Newsletters

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has announced that the mandatory beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting requirement under the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) is back in effect. Because reporting companies may need additional time to comply with their BOI reporting obligations, FinCEN is generally extending the deadline 30 calendar days from February 19, 2025, for most companies.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has announced that the mandatory beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting requirement under the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) is back in effect. Because reporting companies may need additional time to comply with their BOI reporting obligations, FinCEN is generally extending the deadline 30 calendar days from February 19, 2025, for most companies.

FinCEN's announcement is based on the decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Tyler Division) to stay its prior nationwide injunction order against the reporting requirement (Smith v. U.S. Department of the Treasury, DC Tex., 6:24-cv-00336, Feb. 17, 2025). This district court stayed its prior order, pending appeal, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent order to stay the nationwide injunction against the reporting requirement that had been ordered by a different federal district court in Texas (McHenry v. Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., SCt, No. 24A653, Jan. 23, 2025).

Given this latest district court decision, the regulations implementing the BOI reporting requirements of the CTA are no longer stayed.

Updated Reporting Deadlines

Subject to any applicable court orders, BOI reporting is now mandatory, but FinCEN is providing additional time for companies to report:

• For most reporting companies, the extended deadline to file an initial, updated, and/or corrected BOI report is now March 21, 2025. FinCEN expects to provide an update before that date of any further modification of the deadline, recognizing that reporting companies may need additional time to comply.
• Reporting companies that were previously given a reporting deadline later than March 21, 2025, must file their initial BOI report by that later deadline. For example, if a company’s reporting deadline is in April 2025 because it qualifies for certain disaster relief extensions, it should follow the April deadline, not the March deadline.

Plaintiffs in National Small Business United v. Yellen, DC Ala., No. 5:22-cv-01448, are not required to report their beneficial ownership information to FinCEN at this time.

FinCEN Notice FIN-2025-CTA1

The IRS has issued Notice 2025-15, providing guidance on an alternative method for furnishing health coverage statements under Code Secs. 6055 and 6056. This method allows insurers and applicable large employers (ALEs) to comply with their reporting obligations by posting an online notice rather than automatically furnishing statements to individuals.

The IRS has issued Notice 2025-15, providing guidance on an alternative method for furnishing health coverage statements under Code Secs. 6055 and 6056. This method allows insurers and applicable large employers (ALEs) to comply with their reporting obligations by posting an online notice rather than automatically furnishing statements to individuals.

Under Code Sec. 6055, entities providing minimum essential coverage must report coverage details to the IRS and furnish statements to responsible individuals. Similarly, Code Sec. 6056 requires ALEs, generally those with 50 or more full-time employees, to report health insurance information for those employees. The Paperwork Burden Reduction Act amended these sections to introduce an alternative furnishing method, effective for statements related to returns for calendar years after 2023.

Instead of automatically providing statements, reporting entities may post a clear and conspicuous notice on their websites, informing individuals that they may request a copy of their statement. The notice must be posted by the original furnishing deadline, including any automatic 30-day extension, and must remain accessible through October 15 of the following year. If a responsible individual or full-time employee requests a statement, the reporting entity must furnish it within 30 days of the request or by January 31 of the following year, whichever is later.

For statements related to the 2024 calendar year, the notice must be posted by March 3, 2025. Statements may be furnished electronically if permitted under Reg. § 1.6055-2 for minimum essential coverage providers and Reg. § 301.6056-2 for ALEs.

This alternative method applies regardless of whether the individual shared responsibility payment under Code Sec. 5000A is zero. The guidance clarifies that this method applies to statements required under both Code Sec. 6055 and Code Sec. 6056. Reg. § 1.6055-1(g)(4)(ii)(B) sets forth the requirements for the alternative manner of furnishing statements under Code Sec. 6055, while the same framework applies to Code Sec. 6056 with relevant terminology adjustments. Form 1095-B, used for reporting minimum essential coverage, and Form 1095-C, used by ALEs to report health insurance offers, may be provided under this alternative method.

Notice 2025-15

The IRS has issued the luxury car depreciation limits for business vehicles placed in service in 2025 and the lease inclusion amounts for business vehicles first leased in 2025.

The IRS has issued the luxury car depreciation limits for business vehicles placed in service in 2025 and the lease inclusion amounts for business vehicles first leased in 2025.

Luxury Passenger Car Depreciation Caps

The luxury car depreciation caps for a passenger car placed in service in 2025 limit annual depreciation deductions to:

• $12,200 for the first year without bonus depreciation
• $20,200 for the first year with bonus depreciation
• $19,600 for the second year
• $11,800 for the third year
• $7,060 for the fourth through sixth year

Depreciation Caps for SUVs, Trucks and Vans

The luxury car depreciation caps for a sport utility vehicle, truck, or van placed in service in 2025 are:

• $12,200 for the first year without bonus depreciation
• $20,200 for the first year with bonus depreciation
• $19,600 for the second year
• $11,800 for the third year
• $7,060 for the fourth through sixth year

Excess Depreciation on Luxury Vehicles

If depreciation exceeds the annual cap, the excess depreciation is deducted beginning in the year after the vehicle’s regular depreciation period ends.

The annual cap for this excess depreciation is:

• $7,060 for passenger cars and
• $7,060 for SUVS, trucks, and vans.

Lease Inclusion Amounts for Cars, SUVs, Trucks and Vans

If a vehicle is first leased in 2025, a taxpayer must add a lease inclusion amount to gross income in each year of the lease if its fair market value at the time of the lease is more than:

• $62,000 for a passenger car, or
• $62,000 for an SUV, truck or van.

The 2025 lease inclusion tables provide the lease inclusion amounts for each year of the lease.

The lease inclusion amount results in a permanent reduction in the taxpayer’s deduction for the lease payments.

Rev. Proc. 2025-16

The leadership of the Senate Finance Committee have issued a discussion draft of bipartisan legislative proposals to make administrative and procedural improvements to the Internal Revenue Service.

A limited liability company (LLC) classified as a TEFRA partnership could not claim a charitable contribution deduction for a conservation easement because the easement deed failed to comply with the perpetuity requirements under Code Sec. 170(h)(5)(A) and Reg. § 1.170A-14(g)(6). The Tax Court determined that the language of the deed did not satisfy statutory requirements, rendering the claimed deduction invalid.

A limited liability company (LLC) classified as a TEFRA partnership could not claim a charitable contribution deduction for a conservation easement because the easement deed failed to comply with the perpetuity requirements under Code Sec. 170(h)(5)(A) and Reg. § 1.170A-14(g)(6). The Tax Court determined that the language of the deed did not satisfy statutory requirements, rendering the claimed deduction invalid.

Easement Valuation

The taxpayer asserted that the highest and best use of the property was as a commercial mining site, supporting a valuation significantly higher than its purchase price. However, the Court concluded that the record did not support this assertion. The Court found that the proposed mining use was not financially feasible or maximally productive. The IRS’s expert relied on comparable sales data, while the taxpayer’s valuation method was based on a discounted cash-flow analysis, which the Court found speculative and not supported by market data.

Penalties

The taxpayer contended that the IRS did not comply with supervisory approval process under Code Sec. 6751(b) prior to imposing penalties. However, the Court found that the concerned IRS revenue agent duly obtained prior supervisory approval and the IRS satisfied the procedural requirements under Code Sec. 6751(b). Because the valuation of the easement reported on the taxpayer’s return exceeded 200 percent of the Court-determined value, the misstatement was deemed "gross" under Code Sec. 6662(h)(2)(A)(i). Accordingly, the Court upheld accuracy-related penalties under Code Sec. 6662 for gross valuation misstatement, substantial understatement, and negligence.

Green Valley Investors, LLC, TC Memo. 2025-15, Dec. 62,617(M)

The Tax Court ruled that IRS Appeals Officers and Team Managers were not "Officers of the United States." Therefore, they did not need to be appointed under the Appointments Clause.

The Tax Court ruled that IRS Appeals Officers and Team Managers were not "Officers of the United States." Therefore, they did not need to be appointed under the Appointments Clause.

The taxpayer filed income taxes for tax years 2012 (TY) through TY 2017, but he did not pay tax. During a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing, the taxpayer raised constitutional arguments that IRS Appeals and associated employees serve in violation of the Appointments Clause and the constitutional separation of powers.

No Significant Authority

The court noted that IRS Appeals officers do not wield significant authority. For instance, the officers do not have authority to examine witnesses, unlike Tax Court Special Trial Judges (STJs) and SEC Administrative Law Judges (ALJs). The Appeals officers also lack the power to issue, serve, and enforce summonses through the IRS’s general power to examine books and witnesses.

The court found no reason to deviate from earlier judgments in Tucker v. Commissioner (Tucker I), 135 T.C. 114, Dec. 58,279); and Tucker v. Commissioner (Tucker II), CA-DC, 676 F.3d 1129, 2012-1 ustc ¶50,312). Both judgments emphasized the court’s observations in the current case. In Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (per curiam), the Supreme Court similarly held that Federal Election Commission (FEC) commissioners were not appointed in accordance with the Appointments Clause, and thus none of them were permitted to exercise "significant authority."

The taxpayer lacked standing to challenge the appointment of the IRS Appeals Chief, and said officers under the Appointments Clause, and the removal of the Chief under the separation of powers doctrine.

IRC Chief of Appeals

The taxpayer failed to prove that the Chief’s tenure affected his hearing and prejudiced him in some way, under standards in United States v. Smith, 962 F.3d 755 (4th Cir. 2020) and United States v. Castillo, 772 F. App’x 11 (3d Cir. 2019). The Chief did not participate in the taxpayer's CDP hearing, and so the Chief did not injure the taxpayer. The taxpayer's injury was not fairly traceable to the appointment (or lack thereof) of the Chief, and the Chief was too distant from the case for any court order pointed to him to redress the taxpayer's harm.

C.C. Tooke III, 164 TC No. 2, Dec. 62,610