tax returns prepared and filed within 48 hours, guaranteed.
Takedown by Bronx DA, New York State Tax Dept., Homeland Security Investigations and NJ Treasury Office of Criminal Investigation YieldsEquipment and Trove of Forged Tax Stamps
Bronx District Attorney Darcel D. Clark, New York State Department of Taxation and Finance Acting Commissioner Nonie Manion, Brian Michael, Special Agent in Charge, Homeland Security Investigations Newark; and New Jersey State Treasurer Elizabeth Maher Muoio today announced that a joint investigation has resulted in indictments charging 21 people with forging millions of cigarette tax stamps and trafficking in illegal cigarettes that resulted in the evasion of more than $15 million in taxes and undercutting small businesses.
District Attorney Clark said, “This scheme involved defendants who allegedly forged and printed millions of tax stamps in an apartment and a printing store. Truckloads of cartons of cigarettes per week were brought from North Carolina, and the defendants put the stamps on the packs and sold them to stores throughout the metropolitan area. This scheme allegedly cheated the state and city out of more than $15 million in taxes in the last six months alone. In addition, this scheme hurts law-abiding businesses that cannot compete with stores illegally selling untaxed, cheap cigarettes.”
Acting Commissioner Manion said, “The bust of this sophisticated counterfeit tax stamp ring, the largest in Tax Department history, required deft coordination with our partners in law enforcement. I thank them for continuing to support our mission to break up criminal networks like this one and other operations that deprive communities of vital tax revenue and put honest business owners at a competitive disadvantage.”
Special Agent in Charge Michael said, “This type of criminal activity generates huge profits for criminal organizations, both here and abroad, while depriving communities of the benefits of tax revenues and harming small businesses. Those who engage in such forgeries should know that the cooperative efforts of local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies will ensure that they are apprehended.”
New Jersey State Treasurer Maher Muoio said, “This criminal enterprise sought to cheat taxpayers in New York and New Jersey out of millions of dollars by peddling truckloads of cigarettes with counterfeit tax stamps. Thankfully, the combined efforts of city, state, and federal law enforcement in New York and New Jersey shut down this operation and put the defendants out of business.”
District Attorney Clark said 17 of the defendants were arrested in takedowns on November 14, 2018 through November 16, 2018 in locations in the Bronx and Yonkers. Nearly two million counterfeit tax stamps, a printing press and other equipment, as well as more than $120,000 cash were recovered. Authorities also recovered records revealing the transfer of tens of thousands of dollars out of the U.S.
The defendants have been arraigned before Bronx Supreme Court Justice Martin Marcus. They are due back in court starting November 26, 2018. If convicted of the top count of the indictment, many of the defendants face 8 1/3 to 25 years in prison.
The defendants are variously charged with first and second-degree Criminal Tax Fraud, second-degree Money Laundering, first-degree Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument, first- degree Forgery, Cigarette and Tobacco Products Tax and fourth and fifth-degree Conspiracy.
According to the investigation, between March 2018 and November 2018, defendants Luis Ortiz and Ernesto Guerrero allegedly designed stencils in order to print stamps and sell them for distribution throughout New York City and state without paying city and state taxes. Defendants Bolivar Clase and Nelsa Soler allegedly acquired special wax paper and other supplies, and Guerrero and Ortiz allegedly manufactured the stamps in Ernesto Printing, at 353 Rider Avenue in the Bronx, as well as in Ortiz’ residence at East 173 Street in the Bronx.
Defendants Carlos Santos, Rafael Dominguez and Wilson Dominguez allegedly resold the stamps or affixed them to packs of cigarettes using a clothes iron and then sold the cigarettes.
The other defendants allegedly transported the cigarettes from North Carolina or bought and sold stamps throughout New York City and Westchester County.
The case is being prosecuted by Assistant District Attorneys Griffin Kenyon, Sharif Hannan and Nina A. Vershuta, of the Tax and Organizational Fraud Unit; W. Dyer Halpern, Chief of the Tax and Organizational Fraud Unit, under the supervision of Tarek Rahman, Deputy Chief of the Investigations Division, and the overall supervision of Jean T. Walsh, Chief of the Investigations Division.
The case was investigated by the NYS Tax Department’s Criminal Investigations Division Cigarette Strike Force, with Homeland Security Investigations Special Agent Eric Gallagher, and Supervising Special Agent Russell Glenn of the New Jersey Treasury, Office of Criminal Investigation.
District Attorney Clark thanked Assistant District Attorney Mary Jo Blanchard, Counsel to the Investigations Division; Howard Feldberg of the Special Investigations Bureau, Gino Pelaez, Financial Analyst, and Trial Prep Assistant Ayisola Johnson, both of the Investigations Division; and the Bronx District Attorney’s Detective Investigators for their assistance with the case. District Attorney Clark also thanked Assistant District Attorneys Jennifer Shaw and Cristina Paquette of the Asset Forfeiture Unit, under the supervision of Beverly Ma, Chief of the Civil Litigation Bureau, for their assistance.
An indictment is an accusatory instrument and not proof of a defendant’s guilt.
DEFENDANTS ARRESTED
CARLOS SANTOS, 61, 812 East 169 Street, Bronx RAFAEL DOMINGUEZ, 52, 701 West 180 Street, Manhattan WILSON DOMINGUEZ, 49, 812 East 169 Street, Bronx LUIS ORTIZ, 55, 1544 East 173 Street, Bronx FELIX TAVEREZ, 44, 1523 Washington Avenue, Bronx REYNA ALVAREZ, 50, 1980 7th Avenue, Manhattan
ANTEMIA ALVAREZ, 30, 1980 7th Avenue, Manhattan
ERNESTO GUERRERO, 57, 353 Rider Avenue, Bronx
BOLIVAR CLASE, 62, 1212 Grant Avenue, Bronx NELSA SOLER DEL ROSARIO, 57, 1212 Grant Avenue, Bronx
AMARIAM GARCIA-CRESPO, 28, 1361 College Avenue, Bronx
SANDY BERAS JESUEL PAULINO FRANCISCO PAULINO MARYLEIDA RODRIGUEZ DE GARCIA
Selig & Associates Aggressive New York City Tax AdvocatesWe Solve IRS and New York State Tax Problems, Guaranteed. Specializing in Income, Payroll and Sales Tax Issues. IRS Audits, Sales Tax Audits, Unpaid Payroll Taxes, Trust Fund Penalties, Criminal Tax Investigations and Tax Crimes, Installment Agreements and Payment Plans, Offers in Compromise and most other Tax Matters. For a Legally Privileged Consultation with a Federal Tax Practitioner and Licensed Attorney Call (212) 974-3435 or Contact Us Online.
We Solve Serious Tax Problems. For a Free Legally Privileged Consultation with a Federal Tax Practitioner and Licensed Attorney call (212) 974-3435 or Contact Us Online.
A Brooklyn, New York, man was sentenced to 48 months in prison for conspiring to defraud the government and theft of public funds, announced Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Richard E. Zuckerman of the Justice Department’s Tax Division.
According to documents filed with the court, Akim Martin, also known as Akim Davis, conspired with others to file fraudulent tax returns for companies and individual taxpayers. As part of the scheme, from March 2009 through March 2013, Martin and his co-conspirators filed false tax returns in the names of businesses they purportedly owned and operated, claiming phony deductions for wages paid to employees that purportedly worked for the fake companies. Martin negotiated fraudulently obtained federal refund checks and spent the money on his personal expenses. Martin’s conduct resulted in a tax loss of over $550,000.
In addition to the term of imprisonment imposed, U.S. District Judge Carol Bagley Amon ordered Martin to serve 3 years of supervised release, forfeit $82,600, and to pay restitution of $544,325 to the IRS.
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Zuckerman commended special agents of IRS-Criminal Investigation, who conducted the investigation, and Trial Attorneys Jason Scheff and Ann M. Cherry of the Tax Division, who prosecuted the case.
The Most Effective Tax Advocates in New York City!We Solve Serious Tax Problems. For a Free Legally Privileged Consultation with a Federal Tax Practitioner and Licensed Attorney call (212) 974-3435 or Contact Us Online.
We Settle Property Damage Claims for Top Dollar!Adjuster Selig and Attorney Dorin Settle Residential and Commercial Property Insurance Claims, including Business Interruption, Burglary, Fire, Windstorm and Losses Caused by Water Damage. For more information call David Selig at (212) 974-3435.
The Most Effective Tax Advocates in New York City!We Solve Serious Tax Problems. For a Free Legally Privileged Consultation with a Federal Tax Practitioner and Licensed Attorney call (212) 974-3435 or Contact Us Online.
We Settle Property Damage Claims for Top Dollar!Adjuster Selig and Attorney Dorin Settle Residential and Commercial Property Insurance Claims, including Business Interruption, Burglary, Fire, Windstorm and Losses Caused by Water Damage. For more information call David Selig at (212) 974-3435.
IRC Section 167(a) allows as a depreciation deduction a reasonable allowance for the exhaustion, wear and tear, and obsolescence of property used in a trade or business or of property held for the production of income. The depreciation deduction allowable for tangible depreciable property placed in service after 1986 generally is determined under the Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System provided by section 168 (MACRS property). The depreciation deduction allowable for computer software that is placed in service after August 10, 1993, and is not an amortizable section 197 intangible, is determined under section 167(f)(1).
Section 168(k), prior to amendment by the Act, allowed an additional first year depreciation deduction for the placed-in-service year equal to 50 percent of the adjusted basis of qualified property. Qualified property was defined in part as property the original use of which begins with the taxpayer.
Section 13201 of the Act made several amendments to the allowance for additional first year depreciation deduction in section 168(k). For example, the additional first year depreciation deduction percentage is increased from 50 to 100 percent; the property eligible for the additional first year depreciation deduction is expanded to include certain used depreciable property and certain film, television, or live theatrical productions; the placed-in-service date is extended from before January 1, 2020, to before January 1, 2027 (from before January 1, 2021, to before January 1, 2028, for longer production period property or certain aircraft property described in section 168(k)(2)(B) or (C)); and the date on which a specified plant is planted or grafted by the taxpayer is extended from before January 1, 2020, to before January 1, 2027.
Section 168(k) allows a 100-percent additional first year depreciation deduction for qualified property acquired and placed in service after September 27, 2017, and placed in service before January 1, 2023 (before January 1, 2024, for longer production period property or certain aircraft property described in section 168(k)(2)(B) or (C)). If a taxpayer elects to apply section 168(k)(5), the 100-percent additional first year depreciation deduction also is allowed for a specified plant planted or grafted after September 27, 2017, and before January 1, 2023. The 100-percent additional first year depreciation deduction is decreased by 20 percent annually for qualified property placed in service, or a specified plant planted or grafted, after December 31, 2022 (after December 31, 2023, for longer production period property or certain aircraft property described in section 168(k)(2)(B) or (C)).
Section 168(k)(2)(A), as amended by the Act, defines “qualified property” as meaning, in general, property (1) to which section 168 applies that has a recovery period of 20 years or less, which is computer software as defined in section 167(f)(1)(B) for which a deduction is allowable under section 167(a) without regard to section 168(k), which is water utility property, which is Start Printed Page 39293a qualified film or television production as defined in section 181(d) for which a deduction would have been allowable without regard to section 181(a)(2) or (g) or section 168(k), or which is a qualified live theatrical production as defined in section 181(e) for which a deduction would have been allowable without regard to section 181(a)(2) or (g) or section 168(k); (2) the original use of which begins with the taxpayer or the acquisition of which by the taxpayer meets the requirements of section 168(k)(2)(E)(ii); and (3) which is placed in service by the taxpayer before January 1, 2027. Section 168(k)(2)(E)(ii) requires that the acquired property was not used by the taxpayer at any time prior to such acquisition and the acquisition of such property meets the requirements of section 179(d)(2)(A), (B), and (C) and section 179(d)(3).
However, section 168(k)(2)(D) provides that qualified property does not include any property to which the alternative depreciation system under section 168(g) applies, determined without regard to section 168(g)(7) (relating to election to have the alternative depreciation system apply), and after application of section 280F(b) (relating to listed property with limited business use).
Section 13201(h) of the Act provides the effective dates of the amendments to section 168(k) made by section 13201 of the Act. Except as provided in section 13201(h)(2) of the Act, section 13201(h)(1) of the Act provides that these amendments apply to property acquired and placed in service after September 27, 2017. However, property is not treated as acquired after the date on which a written binding contract is entered into for such acquisition. Section 13201(h)(2) provides that the amendments apply to specified plants planted or grafted after September 27, 2017.
Additionally, section 12001(b)(13) of the Act repealed section 168(k)(4) (relating to the election to accelerate alternative minimum tax credits in lieu of the additional first year depreciation deduction) for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017. Further, section 13204(a)(4)(B)(ii) repealed section 168(k)(3) (relating to qualified improvement property) for property placed in service after December 31, 2017.
Explanation of Provisions
The proposed regulations describe and clarify the statutory requirements that must be met for depreciable property to qualify for the additional first year depreciation deduction provided by section 168(k). Further, the proposed regulations instruct taxpayers how to determine the additional first year depreciation deduction and the amount of depreciation otherwise allowable for this property. Because the Act made substantial amendments to section 168(k), the proposed regulations update existing regulations in § 1.168(k)-1 by providing a new section at § 1.168(k)-2 for property acquired and placed in service after September 27, 2017, and make conforming amendments to the existing regulations.
1. Eligibility Requirements for Additional First Year Depreciation Deduction
The proposed regulations follow section 168(k)(2), as amended by the Act, and section 13201(h) of the Act to provide that depreciable property must meet four requirements to be qualified property. These requirements are (1) the depreciable property must be of a specified type; (2) the original use of the depreciable property must commence with the taxpayer or used depreciable property must meet the acquisition requirements of section 168(k)(2)(E)(ii); (3) the depreciable property must be placed in service by the taxpayer within a specified time period or must be planted or grafted by the taxpayer before a specified date; and (4) the depreciable property must be acquired by the taxpayer after September 27, 2017.
2. Property of a Specified Type
A. PROPERTY ELIGIBLE FOR THE ADDITIONAL FIRST YEAR DEPRECIATION DEDUCTION
The proposed regulations follow the definition of qualified property in section 168(k)(2)(A)(i) and (k)(5) and provide that qualified property must be one of the following: (1) MACRS property that has a recovery period of 20 years or less; (2) computer software as defined in, and depreciated under, section 167(f)(1); (3) water utility property as defined in section 168(e)(5) and depreciated under section 168; (4) a qualified film or television production as defined in section 181(d) and for which a deduction would have been allowable under section 181 without regard to section 181(a)(2) and (g) or section 168(k); (5) a qualified live theatrical production as defined in section 181(e) and for which a deduction would have been allowable under section 181 without regard to section 181(a)(2) and (g) or section 168(k); or (6) a specified plant as defined in section 168(k)(5)(B) and for which the taxpayer has made an election to apply section 168(k)(5). Qualified improvement property acquired after September 27, 2017, and placed in service after September 27, 2017, and before January 1, 2018, also is qualified property.
For property placed in service after December 31, 2017, section 13204 of the Act amended section 168(e) to eliminate the 15-year MACRS property classification for qualified leasehold improvement property, qualified restaurant property, and qualified retail improvement property, and amended section 168(k) to eliminate qualified improvement property as a specific category of qualified property. Because of the effective date of section 13204 of the Act (property placed in service after December 31, 2017), the proposed regulations provide that MACRS property with a recovery period of 20 years or less includes the following MACRS property that is acquired by the taxpayer after September 27, 2017, and placed in service by the taxpayer after September 27, 2017, and before January 1, 2018: (1) Qualified leasehold improvement property; (2) qualified restaurant property that is qualified improvement property; and (3) qualified retail improvement property. For the same reason, the proposed regulations provide that qualified property includes qualified improvement property that is acquired by the taxpayer after September 27, 2017, and placed in service by the taxpayer after September 27, 2017, and before January 1, 2018. Further, to account for the statutory amendments to the definition of qualified improvement property made by the Act, the proposed regulations define qualified improvement property for purposes of section 168(k)(3) (before amendment by section 13204 of the Act) and section 168(e)(6) (as amended by section 13204 of the Act).
For purposes of determining the eligibility of MACRS property as qualified property, the proposed regulations retain the rule in § 1.168(k)-1(b)(2)(i)(A) that the recovery period applicable for the MACRS property under section 168(c) of the general depreciation system (GDS) is used, regardless of any election made by the taxpayer to depreciate the class of property under the alternative depreciation system of section 168(g) (ADS).
B. PROPERTY NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE ADDITIONAL FIRST YEAR DEPRECIATION DEDUCTION
The proposed regulations provide that qualified property does not include (1) property excluded from the application of section 168 as a result of section 168(f); (2) property that is required to be depreciated under the ADS (as described below); (3) any class of Start Printed Page 39294property for which the taxpayer elects not to deduct the additional first year depreciation under section 168(k)(7); (4) a specified plant placed in service by the taxpayer in the taxable year and for which the taxpayer made an election to apply section 168(k)(5) for a prior year under section 168(k)(5)(D); (5) any class of property for which the taxpayer elects to apply section 168(k)(4) (this exclusion applies to property placed in service in any taxable year beginning before January 1, 2018, because section 12001(b)(13) of the Act repealed section 168(k)(4) for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017); or (6) property described in section 168(k)(9)(A) or (B). Section 168(k)(9) provides that qualified property does not include (A) any property that is primarily used in a trade or business described in section 163(j)(7)(A)(iv), or (B) any property used in a trade or business that has had floor plan financing indebtedness (as defined in section 163(j)(9)) if the floor plan financing interest related to such indebtedness was taken into account under section 163(j)(1)(C). Section 163(j) applies to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017. Accordingly, the exclusion of property described in section 168(k)(9) from the additional first year depreciation deduction applies to property placed in service in any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2017.
Property is required to be depreciated under the ADS if the property is described under section 168(g)(1)(A), (B), (C), (D), (F), or (G) or if other provisions of the Code require depreciation for the property to be determined under the ADS. Accordingly, MACRS property that is nonresidential real property, residential rental property, and qualified improvement property held by an electing real property trade or business (as defined in section 163(j)(7)(B)), and property with a recovery period of 10 years or more that is held by an electing farming business (as defined in section 163(j)(7)(C)), are not eligible for the additional first year depreciation deduction for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017. Pursuant to section 168(k)(2)(D), MACRS property for which the taxpayer makes an election under section 168(g)(7) to depreciate the property under the ADS is eligible for the additional first year depreciation deduction (assuming all other requirements are met).
C. ELECTIONS
The proposed regulations provide rules for making the election out of the additional first year depreciation deduction pursuant to section 168(k)(7) and for making the election to apply section 168(k)(5) to a specified plant. Additionally, the proposed regulations provide rules for making the election under section 168(k)(10) to deduct 50 percent, instead of 100 percent, additional first year depreciation for qualified property acquired after September 27, 2017, by the taxpayer and placed in service or planted or grafted, as applicable, by the taxpayer during its taxable year that includes September 28, 2017. Because section 168(k)(10) does not state that the election may be made “with respect to any class of property” as stated in section 168(k)(7) for making the election out of the additional first year depreciation deduction, the proposed regulations provide that the election under section 168(k)(10) applies to all qualified property.
3. New and Used Property
A. NEW PROPERTY
The proposed regulations generally retain the original use rules in § 1.168(k)-1(b)(3). Pursuant to section 168(k)(2)(A)(ii), the proposed regulations do not provide any date by which the original use of the property must commence with the taxpayer. Because section 13201 of the Act removed the rules regarding sale-leaseback transactions, the proposed regulations also do not retain the original use rules in § 1.168(k)-1(b)(3)(iii)(A) and (C) regarding such transactions, including a sale-leaseback transaction followed by a syndication transaction. The rule in the proposed regulations for syndication transactions involving new or used property is explained later in the preamble.
B. USED PROPERTY
Pursuant to section 168(k)(2)(A)(ii) and (k)(2)(E)(ii), the proposed regulations provide that the acquisition of used property is eligible for the additional first year depreciation deduction if such acquisition meets the following requirements: (1) The property was not used by the taxpayer or a predecessor at any time prior to the acquisition; (2) the acquisition of the property meets the related party and carryover basis requirements of section 179(d)(2)(A), (B), and (C) and § 1.179-4(c)(1)(ii), (iii), and (iv), or (c)(2); and (3) the acquisition of the property meets the cost requirements of section 179(d)(3) and § 1.179-4(d).
I. SECTION 336(E) ELECTION
A section 338 election and a section 336(e) election share many of the same characteristics. Therefore, the proposed regulations modify § 1.179-4(c)(2), which addresses the treatment of a section 338 election, to include property deemed to have been acquired by a new target corporation as a result of a section 336(e) election. Section 1.336-1(a)(1) provides that to the extent not inconsistent with section 336(e) or the regulations under section 336(e), the principles of section 338 and the regulations under section 338 apply for purposes of the regulations under section 336. To the extent that property is deemed to have been acquired by a “new target corporation,” the Treasury Department and the IRS read § 1.179-4(c)(2), without modification, as applying to the deemed acquisition of property by a new target corporation as a result of a section 336(e) election, just as it applies as the result of a section 338 election. However, to remove any doubt, the proposed regulations modify § 1.179-4(c)(2) to provide that property deemed to have been acquired by a new target corporation as a result of a section 338 or a section 336(e) election will be considered acquired by purchase for purposes of section 179.
II. PROPERTY NOT PREVIOUSLY USED BY THE TAXPAYER
The proposed regulations provide that the property is treated as used by the taxpayer or a predecessor at any time before its acquisition of the property only if the taxpayer or the predecessor had a depreciable interest in the property at any time before the acquisition, whether or not the taxpayer or the predecessor claimed depreciation deductions for the property. If a lessee has a depreciable interest in the improvements made to leased property and subsequently the lessee acquires the leased property of which the improvements are a part, the proposed regulations provide that the unadjusted depreciable basis, as defined in § 1.168(b)-1(a)(3), of the acquired property that is eligible for the additional first year depreciation deduction, assuming all other requirements are met, does not include the unadjusted depreciable basis attributable to the improvements.
Further, if a taxpayer initially acquires a depreciable interest in a portion of the property and subsequently acquires an additional depreciable interest in the same property, the proposed regulations also provide that such additional depreciable interest is not treated as being previously used by the taxpayer. However, if a taxpayer holds a depreciable interest in a portion of the property, sells that portion or a part of that portion, and subsequently acquires a depreciable interest in another portion Start Printed Page 39295of the same property, the proposed regulations provide that the taxpayer will be treated as previously having a depreciable interest in the property up to the amount of the portion for which the taxpayer held a depreciable interest in the property before the sale.
The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on whether a safe harbor should be provided on how many taxable years a taxpayer or a predecessor should look back to determine if the taxpayer or the predecessor previously had a depreciable interest in the property. Such comments should provide the number of taxable years recommended for the look-back period and the reasoning for such number.
III. RULES APPLYING TO CONSOLIDATED GROUPS
Members of a consolidated group generally are treated as separate taxpayers. See Woolford Realty Co. v. Rose, 286 U.S. 319, 328 (1932) (“[a] corporation does not cease to be [a taxpayer] by affiliating with another”). However, the Treasury Department and the IRS believe that the additional first year depreciation deduction should not be permitted to members of a consolidated group when property is disposed of by one member of a consolidated group outside the group and subsequently acquired by another member of the same group because permitting such a deduction would not clearly reflect the group's income tax liability. See section 1502 (permitting consolidated group regulations different from the rules of chapter 1 of subtitle A of the Code otherwise applicable to separate corporations to clearly reflect the income tax liability of a consolidated group or each member of the group). To implement this position, these proposed regulations treat a member of a consolidated group as previously having a depreciable interest in all property in which the consolidated group is treated as previously having a depreciable interest. For purposes of this rule, a consolidated group will be treated as having a depreciable interest in property if any current or previous member of the group had a depreciable interest in the property while a member of the group.
The Treasury Department and the IRS also believe that the additional first year depreciation deduction should not be allowed when, as part of a series of related transactions, one or more members of a consolidated group acquire both the stock of a corporation that previously had a depreciable interest in the property and the property itself. Assume a corporation (the selling corporation) has a depreciable interest in property and sells it to an unrelated party. Subsequently, as part of a series of related transactions, a member of a consolidated group, unrelated to the selling corporation, acquires the property and either that member or a different member of the group acquires the stock of the selling corporation. In substance, the series of transactions is the same as if the selling corporation reacquired the property and then transferred it to another member of the group, in which case the additional first year depreciation deduction would not be allowed. Accordingly, these proposed regulations deny the deduction in such circumstances.
Additionally, if the acquisition of property is part of a series of related transactions that also includes one or more transactions in which the transferee of the property ceases to be a member of a consolidated group, then whether the taxpayer is a member of a consolidated group is tested immediately after the last transaction in the series.
IV. SERIES OF RELATED TRANSACTIONS
In determining whether property meets the requirements of section 168(k)(2)(E)(ii), the Treasury Department and the IRS believe that the ordering of steps, or the use of an unrelated intermediary, in a series of related transactions should not control. For example, if a father buys and places equipment in service for use in the father's trade or business and subsequently the father sells the equipment to his daughter for use in her trade or business, the father and daughter are related parties under section 179(d)(2)(A) and § 1.179-4(c)(1)(ii) and therefore, the daughter's acquisition of the equipment is not eligible for the additional first year depreciation deduction. However, if in a series of related transactions, the father sells the equipment to an unrelated party and then the unrelated party sells the equipment to the father's daughter, the daughter's acquisition of the equipment from the unrelated party, absent the rule in the proposed regulations, is eligible for the additional first year depreciation deduction (assuming all other requirements are met). Thus, the proposed regulations provide that in the case of a series of related transactions, the transfer of the property will be treated as directly transferred from the original transferor to the ultimate transferee, and the relation between the original transferor and the ultimate transferee is tested immediately after the last transaction in the series.
C. APPLICATION TO PARTNERSHIPS
On September 8, 2003, the Treasury Department and the IRS published temporary regulations (T.D. 9091, 2003-2 C.B. 939) in the Federal Register(68 FR 52986) relating to the additional first year depreciation deduction provisions of sections 168(k) and 1400L(b) (before amendment by sections 403 and 408 of the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004). Those regulations provided that any increase in the basis of qualified property due to a section 754 election generally is not eligible for the additional first year depreciation deduction. The preamble to those regulations explained that any increase in basis due to a section 754 election does not satisfy the original use requirement. The final regulations (T.D. 9283, 2006-2 C.B. 633, 642-43) published in the Federal Register on August 31, 2006 (71 FR 51738) retained the rule for increases in basis due to section 754 elections at § 1.168(k)-1(f)(9). Because the Act amended section 168(k) to allow the additional first year depreciation deduction for certain used property in addition to new property, the Treasury Department and the IRS have reconsidered whether basis adjustments under sections 734(b) and 743(b) now qualify for the additional first year depreciation deduction. The Treasury Department and the IRS also have considered whether certain section 704(c) adjustments as well as the basis of distributed property determined under section 732 should qualify for the additional first year depreciation deduction.
I. SECTION 704(C) REMEDIAL ALLOCATIONS
Section 1.704-3(d)(2) provides, in part, that under the remedial allocation method, the portion of a partnership's book basis in contributed property that exceeds its adjusted tax basis is recovered using any recovery period and depreciation (or other cost recovery) method available to the partnership for newly purchased property (of the same type as the contributed property) that is placed in service at the time of contribution. The proposed regulations provide that remedial allocations under section 704(c) do not qualify for the additional first year depreciation deduction under section 168(k).
Notwithstanding the language of § 1.704-3(d)(2) that any method available to the partnership for newly purchased property may be used to recover the portion of the partnership's book basis in contributed property that exceeds its adjusted tax basis, remedial allocations do not meet the requirements of section 168(k)(2)(E)(ii). Start Printed Page 39296Because the underlying property is contributed to the partnership in a section 721 transaction, the partnership's basis in the property is determined by reference to the contributing partner's basis in the property, which violates sections 179(d)(2)(C) and 168(k)(2)(E)(ii)(II). In addition, the partnership has already had a depreciable interest in the contributed property at the time the remedial allocation is made, which is in violation of section 168(k)(2)(E)(ii)(I) as well as the original use requirement.
The same rule applies in the case of revaluations of partnership property (reverse section 704(c) allocations).
II. ZERO BASIS PROPERTY
Section 1.704-1(b)(2)(iv)(g)(3) provides that, if partnership property has a zero adjusted tax basis, any reasonable method may be used to determine the book depreciation, depletion, or amortization of the property. The proposed regulations provide that the additional first year depreciation deduction under section 168(k) will not be allowed on property contributed to the partnership with a zero adjusted tax basis because, with the additional first year depreciation deduction, the partners have the potential to shift built-in gain among partners.
III. BASIS DETERMINED UNDER SECTION 732
Section 732(a)(1) provides that the basis of property (other than money) distributed by a partnership to a partner other than in liquidation of the partner's interest is its adjusted basis to the partnership immediately before the distribution. Section 732(a)(2) provides that the basis determined under section 732(a)(1) shall not exceed the adjusted basis of the partner's interest in the partnership reduced by any money distributed in the same transaction. Section 732(b) provides that the basis of property (other than money) distributed by a partnership to a partner in liquidation of the partner's interest is equal to the adjusted basis of the partner's interest in the partnership reduced by any money distributed in the same transaction.
Property distributed by a partnership to a partner fails to satisfy the original use requirement because the partnership used the property prior to the distribution. Distributed property also fails to satisfy the acquisition requirements of section 168(k)(2)(E)(ii)(II). Any portion of basis determined by section 732(a)(1) fails to satisfy section 179(d)(2)(C) because it is determined by reference to the partnership's basis in the distributed property. Similarly, any portion of basis determined by section 732(a)(2) or (b) fails to satisfy section 179(d)(3) because it is determined by reference to the distributee partner's basis in its partnership interest (reduced by any money distributed in the same transaction).
IV. SECTION 734(B) ADJUSTMENTS
Section 734(b)(1) provides that, in the case of a distribution of property to a partner with respect to which a section 754 election is in effect (or when there is a substantial basis reduction under section 734(d)), the partnership will increase the adjusted basis of partnership property by the sum of (A) the amount of any gain recognized to the distributee partner under section 731(a)(1), and (B) in the case of distributed property to which section 732(a)(2) or (b) applies, the excess of the adjusted basis of the distributed property to the partnership immediately before the distribution (as adjusted by section 732(d)) over the basis of the distributed property to the distributee, as determined under section 732.
Because a section 734(b) basis adjustment is made to the basis of partnership property (i.e., non-partner specific basis) and the partnership used the property prior to the partnership distribution giving rise to the basis adjustment, a section 734(b) basis adjustment fails the original use clause in section 168(k)(2)(A)(ii) and also fails the used property requirement in section 168(k)(2)(E)(ii)(I). The proposed regulations therefore provide that section 734(b) basis adjustments are not eligible for the additional first year depreciation deduction.
V. SECTION 743(B) ADJUSTMENTS
Section 743(b)(1) provides that, in the case of a transfer of a partnership interest, either by sale or exchange or as a result of the death of a partner, a partnership that has a section 754 election in effect (or if there is a substantial built-in loss immediately after such partnership interest transfer under section 743(d)), will increase the adjusted basis of partnership property by the excess of the transferee's basis in the transferred partnership interest over the transferee's share of the adjusted basis of partnership's property. This increase is an adjustment to the basis of partnership property with respect to the transferee partner only and, therefore, is a partner specific basis adjustment to partnership property. The section 743(b) basis adjustment is allocated among partnership properties under section 755. As stated above, prior to the Act, a section 743(b) basis adjustment would always fail the original use requirement in section 168(k)(2)(A)(ii) because partnership property to which a section 743(b) basis adjustment relates would have been previously used by the partnership and its partners prior to the transfer that gave rise to the section 743(b) adjustment. After the Act, while a section 743(b) basis adjustment still fails the original use clause in section 168(k)(2)(A)(ii), a transaction giving rise to a section 743(b) basis adjustment may satisfy the used property clause in section 168(k)(2)(A)(ii) because of the used property acquisition requirements of section 168(k)(2)(E)(ii), depending on the facts and circumstances.
Because a section 743(b) basis adjustment is a partner specific basis adjustment to partnership property, the proposed regulations take an aggregate view and provide that, in determining whether a section 743(b) basis adjustment meets the used property acquisition requirements of section 168(k)(2)(E)(ii), each partner is treated as having owned and used the partner's proportionate share of partnership property. In the case of a transfer of a partnership interest, section 168(k)(2)(E)(ii)(I) will be satisfied if the partner acquiring the interest, or a predecessor of such partner, has not used the portion of the partnership property to which the section 743(b) basis adjustment relates at any time prior to the acquisition (that is, the transferee has not used the transferor's portion of partnership property prior to the acquisition), notwithstanding the fact that the partnership itself has previously used the property. Similarly, for purposes of applying section 179(d)(2)(A), (B), and (C), the partner acquiring a partnership interest is treated as acquiring a portion of partnership property, and the partner who is transferring a partnership interest is treated as the person from whom the property is acquired.
For example, the relationship between the transferor partner and the transferee partner must not be a prohibited relationship under section 179(d)(2)(A). Also, the transferor partner and transferee partner may not be part of the same controlled group under section 179(d)(2)(B). Finally, the transferee partner's basis in the transferred partnership interest may not be determined in whole or in part by reference to the transferor's adjusted basis, or under section 1014.
The same result will apply regardless of whether the transferee partner is a new partner or an existing partner purchasing an additional partnership interest from another partner. Assuming that the transferor partner's specific Start Printed Page 39297interest in partnership property that is acquired by the transferee partner has not previously been used by the transferee partner or a predecessor, the corresponding section 743(b) basis adjustment will be eligible for the additional first year depreciation deduction in the hands of the transferee partner, provided all other requirements of section 168(k) are satisfied (and assuming § 1.743-1(j)(4)(i)(B)(2) does not apply). This treatment is appropriate notwithstanding the fact that the transferee partner may have an existing interest in the underlying partnership property, because the transferee's existing interest in the underlying partnership property is distinct from the interest being transferred.
Finally, the proposed regulations provide that a section 743(b) basis adjustment in a class of property (not including the property class for section 743(b) basis adjustments) may be recovered using the additional first year depreciation deduction under section 168(k) without regard to whether the partnership elects out of the additional first year depreciation deduction under section 168(k)(7) for all other qualified property in the same class of property and placed in service in the same taxable year. Similarly, a partnership may make the election out of the additional first year depreciation deduction under section 168(k)(7) for a section 743(b) basis adjustment in a class of property (not including the property class for section 743(b) basis adjustments), and this election will not bind the partnership to such election for all other qualified property of the partnership in the same class of property and placed in service in the same taxable year.
D. SYNDICATION TRANSACTION
The syndication transaction rule in the proposed regulations is based on the rules in section 168(k)(2)(E)(iii) for syndication transactions. For new or used property, the proposed regulations provide that if (1) a lessor has a depreciable interest in the property and the lessor and any predecessor did not previously have a depreciable interest in the property, (2) the property is sold by the lessor or any subsequent purchaser within three months after the date the property was originally placed in service by the lessor (or, in the case of multiple units of property subject to the same lease, within three months after the date the final unit is placed in service, so long as the period between the time the first unit is placed in service and the time the last unit is placed in service does not exceed 12 months), and (3) the user (lessee) of the property after the last sale during the three-month period remains the same as when the property was originally placed in service by the lessor, then the purchaser of the property in the last sale during the three-month period is considered the taxpayer that acquired the property and the taxpayer that originally placed the property in service, but not earlier than the date of the last sale. Thus, if a transaction is within the rules described above, the purchaser of the property in the last sale during the three-month period is eligible to claim the additional first year depreciation for the property (assuming all requirements are met), and the earlier purchasers of the property are not.
4. Placed-in-Service Date
The proposed regulations generally retain the placed-in-service date rules in § 1.168(k)-1(b)(5). Pursuant to the effective date in section 13201(h) of the Act and section 168(k)(2)(A)(iii) and (k)(2)(B)(i)(II), the proposed regulations provide that qualified property must be placed in service by the taxpayer after September 27, 2017, and before January 1, 2027, or, in the case of property described in section 168(k)(2)(B) or (C), before January 1, 2028. Because section 13201 of the Act removed the rules regarding sale-leaseback transactions, the proposed regulations do not retain the placed-in-service date rules in § 1.168(k)-1(b)(5)(ii)(A) and (C) regarding such transactions, including a sale-leaseback transaction followed by a syndication transaction.
Further, the proposed regulations provide rules for specified plants. Pursuant to section 168(k)(5)(A), if the taxpayer has made an election to apply section 168(k)(5) for a specified plant, the proposed regulations provide that the specified plant must be planted before January 1, 2027, or grafted before January 1, 2027, to a plant that has already been planted, by the taxpayer in the ordinary course of the taxpayer's farming business, as defined in section 263A(e)(4).
Pursuant to section 168(k)(2)(H), the proposed regulations also provide that a qualified film or television production is treated as placed in service at the time of initial release or broadcast as defined under § 1.181-1(a)(7), and a qualified live theatrical production is treated as placed in service at the time of the initial live staged performance. The proposed regulations also provide that the initial live staged performance of a qualified live theatrical production is the first commercial exhibition of a production to an audience. An initial live staged performance does not include limited exhibition, prior to commercial exhibition to general audiences, if the limited exhibition is primarily for purposes of publicity, determining the need for further production activity, or raising funds for the completion of production. For example, the initial live staged performance does not include a preview of the production if the preview is primarily to determine the need for further production activity.
5. Date of Acquisition
The proposed regulations provide rules applicable to the acquisition requirements of the effective date under section 13201(h) of the Act. The proposed regulations provide that these rules apply to all property, including self-constructed property or property described in section 168(k)(2)(B) or (C).
A. WRITTEN BINDING CONTRACT
Pursuant to section 13201(h)(1)(A) of the Act, the proposed regulations provide that the property must be acquired by the taxpayer after September 27, 2017, or, acquired by the taxpayer pursuant to a written binding contract entered into by the taxpayer after September 27, 2017. Because of the clear language of section 13201(h)(1) of the Act regarding written binding contracts, the proposed regulations also provide that property that is manufactured, constructed, or produced for the taxpayer by another person under a written binding contract that is entered into prior to the manufacture, construction, or production of the property for use by the taxpayer in its trade or business or for its production of income is acquired pursuant to a written binding contract. Further, if the written binding contract states the date on which the contract was entered into and a closing date, delivery date, or other similar date, the date on which the contract was entered into is the date the taxpayer acquired the property. The proposed regulations retain the rules in § 1.168(k)-1(b)(4)(ii) defining a binding contract. Additionally, the proposed regulations provide that a letter of intent for an acquisition is not a binding contract.
B. SELF-CONSTRUCTED PROPERTY
If a taxpayer manufactures, constructs, or produces property for its own use, the Treasury Department and the IRS recognize that the written binding contract rule in section 13201(h)(1) of the Act does not apply. In such case, the proposed regulations provide that the acquisition rules in section 13201(h)(1) of the Act are treated as met if the taxpayer begins Start Printed Page 39298manufacturing, constructing, or producing the property after September 27, 2017. The proposed regulations provide rules similar to those in § 1.168(k)-1(b)(4)(iii)(B) for defining when manufacturing, construction, or production begins, including the safe harbor, and in § 1.168(k)-1(b)(4)(iii)(C) for a contract to acquire, or for the manufacture, construction, or production of, a component of the larger self-constructed property. As stated in the preceding paragraph, these self-constructed rules in the proposed regulations do not apply to property that is manufactured, constructed, or produced for the taxpayer by another person under a written binding contract that is entered into prior to the manufacture, construction, or production of the property.
C. QUALIFIED FILM, TELEVISION, OR LIVE THEATRICAL PRODUCTIONS
The proposed regulations also provide rules for qualified film, television, or live theatrical productions. For purposes of section 13201(h)(1)(A) of the Act, the proposed regulations provide that a qualified film or television production is treated as acquired on the date principal photography commences, and a qualified live theatrical production is treated as acquired on the date when all of the necessary elements for producing the live theatrical production are secured. These elements may include a script, financing, actors, set, scenic and costume designs, advertising agents, music, and lighting.
D. SPECIFIED PLANTS
Pursuant to section 13201(h)(2) of the Act, if the taxpayer makes an election to apply section 168(k)(5) for a specified plant, the proposed regulations provide that the specified plant must be planted after September 27, 2017, or grafted after September 27, 2017, to a plant that has already been planted, by the taxpayer in the ordinary course of the taxpayer's farming business, as defined in section 263A(e)(4).
6. Longer Production Period Property or Certain Aircraft Property
The proposed regulations provide rules for determining when longer production period property or certain aircraft property described in section 168(k)(2)(B) or (C) meets the acquisition requirements of section 168(k)(2)(B)(i)(III) or (k)(2)(C)(i), as applicable. Pursuant to section 168(k)(2)(B)(i)(III) and (k)(2)(C)(i), the proposed regulations provide that property described in section 168(k)(2)(B) or (C) must be acquired by the taxpayer before January 1, 2027, or acquired by the taxpayer pursuant to a written binding contract that is entered into before January 1, 2027. These acquisition requirements are in addition to those in section 13201(h)(1) of the Act, which require acquisition to occur after September 27, 2017.
The proposed regulations provide that the written binding contract rules for longer production period property and certain aircraft property are the same rules that apply for purposes of determining whether the acquisition requirements of section 13201(h)(1) of the Act are met.
With respect to self-constructed property described in section 168(k)(2)(B) or (C), the proposed regulations follow the acquisition rule in section 168(k)(2)(E)(i) for self-constructed property and provide that the acquisition requirements of section 168(k)(2)(B)(i)(III) or (k)(2)(C)(i), as applicable, are met if a taxpayer manufactures, constructs, or produces the property for its own use and such manufacturing, construction, or productions begins before January 1, 2027. Further, only for purposes of section 168(k)(2)(B)(i)(III) and (k)(2)(C)(i), the proposed regulations provide that property that is manufactured, constructed, or produced for the taxpayer by another person under a written binding contract that is entered into prior to the manufacture, construction, or production of the property for use by the taxpayer in its trade or business or for its production of income is considered to be manufactured, constructed, or produced by the taxpayer. The proposed regulations also provide rules similar to those in § 1.168(k)-1(b)(4)(iii)(B) for defining when manufacturing, construction, or production begins, including the same safe harbor, and in § 1.168(k)-1(b)(4)(iii)(C) for a contract to acquire, or for the manufacture, construction, or production of, a component of the larger self-constructed property.
7. Computation of Additional First Year Depreciation Deduction and Otherwise Allowable Depreciation
Pursuant to section 168(k)(1)(A), the proposed regulations provide that the allowable additional first year depreciation deduction for qualified property is equal to the applicable percentage (as defined in section 168(k)(6)) of the unadjusted depreciable basis (as defined in § 1.168(b)-1(a)(3)) of the property. For qualified property described in section 168(k)(2)(B), the unadjusted depreciable basis (as defined in § 1.168(b)-1(a)(3)) of the property is limited to the property's basis attributable to manufacture, construction, or production of the property before January 1, 2027, as provided in section 168(k)(2)(B)(ii).
Pursuant to section 168(k)(2)(G), the proposed regulations also provide that the additional first year depreciation deduction is allowed for both regular tax and alternative minimum tax (AMT) purposes. However, for AMT purposes, the amount of the additional first year depreciation deduction is based on the unadjusted depreciable basis of the property for AMT purposes. The amount of the additional first year depreciation deduction is not affected by a taxable year of less than 12 months for either regular or AMT purposes.
The proposed regulations provide rules similar to those in § 1.168(k)-1(d)(2) for determining the amount of depreciation otherwise allowable for qualified property. That is, before determining the amount of depreciation otherwise allowable for qualified property, the proposed regulations require the taxpayer to first reduce the unadjusted depreciable basis (as defined in § 1.168(b)-1(a)(3)) of the property by the amount of the additional first year depreciation deduction allowed or allowable, whichever is greater (the remaining adjusted depreciable basis), as provided in section 168(k)(1)(B). Then, the remaining adjusted depreciable basis is depreciated using the applicable depreciation provisions of the Code for the property (for example, section 168 for MACRS property, section 167(f)(1) for computer software, and section 167 for film, television, or theatrical productions). This amount of depreciation is allowed for both regular tax and AMT purposes, and is affected by a taxable year of less than 12 months. However, for AMT purposes, the amount of depreciation allowed is determined by calculating the remaining adjusted depreciable basis of the property for AMT purposes and using the same depreciation method, recovery period, and convention that applies to the property for regular tax purposes. If a taxpayer uses the optional depreciation tables in Rev. Proc. 87-57 (1987-2 C.B. 687) to compute depreciation for qualified property that is MACRS property, the proposed regulations also provide that the remaining adjusted depreciable basis of the property is the basis to which the annual depreciation rates in those tables apply.
8. Special Rules
The proposed regulations also provide rules similar to those in § 1.168(k)-1(f) for certain situations. However, the Start Printed Page 39299special rules in § 1.168(k)-1(f)(9) regarding the increase in basis due to a section 754 election are addressed in the proposed regulations regarding the used property acquisition requirements. Further, the special rules in § 1.168(k)-1(f)(1)(iii) regarding property placed in service and transferred in a section 168(i)(7) transaction in the same taxable year, and in § 1.168(k)-1(f)(5) regarding like-kind exchanges or involuntary conversions, are updated to reflect the used property acquisition requirements in section 168(k)(2)(E)(ii). The special rules in the proposed regulations also are updated to reflect the applicable dates under section 168(k), and the changes by the Act to technical terminations of partnerships and the rehabilitation credit.
The proposed regulations provide rules for the following situations: (1) Qualified property placed in service or planted or grafted, as applicable, and disposed of in the same taxable year; (2) redetermination of basis of qualified property; (3) recapture of additional first year depreciation for purposes of section 1245 and section 1250; (4) a certified pollution control facility that is qualified property; (5) like-kind exchanges and involuntary conversions of qualified property; (6) a change in use of qualified property; (7) the computation of earnings and profits; (8) the increase in the limitation of the amount of depreciation for passenger automobiles; (9) the rehabilitation credit under section 47; and (10) computation of depreciation for purposes of section 514(a)(3).
The proposed regulations provide a special rule for qualified property that is placed in service in a taxable year and then contributed to a partnership under section 721(a) in the same taxable year when one of the other partners previously had a depreciable interest in the property. Situation 1 of Rev. Rul. 99-5 (1999-1 C.B. 434) is an example of such a fact pattern. Under § 1.168(k)-1(f)(1)(iii) and its cross-reference to § 1.168(d)-1(b)(7)(ii), the additional first year depreciation deduction associated with the contributed property would be allocated between the contributing partner and the partnership based on the proportionate time the contributing partner and the partnership held the property throughout the taxable year. The partnership could then allocate a portion of the deduction to the partner with a previous depreciable interest in the property. The Treasury Department and the IRS believe that allocating any portion of the deduction to a partner who previously had a depreciable interest in the property would be inconsistent with section 168(k)(2)(E)(ii)(I). Therefore, the proposed regulations provide that, in this situation, the additional first year depreciation deduction with respect to the contributed property is not allocated under the general rules of § 1.168(d)-1(b)(7)(ii). Instead, the additional first year depreciation deduction is allocated entirely to the contributing partner prior to the section 721(a) transaction and not to the partnership.
With respect to like-kind exchanges and involuntary conversions, § 1.168(k)-1(f)(5) provides that the exchanged basis and excess basis, if any, of the replacement property is eligible for the additional first year depreciation deduction if the replacement property is qualified property. The proposed regulations retain this rule if the replacement property also meets the original use requirement. Pursuant to section 168(k)(2)(E)(ii)(II) and its cross-reference to section 179(d)(3), the proposed regulations also provide that only the excess basis, if any, of the replacement property is eligible for the additional first year depreciation deduction if the replacement property is qualified property and also meets the used property acquisition requirements. These rules also apply when a taxpayer makes the election under § 1.168(i)-6(i)(1) to treat, for depreciation purposes only, the total of the exchanged basis and excess basis, if any, in the replacement MACRS property as property placed in service by the taxpayer at the time of replacement and the adjusted depreciable basis of the relinquished MACRS property as disposed of by the taxpayer at the time of disposition. The proposed regulations also retain the other rules in § 1.168(k)-1(f)(5) for like-kind exchanges and involuntary conversions, but update the definitions to be consistent with the definitions in § 1.168(i)-6, which addresses how to compute depreciation of property involved in like-kind exchanges or involuntary conversions.
