Gain or Loss

Gain or loss is the difference between your amount realized and your adjusted basis in the property. In the case of a short sale, the amount realized will be the amount of the agreed upon sale price. In the case of a foreclosure, assuming the lender discharges the balance in foreclosure, the amount realized will generally be the amount of the debt. Special rules apply to debts not fully discharged and to nonrecourse loans. Please consult your tax advisor for more information.

Your adjusted basis in property is generally the amount you paid at purchase, plus improvements, less depreciation claimed.

The rules for the taxation of gains and losses will generally fall into one of three categories:

Personal Residence – Gain is taxable as a capital gain, unless excluded under IRC Section 121. Loss is not deductible.

Investment – Assuming that the property is a capital asset, gain is treated as a capital gain, subject to rules for holding period and subject to depreciation recapture, if applicable. Loss is a capital loss and is subject to capital loss limitations.

Trade or Business – Assuming the property is primarily held for sale in a trade or business, gain or loss may be treated as ordinary income or loss. The majority of cases we currently see involving short sales and foreclosures are properties that have been acquired in more recent years. These troubled situations usually involve a decline in market value that no longer makes the home or investment viable. As a result, property owners are often faced with a loss on the property.

However, sellers should be wary of properties that, even in this declining market, have appreciated in value since acquisition, properties acquired using a like-kind exchange, and properties that have been depreciated for a number of years. Real estate owners with such properties should consider a 1031 tax-deferred exchange prior to the short sale closing or foreclosure.

Sellers should understand whether or not there is a gain or loss on a short sale or foreclosure prior to completing a transaction. A gain may be yet another financial burden in an unpleasant situation. More importantly, a loss on a short sale or foreclosure may be significantly limited depending upon the type of property. In the case of a loss, advanced planning is critical to mitigating a potential mismatch of COD income and loss treatment.

Cancellation of Indebtedness (“COD”) Income

If a property is sold in a short sale, or if a lender forecloses, and the debt is recourse debt, the property owner may have COD income to the extent that the fair market value of the property is less than the unpaid face amount of the debt. COD income is treated as ordinary income and lenders are required to send a Form 1099-C, Cancellation of Debt (COD), reporting the amount of income.

Fortunately, there may be relief available for certain homeowners. Pursuant to the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007, COD income arising from the discharge of “qualified principal residence indebtedness” may be excluded from income.

In addition, there are special rules for the taxation of other COD income. Most notable of the rules are that COD income may be excluded or partially excluded from income if you are insolvent when the debt is cancelled or if the debt is discharged through bankruptcy.

If neither the exclusion for qualified principal residence indebtedness nor COD exclusion rules apply, COD income from many short sales and foreclosures will result in ordinary income.

Income Mismatch

For investments that have turned bad due to the real estate market decline, many short sales and foreclosures may match ordinary income from COD income with limited capital loss deductions.

In fact, we have recently encountered a number of cases involving real estate investment schemes causing this type of problem. In these cases, investors with strong credit have been mislead by promoters of these investments to obtain little or no money down mortgages with the prospect of selling the properties in the near term. Often times, the promoters will offer to find subsequent buyers, to rent the units, or to rehabilitate the properties for future sale as part of the investment scheme. Due to the real estate market decline, these investment schemes have failed and investors are left with properties that are significantly below the amount of mortgages obtained. Investors are often left with no other option than a short sale or lender foreclosure and surprised at a tax bill resulting from a failed investment.

Advanced planning may help to mitigate this potential mismatch. We strongly urge you to consult with a tax attorney or CPA in the event that you are faced with a short sale or foreclosure.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has removed the requirement that U.S. companies and U.S. persons must report beneficial ownership information (BOI) to FinCEN under the Corporate Transparency Act.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has removed the requirement that U.S. companies and U.S. persons must report beneficial ownership information (BOI) to FinCEN under the Corporate Transparency Act. This interim final rule is consistent with the Treasury Department's recent announcement that it was suspending enforcement of the CTA against U.S. citizens, domestic reporting companies, and their beneficial owners, and that it would be narrowing the scope of the BOI reporting rule so that it applies only to foreign reporting companies.

The interim final rule amends the BOI regulations by:

• changing the definition of "reporting company" to mean only those entities that are formed under the law of a foreign country and that have registered to do business in any U.S. State or Tribal jurisdiction by filing of a document with a secretary of state or similar office (these entities had formerly been called "foreign reporting companies"), and
• exempting entities previously known as "domestic reporting companies" from BOI reporting requirements.

Under the revised rules, all entities created in the United States (including those previously called "domestic reporting companies") and their beneficial owners are exempt from the BOI reporting requirement, including the requirement to update or correct BOI previously reported to FinCEN. Foreign entities that meet the new definition of "reporting company" and do not qualify for a reporting exemption must report their BOI to FinCEN, but are not required to report any U.S. persons as beneficial owners. U.S. persons are not required to report BOI with respect to any such foreign entity for which they are a beneficial owner.

Reducing Regulatory Burden

On January 31, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14192, which announced an administration policy "to significantly reduce the private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations to secure America’s economic prosperity and national security and the highest possible quality of life for each citizen" and "to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens" on the American people.

Consistent with the executive order and with exemptive authority provided in the CTA, the Treasury Secretary (in concurrence with the Attorney General and the Homeland Security Secretary) determined that BOI reporting by domestic reporting companies and their beneficial owners "would not serve the public interest" and "would not be highly useful in national security, intelligence, and law enforcement agency efforts to detect, prevent, or prosecute money laundering, the financing of terrorism, proliferation finance, serious tax fraud, or other crimes."The preamble to the interim final rule notes that the Treasury Secretary has considered existing alternative information sources to mitigate risks. For example, under the U.S. anti-money laundering/countering the financing of terrorism regime, covered financial institutions still have a continuing requirement to collect a legal entity customer's BOI at the time of account opening (see 31 CFR 1010.230). This will serve to mitigate certain illicit finance risks associated with exempting domestic reporting companies from BOI reporting.

BOI reporting by foreign reporting companies is still required, because such companies present heightened national security and illicit finance risks and different concerns about regulatory burdens. Further, the preamble points out that the policy direction to minimize regulatory burdens on the American people can still be achieved by exempting foreign reporting companies from having to report the BOI of any U.S. persons who are beneficial owners of such companies.

Deadlines Extended for Foreign Companies

When the interim final rule is published in the Federal Register, the following reporting deadlines apply:

• Foreign entities that are registered to do business in the United States before the publication date of the interim final rule must file BOI reports no later than 30 days from that date.
• Foreign entities that are registered to do business in the United States on or after the publication date of the interim final rule have 30 calendar days to file an initial BOI report after receiving notice that their registration is effective.

Effective Date; Comments Requested

The interim final rule is effective on the date of its publication in the Federal Register.

FinCEN has requested comments on the interim final rule. In light of those comments, FinCEN intends to issue a final rule later in 2025.

Written comments must be received on or before the date that is 60 days after publication of the interim final rule in the Federal Register.

Interested parties can submit comments electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, comments may be mailed to Policy Division, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, P.O. Box 39, Vienna, VA 22183. For both methods, refer to Docket Number FINCEN-2025-0001, OMB control number 1506-0076 and RIN 1506-AB49.

FinCEN Interim Final Rule RIN 1506-AB49

FinCEN News Release

Melanie Krause, the IRS’s Chief Operating Officer, has been named acting IRS Commissioner following the retirement of Doug O’Donnell. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent acknowledged O’Donnell’s 38 years of service, commending his leadership and dedication to taxpayers.

Melanie Krause, the IRS’s Chief Operating Officer, has been named acting IRS Commissioner following the retirement of Doug O’Donnell. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent acknowledged O’Donnell’s 38 years of service, commending his leadership and dedication to taxpayers. O’Donnell, who had been acting Commissioner since January, will retire on Friday, expressing confidence in Krause’s ability to guide the agency through tax season. Krause, who joined the IRS in 2021 as Chief Data & Analytics Officer, has since played a key role in modernizing operations and overseeing core agency functions. With experience in federal oversight and operational strategy, Krause previously worked at the Government Accountability Office and the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General. She became Chief Operating Officer in 2024, managing finance, security, and procurement. Holding advanced degrees from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Krause will lead the IRS until a permanent Commissioner is appointed.

A grant disbursement to a corporation to be used for rent payments following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center was not excluded from the corporation's gross income. Grants were made to affected businesses with funding provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The corporation's grant agreement required the corporation to employ a certain number of people in New York City, with a portion of those people employed in lower Manhattan for a period of time. Pursuant to this agreement, the corporation requested a disbursement as reimbursement for rent expenses.

A grant disbursement to a corporation to be used for rent payments following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center was not excluded from the corporation's gross income. Grants were made to affected businesses with funding provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The corporation's grant agreement required the corporation to employ a certain number of people in New York City, with a portion of those people employed in lower Manhattan for a period of time. Pursuant to this agreement, the corporation requested a disbursement as reimbursement for rent expenses.

Exclusions from Gross Income

Under the expansive definition of gross income, the grant proceeds were income unless specifically excluded. Payments are only excluded under Code Sec. 118(a) when a transferor intends to make a contribution to the permanent working capital of a corporation. The grant amount was not connected to capital improvements nor restricted for use in the acquisition of capital assets. The transferor intended to reimburse the corporation for rent expenses and not to make a capital contribution. As a result, the grant was intended to supplement income and defray current operating costs, and not to build up the corporation's working capital.

The grant proceeds were also not a gift under Code Sec. 102(a). The motive for providing the grant was not detached and disinterested generosity, but rather a long-term commitment from the company to create and maintain jobs. In addition, a review of the funding legislation and associated legislative history did not show that Congress possessed the requisite donative intent to consider the grant a gift. The program was intended to support the redevelopment of the area after the terrorist attacks. Finally, the grant was not excluded as a qualified disaster relief payment under Code Sec. 139(a) because that provision is only applicable to individuals.

Accuracy-Related Penalty

Because the corporation relied on Supreme Court decisions, statutory language, and regulations, there was substantial authority for its position that the grant proceeds were excluded from income. As a result, the accuracy-related penalty was not imposed.

CF Headquarters Corporation, 164 TC No. 5, Dec. 62,627

The parent corporation of two tiers of controlled foreign corporations (CFCs) with a domestic partnership interposed between the two tiers was not entitled to deemed paid foreign tax credits under Code Sec. 902 or Code Sec. 960 for taxes paid or accrued by the lower-tier CFCs owned by the domestic partnership. Code Sec. 902 did not apply because there was no dividend distribution. Code Sec. 960 did not apply because the Code Sec. 951(a) inclusions with respect to the lower-tier CFCs were not taken into account by the domestic corporation.

The parent corporation of two tiers of controlled foreign corporations (CFCs) with a domestic partnership interposed between the two tiers was not entitled to deemed paid foreign tax credits under Code Sec. 902 or Code Sec. 960 for taxes paid or accrued by the lower-tier CFCs owned by the domestic partnership. Code Sec. 902 did not apply because there was no dividend distribution. Code Sec. 960 did not apply because the Code Sec. 951(a) inclusions with respect to the lower-tier CFCs were not taken into account by the domestic corporation.

Background

The parent corporation owned three CFCs, which were upper-tier CFC partners in a domestic partnership. The domestic partnership was the sole U.S. shareholder of several lower-tier CFCs.

The parent corporation claimed that it was entitled to deemed paid foreign tax credits on taxes paid by the lower-tier CFCs on earnings and profits, which generated Code Sec. 951 inclusions for subpart F income and Code Sec. 956 amounts. The amounts increased the earnings and profits of the upper-tier CFC partners.

Deemed Paid Foreign Tax Credits Did Not Apply

Before 2018, Code Sec. 902 allowed deemed paid foreign tax credit for domestic corporations that owned 10 percent or more of the voting stock of a foreign corporation from which it received dividends, and for taxes paid by another group member, provided certain requirements were met.

The IRS argued that no dividends were paid and so the foreign income taxes paid by the lower-tier CFCs could not be deemed paid by the entities in the higher tiers.

The taxpayer agreed that Code Sec. 902 alone would not provide a credit, but argued that through Code Sec. 960, Code Sec. 951 inclusions carried deemed dividends up through a chain of ownership. Under Code Sec. 960(a), if a domestic corporation has a Code Sec. 951(a) inclusion with respect to the earnings and profits of a member of its qualified group, Code Sec. 902 applied as if the amount were included as a dividend paid by the foreign corporation.

In this case, the domestic corporation had no Code Sec. 951 inclusions with respect to the amounts generated by the lower-tier CFCs. Rather, the domestic partnerships had the inclusions. The upper- tier CFC partners, which were foreign corporations, included their share of the inclusions in gross income. Therefore, the hopscotch provision in which a domestic corporation with a Code Sec. 951 inclusion attributable to earnings and profits of an indirectly held CFC may claim deemed paid foreign tax credits based on a hypothetical dividend from the indirectly held CFC to the domestic corporation did not apply.

Eaton Corporation and Subsidiaries, 164 TC No. 4, Dec. 62,622

Other Reference:

• Code Sec. 960

An appeals court affirmed that payments made by an individual taxpayer to his ex-wife did not meet the statutory criteria for deductible alimony. The taxpayer claimed said payments were deductible alimony on his federal tax returns.

An appeals court affirmed that payments made by an individual taxpayer to his ex-wife did not meet the statutory criteria for deductible alimony. The taxpayer claimed said payments were deductible alimony on his federal tax returns.

The taxpayer’s payments were not deductible alimony because the governing divorce instruments contained multiple clear, explicit and express directions to that effect. The former couple’s settlement agreement stated an equitable division of marital property that was non-taxable to either party. The agreement had a separate clause obligating the taxpayer to pay a taxable sum as periodic alimony each month. The term “divorce or separation instrument” included both divorce and the written instruments incident to such decree.

Unpublished opinion affirming, per curiam, the Tax Court, Dec. 62,420(M), T.C. Memo. 2024-18.

J.A. Martino, CA-11

Q. I am reviewing my portfolio and considering selling some of my stock. How do I determine what tax basis I have in the publicly-traded shares that I own for purposes of determining my gain or loss if I buy and sell multiple shares at different times? Does keeping track of basis really matter?

Q. I am reviewing my portfolio and considering selling some of my stock. How do I determine what tax basis I have in the publicly-traded shares that I own for purposes of determining my gain or loss if I buy and sell multiple shares at different times? Does keeping track of basis really matter?

A. In order to accurately calculate the gain or loss realized on assets you sell, it is important that you keep track of the bases of all of your assets, including stock. However, when it comes to stock--especially lots of stock bought and sold at different times-- it may seem a bit tricky. Fortunately, the rules related to determining the basis of stock sold make the task more manageable.

In general, the basis of stock sold will be determined under one of the following methods: first-in, first-out (FIFO) or specific identification. However, securities held in mutual funds and received as a result as a corporate reorganization may be handled differently.

First-in, first-out (FIFO)

In general, if you buy identical shares of stock at different prices or on different dates and then you sell only part of the stock, your basis and holding period of the shares sold are determined on a first-in first-out (FIFO) basis, based upon the acquisition date of the securities. However, if specific shares sold are adequately identified by the delivery of certificates, by a broker having custody of them, or by a trustee or executor, the basis will be determined by the specific identification method (see below).

The acquisition date for purpose of applying the FIFO method follows the rules for holding period. For example, the acquisition date of securities received by gift takes into account the donor's holding period, and securities received in an estate distribution includes the holding period of the executor or trustee.

Margin accounts. If your shares are held in a margin account, they are considered sold in the order in which they were purchased, rather than the order in which they were placed in the account.

Stock splits or dividends. If you receive shares as a result of a stock split or tax-free stock dividend, they must be allocated among the original lots to which they relate, with the basis of the original shares allocated between the new shares and the old shares based on their fair market values.

Stock rights. If you acquire additional shares by exercising stock rights, your new shares are treated as a separate lot and your basis in them is equal to the amount paid plus the basis of the stock rights.

Multiple contracts. Shares acquired on the same day under several contracts entered into at different times to purchase stock when issued are deemed acquired for the FIFO rule in the same order as the contracts were entered into.

Specific identification

When you are able to identify the securities to be sold, and do so, FIFO will not apply to your basis allocation. The identity of securities sold or otherwise transferred generally is determined by the certificates actually delivered to the transferee (usually by CUSP number). Thus, if you have records showing the cost and holding period of securities represented by separate certificates, you can often better control the amount of gain or loss realized by selecting the certificates to be transferred. But be careful: delivery of the wrong certificates is binding, despite your intention to transfer securities from a different lot.

Example: You hold 1000 shares of IBM. You purchased 400 shares (actually 100 shares that split twice) in 2000 for $8,000 (net brokerage commissions). You bought 400 more shares in 2005 at $18,000; and 200 more in early 2007 for $16,000. You want to sell 300 shares now when its value is down to $50 per share. If you do not specify to your broker before the trade to sell the 200 shares purchased in 2007 and 100 shares from the 2005 lot, you will realize $9,000 in long term capital gains instead of $500 in long-term capital gain and a $6,000 short-term capital loss.

Mutual funds

If you own shares in a mutual fund, you may elect to determine the basis of stock sold or transferred from your accounts by using one of two average cost methods: either the double-category method or the single-category method. An election to use one of the average basis methods for mutual fund shares must be made on either a timely filed income tax return or the first late return for the first tax year to which the election is to apply. Different methods may be used for accounts in different regulated investment companies.

Securities received in reorganization

An exception to the FIFO rule applies to securities received in reorganization (such as a merger) and not adequately identified. These securities are given an average basis, computed by dividing the aggregate basis of the securities surrendered in the exchange by the number of shares received in the exchange. If securities in the same corporation are received in the exchange, however, they are divided into lots corresponding with those of the securities surrendered and the FIFO principle is applied, in the absence of adequate identification on a later disposition.

As illustrated in an example above, there can be negative tax effects from the misidentification of stock sold. If you are uncertain how to properly identify stock sold, please contact the office for further guidance.