Accounting and Tax firm with offices in Taunton, Falmouth and Mansfield, MA
NEWSLETTERS
Where’s My Refund?
IRS seeks upgrade to dreaded online tool, but don’t hold your breath
In the midst of a particularly horrific tax season, with the beleaguered Internal Revenue Service (IRS) swamped by backlogged returns and citizens waiting anxiously for missing refunds to appear, many taxpayers seeking clarity have been referred to the dreaded online “Where’s My Refund” tracker. In other words, the place where inquiries go to die.
The “Where’s My Refund” tool, which lives on the IRS website, has been of scant help to many visitors, informing taxpayers with late refunds only that their returns are “pending.” It does not offer any estimate of when refunds can be expected, nor does it advise if additional supporting documents are needed. The lack of such basic services was flagged by the Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS)—the arm of the IRS that ensures fair treatment of citizen taxpayers—which recommended that the IRS supply these features as quickly as possible.
And according to a TAS report, the IRS seems to have taken the first steps. It has submitted several “Unified Work Requests” to its engineers, requesting programming upgrades to the tool that would include more specific reasons for why a refund has been delayed, or a notice if it’s still reviewing whether supporting documents are needed. It also says it’s exploring a system by which taxpayers can digitally transmit documents to the IRS, such as uploading through the IRS.gov website. That could include a permanent extension of the interim rules, allowing people to submit identity verification files over eFax during the COVID-19 pandemic.
But it’s not a done deal by any means: The IRS cautions that such programming upgrades are “subject to funding limitations and competing priorities,” meaning all this could very well amount to nothing if cash is thin or other issues are deemed more important. It’s also worth noting that another request—to supply relevant contact telephone numbers through the “Where’s My Refund” tool—has already been denied “due to funding limitations.” So if you’re still waiting for your 2020 refund, maybe don’t hold your breath.
Further along in the report, the IRS also notes it would not be able to expedite legitimate refunds by modernizing its “obsolete” systems—also “due to funding limitations”—nor would it be sharing data about how long it detains legitimate refunds that are tagged by fraud filters.
FL - 2025-2026 gas and sulfur production tax rates announced Effective July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2026, the Florida severance tax rates for gas and sulfur are: $0.171 per MCF for gas production; and $6.38 per ton for sulfur production. These rates must be u...
GA - Local rate changes announced for Q3 Multiple Georgia counties have sales and use tax rate change that take effect on July 1, 2025.County Tax Rate ChangesThe following counties will have tax rate changes:Clinch, 7%;Stewart, 8%;Telfair, 8...
ME - Rule amended to impose electronic filing on certain taxpayers Maine Rule 104, which outlines requirements for filing certain Maine tax returns, including electronic filing requirements, has been amended to require that the following file electronic returns:certa...
MA - Financial institutions eligible for research tax credits The Massachusetts Department of Revenue explains their position following the Appellate Tax Board's decision confirming that financial institutions are eligible to claim the corporate income tax resea...
RI - Taxpayers reminded of 2025 LLC filing requirements The Rhode Island Department of Revenue Division of Taxation has issued a notice summarizing the 2025 income tax filing requirements for LLCs. Notice 2025-01, Rhode Island Division of Taxation, Februa...
VT - New local option taxes announced Vermont announced that the following seven towns will have new local option taxes, effective July 1, 2025.Hartford is adding Local Option Sales Tax (the town already has Local Option Meals and Rooms T...
The American Institute of CPAs in a March 31 letter to House of Representatives voiced its “strong support” for a series of tax administration bills passed in recent days.
The American Institute of CPAs in a March 31 letter to House of Representatives voiced its “strong support” for a series of tax administration bills passed in recent days.
The four bills highlighted in the letter include the Electronic Filing and Payment Fairness Act (H.R. 1152), the Internal Revenue Service Math and Taxpayer Help Act (H.R. 998), the Filing Relief for Natural Disasters Act (H.R. 517), and the Disaster Related Extension of Deadlines Act (H.R. 1491).
All four bills passed unanimously.
H.R. 1152would apply the “mailbox” rule to electronically submitted tax returns and payments. Currently, a paper return or payment is counted as “received” based on the postmark of the envelope, but its electronic equivalent is counted as “received” when the electronic submission arrived or is reviewed. This bill would change all payment and tax form submissions to follow the mailbox rule, regardless of mode of delivery.
“The AICPA has previously recommended this change and thinks it would offer clarity and simplification to the payment and document submission process,” the organization said in the letter.
H.R. 998“would require notices describing a mathematical or clerical error be made in plain language, and require the Treasury Secretary to provide additional procedures for requesting an abatement of a math or clerical adjustment, including by telephone or in person, among other provisions,” the letter states.
H.R. 517would allow the IRS to grant federal tax relief once a state governor declares a state of emergency following a natural disaster, which is quicker than waiting for the federal government to declare a state of emergency as directed under current law, which could take weeks after the state disaster declaration. This bill “would also expand the mandatory federal filing extension under section 7508(d) from 60 days to 120 days, providing taxpayers with additional time to file tax returns following a disaster,” the letter notes, adding that increasing the period “would provide taxpayers and tax practitioners much needed relief, even before a disaster strikes.”
H.R. 1491would extend deadlines for disaster victims to file for a tax refund or tax credit. The legislative solution “granting an automatic extension to the refund or credit lookback period would place taxpayers affected my major disasters on equal footing as taxpayers not impacted by major disasters and would afford greater clarity and certainty to taxpayers and tax practitioners regarding this lookback period,” AICPA said.
Also passed by the House was the National Taxpayer Advocate Enhancement Act (H.R. 997) which, according to a summary of the bill on Congress.gov, “authorizes the National Taxpayer Advocate to appoint legal counsel within the Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS) to report directly to the National Taxpayer Advocate. The bill also expands the authority of the National Taxpayer Advocate to take personnel actions with respect to local taxpayer advocates (located in each state) to include actions with respect to any employee of TAS.”
Finally, the House passedH.R. 1155, the Recovery of Stolen Checks Act, which would require the Treasury to establish procedures that would allow a taxpayer to elect to receive replacement funds electronically from a physical check that was lost or stolen.
All bills passed unanimously. The passed legislation mirrors some of the provisions included in a discussion draft legislation issued by the Senate Finance Committee in January 2025. A section-by-section summary of the Senate discussion draft legislation can be foundhere.
AICPA’s tax policy and advocacy comment letters for 2025 can be foundhere.
The Tax Court ruled that the value claimed on a taxpayer’s return exceeded the value of a conversation easement by 7,694 percent. The taxpayer was a limited liability company, classified as a TEFRA partnership. The Tax Court used the comparable sales method, as backstopped by the price actually paid to acquire the property.
The Tax Court ruled that the value claimed on a taxpayer’s return exceeded the value of a conversation easement by 7,694 percent. The taxpayer was a limited liability company, classified as a TEFRA partnership. The Tax Court used the comparable sales method, as backstopped by the price actually paid to acquire the property.
The taxpayer was entitled to a charitable contribution deduction based on its fair market value. The easement was granted upon rural land in Alabama. The property was zoned A–1 Agricultural, which permitted agricultural and light residential use only. The property transaction at occurred at arm’s length between a willing seller and a willing buyer.
Rezoning
The taxpayer failed to establish that the highest and best use of the property before the granting of the easement was limestone mining. The taxpayer failed to prove that rezoning to permit mining use was reasonably probable.
Land Value
The taxpayer’s experts erroneously equated the value of raw land with the net present value of a hypothetical limestone business conducted on the land. It would not be profitable to pay the entire projected value of the business.
Penalty Imposed
The claimed value of the easement exceeded the correct value by 7,694 percent. Therefore, the taxpayer was liable for a 40 percent penalty for a gross valuation misstatement underCode Sec. 6662(h).
State and local housing credit agencies that allocate low-income housing tax credits and states and other issuers of tax-exempt private activity bonds have been provided with a listing of the proper population figures to be used when calculating the 2025:
State and local housing credit agencies that allocate low-income housing tax credits and states and other issuers of tax-exempt private activity bonds have been provided with a listing of the proper population figures to be used when calculating the 2025:
calendar-year population-based component of the state housing credit ceiling underCode Sec. 42(h)(3)(C)(ii);
calendar-year private activity bond volume cap underCode Sec. 146; and
These figures are derived from the estimates of the resident populations of the 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, which were released by the Bureau of the Census on December 19, 2024. The figures for the insular areas of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands are the midyear population figures in the U.S. Census Bureau’s International Database.
The value of assets of a qualified terminable interest property (QTIP) trust includible in a decedent's gross estate was not reduced by the amount of a settlement intended to compensate the decedent for undistributed income.
The value of assets of a qualified terminable interest property (QTIP) trust includible in a decedent's gross estate was not reduced by the amount of a settlement intended to compensate the decedent for undistributed income.
The trust property consisted of an interest in a family limited partnership (FLP), which held title to ten rental properties, and cash and marketable securities. To resolve a claim by the decedent's estate that the trustees failed to pay the decedent the full amount of income generated by the FLP, the trust and the decedent's children's trusts agreed to be jointly and severally liable for a settlement payment to her estate. The Tax Court found an estate tax deficiency, rejecting the estate's claim that the trust assets should be reduced by the settlement amount and alternatively, that the settlement claim was deductible from the gross estate as an administration expense (P. Kalikow Est.,Dec. 62,167(M), TC Memo. 2023-21).
Trust Not Property of the Estate
The estate presented no support for the argument that the liability affected the fair market value of the trust assets on the decedent's date of death. The trust, according to the court, was a legal entity that was not itself an asset of the estate. Thus, a liability that belonged to the trust but had no impact on the value of the underlying assets did not change the value of the gross estate. Furthermore, the settlement did not burden the trust assets. A hypothetical purchaser of the FLP interest, the largest asset of the trust, would not assume the liability and, therefore, would not regard the liability as affecting the price. When the parties stipulated the value of the FLP interest, the estate was aware of the undistributed income claim. Consequently, the value of the assets included in the gross estate was not diminished by the amount of the undistributed income claim.
Claim Not an Estate Expense
The claim was owed to the estate by the trust to correct the trustees' failure to distribute income from the rental properties during the decedent's lifetime. As such, the claim was property included in the gross estate, not an expense of the estate. The court explained that even though the liability was owed by an entity that held assets included within the taxable estate, the claim itself was not an estate expense. The court did not address the estate's theoretical argument that the estate would be taxed twice on the underlying assets held in the trust and the amount of the settlement because the settlement was part of the decedent's residuary estate, which was distributed to a charity. As a result, the claim was not a deductible administration expense of the estate.
An individual was not entitled to deduct flowthrough loss from the forfeiture of his S Corporation’s portion of funds seized by the U.S. Marshals Service for public policy reasons. The taxpayer pleaded guilty to charges of bribery, fraud and money laundering. Subsequently, the U.S. Marshals Service seized money from several bank accounts held in the taxpayer’s name or his wholly owned corporation.
An individual was not entitled to deduct flowthrough loss from the forfeiture of his S Corporation’s portion of funds seized by the U.S. Marshals Service for public policy reasons. The taxpayer pleaded guilty to charges of bribery, fraud and money laundering. Subsequently, the U.S. Marshals Service seized money from several bank accounts held in the taxpayer’s name or his wholly owned corporation. The S corporation claimed a loss deduction related to its portion of the asset seizures on its return and the taxpayer reported a corresponding passthrough loss on his return.
However, Courts have uniformly held that loss deductions for forfeitures in connection with a criminal conviction frustrate public policy by reducing the"sting"of the penalty. The taxpayer maintained that the public policy doctrine did not apply here, primarily because the S corporation was never indicted or charged with wrongdoing. However, even if the S corporation was entitled to claim a deduction for the asset seizures, the public policy doctrine barred the taxpayer from reporting his passthrough share. The public policy doctrine was not so rigid or formulaic that it may apply only when the convicted person himself hands over a fine or penalty.
The 2025 cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) that affect pension plan dollar limitations and other retirement-related provisions have been released by the IRS. In general, many of the pension plan limitations will change for 2025 because the increase in the cost-of-living index due to inflation met the statutory thresholds that trigger their adjustment. However, other limitations will remain unchanged.
The 2025 cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) that affect pension plan dollar limitations and other retirement-related provisions have been released by the IRS. In general, many of the pension plan limitations will change for 2025 because the increase in the cost-of-living index due to inflation met the statutory thresholds that trigger their adjustment. However, other limitations will remain unchanged.
The SECURE 2.0 Act (P.L. 117-328) made some retirement-related amounts adjustable for inflation beginning in 2024. These amounts, as adjusted for 2025, include:
The catch up contribution amount for IRA owners who are 50 or older remains $1,000.
The amount of qualified charitable distributions from IRAs that are not includible in gross income is increased from $105,000 to $108,000.
The dollar limit on premiums paid for a qualifying longevity annuity contract (QLAC) is increased from $200,000 to $210,000.
Highlights of Changes for 2025
The contribution limit has increased from $23,000 to $23,500. for employees who take part in:
-401(k),
-403(b),
-most 457 plans, and
-the federal government’s Thrift Savings Plan
The annual limit on contributions to an IRA remains at $7,000. The catch-up contribution limit for individuals aged 50 and over is subject to an annual cost-of-living adjustment beginning in 2024 but remains at $1,000.
The income ranges increased for determining eligibility to make deductible contributions to:
-IRAs,
-Roth IRAs, and
-to claim the Saver's Credit.
Phase-Out Ranges
Taxpayers can deduct contributions to a traditional IRA if they meet certain conditions. The deduction phases out if the taxpayer or their spouse takes part in a retirement plan at work. The phase out depends on the taxpayer's filing status and income.
-For single taxpayers covered by a workplace retirement plan, the phase-out range is $79,000 to $89,000, up from between $77,000 and $87,000.
-For joint filers, when the spouse making the contribution takes part in a workplace retirement plan, the phase-out range is $126,000 to $146,000, up from between $123,000 and $143,000.
-For an IRA contributor who is not covered by a workplace retirement plan but their spouse is, the phase out is between $236,000 and $246,000, up from between $230,000 and $240,000.
-For a married individual covered by a workplace plan filing a separate return, the phase-out range remains $0 to $10,000.
The phase-out ranges for Roth IRA contributions are:
-$150,000 to $165,000, for singles and heads of household,
-$236,000 to $246,000, for joint filers, and
-$0 to $10,000 for married separate filers.
Finally, the income limit for the Saver' Credit is:
The IRS reminded individual retirement arrangement (IRA) owners aged 70½ and older that they can make tax-free charitable donations of up to $105,000 in 2024 through qualified charitable distributions (QCDs), up from $100,000 in past years.
The IRS reminded individual retirement arrangement (IRA) owners aged 70½ and older that they can make tax-free charitable donations of up to $105,000 in 2024 through qualified charitable distributions (QCDs), up from $100,000 in past years. For those aged 73 or older, QCDs also count toward the year's required minimum distribution (RMD). Following are the steps for reporting and documenting QCDs for 2024:
IRA trustees issueForm 1099-R, Distributions from Pensions, Annuities, Retirement or Profit-Sharing Plans, IRAs, Insurance Contracts, etc., in early 2025 documenting IRA distributions.
Record the full amount of any IRA distribution on Line 4a ofForm 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, orForm 1040-SR, U.S. Tax Return for Seniors.
Enter "0" on Line 4b if the entire amount qualifies as a QCD, marking it accordingly.
Obtain a written acknowledgment from the charity, confirming the contribution date, amount, and that no goods or services were received.
Additionally, to ensure QCDs for 2024 are processed by year-end, IRA owners should contact their trustee soon. Each eligible IRA owner can exclude up to $105,000 in QCDs from taxable income. Married couples, if both meet qualifications and have separate IRAs, can donate up to $210,000 combined. QCDs did not require itemizing deductions. New this year, the QCD limit was subject to annual adjustments based on inflation. For 2025, the limit rises to $108,000.
Further, for more details, seePublication 526, Charitable Contributions, andPublication 590-B, Distributions from Individual Retirement Arrangements (IRAs).
For 2025, the Social Security wage cap will be $176,100, and social security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits will increase by 2.5 percent. These changes reflect cost-of-living adjustments to account for inflation.
For 2025, the Social Security wage cap will be $176,100, and social security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits will increase by 2.5 percent. These changes reflect cost-of-living adjustments to account for inflation.
Wage Cap for Social Security Tax
The Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax on wages is 7.65 percent each for the employee and the employer. FICA tax has two components:
a 6.2 percent social security tax, also known as old age, survivors, and disability insurance (OASDI); and
a 1.45 percent Medicare tax, also known as hospital insurance (HI).
For self-employed workers, the Self-Employment tax is 15.3 percent, consisting of:
a 12.4 percent OASDI tax; and
a 2.9 percent HI tax.
OASDI tax applies only up to a wage base, which includes most wages and self-employment income up to the annual wage cap.
For 2025, the wage base is $176,100. Thus, OASDI tax applies only to the taxpayer’s first $176,100 in wages or net earnings from self-employment. Taxpayers do not pay any OASDI tax on earnings that exceed $176,100.
There is no wage cap for HI tax.
Maximum Social Security Tax for 2025
For workers who earn $176,100 or more in 2025:
an employee will pay a total of $10,918.20 in social security tax ($176,100 x 6.2 percent);
the employer will pay the same amount; and
a self-employed worker will pay a total of $21,836.40 in social security tax ($176,100 x 12.4 percent).
Additional Medicare Tax
Higher-income workers may have to pay an Additional Medicare tax of 0.9 percent. This tax applies to wages and self-employment income that exceed:
$250,000 for married taxpayers who file a joint return;
$125,000 for married taxpayers who file separate returns; and
$200,000 for other taxpayers.
The annual wage cap does not affect the Additional Medicare tax.
Benefit Increase for 2025
Finally, a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) will increase social security and SSI benefits for 2025 by 2.5 percent. The COLA is intended to ensure that inflation does not erode the purchasing power of these benefits.