The IRS has provided transition relief for third party settlement organizations (TPSOs) for reportable transactions under Code Sec. 6050W during calendar years 2024 and 2025. These calendar years will be the final transition period for IRS enforcement and administration of amendments made to the minimum threshold amount for TPSO reporting under Code Sec. 6050W(e).

The IRS has provided transition relief for third party settlement organizations (TPSOs) for reportable transactions under Code Sec. 6050W during calendar years 2024 and 2025. These calendar years will be the final transition period for IRS enforcement and administration of amendments made to the minimum threshold amount for TPSO reporting under Code Sec. 6050W(e).

Background

Code Sec. 6050W requires payment settlement entities to file Form 1099-K, Payment Card and Third Party Network Transactions, for each calendar year for payments made in settlement of certain reportable payment transactions. Among other information, the return must report the gross amount of the reportable payment transactions regarding a participating payee to whom payments were made in the calendar year. As originally enacted, Code Sec. 6050W(e) provided that TPSOs are not required to report third party network transactions with respect to a participating payee unless the gross amount that would otherwise be reported is more than $20,000 and the number of such transactions with that payee is more than 200.

The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (P.L. 117-2) amended Code Sec. 6050W(e) so that, for calendar years beginning after 2021, a TPSO must report third party network transaction settlement payments that exceed a minimum threshold of $600 in aggregate payments, regardless of the number of transactions. The IRS has delayed implementing the amended TPSO reporting threshold for calendar years beginning before January 1, 2023, and for calendar year 2023 (Notice 2023-10; Notice 2023-74).

For backup withholding purposes, a reportable payment includes payments made by a TPSO that must be reported on Form 1099-K, without regard to the thresholds in Code Sec. 6050W. The IRS has provided interim guidance on backup withholding for reportable payments made in settlement of third party network transactions (Notice 2011-42).

Reporting Relief

Under the new transition relief, a TPSO will not be required to report payments in settlement of third party network transactions with respect to a participating payee unless the amount of total payments for those transactions is more than:

• $5,000 for calendar year 2024;
• $2,500 for calendar year 2025.

This relief does not apply to payment card transactions.

For those transition years, the IRS will not assert information reporting penalties under Code Sec. 6721 or Code Sec. 6722 against a TPSO for failing to file or furnish Forms 1099-K unless the gross amount of aggregate payments to be reported exceeds the specific threshold amount for the year, regardless of the number of transactions.

In calendar year 2026 and after, TPSOs will be required to report transactions on Form 1099-K when the amount of total payments for those transactions is more than $600, regardless of the number of transactions.

Backup Withholding Relief

For calendar year 2024 only, the IRS will not assert civil penalties under Code Sec. 6651 or Code Sec. 6656 for a TPSO’s failure to withhold and pay backup withholding tax during the calendar year. However, TPSOs that have performed backup withholding for a payee during 2024 must file Form 945, Annual Return of Withheld Federal Income Tax, and Form 1099-K with the IRS, and must furnish a copy of Form 1099-K to the payee.

For calendar year 2025 and after, the IRS will assert those penalties for a TPSO’s failure to withhold and pay backup withholding tax.

Effect on Other Documents

Notice 2011-42 is obsoleted.

Notice 2024-85

IR-2024-299

The Treasury Department and IRS have issued final regulations amending regulations under Code Sec. 752 regarding a partner’s share of recourse partnership liabilities and the rules for related persons.

The Treasury Department and IRS have issued final regulations amending regulations under Code Sec. 752 regarding a partner’s share of recourse partnership liabilities and the rules for related persons.

Background

Code Sec. 752(a) treats an increase in a partner’s share of partnership liabilities, as well as an increase in the partner’s individual liabilities when the partner assumes partnership liabilities, as a contribution of money by the partner to the partnership. Code Sec. 752(b) treats a decrease in a partner’s share of partnership liabilities, or a decrease in the partner’s own liabilities on the partnership’s assumption of those liabilities, as a distribution of money by the partnership to the partner.

The regulations under Code Sec. 752(a), i.e., Reg. §§1.752-1 through 1.752-6, treat a partnership liability as recourse to the extent the partner or related person bears the economic risk of loss and nonrecourse to the extent that no partner or related person bears the economic risk of loss.

According to the existing regulations, a partner bears the economic risk of loss for a partnership liability if the partner or a related person has a payment obligation under Reg. §1.752-2(b), is a lender to the partnership under Reg. §1.752-2(c), guarantees payment of interest on a partnership nonrecourse liability as provided in Reg. §1.752-2(e), or pledges property as security for a partnership liability as described in Reg. §1.752-2(h).

Proposed regulations were published in December 2013 (REG-136984-12). These final regulations adopt the proposed regulations with modifications.

The Final Regulations

The amendments to the regulations under Reg. §1.752-2(a) provide a proportionality rule for determining how partners share a partnership liability when multiple partners bear the economic risk of loss for the same liability. Specifically, the economic risk of loss that a partner bears is the amount of the partnership liability or portion thereof multiplied by a fraction that is obtained by dividing the economic risk of loss borne by that partner by the sum of the economic risk of loss borne by all the partners with respect to that liability.

The final regulations also provide guidance on how a lower-tier partnership allocates a liability when a partner in an upper-tier partnership is also a partner in the lower-tier partnership and bears the economic risk of loss for the lower-tier partnership’s liability. The lower-tier partnership in this situation must allocate the liability directly to the partner that bears the economic risk of loss with respect to the lower-tier partnership’s liability. The final regulations clarify how this rule applies when there are overlapping economic risks of loss among unrelated partners, and the amendments add an example illustrating application of the proportionality rule to tiered partnerships. They also add a sentence to Reg. §1.704-2(k)(5) clarifying that an upper-tier partnership bears the economic risk of loss for a lower-tier partnership’s liability that is treated as the upper-tier partnership’s liability under Reg. §1.752-4(a), with the result that partner nonrecourse deduction attributable to the lower-tier partnership’s liability are allocated to the upper-tier partnership under Reg. §1.704-2(i).

In addition, the final regulations list in one section all the situations under Reg. §1.752-2 in which a person directly bears the economic risk of loss, including situations in which the de minimis exceptions in Reg. §1.752-2(d) are taken into account. The amendments state that a person directly bears the economic risk of loss if that person—and not a related person—meets all the requirements of the listed situations.

For purposes of rules on related parties under Reg. §1.752-4(b)(1), the final regulations disregard: (1) Code Sec. 267(c)(1) in determining if an upper-tier partnership’s interest in a lower-tier partnership is owned proportionately by or for the upper-tier partnership’s partners when a lower-tier partnership bears the economic risk of loss for a liability of the upper-tier partnership; and (2) Code Sec. 1563(e)(2) in determining if a corporate partner in a partnership and a corporation owned by the partnership are members of the same controlled group when the corporation directly bears the economic risk of loss for a liability of the owner partnership. The regulations state that in both these situations a partner should not be treated as bearing the economic risk of loss when the partner’s risk is limited to the partner’s equity investment in the partnership.

Under the final regulations, if a person owning an interest in a partnership is a lender or has a payment obligation with respect to a partnership liability, then other persons owning interests in that partnership are not treated as related to that person for purposes of determining the economic risk of loss that they bear for the partnership liability.

The final regulations also provide that if a person is a lender or has a payment obligation with respect to a partnership liability and is related to more than one partner, then the partners related to that person share the liability equally. The related partners are treated as bearing the economic risk of loss for a partnership liability in proportion to each related partner’s interest in partnership profits.

The final regulations contain an ordering rule in which the first step in Reg. §1.762-4(e) is to determine whether any partner directly bears the economic risk of loss for the partnership liability and apply the related-partner exception in Reg. §1.752-4(b)(2). The next step is to determine the amount of economic risk of loss each partner is considered to bear under Reg. §1.752-4(b)(3) when multiple partners are related to a person directly bearing the economic risk of loss for a partnership liability. The final step is to apply the proportionality rule to determine the economic risk of loss that each partner bears when the amount of the economic risk of loss that multiple partners bear exceeds the amount of partnership liability.

The IRS and Treasury indicate that they are continuing to study whether additional guidance is needed on the situation in which an upper-tier partnership bears the economic risk of loss for a lower-tier partnership’s liability and distributes, in a liquidating distribution, its interest in the lower-tier partnership to one of its partners when the transferee partner does not bear the economic risk of loss.

Applicability Dates

The final regulations under T.D. 10014 apply to any liability incurred or assumed by a partnership on or after December 2, 2024. Taxpayers may apply the final regulations to all liabilities incurred or assumed by a partnership, including those incurred or assumed before December 2, 2024, with respect to all returns (including amended returns) filed after that date; but in that case a partnership must apply the final regulations consistently to all its partnership liabilities.

T.D. 10014

Final regulations defining “energy property” for purposes of the energy investment credit generally apply with respect to property placed in service during a tax year beginning after they are published in the Federal Register, which is scheduled for December 12.

Final regulations defining “energy property” for purposes of the energy investment credit generally apply with respect to property placed in service during a tax year beginning after they are published in the Federal Register, which is scheduled for December 12.

The final regs generally adopt proposed regs issued on November 22, 2023 (NPRM REG-132569-17) with some minor modifications.

Hydrogen Energy Storage P property

he Proposed Regulations required that hydrogen energy storage property store hydrogen solely used for the production of energy and not for other purposes such as for the production of end products like fertilizer. However, the IRS recognize that the statute does not include that requirement. Accordingly, the final regulations do not adopt the requirement that hydrogen energy storage property store hydrogen that is solely used for the production of energy and not for other purposes.

The final regulations also provide that property that is an integral part of hydrogen energy storage property includes, but is not limited to, hydrogen liquefaction equipment and gathering and distribution lines within a hydrogen energy storage property. However, the IRS declined to adopt comments requesting that the final regulations provide that chemical storage, that is, equipment used to store hydrogen carriers (such as ammonia and methanol), is hydrogen energy storage property.

Thermal Energy Storage Property

To clarify the proposed definition of “thermal energy storage property,” the final regs provide that such property does not include property that transforms other forms of energy into heat in the first instance. The final regulations also clarify the requirements for property that removes heat from, or adds heat to, a storage medium for subsequent use. Under a safe harbor, thermal energy storage property satisfies this requirement if it can store energy that is sufficient to provide heating or cooling of the interior of a residential or commercial building for at least one hour. The final regs also include additional storage methods and clarify rules for property that includes a heat pump system.

Biogas P property

The final regulations modify several elements of the rules governing biogas property. Gas upgrading equipment is included in cleaning and conditioning property. The final regs clarify that property that is an integral part of qualified biogas property includes but is not limited to a waste feedstock collection system, landfill gas collection system, and mixing and pumping equipment. While a qualified biogas property generally may not capture biogas for disposal via combustion, combustion in the form of flaring will not disqualify a biogas property if the primary purpose of the property is sale or productive use of biogas and any flaring complies with all relevant laws and regulations. The methane content requirement is measured at the point at which the biogas exits the qualified biogas property.

Unit of Energy P property

To clarify how the definition of a unit of energy property is applied to solar energy property, the final regs update an example illustrate that the unit of energy property is all the solar panels that are connected to a common inverter, which would be considered an integral part of the energy property, or connected to a common electrical load, if a common inverter does not exist. Accordingly, a large, ground-mounted solar energy property may comprise one or more units of energy property depending upon the number of inverters. For rooftop solar energy property, all components of property that are installed on a single rooftop are considered a single unit of energy property.

Energy Projects

The final regs modify the definition of an energy project to provide more flexibility. However, the IRS declined to adopt a simple facts-and-circumstances analysis so an energy project must still satisfy particular and specific factors.

T.D. 10015

The IRS has provided relief from the failure to furnish a payee statement penalty under Code Sec. 6722 to certain partnerships with unrealized receivables or inventory items described in Code Sec. 751(a) (Section 751 property) that fail to furnish, by the due date specified in Reg. §1.6050K-1(c)(1), Part IV of Form 8308, Report of a Sale or Exchange of Certain Partnership Interests, to the transferor and transferee in a Section 751(a) exchange that occurred in calendar year 2024.

The IRS has provided relief from the failure to furnish a payee statement penalty under Code Sec. 6722 to certain partnerships with unrealized receivables or inventory items described in Code Sec. 751(a) (Section 751 property) that fail to furnish, by the due date specified in Reg. §1.6050K-1(c)(1), Part IV of Form 8308, Report of a Sale or Exchange of Certain Partnership Interests, to the transferor and transferee in a Section 751(a) exchange that occurred in calendar year 2024.

Background

A partnership with Section 751 property must provide information to each transferor and transferee that are parties to a sale or exchange of an interest in the partnership in which any money or other property received by a transferor in exchange for all or part of the transferor’s interest in the partnership is attributable to Section 751 property. The partnership must file Form 8308 as an attachment to its Form 1065 for the partnership's tax year that includes the last day of the calendar year in which the Section 751(a) exchange took place. The partnership must also furnish a statement to the transferor and transferee by the later of January 31 of the year following the calendar year in which the Section 751(a) exchange occurred, or 30 days after the partnership has received notice of the exchange as specified under Code Sec. 6050K and Reg. §1.6050K-1. The partnership must use a copy of the completed Form 8308 as the required statement, or provide or a statement that includes the same information.

In 2020, Reg. §1.6050K-1(c)(2) was amended to require a partnership to furnish to a transferor partner the information necessary for the transferor to make the transferor partner’s required statement in Reg. §1.751-1(a)(3). Among other items, a transferor partner in a Section 751(a) exchange is required to submit with the partner’s income tax return a statement providing the amount of gain or loss attributable to Section 751 property. In October 2023, the IRS added new Part IV to Form 8308, which requires a partnership to report, among other items, the partnership’s and the transferor partner’s share of Section 751 gain and loss, collectibles gain under Code Sec. 1(h)(5), and unrecaptured Section 1250 gain under Code Sec. 1(h)(6).

In January 2024, the IRS provided relief due to concerns that many partnerships would not be able to furnish the information required in Part IV of the 2023 Form 8308 to transferors and transferees by the January 31, 2024 due date, because, in many cases, partnerships would not have all of the required information by that date (Notice 2024-19, I.R.B. 2024-5, 627).

The relief below has been provided due to similar concerns for furnishing information for Section 751(a) exchanges occurring in calendar year 2024.

Penalty Relief

For Section 751(a) exchanges during calendar year 2024, the IRS will not impose the failure to furnish a correct payee statement penalty on a partnership solely for failure to furnish Form 8308 with a completed Part IV by the due date specified in Reg. §1.6050K-1(c)(1), only if the partnership:

• timely and correctly furnishes to the transferor and transferee a copy of Parts I, II, and III of Form 8308, or a statement that includes the same information, by the later of January 31, 2025, or 30 days after the partnership is notified of the Section 751(a) exchange, and
• furnishes to the transferor and transferee a copy of the complete Form 8308, including Part IV, or a statement that includes the same information and any additional information required under Reg. §1.6050K-1(c), by the later of the due date of the partnership’s Form 1065 (including extensions), or 30 days after the partnership is notified of the Section 751(a) exchange.

This notice does not provide relief with respect to a transferor partner’s failure to furnish the notification to the partnership required by Reg. §1.6050K-1(d). This notice also does not provide relief with respect to filing Form 8308 as an attachment to a partnership’s Form 1065, and so does not provide relief from failure to file correct information return penalties under Code Sec. 6721.

Notice 2025-2

The American Institute of CPAs is encouraging business owners to continue to collect required beneficial ownership information as required by the Corporate Transparency Act even though the regulations have been halted for the moment.

The American Institute of CPAs is encouraging business owners to continue to collect required beneficial ownership information as required by the Corporate Transparency Act even though the regulations have been halted for the moment.

AICPA noted that the while there a preliminary injunction has been put in place nationwide by a U.S. district court, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network has already filed its appeal and the rules could be still be reinstated.

"While we do not know how the Fifth Circuit court will respond, the AIPCA continues to advise members that, at a minimum, those assisting clients with BOI report filings continue to gather the required information from their clients and [be] prepared to file the BOI report if the inunction is lifted," AICPA Vice President of Tax Policy & Advocacy Melanie Lauridsen said in a statement.

She continued: "The AICPA realizes that there is a lot of confusion and anxiety that business owners have struggled with regarding BOI reporting requirements and we, together with our partners at the State CPA societies, have continued to advocate for a delay in the implementation of this requirement."

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted on December 3, 2024, a motion for preliminary injunction requested in a lawsuit filed by Texas Top Cop Shop Inc., et al, against the federal government to halt the implementation of BOI regulations.

In his order granting the motion for preliminary injunction, United States District Judge Amos Mazzant wrote that its "most rudimentary level, the CTA regulates companies that are registered to do business under a State’s laws and requires those companies to report their ownership, including detailed, personal information about their owners, to the Federal Government on pain of severe penalties."

He noted that this request represents a "drastic" departure from history:

First, it represents a Federal attempt to monitor companies created under state law – a matter our federalist system has left almost exclusively to the several States; and

Second, the CTA ends a feature of corporate formations as designed by various States – anonymity.

"For good reason, Plaintiffs fear this flanking, quasi-Orwellian statute and its implications on our dual system of government," he continued. "As a result, the Plantiffs contend that the CTA violates the promises our Constitution makes to the People and the States. Despite attempting to reconcile the CTA with the Constitution at every turn, the Government is unable to provide the Court with any tenable theory that the CTA falls within Congress’s power."

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

The IRS has launched a new enforcement campaign targeting taxpayers engaged in deferred legal fee arrangements and improper use of Form 8275, Disclosure Statement. The IRS addressed tax deferral schemes used by attorneys or law firms to delay recognizing contingency fees as taxable income.

The IRS has launched a new enforcement campaign targeting taxpayers engaged in deferred legal fee arrangements and improper use of Form 8275, Disclosure Statement. The IRS addressed tax deferral schemes used by attorneys or law firms to delay recognizing contingency fees as taxable income.

The IRS highlighted that plaintiff’s attorneys or law firms representing clients in lawsuits on a contingency fee basis may receive as much as 40 percent of the settlement amount that they then defer by entering an arrangement with a third party unrelated to the litigation, who then may distribute to the taxpayer in the future. Generally, this happens 20 years or more from the date of the settlement. Subsequently, the taxpayer fails to report the deferred contingency fees as income at the time the case is settled or when the funds are transferred to the third party. Instead, the taxpayer defers recognition of the income until the third party distributes the fees under the arrangement. The goal of this newly launched campaign is to ensure taxpayer compliance and consistent treatment of similarly situated taxpayers which requires the contingency fees be included in taxable income in the year the funds are transferred to the third party.

Additionally, the IRS stated that the Service's efforts continue to uncover unreported financial accounts and structures through data analytics and whistleblower tips. In fiscal year 2024, whistleblowers contributed to the collection of $475 million, with $123 million awarded to informants. The IRS has now recovered $4.7 billion from new initiatives underway. This includes more than $1.3 billion from high-income, high-wealth individuals who have not paid overdue tax debt or filed tax returns, $2.9 billion related to IRS Criminal Investigation work into tax and financial crimes, including drug trafficking, cybercrime and terrorist financing, and $475 million in proceeds from criminal and civil cases attributable to whistleblower information.

Proper Use of Form 8275

The IRS stressed upon the proper use of Form 8275 by taxpayers in order to avoid portions of the accuracy-related penalty due to disregard of rules, or penalty for substantial understatement of income tax for non-tax shelter items. Taxpayers should be aware that Form 8275 disclosures that lack a reasonable basis do not provide penalty protection. Taxpayers in this posture should consult a tax professional or advisor to determine how to come into compliance. In its review of Form 8275 filings, the IRS identified multiple filings that do not qualify as adequate disclosures that would justify avoidance of penalties. Finally, the IRS reminded taxpayers that Form 8275 is not intended as a free pass on penalties for positions that are false.

FS-2024-32

IR-2024-310

Congress’ Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (the so-called “super committee”) failed to reach an agreement by its November 23 deadline after weeks of sparring over the Bush-era tax cuts.  The Budget Control Act of 2011 created the bipartisan super committee in August and instructed it to develop proposals to reduce the federal budget deficit by November 23.  The super committee held many meetings and reportedly debated several proposals, all behind closed doors, to reform the Tax Code and entitlement programs. In the end, however, Democrats and the GOP remained far apart on taxes and entitlement programs and announced they could not agree on a final proposal.

Bush-era tax cuts

One tax item in particular appeared to frustrate the progress of the super committee:  the fate of the Bush-era tax cuts.  Last year, the White House and Congress agreed to extend the Bush-era tax cuts through 2012. Under current law, the following Bush-era tax cuts (not an exhaustive list) will expire after 2012 unless extended:

• Reduced individual income tax rates (10, 15, 28, 33, and 35 percent)
• Reduced capital gains and dividends tax rates
• Marriage penalty relief (expanded 15 percent tax bracket for joint filers and standard deduction for married couples twice that of single individuals)
• Repeal of the limitation on itemized deductions for higher income taxpayers
• Repeal of the phase out of personal exemptions for higher income taxpayers

In September, President Obama sent the super committee a plan that would have extended the Bush-era tax cuts for lower and moderate income individuals but not for higher income taxpayers (which the White House defines as single individuals with incomes over $200,000 and married couples with incomes over $250,000).   The House GOP presented a plan that would have lowered the maximum individual and corporate tax rates to 25 percent.  Several committees and individual lawmakers also sent deficit reduction plans to the super committee.

In the days leading up to the November deadline, Democratic and Republican members of the super committee acknowledged that they had reached little common ground over the fate of the Bush-era tax cuts. On November 21, the co-chairs of the super committee announced that that they "[had] come to the conclusion that it will not be possible to make any bipartisan agreement available to the public before the committee’s deadline."

With the super committee sidelined, the fate of the Bush-era tax cuts moves to Congress and the White House.  The GOP-controlled House could try to extend the Bush-era tax cuts in stand-alone legislation but any bill would likely fail to pass the Senate. Additionally, President Obama has repeatedly said he will veto legislation that extends the Bush-era tax cuts for higher income taxpayers.

Payroll tax cut

More immediately, the White House and Congress are currently debating the fate of extending for another year the 2011 payroll tax cut. Wage earners and self-employed individuals took home more pay in 2011 because of a temporary reduction in the employee-share of old age, survivors and disability (OASDI) taxes.  The employee-share of OASDI taxes was reduced from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent for calendar year 2011 (with similar relief provided to self-employed individuals). ). Although both sides of the aisle in Congress agree that an extension through 2012 is desirable, consensus must be achieved in agreeing to ways to pay for its $263 billion price tag.  An agreement is expected sometime in December, although prospects are not entirely certain.

Budget cuts

The super committee’s failure to deliver a deficit reduction plan automatically triggers spending cuts after 2012. Under the Budget Control Act, the spending reductions will be achieved through a combination of sequestration (for FY 2013) and the downward adjustment of discretionary spending limits for FY 2014-FY 2021. This means that Congress must determine the manner in which reductions are made to the federal government’s budget, including the IRS, through the annual appropriations process each year.  However, some programs, such as Social Security and Medicaid, are exempt from the budget cuts.

President Obama and Congress could agree to modify the spending reductions under the Budget Control Act.  On November 21, President Obama said he will veto any bills that remove the automatic triggers in the Budget Control Act. President Obama is reportedly using the veto threat to keep pressure on Congress to reach an agreement over the fate of the Bush-era tax cuts and entitlement spending.

If you have any questions about the super committee, the Bush-era tax cuts or the prospects for tax reform, please contact our office.

In light of the IRS’s new Voluntary Worker Classification Settlement Program (VCSP), which it announced this fall, the distinction between independent contractors and employees has become a “hot issue” for many businesses. The IRS has devoted considerable effort to rectifying worker misclassification in the past, and continues the trend with this new program.  It is available to employers that have misclassified employees as independent contractors and wish to voluntarily rectify the situation before the IRS or Department of Labor initiates an examination.

The distinction between independent contractors and employees is significant for employers, especially when they file their federal tax returns. While employers owe only the payment to independent contractors, employers owe employees a series of federal payroll taxes, including Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment, and federal tax withholding. Thus, it is often tempting for employers to avoid these taxes by classifying their workers as independent contractors rather than employees.

If, however, the IRS discovers this misclassification, the consequences might include not only the requirement that the employer pay all owed payroll taxes, but also hefty penalties. It is important that employers be aware of the risk they take by classifying a worker who should or could be an employee as an independent contractor.

“All the facts and circumstances”

The IRS considers all the facts and circumstances of the parties in determining whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. These are numerous and sometimes confusing, but in short summary, the IRS traditionally considers 20 factors, which can be categorized according to three aspects: (1) behavioral control; (2) financial control; (3) and the relationship of the parties.

Examples of behavioral and financial factors that tend to indicate a worker is an employee include:

• The worker is required to comply with instructions about when, where, and how to work;
• The worker is trained by an experienced employee, indicating the employer wants services performed in a particular manner;
• The worker’s hours are set by the employer;
• The worker must submit regular oral or written reports to the employer;
• The worker is paid by the hour, week, or month;
• The worker receives payment or reimbursement from the employer for his or her business and traveling expenses; and
• The worker has the right to end the employment relationship at any time without incurring liability.

In other words, any existing facts or circumstances that point to an employer’s having more behavioral and/or financial control over the worker tip the balance towards classifying that worker as an employee rather than a contractor. The IRS’s factors do not always apply, however; and if one or several factors indicate independent contractor status, but more indicate the worker is an employee, the IRS may still determine the worker is an employee.

Finally, in examining the relationship of the parties, benefits, permanency of the employment term, and issuance of a Form W-2 rather than a Form 1099 are some indicators that the relationship is that of an employer–employee.

Conclusion

Worker classification is fact-sensitive, and the IRS may see a worker you may label an independent contractor in a very different light. One key point to remember is that the IRS generally frowns on independent contractors and actively looks for factors that indicate employee status.

Please do not hesitate to call our offices if you would like a reassessment of how you are currently classifying workers in your business, as well as an evaluation of whether IRS’s new Voluntary Classification Program may be worth investigating.

Job-hunting expenses are generally deductible as long as you are not searching for a job in a new field. This tax benefit can be particularly useful in a tough job market. It does not matter whether your job hunt is successful, or whether you are employed or unemployed when you are looking.

Expenses directly connected with a job search are deductible as a miscellaneous itemized deduction. You can deduct job-hunting expenses if the amount of all your so-called miscellaneous itemized deductions exceeds two percent of your adjusted gross income. However, if you claim the standard deduction, you cannot deduct job-hunting expenses. Therefore, as a practical matter for many job seekers, job hunting expenses do not materialize as a tax deduction.

For those who are able to use job seeking expenses as a deduction, it can be difficult to determine what a new field is. A professional photographer who pursues a job in the retail industry clearly is searching in a new field and cannot deduct any of his or her job-hunting expenses. But there are exceptions. The IRS has allowed persons who retired from the military to search for jobs in new fields and claim their job-hunting expenses. Taking a temporary job while searching for permanent employment in your current field will not be considered a job change that disqualifies your job-hunting expenses.

Persons entering the job market for the first time, such as college students, and persons who have been out of the job market for a long period of time, such as parents of young children, cannot deduct their job-hunting expenses. However, a college student who worked in a particular field while in school may be able to deduct job-hunting expenses.

Deductible expenses include typing, printing and mailing a resume. Long-distance phone calls are also deductible. You can deduct travel costs for going on a job search or an interview, including air transportation, railroad, or car expenses. The standard rate for car expenses for business is 55 cents per mile for 2012. Amounts you pay to a job counselor, employment agency or job referral service are all deductible.

It is important to keep records of your costs. While your individual expenses may not be substantial, your total expenses can add up to a significant amount.