(For daily exchange rates see the links section.)

2012 = 3.8559

2011 = 3.5781

2010 = 3.7330

2009 = 3.9326

2008 = 3.5878

2007 = 4.1081

2006 = 4.4565

2005 = 4.4878

2004 = 4.482

2003 = 4.5483

2002 = 4.7378

2001 = 4.208

2000 = 4.077

1999 = 4.1395

1998 = 3.8085

1997 = 3.4354

1996 = 3.1869

1995 = 3.0115

1994 = 3.0113

1993 = 2.834

1992 = 2.478

1991 = 2.278

The IRS has provided guidance on two exceptions to the 10 percent additional tax under Code Sec. 72(t)(1) for emergency personal expense distributions and domestic abuse victim distributions. These exceptions were added by the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022, P.L. 117-328, and became effective January 1, 2024. The Treasury Department and the IRS anticipate issuing regulations under Code Sec. 72(t) and request comments to be submitted on or before October 7, 2024.

The IRS has provided guidance on two exceptions to the 10 percent additional tax under Code Sec. 72(t)(1) for emergency personal expense distributions and domestic abuse victim distributions. These exceptions were added by the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022, P.L. 117-328, and became effective January 1, 2024. The Treasury Department and the IRS anticipate issuing regulations under Code Sec. 72(t) and request comments to be submitted on or before October 7, 2024.

Distributions for Emergency Personal Expenses

Code Sec. 72(t)(2)(I) provides an exception to the 10 percent additional tax for a distribution from an applicable eligible retirement plan to an individual for emergency personal expenses. The term "emergency personal expense distribution" means any distribution made from an applicable eligible retirement plan to an individual for purposes of meeting unforeseeable or immediate financial needs relating to necessary personal or family emergency expenses. The IRS specifically noted that emergency expenses could be related to: medical care; accident or loss of property due to casualty; imminent foreclosure or eviction from a primary residence; the need to pay for burial or funeral expenses; auto repairs; or any other necessary emergency personal expenses.

The IRS provides that a plan administrator or IRA custodian may rely on a written certification from the employee or IRA owner that they are eligible for an emergency personal expense distribution. Furthermore, the IRS provides that an emergency personal expense distribution is not treated as a rollover distribution and thus is not subject to mandatory 20% withholding. However, the distribution is subject to withholding, the IRS said. If the emergency personal expense distribution is repaid, it is treated as if the individual received the distribution and transferred it to an eligible retirement plan within 60 days of distribution.

If an otherwise eligible retirement plan does not offer emergency personal expense distributions, the IRS indicated that an individual may still take an otherwise permissible distribution and treat it as such on their federal income tax return. The individual claims on Form 5329 that the distribution is an emergency personal expense distribution, in accordance with the form’s instructions. The individual has the option to repay the distribution to an IRA within 3 years.

Distributions to Domestic Abuse Victims

Code Sec. 72(t)(2)(K) provides an exception to the 10 percent additional tax for an eligible distribution to a domestic abuse victim (domestic abuse victim distribution). The guidance defines a"domesticabusevictimdistribution" as any distribution from an applicable eligible retirement plan to a domestic abuse victim if made during the 1-year period beginning on any date on which the individual is a victim of domestic abuse by a spouse or domestic partner. "Domesticabuse" is defined as physical, psychological, sexual, emotional, or economic abuse, including efforts to control, isolate, humiliate, or intimidate the victim, or to undermine the victim’s ability to reason independently, including by means of abuse of the victim’s child or another family member living in the household.

As with distributions for emergency personal expenses, a retirement plan may rely on an employee’s written certification that they qualify for a domestic abuse victim distribution. Similarly, if an otherwise eligible retirement plan does not offer domestic abuse victim distributions, the IRS indicated that an individual may still take an otherwise permissible distribution and treat it as such on their federal income tax return. The individual claims on Form 5329 that the distribution is a domestic abuse victim distribution, in accordance with the form’s instructions. The individual has the option to repay the distribution to an IRA within 3 years.

Request for Comments

The Treasury Department and the IRS invite comments on the guidance, and specifically on whether the Secretary should adopt regulations providing exceptions to the rule that a plan administrator may rely on an employee’s certification relating to emergency personal expense distributions and procedures to address cases of employee misrepresentation. Comments should be submitted in writing on or before October 7, 2024, and should include a reference to Notice 2024-55.

On June 17, 2024, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service announced a new regulatory initiative focused on closing tax loopholes and stopping abusive partnership transactions used by wealthy taxpayers to avoid paying taxes.

On June 17, 2024, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service announced a new regulatory initiative focused on closing tax loopholes and stopping abusive partnership transactions used by wealthy taxpayers to avoid paying taxes.

Specifically targeted by this new tax compliance effort are partnership basis shifting transactions. In these transactions, a single business that operates through many different legal entities (related parties) enters into a set of transactions that manipulate partnership tax rules to maximize tax deductions and minimize tax liability. These basis shifting transactions allow closely related parties to avoid taxes.

The use of these abusive transactions grew during a period of severe underfunding for the IRS. As such, the audit rates for these increasingly complex structures fell significantly. It is estimated that these abusive transactions, which cut across a wide variety of industries and individuals, could potentially cost taxpayers more than $50 billion over a 10-year period, according to an IRS News Release.

"Using Inflation Reduction Act funding, we are working to reverse more than a decade of declining audits among the highest income taxpayers, as well as complex partnerships and corporations," IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel said during a press call discussing the new effort on June 14, 2024.

"This announcement signals the IRS is accelerating our work in the partnership arena, which has been overlooked for more than a decade and allowed tax abuse to go on for far too long," said IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel. "We are building teams and adding expertise inside the agency so we can reverse long-term compliance declines that have allowed high-income taxpayers and corporations to hide behind complexity to avoid paying taxes. Billions are at stake here".

This multi-stage regulatory effort announced by the Treasury and IRS includes the following guidance designed to stop the use of basis shifting transactions that use related-party partnerships to avoid taxes:

• proposed regulations under existing regulatory authority to stop related parties in complex partnership structures from shifting the tax basis of their assets amongst each other to take abusive deductions or reduce gains when the asset is sold;

• proposed regulation to require taxpayers and their material advisers to report if they and their clients are participating in abusive partnership basis shifting transactions; and

• a Revenue Rulingproviding that certain related-party partnership transactions involving basis shifting lack economic substance.

"Treasury and the IRS are focused on addressing high-end tax abuse from all angles, and the proposed rules released today will increase tax fairness and reduce the deficit," said U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Janet L. Yellen.

In the June 14, 2024, press call, Commissioner Danny Werfel also noted that there will be an increase in audits of large partnerships with average assets over $10 billion dollars and larger organizational changes taking place to support compliance efforts, including the creation of a new associate office that will focus exclusively on partnerships, S corporations, trusts, and estates.

By Catherine S. Agdeppa, Content Management Analyst

A savings account with the tax benefits of a health savings account or an educations savings account but without the singular restricted focus could be something that gains traction as Congress addresses the tax provision of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that expire in 2025.

A savings account with the tax benefits of a health savings account or an educations savings account but without the singular restricted focus could be something that gains traction as Congress addresses the tax provision of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that expire in 2025.

The concept was promoted by multiple witnesses testifying during a recent Senate Finance Committee hearing on the subject of child savings accounts and other tax advantaged accounts that would benefit children. It also is the subject of a recently released report from The Tax Foundation.

Rather than push new limited-use savings accounts, "policymakers may want to consider enacting a more comprehensive savings program such as a universalsavingsaccount," Veronique de Rugy, a research fellow at George Mason University, testified before the committee during the May 21, 2024, hearing. "Universalsavingsaccounts will allow workers to save in one simple account from which they would withdraw without penalty for any expected or unexpected events throughout their lifetime."

She noted that, like other more focused savings accounts, like health savings accounts, it would have "the benefit of sheltering some income from the punishing double taxation that our code imposes."

De Rugy added that universal savings accounts "have a benefit that they do not discourage savings for those who are concerned that the conditions for withdrawals would stop them from addressing an emergency in their family."

Adam Michel, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute, who also promoted the idea of universal savings accounts. He said these accounts "would allow families to save for their kids or any of life’s other priorities. The flexibility of these accounts make them best suited for lower and middle income Americans."

He also noted that they are promoting savings in countries that have implemented them, including Canada and United Kingdom.

"For example, almost 60 percent of Canadians own tax-free savingsaccounts," Michel said. "And more than half of those account holders earned the equivalent of about $37,000 a year. These accounts have helped increase savings and support the rest of the Canadian savings ecosystem."

De Rugy noted that in countries that have implemented it, they function like a Roth account in that money that has already been taxed can be put into it and not penalized or taxed upon withdrawal.

Michel also noted that the if the tax benefits extend to corporations as they do with deposits to employee health savings accounts, "to the extent that you lower the corporate income tax, you’re going to encourage a different additional investment into savings by those entities."

Simulating The Universal Savings Account Impact

The Tax Foundation in its report simulated how a universal savings account could work, based on how they are implemented in Canada. The simulation assumed the accounts could go active in 2025 for adults aged 18 years or older.

On a post-tax basis, individuals would be allowed to contribute up to $9,100 on a post-tax basis annually, with that cap indexed for inflation. Any unused "contribution room" would be allowed to be carried forward. Earnings would be allowed to grow tax-free and withdrawals would be allowed for any purpose without penalty or further taxation. Any withdrawal would be added back to that year’s contribution room and that would be eligible for carryover as well.

"The fiscal cost of this USA policy would be offset by ending the tax advantage of contributions to HSAs beginning in 2025," the report states. "As such, future contributions to HSAs would be given normal tax treatment, i.e. included in taxable income and subject to payroll tax with subsequent returns on contributions also included in taxable income."

In this scenario, the Tax Foundation report estimates that "this policy change would on net raise tax revenue by about $110 billion over the 10-year budget window."

As for the impact on taxpayers, the "after-tax income would fall by about 0.1 percent in 2025 and by a smaller amount in 2034, reflecting the net tax increase in those years," the report states. "Over the long run, and accounting for economic impacts, taxpayers across every quintile would see a small increase in after-tax income on average, but the top 5 percent of earners would continue to see a small decrease in after-tax income on average."

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

The Internal Revenue Service’s use of artificial intelligence in selecting tax returns for National Research Program audits that areused to estimate the tax gap needs more documentation and transparency, the U.S. Government Accountability Office stated.

The Internal Revenue Service’s use of artificial intelligence in selecting tax returns for National Research Program audits that areused to estimate the tax gap needs more documentation and transparency, the U.S. Government Accountability Office stated.

In a report issued June 5, 2024, the federal government watchdog noted that while the agency uses AI to improve the efficiency and selection of audit cases to help identify noncompliance, "IRS has not completed its documentation of several elements of its AI sample selection models, such as key components and technical specifications."

GAO noted that the IRS began using AI in a pilot in tax year 2019 for sampling tax returns for NRP audits. The current plan is to use AI to create a sample size of 4,000 returns to measure compliance and help inform tax gap estimates, although GAO expressed concerns about the accuracy of the estimates with that sample size.

"For example, NRP historically included more than 2,500 returns that claimed the Earned Income Tax Credit, but the redesigned sample has included less than 500 of these returns annually," the report stated.

IRS told GAO that it "is exploring ways to combine operational audit data with NRP audit data when developing its taxgapestimates. IRS officials also told us that if IRS can reliably combine these data for taxgap analysis, IRS might be better positioned to identify emerging trends in noncompliance and reduce the uncertainty of the estimates due to the small sample size."

The report also highlighted the fact that the agency "has multiple documents that collectively provide technical details and justifications for the design of the AI models. However, no set of documents contains complete information and IRS analyst could use to run or update the models, and several key documents are in draft form."

"Completing documentation would help IRS retain organizational knowledge, ensure the models are implemented consistently, and make the process more transparent to future users," the report stated.

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

The general rule on business expenses is that you must prove everything in detail to be entitled to a deduction. Logs, preferably made contemporaneously to the business transaction, must show date, amount, and business purpose and you must produce receipts. Fortunately, the tax law has a practical side. Congress, the IRS and the courts each have applied their own brand of practicality in allowing certain exceptions to be made to the business substantiation rule.

Here is a quick review of the major exceptions to the "prove-it or lose-it" rule that exist for business expense deductions. Some are relatively new; one is brand new.

General business expenses

Deductions are a matter of legislative grace, and the taxpayer must establish that he or she is entitled to them. A business taxpayer is required to maintain books and records sufficient to substantiate the items of income and deductions claimed on the return.

If the taxpayer is unable to substantiate expenses through adequate records, the courts have allowed the taxpayers to deduct an estimate of the expenses under the so-called Cohan rule named after the precedent-setting case of that name. This rule states that when a taxpayer has no records to prove the amount of a business expense deduction but the court is satisfied that the taxpayer actually incurred some expenses, the court may make an allowance based on an estimate. However, in determining the amount deductible, the courts may bear heavily on the taxpayer "whose inexactitude is of his own making."

The courts, however, cannot apply the Cohan rule to unsubstantiated travel or entertainment expenses. The Cohan rule also may not be applied to expenses for vehicles and other listed property, such as personal computers.

Travel & entertainment

Expenses for travel, meals, and entertainment are subject to strict substantiation requirements. Travel expenses in this case include meals, lodging, and incidental expenses. The Internal Revenue Code, however, gives the IRS an "out" and allows it to create exceptions to this general rule through its own regulations. The IRS has chosen to do so in a number of limited circumstances. The reason behind most of these exceptions is "administrative convenience" both for the business to maintain records in certain circumstances and for the IRS to spend an inordinate amount of audit resources in policing them. Here are the principal recordkeeping exceptions:

$75 rule.  Documentary evidence, such as receipts, paid bills, or similar evidence, is required for: (1) any expenditure for lodging while away from home; and (2) any other expenditure of $75 or more, except for transportation charges if documentary evidence is not readily available.  For expenses under $75, you do not have to provide receipts but still must maintain adequate records, such as a diary, account book, or some other expense statement.

Per diem.  IRS provides an optional per diem method for substantiating expenses reimbursed by the employer. The method applies to travel expenses for lodging, meals and incidentals, or for meals and incidental expenses (M&IE). Using per diem rates can avoid a great deal of paperwork.

Expenses are deemed substantiated if they do not exceed the per diem rates recognized by IRS. The per diem allowance must cover lodging, meals, and IE, and is not available for an allowance that only covers lodging. The employer still must be able to substantiate the time, place, and business purpose of the travel.

The current rates apply to travel within the continental United States (CONUS) on or after October 1, 2007. Rates vary by locality; where the employee sleeps determines which rate to apply. Different rates apply to travel outside the continental United States, including Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico.

IRS also provides a separate per diem rate for unreimbursed meals and incidental expenses. These rates can be used only by employees and self-employed individuals to compute the deductible costs of meals and incidental expenses. Lodging expenses still must be substantiated.

Standard mileage rate.  Taxpayers may use a standard mileage rate for the costs of using their car, rather than actual expenses. The 2008 business mileage rate is 50.5 cents per mile. Parking fees and tolls may be deducted separately.

Small fringe benefits.  De minimis fringe benefits are excluded from income and do not have to be substantiated. Examples of these benefits include monthly transit passes and occasional meal money and transportation for employees working overtime.

Statistical sampling. The IRS provided significant relief from the substantiation requirements for certain meal and entertainment (M&E) expenses. By using a statistical sampling method specified by IRS, employers can avoid the need to review every meal and entertainment expense deduction.

The sampling method can be used for expenses that are not subject to the rule that normally limits M&E expense deductions to 50 percent. These exceptions include meals and entertainment treated as compensation, such as a paid vacation; recreation benefits for rank-and-file (but not highly compensated) employees, such as a company party; tickets to charitable sports events; and meal expenses excludible as de minimis fringe benefits. An employee cafeteria or executive dining room used primarily by employees comes under this exception.

The sampling method cannot be used for the costs of entertaining business clients.

If you need advice on how your current recordkeeping practices for travel, meals and entertainment square up against these exceptions, please do not hesitate to call this office.

Parents typically encourage their children to save for college, for a house, or simply for a rainy day. A child's retirement, however, is a less common early savings goal. Too many other expenses are at the forefront. Yet, helping to plan for a youngster's retirement is a move that astute families are making. Individual retirement accounts (IRAs) for income-earning minors and young adults offer a head-start on life-long financial planning.

Parents typically encourage their children to save for college, for a house, or simply for a rainy day. A child's retirement, however, is a less common early savings goal. Too many other expenses are at the forefront. Yet, helping to plan for a youngster's retirement is a move that astute families are making. Individual retirement accounts (IRAs) for income-earning minors and young adults offer a head-start on life-long financial planning.

Traditional and Roth IRAs

Two types of individual retirement accounts are the traditional IRA and the Roth IRA. To contribute to an IRA account, whether it's a traditional or a Roth, an individual must have earned income. In general, the maximum amount that can be deposited in either type of IRA is $3,000 in 2004; $4,000 in 2005 through 2007.

Contributions to a traditional IRA are tax deductible. Amounts earned in a traditional IRA are not taxed until a distribution is made. If money is withdrawn from a traditional IRA before the individual reaches age 59 1/2, a 10 percent penalty applies to the principal. Mandatory withdrawals are required when the individual reaches age 70 1/2.

Contributions to Roth IRAs are not tax deductible, but all earnings are tax-free when the money is withdrawn from the account, if certain requirements are met. Tax-free withdrawals are a big advantage to the Roth IRA that will likely outweigh the lack of a tax deduction on contributions. Qualified distributions from a Roth IRA are not included in the individual's income if a five-year holding period and certain other requirements are met; otherwise, the 10 percent penalty applies. Unlike the traditional IRA, individuals can make contributions to a Roth IRA even after age 70 1/2.

Penalty flexibility

Both the traditional and the Roth IRAs offer some flexibility on the 10 percent penalty. Early withdrawals, without penalty, are allowed if the money is used for:

--College expenses;

--First home purchase (up to $10,000);

--Medical insurance in case of unemployment for a certain amount of time; or

--Expenses attributable to disability (Roth IRA).

Although designed for retirement planning, flexibility in how the money can be used makes IRAs very attractive for young family members.

Kid with a job

In order to contribute to an IRA, however, the child or young adult must have earned income. In other words, the kid needs a W-2, a 1099 or some other "proof" that wages were earned. Although occasional baby-sitting or lawn-mowing generally doesn't count, the money made on those jobs could qualify as earned income if adequate receipts and records are kept.

Working for the parents

Some moms and dads, who own their own businesses, are taking the "kiddy IRA" concept a step further: their sons and daughters come to work for the family business. The child earns income, making him or her eligible to contribute to an IRA. The parents, as their employers must pay employment tax and issue a W-2, but they can also make a business deduction for the child's wages, just like for any other employee. Parents should be mindful that the wage their child earns for the work performed is comparable to the going rate. If the child's wage is too large, the IRS will disallow the deduction.

Let's make a deal

The tough part of the plan may be getting the young person to "lock away" his or her hard-earned cash. After all, retirement is much harder to imagine compared to more pressing, front-burner issues like college expenses or a car. Some parents, however, are convincing their kids to put their earnings to work for their future in an IRA by promising to match their child's pay as an extra incentive to save. For example, if Susan earns $3,000, her dad promises to put $3,000 in her IRA. Susan keeps the money she made. There's no rule that restricts the origin of the IRA contribution, so long as the IRA owner earned at least that amount and the contribution doesn't exceed the cap for that year.

Conclusion

Individual retirement accounts for children and young adults are a growing part of family financial planning. A potential hazard, however, is that the money in the IRA belongs to the child. The child, or young adult, has the right to do whatever they wish with the IRA and its assets, including making a withdrawal for a new car or exotic trip. Parents do not "own" the IRA, even if they contributed the dollars as a match to their child's earnings. Families who utilize IRAs for their offspring will have to consider the risk and stress to the youngsters that the money is better off in the IRA. Through investing in an IRA, a young person's earnings from working part-time at the local ice cream parlor, or a summer job loading trucks, can have lasting effects.

Please feel free to contact this office for advice more specific to your family situation.